Permanent Solution To Earth's Problems.
Henry Wilson DSc
The world faces an imminent crisis. If current trends continue, the human
population will be at least nine billion by the time fossil fuels run out,
Then, planet Earth will comfortably support no more than about four billion. In
the near future, conditions will deteriorate to such an extent that the
traditional right to produce children will be withdrawn out of necessity and
replaced by quota system. It is already obvious to all thinking people that
managing the world's population must become a communal responsibility if Homo
Sapiens is to avoid self-annihilation.
China is the only nation that is curretly taking steps to avoid the impending
catastophe... but its ONE CHILD policy has serious problems. The solution is to
replace it with....Henry Wilson's ONE-AND-A-HALF-CHILD POLICY.
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Each female is granted the right to produce one and a half children. How can a
woman have 'half a child'?....Answer, she doesn't. She can buy or sell her
rights, either the 'half' or the full 'one-and-a-half'. Poor couples can sell
their rights and hopefully lift themselves out of poverty. Rich people can buy
rights and have as many children as they wish. No woman can have more than one
child unless she purchases the rights to do so. Extreme infringement penalties
will apply. The overall result will be a nett reproduction rate of no more than
1.5 per couple.
Initially, a government fund will be established to administer the scheme.
Those desiring more than one child will acquire rights by contributing to the
fund. Rich people generally will be encouraged to donate or bequeath money out
of conscience, whether they want children or not. The fund will operate
profitably and pay interest if agreed.
Naturally conditions will apply.
The reward for selling either 'half a child' or 'one and a half' will be
considerable and adjusted by local market conditions. A full 'right' should be
sufficient to enable a poor couple to purchase at least a minimum dwelling
whilst a half right should be priced high enough to substantially lift a couple
from a disadvantaged position. If insufficient funds or sellers are available,
applicants will be placed on a queue.
If a woman sells her rights, either full or half, she will be legally bound to
have no more offspring. She or her partner will be given advice regarding birth
control and encouraged but not forced to be reversibly sterilized by tubal
ligation or vasectomy. Cost will be borne by the fund. Couples who have sold
rights can alter their position at any time by repaying the initial grant and
purchasing a new right. If a child dies before the age of, say, eighteen,
automatic permission is granted to replace it.
When the world's population approaches a safe level, the restriction of 'one
and a half children' per female can be progressively increased to 'two
children' (or slightly more to accommodate accidental deaths). Thus, by
altering the permitted 'fraction of a child', governments will have a permanent
control over populations and a means of adjusting them up or down to suit
prevailing economic and environmental conditions as well as demographic
movements.
Available at: www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
Henry Wilson.
email he...@bigpond.com
8th December, 2009.
Note: permission is granted to copy and circulate this article as long as Henry
Wilson is clearly named as being the inventor.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
eric gisse
> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
Posted to sci.physics.relativity - sure why not?
[snip rest of offtopic screed]
Tom Roberts
> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
Clearly you are completely ignorant of social processes and abilities. Your
"solution" is completely unworkable, because no government on earth could enact
such a system, and no government on earth could enforce it. And even if all but
one major government was somehow able to do so, the "solution" would fail. Hopeless.
Your naivet� and ignorance extend far beyond physics.
Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
>> [...]
>
>Clearly you are completely ignorant of social processes and abilities. Your
>"solution" is completely unworkable, because no government on earth could enact
>such a system, and no government on earth could enforce it. And even if all but
>one major government was somehow able to do so, the "solution" would fail. Hopeless.
Haven't you heard of China.... and India?
China is the country that is currently bailing out the US in the hope that the
latter can pay back some of the money it already owes.
>Your naivet� and ignorance extend far beyond physics.
I don't think ALL humans are stupid enough to sit back and watch our
civilization disintigrate under the weight ot numbers.
You might be but other are not.
It should be obvious that we have to eventually achieve a steady state economic
system along with a stable population. My scheme would provide governments
everywhere with a very practical and voluntary tool for maintaining national
populations at optimum levels.
>Tom Roberts
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Here in Texas, we just use guns.
Henry Wilson DSc
Bird flu might be more effective...
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
No need, many people submit voluntarily to procreation restrictions via
tissue removal. We simply need to more heavily promote the the
Progressive eugenics movement.
Bucks for babies?
Henry Wilson DSc
....that depends on what 'tissue' you want to remove...
>Bucks for babies?
indeed!
My 'one-and-a -half-child policy' enables poor people to sell their fertility
rights and lift themselves out of poverty...
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Who would buy these rights, and why?
Henry Wilson DSc
Richer people who want more than one and a half children.
If they don't buy the rights before having the second kid they go to jail and
are fined...or maybe shot.
wnc
> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
[snip irrelevant crap, mercifully]
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Sir, your diploma appears to be just a
piece of forged paper
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:10:05 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jejsj55o363iofn93...@4ax.com>,
> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Here in Texas, we just use guns.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bird flu might be more effective...
> >> >
> >> >No need, many people submit voluntarily to procreation restrictions via
> >> >tissue removal. We simply need to more heavily promote the the
> >> >Progressive eugenics movement.
> >>
> >> ....that depends on what 'tissue' you want to remove...
> >>
> >> >Bucks for babies?
> >>
> >> indeed!
> >>
> >> My 'one-and-a -half-child policy' enables poor people to sell their
> >> fertility
> >> rights and lift themselves out of poverty...
> >
> >Who would buy these rights, and why?
>
> Richer people who want more than one and a half children.
>
> If they don't buy the rights before having the second kid they go to jail and
> are fined...or maybe shot.
So you're proposing totalitarianism as a way to save the planet. Hasn't
this been tried before?
Henry Wilson DSc
No. Never. China is trying it now but there are problems...like peasants
drowning the females.
There is no need for any totalitarianism...education and social awareness
should be enough to convince couples that, on average, they should produce only
two children.
