overpopulation, globalization, and hunger
Yuri Kuchinsky
Wild-eyed cornucopians would like to assure us that hunger problem in the
3 world is getting better. Well, here's some info that indicates
otherwise.
And this info is from Asia, which is the most dynamic and stable part of
the 3 world, and that includes China, the country that shows some
much-needed leadership in formulating the principles of sustainable
development (by following a strong and effective family-planning policy).
Other areas are worse off.
It seems to me that anybody who denies the terrible effect the
overpopulation is having on BOTH people and Nature, is simply living in a
delusionary universe. Such people must accept that by their denial they
are objectively contributing to the great evil that is unfolding itself in
front of our eyes, and that has the potential to destroy our world as we
know it.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
============
The following is posted for educational purposes only. Not to be used for
commercial purposes.
+++++
BOOMING ASIA FACES FOOD SECURITY PROBLEM, NGOS SAY
Copyright 1996 by Nando Times
BANGKOK (May 1, 1996) - Asia, already home to over half a billion
malnourished people, will have a harder time finding food in the
future as many countries focus on industrial growth instead of
agriculture, non-governmental groups said. "It has always been said
(east and southeast Asia) has the fastest growing economies in the
world," said Antonio Quizon, spokesman for a group of more than 100
representatives of NGOs from 20 Asian and Pacific countries. "But if
you look at the region itself...there is a coming threat of growing
food insecurity brought about by a move toward trade
liberalisation," Quizon said on Wednesday.
Quizon spoke after the NGO group held a two-day meeting to draft a
regional platform ahead of the World Food Summit in November. According
to the declaration, a promise in 1974 to eradicate hunger within 10 years
never materialised. "More than 20 years after the (1974) World Food
Conference, where it was declared that the elimination of hunger was just
a few years away, there are more hungry people, there are more poor
farmers, and agriculture is in a worse state," it said. About 800 million
people in the world are malnourished, and do not consume enough food to
lead a normal, healthy life. Some 500-582 million of those people live in
the Asia-Pacific region, said Obaidullah Khan, regional representative
for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Quizon said global trade accords like the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade hurt poor Asian farmers who cannot compete with
low international prices. "The present market liberalisation
policies promoted by national governments actually leads to greater
food insecurity and there is a threat of deterioration of
agriculture and national self sufficiency," he said. Unless
appropriate strategies are devised and urgently implemented, our
farming communities face extinction and food insecurity will become
a permanent condition for all," the declaration said.
Quizon said the NGOs were concerned that governments in the region
were too focused on "rapid urban industrialisation," and did not
care as much about their traditional agriculture and farming
communities.
The FAO's Khan said although global agricultural production is
keeping up with population growth, the distribution is not equal and
poorer countries and people are not receiving their share.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky :: * * * * * *
Toronto :: All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.
:::::::::::::::::
http://www.io.org/~yuku
Brian Carnell
On 2 May 1996 18:37:36 GMT, yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Wild-eyed cornucopians would like to assure us that hunger problem in the
>3 world is getting better. Well, here's some info that indicates
>otherwise.
>
>And this info is from Asia, which is the most dynamic and stable part of
>the 3 world, and that includes China, the country that shows some
>much-needed leadership in formulating the principles of sustainable
>development (by following a strong and effective family-planning policy).
You just love those Communists, don't you Yuri? You love the idea of
forcing women to have abortions. Why don't insist on being so
mysoginistic?
>Other areas are worse off.
>
>BOOMING ASIA FACES FOOD SECURITY PROBLEM, NGOS SAY
>
Like what you usually post Yuri, this artricle was long on wild
speculation and short on any hard facts. In fact the FAO's own
figures show food production in Asia far outpacing population growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell http://www.net-link.net/~briand/
bri...@carnell.com
Jim Glass
In article <4mavdg$l...@news1.io.org>, yu...@io.org says...
>It seems to me that anybody who denies the terrible effect the
>overpopulation is having on BOTH people and Nature, is simply living in a
>delusionary universe. Such people must accept that by their denial they
>are objectively contributing to the great evil that is unfolding itself in
>front of our eyes, and that has the potential to destroy our world as we
>know it.
>
>Ecologically,
>
>Yuri.
Are not you people the very same folks who are now screaming bloody
murder about the "fact" that chlorinated chemicals are reducing male
sperm count?
One would think, given the above, that you would be delighted.
Please do try to come up with a consistent line; the whiplash is
killing us.
Jim Glass
jw
In <4mavdg$l...@news1.io.org> yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
>Wild-eyed cornucopians would like to assure us that hunger problem in
the
>3 world is getting better. Well, here's some info that indicates
>otherwise.
>The following is posted for educational purposes only. Not to be used
for
>commercial purposes.
That is nice. But it contains absolutely nothing to justify
the claims made above.
>BOOMING ASIA FACES FOOD SECURITY PROBLEM, NGOS SAY
NGOS are non-government organizations.
"Faces" means they expect it in the future,
not that they observe it in the present.
>Copyright 1996 by Nando Times
>
>BANGKOK (May 1, 1996) - Asia, already home to over half a billion
>malnourished people, will have a harder time finding food in the
>future as many countries focus on industrial growth instead of
>agriculture, non-governmental groups said. [etc.]
Predictions. You can't support predictions with other
predictions...
We have already had abundant predictions of food shortages.
New ones are issued as soon as old ones fail.
So what does this add? These predictions are more cautious
than those of Lester Brown: they speak of "threat" and
"insecurity", rather than of a certainty of hunger.
Commendable caution, but natural, in view of the
palpably improving nutrition in Asia. Otherwise,
nothing new.
One real fact has crept in:
[...]
>The FAO's Khan said although global agricultural production is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>keeping up with population growth, the distribution is not equal and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>poorer countries and people are not receiving their share.
No doubt. But it never was equal.
Is the situation getting worse or better?
The underlined words *tell it all*.
Food production is *keeping up* with population.
*Exactly* keeping up? No, of course not:
exact equality can never be true. Then this means:
*at least* keeping up.
And in fact, it is considerably outpacing population
growth. What does this mean for the future?
Obviously, more and better nutrition.
But what then about the worries of the worriers?
They are based on the fact that industrialization
takes land away from agriculture. Of course it
does - but that does not mean less food. First,
crop yields increase: less land is needed. Second,
industry doesn't just take land: it produces
revenue - which can be used for food imports.
There is no economic reason why an industrialized
nation has to be self-sufficient in food production.
In fact, most of them are - but this is optional.
Makepeace Paul F
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: No doubt. But it never was equal.
: Is the situation getting worse or better?
: The underlined words *tell it all*.
: Food production is *keeping up* with population.
: *Exactly* keeping up? No, of course not:
: exact equality can never be true. Then this means:
: *at least* keeping up.
: And in fact, it is considerably outpacing population
: growth. What does this mean for the future?
: Obviously, more and better nutrition.
"World food production has been declining during the past 10 years, on a
per capita basis. World fish production has been declining on a per
capita basis since 1988...Arable land worldwide per capita has been
declining."
- Dr. David Pimentel, professor of Ecology and Agricultural
Studies at Cornell University.
From CBC Radio Program "Quirks and Quarks: The Vatican vs. the People"
--
*************************************************************************
* "I never give them hell. I just tell them the truth and they think *
* it's hell." *
* - Harry Truman *
* *
* Email: 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca Web page: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~4pfm *
*************************************************************************
Makepeace Paul F
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: No doubt. But it never was equal.
: Is the situation getting worse or better?
: The underlined words *tell it all*.
: Food production is *keeping up* with population.
: *Exactly* keeping up? No, of course not:
: exact equality can never be true. Then this means:
: *at least* keeping up.
: And in fact, it is considerably outpacing population
: growth. What does this mean for the future?
: Obviously, more and better nutrition.
You are wrong again. Cornell University did a year-long study that clearly
shows that food is declining on a per capita basis.
In other words, IT IS NOT OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.
See my web page (listed below) for more details.
jw
In <4mihn5$4...@knot.queensu.ca> 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul
F) writes:
>
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: No doubt. But it never was equal.
>: Is the situation getting worse or better?
>: The underlined words *tell it all*.
>: Food production is *keeping up* with population.
>: *Exactly* keeping up? No, of course not:
>: exact equality can never be true. Then this means:
>: *at least* keeping up.
>
>: And in fact, it is considerably outpacing population
>: growth. What does this mean for the future?
>: Obviously, more and better nutrition.
>
>You are wrong again. Cornell University did a year-long study that
clearly
>shows that food is declining on a per capita basis.
>
>In other words, IT IS NOT OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.
|| "According to the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculure],
|| between 1961 and 1990 food supplies per person rose
|| by 17 percent for the world as a whole and
|| by 32 percent in the less developed regions."
|| (Nicholas Eberstadt in _The True State of the Planet_,
|| ed. by Ronald Bailey, The Free Press, a division of
|| Simon $ Schuster, 1995)
It *is* outpacing population growth - your screaming
letters notwithstanding - by as much as 10 percent
per decade, by a third - a third! in 3 decades.
That is, in the less developed regions - where
it matters. (Developed areas are trying to reduce,
not increase, their food intake.)