Why isn't that already a feaure of advanced civilizations? Well, the power
struggle betwen the major religions is the main reason. Another is the
obsession with 'economic growth' at any cost, when the real criterion should be
'growth per head' or better still, 'quality of life per person'.
So ALL humans can live in peace and harmony if we nuke the churches and mosques
and lock up all the economists.... there is no need for any nastiness at all.
SPierce
"Al" <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:albert.finney000-BF...@news-wc.giganews.com...
(snipped)
> So you're proposing totalitarianism as a way to save the planet. Hasn't
> this been tried before?
# You are referring to Communism of course.
But see how it metastasised into the UN and is on path to doing it by
subversion of language.
Henry Wilson DSc
please explain
SPierce
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:76fvj5l3fia1blrec...@4ax.com...
Read Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci's Grand Plan - by Fr. James Thornton. ( or
any others )
The Long March Through the Institutions. Everything he wrote about has come
to pass since the UN was set up. Notice how recently they are pushing for a
Tobin Tax to distribute to Africans. Check how many African states are in
the UN.
Check also how laws are passed in all countries, emanating from UN agencies
to forbid making value judgements on minorities and the 'marginalised'.
Totalisation of language...and you will be paying them to enforce it through
Treaties and Conventions...unelected users of your tax. Communism.
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Other than the imprisonment or execution stuff.
You've simply plagiarized history's most efficient monsters. Given that
their efficiencies were such miserable failures in regards to that
quality-of-life thing, what makes your me-too scheme so special?
Al
"SPierce" <ecr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Our President here in America has progressively lent his support to the
UN to better protect against criticism of religion world-wide, and
helpful Muslims are enforcing the edict in places like Denmark and other
places Shariah law is routinely violated.
Our press eagerly submits to shariah constraints, so our artists are not
at much risk.
Eunometic
> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
>
I thought this was a bad idea but it has some merrit.
> China is the only nation that is curretly taking steps to avoid the impending
> catastophe...
China's problem is the result of a Mao pro population drive, so from
encouraging a high birth rate they've now gone to correcting it with
autocratic controls that have in some instances reduced to forced late
term abortions.
> but its ONE CHILD policy has serious problems. The solution is to
> replace it with....Henry Wilson's ONE-AND-A-HALF-CHILD POLICY.
>
> HOW DOES IT WORK?
>
> Each female is granted the right to produce one and a half children. How can a
> woman have 'half a child'?....Answer, she doesn't. She can buy or sell her
> rights, either the 'half' or the full 'one-and-a-half'.
Great an ETS for children, now doubt whiney 3rd worlders will be
granted extra 'credit' when the politics comes out.
The problem with this scheme is that White people in Western nations
are already only able to have 1.3-1.7 children per woman.
This is leading to serious population inbalanance and dependency ratio
problems. Anything less than 2.6 leads to decline.
In western nations people actually have to have MORE children.
Within the western nations Muslims continue to have very high
fertillty rates: muslims in France are at about 3.3 children per
woman down from 5.5 of the 80's and 90s. In Australia demographer
Peter McDonald estimates the rate is 2.6 children per feamle muslim.
Poor couples can sell
> their rights and hopefully lift themselves out of poverty. Rich people can buy
> rights and have as many children as they wish. No woman can have more than one
> child unless she purchases the rights to do so. Extreme infringement penalties
> will apply. The overall result will be a nett reproduction rate of no more than
> 1.5 per couple.
Unfortunatly the prevailing mentality is to give money to the children
of poor people so unless this mentality is broken your scheme won't
work. If the excess child of one those 'poor' families is poor the
mentality will be to 'help it' everytime it commits a crime or does
badly at school.
The best way to stop population rise in western countries is to stop
immigration.
First it reduces the quality of life through crowding and reduces the
per capita resources.
Secondly White western people are soon to be minoritised in even their
european homelands by asian and african and north african immigrants.
>
> Initially, a government fund will be established to administer the scheme.
> Those desiring more than one child will acquire rights by contributing to the
> fund. Rich people generally will be encouraged to donate or bequeath money out
> of conscience, whether they want children or not. The fund will operate
> profitably and pay interest if agreed.
>
> Naturally conditions will apply.
>
> The reward for selling either 'half a child' or 'one and a half' will be
> considerable and adjusted by local market conditions. A full 'right' should be
> sufficient to enable a poor couple to purchase at least a minimum dwelling
> whilst a half right should be priced high enough to substantially lift a couple
> from a disadvantaged position. If insufficient funds or sellers are available,
> applicants will be placed on a queue.
>
> If a woman sells her rights, either full or half, she will be legally bound to
> have no more offspring.
And if she breaks that rule?
> She or her partner will be given advice regarding birth
> control and encouraged but not forced to be reversibly sterilized by tubal
> ligation or vasectomy.
Unless the environment gets to crisis this won't happen. Ofcourse if
the United states and Europe and Africa ever get to the population
densities seen in India and China this may happen.
It will happen if things get bad enough: of that I am sure.
Henry Wilson DSc
It will be voluntary. People need educating about the population problem, which
at present is a taboo subject because all western economies rely on poulation
growth for most of their employment. No politician, economists or journalist
ever mentions it, even thouh it is blatantly obviously the direct cause of most
human problems.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Dec 29 2009, 4:35�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
>>
>
>I thought this was a bad idea but it has some merrit.
It certainly has.
>> China is the only nation that is curretly taking steps to avoid the impending
>> catastophe...
>
>China's problem is the result of a Mao pro population drive, so from
>encouraging a high birth rate they've now gone to correcting it with
>autocratic controls that have in some instances reduced to forced late
>term abortions.
The two main problems are that female children are often not allowed to live I
rural areas and that only children are at somewhat of a disadvantage,
generally.
>> but its ONE CHILD policy has serious problems. The solution is to
>> replace it with....Henry Wilson's ONE-AND-A-HALF-CHILD POLICY.
>>
>> HOW DOES IT WORK?