A third more is *a lot*. This makes the difference
between normal and stunted development, between
vigor and lethargy, between health and sickness.
Longevity and mortality figures fully confirm that.
The progress is truly amazing.
Developing nations have been adding about half
a year of life every year to their life expectancy.
The Third World has become a much better place -
is getting better every year, and its future is radiant.
The only major negative indicator is the rapidly
falling birth rate - very bad in itself, but due to
greater prosperity.
jw
In <4miilk$4...@knot.queensu.ca> 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul
F) writes:
>
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: No doubt. But it never was equal.
>: Is the situation getting worse or better?
>: The underlined words *tell it all*.
>: Food production is *keeping up* with population.
>: *Exactly* keeping up? No, of course not:
>: exact equality can never be true. Then this means:
>: *at least* keeping up.
>
>: And in fact, it is considerably outpacing population
>: growth. What does this mean for the future?
>: Obviously, more and better nutrition.
>
a
>capita basis since 1988...Arable land worldwide per capita has been
>declining."
>
> - Dr. David Pimentel, professor of Ecology and Agricultural
> Studies at Cornell University.
>
>From CBC Radio Program "Quirks and Quarks: The Vatican vs. the People"
Ah, an *Ecology* professor... Three statements - two falsehoods
and a misleading non-sequitur.
Falsehood number 1:
>"World food production has been declining during the past 10 years, on
>a per capita basis.
FAO (UN Food and Agriculture organization) data says
the opposite.
Not to go far, consider this quote - included even by
Kuchinsky - but prudently omitted by Makepeace Paul F.
I'll be so tactless as to re-quote it.
>>Copyright 1996 by Nando Times
>>
>>BANGKOK (May 1, 1996)
>>[...]
>>The FAO's Khan said although global agricultural production is
>>keeping up with population growth, the distribution is not equal
>>[etc.]
Falsehood #2:
"World fish production has been declining on a per capita basis since
1988..."
To refute that, let me refer you to _Vital Signs, 1994_ -
a Worldwatch publication, a very green source. It says
explicitly that aquaculture - fish breeding - has more
than taken up the slack in fish catches; overall
amount of fish on the table has been increasing.
The non-sequitur: "Arable land worldwide per capita has been
declining." Put side by side with #1, this creates a
false impression. It is really a good sign for food production:
marginal land is abandoned because other land is getting
more productive.
The world's nutrition has been improving
in quantity and quality - more calories, more protein,
more fish, more meat - decade by decade.
Not necessarily year by year -
there has been a recent
downward blip in wheat production - but this is
due to specific non-repeatable circumstances.
Don McKenzie
In article <4mir9f$h...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
> The progress is truly amazing.
> Developing nations have been adding about half
> a year of life every year to their life expectancy.
>
> The Third World has become a much better place -
> is getting better every year, and its future is radiant.
>
> The only major negative indicator is the rapidly
> falling birth rate - very bad in itself, but due to
> greater prosperity.
A clueless exaltation of the population bomb:-(
--
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA
Stupidity is an incurable ailment
Bo Curry
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: Yet some international groups such as Greenpeace are calling for the
: elimination of *all* manmade sources of chlorine. If these people
: thing AIDS is bad, wait till they see the sort of diseases that crawl
: out of the woodwork with an elimination of water chlorination.
Not quite. Greenpeace et al are calling for the elimination
of synthetic *organic* chlorides. Water chlorination would
not be affected.
Bo
Jmonson
>You are wrong again. Cornell University did a year-long study that clearly
>shows that food is declining on a per capita basis.
>In other words, IT IS NOT OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.
according to reports I found on Reuters News service, dated late 1995,
in the last three successive years, the amount of food consumed by the planet as
a whole has been _greator_ than the amount of food produced.
Indeed the reports indicated we were heading towards a crisis situation with
supplies of grain, and cerials dropping to extremely low levels.
Apparently much depends on this years crops, if they fail to produce, then our
stores may not last very much longer.
(note, I can supply dates and sources for reports if requested)
Jason
<tsb>
________________________ _______________________________
/ / Volly \ \
/ /~~~~~~~~ Hooked.on.the.net ~~~~~~~~~~~\ \
/ /~~~~~~ Look for me on IRC undernet #nz #Amigacafe ~~~~~~~~~\ \
/ /~ Real life: Pegasus Toastmasters, Christchurch West Rotoract ~\ \
/ / _______________________Team AMIGA________________________________ \ \
~~ ~~
<sb>
But wait, there is more..... with the sig you also get a tagline:
Witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!