>>
>> Each female is granted the right to produce one and a half children. How can a
>> woman have 'half a child'?....Answer, she doesn't. She can buy or sell her
>> rights, either the 'half' or the full 'one-and-a-half'.
>
>
>Great an ETS for children, now doubt whiney 3rd worlders will be
>granted extra 'credit' when the politics comes out.
3rd world countries are the main problem areas but since their currencies and
living costs are low, it shouldn't be very expensive to buy the rights.
Enforcement would present the biggest difficulties. I woul suggest
sterilization on receipt of payment. Tis coud be encouraged not forced.
>The problem with this scheme is that White people in Western nations
>are already only able to have 1.3-1.7 children per woman.
that's good.
They will have to drastically reduce their populations before the oil runs out.
Look at GBritain, for instance. It is almost bankrupt, its coal is too deep to
extract and its oil will run out in a few years. It has virtually no other
resources and its manufacturing and Empire has all but gone. The only earner it
has left is tourism. Even fishing might collapse soon.
>This is leading to serious population inbalanance and dependency ratio
>problems. Anything less than 2.6 leads to decline.
That's wrong...pro immigration propaganda...... With life expectancy increasing
steadily, about 1.95 would result in constancy.
>In western nations people actually have to have MORE children.
>
>Within the western nations Muslims continue to have very high
>fertillty rates: muslims in France are at about 3.3 children per
>woman down from 5.5 of the 80's and 90s. In Australia demographer
>Peter McDonald estimates the rate is 2.6 children per feamle muslim.
They have a declared policy of outbreeding the west and eventually taking over
peacefully.
>Poor couples can sell
>> their rights and hopefully lift themselves out of poverty. Rich people can buy
>> rights and have as many children as they wish. No woman can have more than one
>> child unless she purchases the rights to do so. Extreme infringement penalties
>> will apply. The overall result will be a nett reproduction rate of no more than
>> 1.5 per couple.
>
>Unfortunatly the prevailing mentality is to give money to the children
>of poor people so unless this mentality is broken your scheme won't
>work.
Correct. Money should be given to NOT PRODUCE the children.
>If the excess child of one those 'poor' families is poor the
>mentality will be to 'help it' everytime it commits a crime or does
>badly at school.
this is a main concern. The 'Save the children' fund' should become the 'stop
the unwanted children from being born' fund.
>The best way to stop population rise in western countries is to stop
>immigration.
Correct...but anyone who tries is declared a racist...and the building industry
relies on it.
>First it reduces the quality of life through crowding and reduces the
>per capita resources.
of course... It is destroying our whole way of life.
>Secondly White western people are soon to be minoritised in even their
>european homelands by asian and african and north african immigrants.
that is the trend....and nobody is prepared to even discuss the subject openly.
>> Initially, a government fund will be established to administer the scheme.
>> Those desiring more than one child will acquire rights by contributing to the
>> fund. Rich people generally will be encouraged to donate or bequeath money out
>> of conscience, whether they want children or not. The fund will operate
>> profitably and pay interest if agreed.
>>
>> Naturally conditions will apply.
>>
>> The reward for selling either 'half a child' or 'one and a half' will be
>> considerable and adjusted by local market conditions. A full 'right' should be
>> sufficient to enable a poor couple to purchase at least a minimum dwelling
>> whilst a half right should be priced high enough to substantially lift a couple
>> from a disadvantaged position. If insufficient funds or sellers are available,
>> applicants will be placed on a queue.
>>
>> If a woman sells her rights, either full or half, she will be legally bound to
>> have no more offspring.
>
>And if she breaks that rule?
Refunding of the grant...and/or Sterilization.
>> She or her partner will be given advice regarding birth
>> control and encouraged but not forced to be reversibly sterilized by tubal
>> ligation or vasectomy.
>
>Unless the environment gets to crisis this won't happen.
It is beyond the point of no return now !!!!!!
We are being kept alive purely because fossil fuels are cheap and freely
available.
>Ofcourse if
>the United states and Europe and Africa ever get to the population
>densities seen in India and China this may happen.
Europe has had a higher population density than China for centuries. It has a
lot more water...and water supports life.
>It will happen if things get bad enough: of that I am sure.
So long as intelligent people will still be heard when religion has taken us
back to the dark ages.
Henry Wilson DSc
All organized religions are a problem because of the ignorance they breed.
Catholicism and Islam are trying to win over each other purely by increasing
their numbers.
Meanwhile, the muslims have the oil, the christians have the guns, the
buddhists and hindus have the masses of people.
Fortunately the atheists still have most of the brains.
Henry Wilson DSc
Overpopulation is a threat to all political systems.
Free capitalism cannot provide an answer since it relies heavily on population
growth for employment. My scheme is based on free market ideals along with
good education and health services.
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Population growth is not a taboo subject, it's been widely discussed for
decades.
As for education. Most know where babies come from.
Best of luck though.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:39:01 -0800 (PST), Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 29 2009, 4:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS.
>
> >I thought this was a bad idea but it has some merrit.
>
> It certainly has.
>
> >> China is the only nation that is curretly taking steps to avoid the impending
> >> catastophe...
>
> >China's problem is the result of a Mao pro population drive, so from
> >encouraging a high birth rate they've now gone to correcting it with
> >autocratic controls that have in some instances reduced to forced late
> >term abortions.
>
> The two main problems are that female children are often not allowed to live I
> rural areas and that only children are at somewhat of a disadvantage,
> generally.
>
> >> but its ONE CHILD policy has serious problems. The solution is to
> >> replace it with....Henry Wilson's ONE-AND-A-HALF-CHILD POLICY.
>
> >> HOW DOES IT WORK?
>
> >> Each female is granted the right to produce one and a half children. How can a
> >> woman have 'half a child'?....Answer, she doesn't. She can buy or sell her
> >> rights, either the 'half' or the full 'one-and-a-half'.
>
> >Great an ETS for children, now doubt whiney 3rd worlders will be
> >granted extra 'credit' when the politics comes out.