John McCarthy
In article <1404.6703...@chch.planet.org.nz> jmo...@chch.planet.org.nz (Jmonson) writes:
>You are wrong again. Cornell University did a year-long study that clearly
>shows that food is declining on a per capita basis.
>In other words, IT IS NOT OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.
according to reports I found on Reuters News service, dated late 1995,
in the last three successive years, the amount of food consumed by the planet as
a whole has been _greator_ than the amount of food produced.
Indeed the reports indicated we were heading towards a crisis situation with
supplies of grain, and cerials dropping to extremely low levels.
Apparently much depends on this years crops, if they fail to produce, then our
stores may not last very much longer.
(note, I can supply dates and sources for reports if requested)
Manmade: Two years ago, both the U.S. and the EEC decided to take
about ten percent of the grain land out of production in order to
reduce surpluses.
Natural: There was a drought in Australia and in important parts of
the U.S. The U.S. reversed its policy, and the Europeans eventually
did. Now the U.S. winter wheat growing areas had a bad winter. How
bad will be indicated in a Department of Agriculture report due
Friday.
It appears that the program to reduce grain stocks was overdone. More
should be kept on hand.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Nicolas Martin
> according to reports I found on Reuters News service, dated late 1995,
> in the last three successive years, the amount of food consumed by the planet
I guess it really is a living planet if it must eat. Or perhaps the author
meant consumed "on" on the planet.
Regardless, if the intent of that statement were true there would be, by
definition, mass famines. Where are these famine occuring? I'm not talking
about prospective famines, but the actual famines of these 3 years?
As someone who has been refuting the morbid imaginings of
environmentalists for years, I offer this observation. Eco-warriers are
people loathers. It isn't lack of information that leads them to error, it
is the fervent desire to see humanity obliterated. It is not quite a
self-loathing, though. I've never met an environmentalist who tore down
his abode to return his own land to the natural state, or who refused to
eat the food he claims is so scarce.
How many calories do you suppose the average American environmentalist
eats? I'd guess he is a real Piggy-Wiggy compared to most of the world. He
feeds without guilt while admonishing the rest of us.
Nicolas Martin
Environmentalism is nothing if not metaphors run amok.
To wit:
The planet eats. (Eats what?)
Universities study (How does a university study? I thought people studied.)
These are evasions and distortions, obviously.
The first is meant to anthropomorphize Earth. And isn't that odd since
people are supposedly the bad guys? You would think that they would be
more inclined to planetize people.
The second is meant to inflate the importance of a purported study.
"Cornell University studied" sounds so much more grand than "John Jones
studied." Keep in mind that no university anywhere at any time ever did a
study. And John Jones might be a quack.
jw
In <318f83a7...@nntp.net-link.net> bri...@carnell.com (Brian
Carnell) writes:
>Yet some international groups such as Greenpeace are calling for the
>elimination of *all* manmade sources of chlorine. If these people
>thing AIDS is bad, wait till they see the sort of diseases that crawl
>out of the woodwork with an elimination of water chlorination.
Having won against CFCs, the crazies target an element out of the
periodic table! Evil chlorine... What will be the evil element of
the next decade - silicone? Hydrogen?
Makepeace Paul F
Nicolas Martin (nma...@uky.campus.mci.net) wrote:
: Environmentalism is nothing if not metaphors run amok.
: To wit:
: The planet eats. (Eats what?)
: Universities study (How does a university study? I thought people studied.)
: These are evasions and distortions, obviously.
Oh yea right. We're trying to convince everyone that the planet has a
mouth and stomach and eats food. Sure. And we wan't to distort the truth so
that people think that a university contains a brain of its own. Yeah! We
have an evil hidden agenda! Distort and evade!
And when we see a phrase like "Iraq invaded Kuwait", its an attempt to make
people think that the territory of Iraq grew arms and grabbed a sword and
attacked!
Or could it possibly be the following:
When someone says "the planet eats" it means "the people of the planet
eats" and "a university studied" means "people at the university
studied", and anyone with even the most miniscule brain would understand
that and not need to have it explained to him or her. Sheesh.
Paul
jw
In <JMC.96Ma...@Steam.stanford.edu> j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) writes:
>
>In article <1404.6703...@chch.planet.org.nz>
jmo...@chch.planet.org.nz (Jmonson) writes:
>
> >You are wrong again. Cornell University did a year-long study that
clearly
> >shows that food is declining on a per capita basis.
>
> >In other words, IT IS NOT OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.
>
1995,
> in the last three successive years, the amount of food consumed by
> a whole has been _greator_ than the amount of food produced.
Indeed: and the prices reflect that.
However, it all depends on scale: per capita food
production does not increase every year - it never did;
but it does increase decade by decade. We have a crisis
at hand, which has specific and temporary causes.