>
> 3rd world countries are the main problem areas
They are the ONLY problem areas: the reason they have such awfull
lives is that their progligate population rise means their per capita
resources consumption must be less.
> but since their currencies and
> living costs are low, it shouldn't be very expensive to buy the rights.
> Enforcement would present the biggest difficulties. I would suggest
> sterilization on receipt of payment. Tis coud be encouraged not forced.
Steralization for cash was tried in India, it had serious problems.
>
> >The problem with this scheme is that White people in Western nations
> >are already only able to have 1.3-1.7 children per woman.
>
> that's good.
> They will have to drastically reduce their populations before the oil runs out.
> Look at GBritain, for instance. It is almost bankrupt, its coal is too deep to
> extract and its oil will run out in a few years. It has virtually no other
> resources and its manufacturing and Empire has all but gone. The only earner it
> has left is tourism. Even fishing might collapse soon.
>
> >This is leading to serious population inbalanance and dependency ratio
> >problems. Anything less than 2.6 leads to decline.
>
> That's wrong...pro immigration propaganda...... With life expectancy increasing
> steadily, about 1.95 would result in constancy.
Constancy is about 2.06 to account for infant mortality.
>
> >In western nations people actually have to have MORE children.
>
> >Within the western nations Muslims continue to have very high
> >fertillty rates: muslims in France are at about 3.3 children per
> >woman down from 5.5 of the 80's and 90s. In Australia demographer
> >Peter McDonald estimates the rate is 2.6 children per feamle muslim.
>
> They have a declared policy of outbreeding the west and eventually taking over
> peacefully.
>
It's usually not peacefull during the transition period, nor is it so
great afterwards.
> >Poor couples can sell
> >> their rights and hopefully lift themselves out of poverty. Rich people can buy
> >> rights and have as many children as they wish. No woman can have more than one
> >> child unless she purchases the rights to do so. Extreme infringement penalties
> >> will apply. The overall result will be a nett reproduction rate of no more than
> >> 1.5 per couple.
>
> >Unfortunatly the prevailing mentality is to give money to the children
> >of poor people so unless this mentality is broken your scheme won't
> >work.
>
> Correct. Money should be given to NOT PRODUCE the children.
There is so much taxation in the west and so much pressure on housing
costs that having even 1 child is an achievement, having two needs to
be encouraged and indeed so does having three becuase having three
partially makes up for those 1/4rd of women who miss out and those
that have only 1.
Even then the average will be below two. Basically your scheme isn't
needed in the west at all. THE OPPOSIT of your scheme is needed. I
can't immagine many couples getting to the point of their 3rd or 4th
child paying anyone in Australia paying money to nigeria to be allowed
to have 3 children. There are simply to few westerners to be even
able to do that now.
What needs to be discouraged is family instabillity.
>
> >If the excess child of one those 'poor' families is poor the
> >mentality will be to 'help it' everytime it commits a crime or does
> >badly at school.
>
> this is a main concern. The 'Save the children' fund' should become the 'stop
> the unwanted children from being born' fund.
>
Western nations can supply free sex education, contraceptive and
contraceptive advice and prescription free oral contraceptives. This
will slow the birth rate down by delaying child birth somewhat and
spaceing it out a bit more.
This could be part of a build up of nurses and doctors in the 3rd
world to make it acceptable. It could be funded by western nations
out of the carbon tax.
Steralisation could be offered for free for those who have already had
at least one healthy child and a sum of money paid: one half now and
the other half invested and to be paid on retirement or death or
disabillity to make up for the loss of family support from a smaller
family.
> >The best way to stop population rise in western countries is to stop
> >immigration.
>
> Correct...but anyone who tries is declared a racist...and the building industry
> relies on it.
The building industry, the cheap labour expoliting elites and the
department store owners and of course the ethnic lobbies who I suggest
are more concerned with their ingroups influence and success than
global ecological and economic issues.
>
> >First it reduces the quality of life through crowding and reduces the
> >per capita resources.
>
> of course... It is destroying our whole way of life.
>
> >Secondly White western people are soon to be minoritised in even their
> >european homelands by asian and african and north african immigrants.
>
> that is the trend....and nobody is prepared to even discuss the subject openly.
>
Main Stream Media. Journalist must get their balls cut of or their
brains labotomised to becocme one.
>
> >> Initially, a government fund will be established to administer the scheme.
> >> Those desiring more than one child will acquire rights by contributing to the
> >> fund. Rich people generally will be encouraged to donate or bequeath money out
> >> of conscience, whether they want children or not. The fund will operate
> >> profitably and pay interest if agreed.
>
> >> Naturally conditions will apply.
>
> >> The reward for selling either 'half a child' or 'one and a half' will be
> >> considerable and adjusted by local market conditions. A full 'right' should be
> >> sufficient to enable a poor couple to purchase at least a minimum dwelling
> >> whilst a half right should be priced high enough to substantially lift a couple
> >> from a disadvantaged position. If insufficient funds or sellers are available,
> >> applicants will be placed on a queue.
>
> >> If a woman sells her rights, either full or half, she will be legally bound to
> >> have no more offspring.
>
> >And if she breaks that rule?
>
> Refunding of the grant...and/or Sterilization.
>
> >> She or her partner will be given advice regarding birth
> >> control and encouraged but not forced to be reversibly sterilized by tubal
> >> ligation or vasectomy.
>
> >Unless the environment gets to crisis this won't happen.
>
> It is beyond the point of no return now !!!!!!
> We are being kept alive purely because fossil fuels are cheap and freely
> available.
Hmm, I suspect not so bad. Australians per capita GDP is US
$36,000. Electrical Energy consumption about 24kWHr day inclusive
industrial, domestic and commercial. If we were to produce 48Kw.Hr/
day on a peak solar day we would need to invest about 6kW peak
generating capacity which will produce over about 8 hours the required
48Kw.Hr. Photovolatics costs between $US3/watt to $1/watt so one
would need US$18000 to $US6000. In reality the energy would probably
be CSP (concentrated solar power) because of it is cheaper and because
of its intrinsic abillity to store energy as a molten salt and to
revert to fossile fuels if ever required.
Ivesting $18000 over 20 years is $900/year. We would need about 2.5%
of GDP to go solar power not including the payback in free energy this
will then provide.
Nitrate fertiliser can be produced by electrolysis and haber bosch.
I'm not an economist and am not sure what dedicating 2.5% of GDP to
this will impact. It would be equivalent to about a 10% increase in
tax minus the benefit of not building and fueling conventional power
stations so probably equal to 1.25% of GDP and 12.5% increase in tax.
After the 20 years it should drop of as I assume the power stations
will last 40 years to 80 years.
All I'm suggesting is that it seems 'doable'
Though it only delays the inevitable.
>
> >Ofcourse if
> >the United states and Europe and Africa ever get to the population
> >densities seen in India and China this may happen.
>
> Europe has had a higher population density than China for centuries. It has a
> lot more water...and water supports life.
I visit china for work sometimes. Half the rivers are stagnant and
smelly.
>
> >It will happen if things get bad enough: of that I am sure.
>
> So long as intelligent people will still be heard when religion has taken us
> back to the dark ages.
Christianity has fallen for liberalism and is self destructive, Islam
has fallen for the dark ages stuff.
Both are dystopic.
Henry Wilson DSc
How often is it discussed in the media? Very rarely...
>As for education. Most know where babies come from.
I wouldn't be too sure of that.
>Best of luck though.
Henry Wilson DSc
Well give them MORE cash instead of spending it on useless goods and
services...and weapons.
>> >The problem with this scheme is that White people in Western nations
>> >are already only able to have 1.3-1.7 children per woman.
>>
>> that's good.
>> They will have to drastically reduce their populations before the oil runs out.
>> Look at GBritain, for instance. It is almost bankrupt, its coal is too deep to
>> extract and its oil will run out in �a few years. It �has virtually no other
>> resources and its manufacturing and Empire has all but gone. The only earner it
>> has left is tourism. Even fishing might collapse soon.
>>
>> >This is leading to serious population inbalanance and dependency ratio
>> >problems. �Anything less than 2.6 leads to decline.
>>
>> That's wrong...pro immigration propaganda...... With life expectancy increasing
>> steadily, about 1.95 would result in constancy.
>
>Constancy is about 2.06 to account for infant mortality.
You said 2.6
>> >In western nations people actually have to have MORE children.
>>
>> >Within the western nations Muslims continue to have very high
>> >fertillty rates: �muslims in France are at about 3.3 children per
>> >woman down from 5.5 of the 80's and 90s. � �In Australia demographer
>> >Peter McDonald estimates the rate is 2.6 children per feamle muslim.
>>
>> They have a declared policy of outbreeding the west and eventually taking over
>> peacefully.
>>
>
>It's usually not peacefull during the transition period, nor is it so
>great afterwards.
Well Europe has kicked them out several times in gthe past. It might be harder
this time.
>> >Poor couples can sell
>> >> their rights and hopefully lift themselves out of poverty. Rich people can buy
>> >> rights and have as many children as they wish. No woman can have more than one
>> >> child unless she purchases the rights to do so. Extreme infringement penalties
>> >> will apply. The overall result will be a nett reproduction rate of no more than
>> >> 1.5 per couple.
>>
>> >Unfortunatly the prevailing mentality is to give money to the children
>> >of poor people so unless this mentality is broken your scheme won't
>> >work. �
>>
>> Correct. Money should be given to NOT PRODUCE the children.
>
>There is so much taxation in the west and so much pressure on housing
>costs that having even 1 child is an achievement, having two needs to
>be encouraged and indeed so does having three becuase having three
>partially makes up for those 1/4rd of women who miss out and those
>that have only 1.
but the whole point is, if the population is n ot brought down to reasonable
levels by the time fossils run out, there will be a major catastrophe.
We WANT the population to fall....and that means loss of jobs for a great many
construction workers umless alternative solutions can be found..like building
renewable energy installations.
Free enterprise wont do it while coal and gas are so cheap.
>Even then the average will be below two. Basically your scheme isn't
>needed in the west at all. THE OPPOSIT of your scheme is needed. I
>can't immagine many couples getting to the point of their 3rd or 4th
>child paying anyone in Australia paying money to nigeria to be allowed
>to have 3 children. There are simply to few westerners to be even
>able to do that now.
>
>What needs to be discouraged is family instabillity.
well that's another problem entirely
>> >If the excess child of one those 'poor' families is poor the
>> >mentality will be to 'help it' � everytime it commits a crime or does
>> >badly at school.
>>
>> this is a main concern. The 'Save the children' fund' should become the 'stop
>> the unwanted children from being born' fund.
>>
>
>Western nations can supply free sex education, contraceptive and
>contraceptive advice and prescription free oral contraceptives. This
>will slow the birth rate down by delaying child birth somewhat and
>spaceing it out a bit more.
The abortion pill is the answer....but many countries wont allow it because of
religion.
>This could be part of a build up of nurses and doctors in the 3rd
>world to make it acceptable. It could be funded by western nations
>out of the carbon tax.
>
>Steralisation could be offered for free for those who have already had
>at least one healthy child and a sum of money paid: one half now and
>the other half invested and to be paid on retirement or death or
>disabillity to make up for the loss of family support from a smaller
>family.
>
>> >The best way to stop population rise in western countries is to stop
>> >immigration.
>>
>> Correct...but anyone who tries is declared a racist...and the building industry
>> relies on it.
>
>The building industry, the cheap labour expoliting elites and the
>department store owners and of course the ethnic lobbies who I suggest
>are more concerned with their ingroups influence and success than
>global ecological and economic issues.
very true
that's very inefficient. Heat engines will be pretty useless in the future.
They wste about 70% of he iinput energy.
>Ivesting $18000 over 20 years is $900/year. We would need about 2.5%
>of GDP to go solar power not including the payback in free energy this
>will then provide.