Some are listed below; the economic transformation of Russia
has also contributed.
Brian Carnell
On Thu, 9 May 1996 18:25:31 GMT, cu...@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry) wrote:
>Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
>: Yet some international groups such as Greenpeace are calling for the
>: elimination of *all* manmade sources of chlorine. If these people
>: thing AIDS is bad, wait till they see the sort of diseases that crawl
>: out of the woodwork with an elimination of water chlorination.
>
>Not quite. Greenpeace et al are calling for the elimination
>of synthetic *organic* chlorides. Water chlorination would
>not be affected.
I'm referring to an article by Michael Fumento in the May 1996 issue
of Reason ("Dirty Water," p. 52) in which he writes, "Greepeace
International, using the slogan 'Chlorine kill!' (meaning people, not
germs), has demanded the elimination of all manmade chlorine
compounds."
Is this an accurate statement?
Brian Carnell
On 5 May 1996 15:32:52 GMT, 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F)
wrote:
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>You are wrong again. Cornell University did a year-long study that clearly
>shows that food is declining on a per capita basis.
>
>In other words, IT IS NOT OUTPACING POPULATION GROWTH.
Do you have a citation for this? How then do you explain that UN
figures clearly show per capita food production regularly outpacing
population growth?
Brian Carnell
On 5 May 1996 15:49:08 GMT, 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F)
wrote:
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>"World food production has been declining during the past 10 years, on a
>per capita basis. World fish production has been declining on a per
>capita basis since 1988...Arable land worldwide per capita has been
>declining."
>
> - Dr. David Pimentel, professor of Ecology and Agricultural
> Studies at Cornell University.
This is simply wrong as an examination of FAO figures clearly
demonstrates.
Brian Carnell
On Mon, 06 May 1996 15:05:57 -0800, mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie)
wrote:
>In article <4mir9f$h...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>> The progress is truly amazing.
>> Developing nations have been adding about half
>> a year of life every year to their life expectancy.
>>
>> The Third World has become a much better place -
>> is getting better every year, and its future is radiant.
>>
>> The only major negative indicator is the rapidly
>> falling birth rate - very bad in itself, but due to
>> greater prosperity.
>
>A clueless exaltation of the population bomb:-(
>
Ah...one of the Ehrlich-ian nuts. So why has this population 'bomb'
continually turned out to be a dud?
John McCarthy
David Pimentel has been somewhat of a doomsayer since the 1960s, but
he really does research on agriculture - and not just library
research. He had a rather good article about soil loss in _Science_ a
year or so ago.
However, I don't think he fully summarized the situation. Under
conditions of agricultural surplus expensive remediations will not be
done; the spoiled land will simply be taken out of production.
It would be comforting to have the research done about remediating
severely gullied land. Some information is probably available from
the results of requiring strip mining companies to fully remediate the
land after they have dug out the coal, regardless of cost. They are
required to restore original contours, which is much more than would
be needed to bring the land into agricultural production.
Makepeace Paul F
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: On 5 May 1996 15:49:08 GMT, 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F)
: wrote:
: >"World food production has been declining during the past 10 years, on a
: >per capita basis. World fish production has been declining on a per
: >capita basis since 1988...Arable land worldwide per capita has been
: >declining."
: >
: > - Dr. David Pimentel, professor of Ecology and Agricultural
: > Studies at Cornell University.
: This is simply wrong as an examination of FAO figures clearly
: demonstrates.
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
: Brian Carnell http://www.net-link.net/~briand/
: bri...@carnell.com
Have you not considered that FAO is wrong and the Cornell study is right?
Besides, I looked at the FAO report for 1995 and nowhere does it show that
food production is outpacing population growth.
- Paul
Eric Stevens
On Sat, 11 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT, bri...@carnell.com (Brian Carnell)
wrote:
>Ah...one of the Ehrlich-ian nuts. So why has this population 'bomb'
>continually turned out to be a dud?
Long, slow fuse?
Eric Stevens
Chaos is found in the greatest abundance wherever order is being
sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organised.
-: Ly Tin Wheedle
jw
In <319414a4...@nntp.net-link.net> bri...@carnell.com (Brian
Carnell) writes:
>
>On Mon, 06 May 1996 15:05:57 -0800, mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4mir9f$h...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>>> The progress is truly amazing.
>>> Developing nations have been adding about half
>>> a year of life every year to their life expectancy.
>>>
>>> The Third World has become a much better place -
>>> is getting better every year, and its future is radiant.
>>>
>>> The only major negative indicator is the rapidly
>>> falling birth rate - very bad in itself, but due to
>>> greater prosperity.
>>
>>A clueless exaltation of the population bomb:-(
>>
>
>continually turned out to be a dud?
Indeed it has...
Viewing a baby as a bomb
is evidence of a diseased
mindset; no wonder that predictions
made by such people fail; no wonder that they ignore
the failure. A phobia (hatred and fear of people in
this case) is impervious to facts and logic.
I suspect most readers have missed my
_ZPG Carol_ on Christmas - so I reprint it.
ZPG Carol
King Herod the Malthusian
Was cast into confusion
By rumors of a Baby Bomb
Time-set in his vicinity,
Predicted with a great aplomb
By doctors of divinity.
On hearing this, he turned quite Green -
It pleased him not at all.
It really, really raised his spleen
And made his spirit fall;
And courtiers, standing by his throne,
"I hear it ticking!" heard him groan.
But once the bile had reached his head,
He spoke aloud, and this he said:
"I must be quite severe.
I think all babies should be dead,
To save the Ecosphere.
Not for myself I fear -
It is the Ecosphere.
All children warm the air,
Exhaling CO2.
I deeply, deeply care -
And this is what I'll do.
To stop this air pollution,
As experts all agree,
The only good solution
Is stringent ZPG!
Prepare for execution -
I'll prune your family tree!"
Such was the grim conclusion
Of Herod the Malthusian.
-----------
He did not win, although he tried.
The Baby lived. King Herod died.
The Baby Bomb exploded
With splendid overkill;
The Ecosphere eroded,
And is eroding still.
The human tree is growing:
Increase and Multiply;
Fill the earth to overflowing -
Then go and fill the sky.
The Bomb, it must have missed us,
In spite of great eclat:
So have a Merry Christmas
And a Happy Hanukkah.
Scott Nudds
Nicolas Martin (nma...@uky.campus.mci.net) wrote:
: As someone who has been refuting the morbid imaginings of
: environmentalists for years, I offer this observation. Eco-warriers are
: people loathers.
Nicolas... Admitting that you are either a fool or a liar at the
beginning of your message is not a good way to have other people take you
seriously.
I take it that this was your intended purpose for posting your piece of
hate literature?
Or do you post hate and ignorance thinking that it will amuse others?
- Hoover Hypocrite ---------------------------------------------------
"The Biomass Alliance doubtless includes farm organizations. The image
that comes to mind is that of a large number of piglets squirming to get
at a teat of the sow." - John McCarthy in SCI.Energy
2 weeks later...
"My research has indeed been supported by the Government - almost
entirely by the Defense Department..." - John McCarthy in SCI.Environment
--
KAZ Vorpal
In Newsgroup alt.politics.economics, Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
>)The EPA is apparently pushing this idea that in order to raise sperm
>)counts (which actually aren't lowered despite what Al Gore thinks )
>)what nations need to do is reduce the chlorination in water supplies.
>)The idea is that you drink the chlorinated chemicals and it lowers
>)sperm counts.
>)Anyway they haven't been able to sell this in the U.S. but they did in
>)Peru. So Peru went ahead and developed a dechlorination program. The
>)result was a disastrous outbreak of cholera.
Environmentalists and other kinds of socialists have that
tendency.
Did you know that the banning of DDT murdered -millions- of
people in and around India, where DDT had been preventing Malaria?
Secrets of the Sentient:
Genocide by Environmentalists
Before the development of DDT, 200,000,000 people were stricken by Malaria
each year, and 2,000,000 died. In Sri Lanka in 1948, there were 2,800,000
cases per year.
DDT reduced this to 17 cases per year by 1963. In 1968, after US
environmentalists convinced Sri Lankan officials to stop spraying DDT,
there were 1,000,000 cases, 2,500,000 in 1969.
Words of the Sentient:
The issue of banning DDT is unquestionably a genocidal one...The balance is
overwhlemingly in favor of DDT...I refer you to the monumental
bibliography of
3,404 references compiled by the division of Biology and Agriculture.
-- Thomas H. Jukes, University of
California at Berkeley
Or how about how the banning of asbestos, based on unvalidated
pseudo-science as the DDT studies were, not only killed many people whose
buildings were less fire resistant, but also murdered the members of the
shuttle Challanger crew, because the paste which sealed the O-rings of
the rocket contained asbestos, and the best replacement tended to crack
with sudden temparature changes...
Secrets of the Sentient:
The Fuller O'Brien asbestos company was forced to discontinue the
manufacture of the standard O-Ring putty used in the space shuttle. The
replacement putty lacked the resiliency of the O'Brien putty, and shrank
when it should have expanded during launch, causing the explosion which
destroyed the Space Shuttle Challenger.