Eventually wind and solar will be used extensively along with any other way
that generates power. But if you do the sums, you will soon realise that we
don't have a hope in hell of replacing fossils.
>
>Nitrate fertiliser can be produced by electrolysis and haber bosch.
>
>I'm not an economist and am not sure what dedicating 2.5% of GDP to
>this will impact. It would be equivalent to about a 10% increase in
>tax minus the benefit of not building and fueling conventional power
>stations so probably equal to 1.25% of GDP and 12.5% increase in tax.
>After the 20 years it should drop of as I assume the power stations
>will last 40 years to 80 years.
Energy payback time has to be considered.
>All I'm suggesting is that it seems 'doable'
Only if you are a supreme optimist
>Though it only delays the inevitable.
>
>>
>> >Ofcourse if
>> >the United states and Europe and Africa ever get to the population
>> >densities seen in India and China this may happen.
>>
>> Europe has had a higher population density than China for centuries. It has a
>> lot more water...and water supports life.
>
>I visit china for work sometimes. Half the rivers are stagnant and
>smelly.
that's because they are running out of water like everyone else....even though
a lot runs out to sea from some rivers.
>> >It will happen if things get bad enough: of that I am sure.
>>
>> So long as intelligent people will still be heard when religion has taken us
>> back to the dark ages.
>
>Christianity has fallen for liberalism and is self destructive, Islam
>has fallen for the dark ages stuff.
that's right...
>
>Both are dystopic.
terrible...
Andy
rape and adultery...
At least with matriarchal linage you get pretty a much guaranteed one
real parent, and no reason whatsoever why there shouldn't be a dad.
Imagine if Australian girls suddenly all turned black whilst the guys
stayed white... Or vice versa, making same-colour relationships
impossible. Would be very funny, and genetically can actually happen -
sexual diamorphism has occured in some human populations.
Maybe then you'd realise that you can't live without love.
Please stop sending your toxic shit to England. The native girls are
quite lovely, and quite welcome, as is anyone else who's not a bigot!
euno...@yahoo.com.au
I think that many people had them selves steralised and then regreted
it afterwards when they eventually wanted children.
That's why i suggest it should be offered only to those who already
have one child.
>
> >> >The problem with this scheme is that White people in Western nations
> >> >are already only able to have 1.3-1.7 children per woman.
>
> >> that's good.
> >> They will have to drastically reduce their populations before the oil runs out.
> >> Look at GBritain, for instance. It is almost bankrupt, its coal is too deep to
> >> extract and its oil will run out in a few years. It has virtually no other
> >> resources and its manufacturing and Empire has all but gone. The only earner it
> >> has left is tourism. Even fishing might collapse soon.
>
> >> >This is leading to serious population inbalanance and dependency ratio
> >> >problems. Anything less than 2.6 leads to decline.
>
> >> That's wrong...pro immigration propaganda...... With life expectancy increasing
> >> steadily, about 1.95 would result in constancy.
>
> >Constancy is about 2.06 to account for infant mortality.
>
> You said 2.6
Typo, I wanted to say 2.06 which I think is the western replacement
rate.
>
> >> >In western nations people actually have to have MORE children.
>
> >> >Within the western nations Muslims continue to have very high
> >> >fertillty rates: muslims in France are at about 3.3 children per
> >> >woman down from 5.5 of the 80's and 90s. In Australia demographer
> >> >Peter McDonald estimates the rate is 2.6 children per feamle muslim.
>
> >> They have a declared policy of outbreeding the west and eventually taking over
> >> peacefully.
>
> >It's usually not peacefull during the transition period, nor is it so
> >great afterwards.
>
> Well Europe has kicked them out several times in gthe past. It might be harder
> this time.
the overwhelming success of political correctnes, viarious human
rights and asylum laws means that immigration can't even be stopped.
>
> >> >Poor couples can sell
> >> >> their rights and hopefully lift themselves out of poverty. Rich people can buy
> >> >> rights and have as many children as they wish. No woman can have more than one
> >> >> child unless she purchases the rights to do so. Extreme infringement penalties
> >> >> will apply. The overall result will be a nett reproduction rate of no more than
> >> >> 1.5 per couple.
>
> >> >Unfortunatly the prevailing mentality is to give money to the children
> >> >of poor people so unless this mentality is broken your scheme won't
> >> >work.
>
> >> Correct. Money should be given to NOT PRODUCE the children.
>
> >There is so much taxation in the west and so much pressure on housing
> >costs that having even 1 child is an achievement, having two needs to
> >be encouraged and indeed so does having three becuase having three
> >partially makes up for those 1/4rd of women who miss out and those
> >that have only 1.
>
> but the whole point is, if the population is not brought down to reasonable
> levels by the time fossils run out, there will be a major catastrophe.
> We WANT the population to fall....and that means loss of jobs for a great many
> construction workers umless alternative solutions can be found..like building
> renewable energy installations.
I don't belive they will loose their jobs for long before moving into
other sectors of the economy.
The result of the population loss caused by black plague in europe was
an economic boom as labour became scarce, wages went up and land
became cheap.
Europe has never had it so good.
The wealth will be spent on
1 Home improvments,
2 Holiday homes
3 Shorter Hours
Population growth diverts a great deal of 'capital' just into
infrastructure.
Those builders will find work and prosperity, just some minor
adjsutments.
>
> Free enterprise wont do it while coal and gas are so cheap.
>
True, which is why regulation, energy/carboin taxes and maybe in the
long term an ETS (though that is relatively ineffective compared to
the other two)
> >Even then the average will be below two. Basically your scheme isn't
> >needed in the west at all. THE OPPOSIT of your scheme is needed. I
> >can't immagine many couples getting to the point of their 3rd or 4th
> >child paying anyone in Australia paying money to nigeria to be allowed
> >to have 3 children. There are simply to few westerners to be even
> >able to do that now.