Yet another example of socialists killing people in the name of
saving them...
--
Secrets of the Sentient
Did You Know:
ANTI-GUN STATES NON ANTI-GUN STATES
Average increase Average increase
in homicide 6.24 in homicide -8.64
Anti-states are defined as those that have waiting period and/or licensing
laws. Figures are for 1990. Figures are from a Senate Judiciary committee
report.
mailto:k...@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
Andrew Taylor
In article <4n5fub$f...@skipper.netrail.net>, KAZ Vorpal <k...@upx.net> wrote:
>Secrets of the Sentient:
>Genocide by Environmentalists
>
>Before the development of DDT, 200,000,000 people were stricken by Malaria
>each year, and 2,000,000 died. In Sri Lanka in 1948, there were 2,800,000
>cases per year.
>DDT reduced this to 17 cases per year by 1963. In 1968, after US
>environmentalists convinced Sri Lankan officials to stop spraying DDT,
>there were 1,000,000 cases, 2,500,000 in 1969.
This fabrication has been posted in sci.environment half a dozen times
at least.
Sri Lanka withdrew DDT spraying in the 1960s because of the low number of
cases. Sri Lanka did this not because of US environmentalist pressure but
because it was following normal WHO procedure in moving to the
consolidation-phase of Malaria control.
WHO's procedures had already successfully eliminated Malaria
in a number of countries.
The subsequent epidemic occurred for several reasons,
a) Sri Lanka tended have epidemics at 3-5 year intervals because
of climatic reasons.
b) Population movements for gem mining and other reasons facilitated the
creation of epidemic foci.
c) A gradual build up of undetected, untreated cases occurred because
few blood smears were done by health institutions and there was a great
backlog in processing these.
After the epidemic was recognised adminstrative and financial difficulties
hampered the purchase of insecticide (no reserve stock had been maintained).
Although malaria was temporarily controlled again, it deteriorated
again in the early 1970s mainly because of a rise in mosquito
resistance to DDT. Sri Lanka was forced to switch the more expensive
Malathion in 1977 as a result.
A reference for all the above is "Malaria - Principles and Practice of
Malariology", ed. Wernsdorfer and McGregor, Volume 2, page 1367.
I suggest you change your rallying cry from "Secrets of the Sentient" to
"Lies of the Ignorant".
Andrew Taylor
Scott Nudds
KAZ Vorpal (k...@upx.net) wrote:
: Did you know that the banning of DDT murdered -millions- of
That's a very interesting fiction Kaz. A few years back I had a early
morning chat with a african doctor studying here in Canada. He had been
charged with the task of increasing the efficiency with which DDT was
being used in his country to combat malaria carrying mosquitos.
I was surprised that it was not banned in his country. He informed me
that it is still commonly used to combat mosquito populations around the
world.
So, Kaz.. keep your paranoid ignorance to yourself, where it belongs.
Jim Halperin
If anyone is interested, a detailed exploration of the future in the
form of a novel (not available in bookstores until October) may be read
in its entirety for FREE on the Web to anyone willing to participate in
an electronic survey. Please check out <http://www.truthmachine.com/> I
promise you very interesting takes on population control, the world
economy, and justice--among many other things.
DK
jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>I suspect most readers have missed my
>_ZPG Carol_ on Christmas - so I reprint it.
I won't perpetuate this carol but I will ask how old you might be?
I was born in '48. In that relatively short time I have watched the
quality of life decline dramatically and that decline is obviously due
to the huge increase of the population in this country.
If you have grown up in the already over populated East coast, then
you may think that the antagonism people show to one another is a
natural and necessary part of life. It isn't and it is pretty clear
that a large part of this is from overcrowding. I go home to
California almost yearly and every year it becomes more like the East
Coast. The once pleasant people are now cranky and irritable. It
takes hours to get home from work. Most of the parks are no longer
usable because there are just too many people trying to make use of
them. People who grew up and loved their home State are fleeing to
less populated States making those places overcrowded and the people
there cranky and irritable.
I had a friend from Harlem who was terribly uncomfortable when he
came to visit me in California many years ago. He said that he could
not stand the constant noise the animals made and he missed the noise
and smell of the city. It took him a month to adjust but after that
he was never able to go back to and live in the city. He realized
that the smell and noise were just things that he associated with
home. They were not pleasant things and it was not the comfortable or
healthy way to live.
I would say give yourself time and you will see the drastic changes
that are occurring but we just don't have time. I am greatly saddened
by the world we will leave my children. DK
Don McKenzie
In article <4na5hq$n...@abel.cc.sunysb.edu>, dk...@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu
(DK) wrote:
[snip]
> I would say give yourself time and you will see the drastic changes
> that are occurring but we just don't have time. I am greatly saddened
> by the world we will leave my children. DK
Yup, it's this that motivates environmentalists, who, whatever
else might be said about them, don't do what they do for profit
or pleasure.