>
> >What needs to be discouraged is family instabillity.
>
> well that's another problem entirely
>
> >> >If the excess child of one those 'poor' families is poor the
> >> >mentality will be to 'help it' everytime it commits a crime or does
> >> >badly at school.
>
> >> this is a main concern. The 'Save the children' fund' should become the 'stop
> >> the unwanted children from being born' fund.
>
> >Western nations can supply free sex education, contraceptive and
> >contraceptive advice and prescription free oral contraceptives. This
> >will slow the birth rate down by delaying child birth somewhat and
> >spaceing it out a bit more.
>
> The abortion pill is the answer....but many countries wont allow it because of
> religion.
Many religions and ethnic groups are in a demographic race either
overtly or covertly.
Latest Siemens combined cycle gas turbine is 60% efficient when
running of gas or liquids.
Latest supercritical (so called ultractricitcal) steam power plants
are 48% effient running on coal and improvements on the way.
Gas turbines will proably reach 60% efficiiency on their own, more
with a combined cycle.
The better concentrated solar power plants, using heliostat
concentratrors, will use gas turbines (thus avoiding cooling water)
and probably a down stream sterling or steam plant to run of stored
energy in the form of molten salts.
>
> >Ivesting $18000 over 20 years is $900/year. We would need about 2.5%
> >of GDP to go solar power not including the payback in free energy this
> >will then provide.
>
> Eventually wind and solar will be used extensively along with any other way
> that generates power. But if you do the sums, you will soon realise that we
> don't have a hope in hell of replacing fossils.
Some forsm of solar power (photovoltaics) are already economical in
that they offer a ROI (return on investment) compared to fossil power
plants. They are actually cheaper (storage aside).
The problem is the payback period is so long, about 20-30 years.
Siemens, who used to make them (renamed now) offered a 25 year
gurantee on their cells but said they would proably last 80 years or
more. No one finds a investment that takes 30 years to make money
attractive.
The breakeven point for grid parity is supposedly about $US1 per watt,
but these cheap cells probably sacrifce life.
However if the investment in solar energy is made subtly and slowly so
that it take 30-50 years to complete the 'pain' won't be felt.
For instance my suggestion of $900 per year (2.5% of GDP) over 20
years become $450/year (1.25% of GDP) if stretched over 40 years.
The beneifts of the energy and forgone investment in conventional
power probably cut this down to 0.625% of GDP equivlaant to a 2.5%
tax increase.
This seems to make sense in that fossile fueled power stations have an
economic life of around 40-50 years.
Solar electric cells may move from semiconductor base photovoltaics to
devices based on nano antena that receive light like a radio wave and
convert it to electrcity at 90% efficiency.
>
>
>
> >Nitrate fertiliser can be produced by electrolysis and haber bosch.
>
> >I'm not an economist and am not sure what dedicating 2.5% of GDP to
> >this will impact. It would be equivalent to about a 10% increase in
> >tax minus the benefit of not building and fueling conventional power
> >stations so probably equal to 1.25% of GDP and 12.5% increase in tax.
> >After the 20 years it should drop of as I assume the power stations
> >will last 40 years to 80 years.
>
> Energy payback time has to be considered.
No problem, its usally about 3-4 years.
>
> >All I'm suggesting is that it seems 'doable'
>
> Only if you are a supreme optimist
>
> >Though it only delays the inevitable.
>
> >> >Ofcourse if
> >> >the United states and Europe and Africa ever get to the population
> >> >densities seen in India and China this may happen.
>
> >> Europe has had a higher population density than China for centuries. It has a
> >> lot more water...and water supports life.
>
> >I visit china for work sometimes. Half the rivers are stagnant and
> >smelly.
>
> that's because they are running out of water like everyone else....even though
> a lot runs out to sea from some rivers.
China will in 2010 have more sewage and water treatment plants under
construction than all the world combined.
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
Were that so, the US would be as bad as Yemen.
OTOH, attempts at atheist states were pretty dismal and murderous
failures.
> Catholicism and Islam are trying to win over each other purely by increasing
> their numbers.
Well, humans breed.
OTOH, we have our eugenicist left.
> Meanwhile, the muslims have the oil, the christians have the guns, the
> buddhists and hindus have the masses of people.
No, the Christians and Muslims, in that order, have the masses of people
as well as guns and oil.
With Obama's help, Iran will soon have the big gun.
> Fortunately the atheists still have most of the brains.
And apparently some rather great fables as well.
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:04:18 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <46v1k5104lir8d2mr...@4ax.com>,
> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:11:50 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> It will be voluntary. People need educating about the population problem,
> >> which
> >> at present is a taboo subject because all western economies rely on
> >> poulation
> >> growth for most of their employment. No politician, economists or
> >> journalist
> >> ever mentions it, even thouh it is blatantly obviously the direct cause of
> >> most
> >> human problems.
> >
> >Population growth is not a taboo subject, it's been widely discussed for
> >decades.
>
> How often is it discussed in the media? Very rarely...
All the time. But the language changes. Global climate crisis has
replaced the the last crisis that didn't happen as direly predicted.
The basic argument is unchanged. It never will change, because the left
never changes, other than to evolve as a parasite.
> >As for education. Most know where babies come from.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure of that.
Even the deepest darkest untouched rain-forest aboriginal tribe knows
how life works. Animal husbandry is nothing new.
Perhaps you'll convince them to voluntarily abandon their human
instincts, but as you said earlier, there would have to be a strong
disincentive, punishment
And that my friend is totalitarianism.
Henry Wilson DSc
My method would require a minimum of punishment. That's the whole idea. Money
rules, you know.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html
Henry Wilson DSc
>In article <c712k513at3c257df...@4ax.com>,
> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:18:19 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1FQ%m.66435$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> > "SPierce" <ecr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >Our press eagerly submits to shariah constraints, so our artists are not
>> >at much risk.
>>
>> All organized religions are a problem because of the ignorance they breed.
>
>Were that so, the US would be as bad as Yemen.
More than half the world thinks it is.
>OTOH, attempts at atheist states were pretty dismal and murderous
>failures.
It is certainly hard to eradicate religion because humans are inherently
superstitious. However, if you are using Russia as an example, I woujldn't agre
that the banning of religion was the cause. The country was simply broke after
fighting two wars to save the west against a totalitarian German world
takeover.
>> Catholicism and Islam are trying to win over each other purely by increasing
>> their numbers.
>
>Well, humans breed.
Most don't want to. They just want their sex.
>OTOH, we have our eugenicist left.
Well, I don't think well designed eugenics exercises are far away.
>> Meanwhile, the muslims have the oil, the christians have the guns, the
>> buddhists and hindus have the masses of people.
>
>No, the Christians and Muslims, in that order, have the masses of people
>as well as guns and oil.
I don't know how you work that out.
>With Obama's help, Iran will soon have the big gun.
Don't blame Obama. It was GB who united the muslims with his murderous
policies. Now there;s only one way for the west to go....wholesale war against
islam..
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:08:08 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <fjf3k5p4m12dqi2ui...@4ax.com>,
> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:04:18 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All the time. But the language changes. Global climate crisis has
> >replaced the the last crisis that didn't happen as direly predicted.
> >
> >The basic argument is unchanged. It never will change, because the left
> >never changes, other than to evolve as a parasite.
> >
> >
> >> >As for education. Most know where babies come from.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't be too sure of that.
> >
> >Even the deepest darkest untouched rain-forest aboriginal tribe knows
> >how life works. Animal husbandry is nothing new.
> >
> >Perhaps you'll convince them to voluntarily abandon their human
> >instincts, but as you said earlier, there would have to be a strong
> >disincentive, punishment
> >
> >And that my friend is totalitarianism.
>
> My method would require a minimum of punishment. That's the whole idea. Money
> rules, you know.
When you introduce any form of punishment for procreation, that is
totalitarianism.
If you introduce incentives, that will create an industry, and if
someone who profits from this industry slips up, clearly there would be
a mandate for abortion, if one wants to remain employed as a non-breeder.
State control of reproduction and population is a feature of all
totalitarian regimes, and is a dangerous step, no matter how innocuous
and voluntary it may appear at first.
Henry Wilson DSc
Well, the alternative is to condemn the whole human race to a death from war,
starvation and disease.
I prefer the responsible approach, myself.
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:34:51 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <c712k513at3c257df...@4ax.com>,
> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:18:19 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1FQ%m.66435$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >> > "SPierce" <ecr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> >Our press eagerly submits to shariah constraints, so our artists are not
> >> >at much risk.
> >>
> >> All organized religions are a problem because of the ignorance they breed.
> >
> >Were that so, the US would be as bad as Yemen.
>
> More than half the world thinks it is.
And the other half is trying to get here. Not many progressive people
flock to Yemen, or the West Bank, or Jordan - they prefer the
Judeo-Christian world.
> >OTOH, attempts at atheist states were pretty dismal and murderous
> >failures.
>
> It is certainly hard to eradicate religion because humans are inherently
> superstitious. However, if you are using Russia as an example, I woujldn't
> agre
> that the banning of religion was the cause. The country was simply broke
> after
> fighting two wars to save the west against a totalitarian German world
> takeover.
Banning of religion is a symptom, not a cause.
And blaming the WW's for the fall of the Soviets is just plain daft.
> >> Catholicism and Islam are trying to win over each other purely by
> >> increasing
> >> their numbers.
> >
> >Well, humans breed.
>
> Most don't want to. They just want their sex.
They want their sex because it exists to compel them to breed, and the
great majority do not discard their children. It's all the same thing.
> >OTOH, we have our eugenicist left.
>
> Well, I don't think well designed eugenics exercises are far away.
A Master Race.
> >> Meanwhile, the muslims have the oil, the christians have the guns, the
> >> buddhists and hindus have the masses of people.
> >
> >No, the Christians and Muslims, in that order, have the masses of people
> >as well as guns and oil.
>
> I don't know how you work that out.
From available statistics.
> >With Obama's help, Iran will soon have the big gun.
>
> Don't blame Obama. It was GB who united the muslims with his murderous
> policies.
How do you explain those policies that existed well before Bush?
I blame neither president. I blame Islamism.
> Now there;s only one way for the west to go....wholesale war
> against
> islam..
If we abandon liberal/moderate Islam now, then yes, it has nowhere to go
but escalation and eventual explosion.
George Bush's liberal attempt to change the course of historical US
approach to the region, the concept of representative democracy, may or
may not influence and embolden liberal Islam.
And at certain points in revolutions, guns count.
Al
..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:04:16 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3fi8k5pk0543de7rr...@4ax.com>,
> > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:08:08 -0600, Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >Perhaps you'll convince them to voluntarily abandon their human
> >> >instincts, but as you said earlier, there would have to be a strong
> >> >disincentive, punishment
> >> >
> >> >And that my friend is totalitarianism.
> >>
> >> My method would require a minimum of punishment. That's the whole idea.
> >> Money
> >> rules, you know.
> >
> >When you introduce any form of punishment for procreation, that is
> >totalitarianism.
> >
> >If you introduce incentives, that will create an industry, and if
> >someone who profits from this industry slips up, clearly there would be
> >a mandate for abortion, if one wants to remain employed as a non-breeder.
> >
> >State control of reproduction and population is a feature of all
> >totalitarian regimes, and is a dangerous step, no matter how innocuous
> >and voluntary it may appear at first.
>
> Well, the alternative is to condemn the whole human race to a death from war,
> starvation and disease.
To assume so is to discount evolution.
If one or more of these disasters occur and mankind is hugely affected -
a huge reduction of population - evolution will continue none the less.
And western ideology assumes a state responsibility to protect the life
of its citizens, not cull the weak and punish the horny.
> I prefer the responsible approach, myself.
You prefer the statist approach, responsible is purely subjective.