[large list of groups pruned]
Don McKenzie
In article <319780...@ix.netcom.com>, Jim Halperin
<jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Thanks. It looks great. I bookmarked it for later.
Peter M. Blackman
In <4n1bql$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw)
writes:
>>elimination of *all* manmade sources of chlorine. If these people
>>thing AIDS is bad, wait till they see the sort of diseases that crawl
>>out of the woodwork with an elimination of water chlorination.
>
>periodic table! Evil chlorine... What will be the evil element of
>the next decade - silicone? Hydrogen?
about. By exposing the water to ultraviolet light bacteria is killed.
The present method limits the throughput so at present it is not
practical. Our engineers are at work at work trying to find better
ways to treat our drinking water. Pete
jw
In <3195a838...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz
(Eric Stevens) writes:
>
>On Sat, 11 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT, bri...@carnell.com (Brian Carnell)
>wrote:
>
>
>>continually turned out to be a dud?
>
Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
The prophets of doom did not just get the *date*
wrong - but the *direction* of change. There's
less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
less hunger than in the 1960's when Ehrlich predicted a
global famine. Minerals cost less now than they did when
the Club of Rome predicted their depletion.
Etc.
jw
In <4n65e0$6...@staff.cs.su.oz.au> and...@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
writes:
of
>cases.
>The subsequent epidemic occurred for several reasons,
>
>a) Sri Lanka tended have epidemics at 3-5 year intervals because
>of climatic reasons.
A tiny bit inconsistent, that... a low number of cases but
epidemics every 3-5 years.
Eric Stevens
On 16 May 1996 06:02:08 GMT, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>In <3195a838...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz
>(Eric Stevens) writes:
>>
>>On Sat, 11 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT, bri...@carnell.com (Brian Carnell)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah...one of the Ehrlich-ian nuts. So why has this population 'bomb'
>>>continually turned out to be a dud?
>>
>>Long, slow fuse?
>
>Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
>It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
"Has" occurred? Are you saying that the world's population is now
decreasing?
Eric Stevens
Their are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Don McKenzie
> Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
> It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
>
Beneficial to whom? You?
> The prophets of doom did not just get the *date*
> wrong - but the *direction* of change. There's
> less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
> less hunger than in the 1960's when Ehrlich predicted a
> global famine. Minerals cost less now than they did when
> the Club of Rome predicted their depletion.
> Etc.
You're mentioning a few peripheral elements. Why did even
such a stalwart growth exponent as R. Reagan long for the
50s again? Even an idiot should realize that infinite expansion
in a finite space won't work. Of course if you believe in a
Startrek future...
When I was young I could wander in the Sierra for days
without seeing another human. Now you need a permit to
even walk a trail! Of course you'd probably use an ATV.
Don McKenzie
In article <4nbn0r$9...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
alte...@ix.netcom.com(Peter M. Blackman ) wrote:
> In <4n1bql$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw)
> writes:
> >Having won against CFCs, the crazies target an element out of the
> >periodic table! Evil chlorine... What will be the evil element of
> >the next decade - silicone? Hydrogen?
> There is an alternative to chlorine that I have just recently read
> about. By exposing the water to ultraviolet light bacteria is killed.
> The present method limits the throughput so at present it is not
> practical. Our engineers are at work at work trying to find better
> ways to treat our drinking water. Pete
Will UV light replace chlorine when the holes in the ozone layer
get really big?
Howard Johnson
It's one thing to discuss the issue, in a reasonable, rational way, but
it's another to argue by calling your oponents names, as the following
people have done recently:
"prophets of doom" - jw <jw...@ix.netcom.com>
"Malthusians" - jw <jw...@ix.netcom.com>
"Ehrlich-ian nuts" - Brian Carnell <bri...@carnell.com>
"doomsayer" - John McCarthy <j...@Steam.stanford.edu>
If you can't argue without restorting to playground tactics, then it
only goes to prove in my mind how shallow your arguments must be.
-- hwj
P.S. If I have a name for you, it's "The namecallers".
--
Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current population information is available at http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
or from several email lists: US-Front page news, action alerts, humor, etc.
Rick Cordes
In article <4na5hq$n...@abel.cc.sunysb.edu>,
DK <dk...@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>I was born in '48. In that relatively short time I have watched the
>quality of life decline dramatically and that decline is obviously due
>to the huge increase of the population in this country.
>
> If you have grown up in the already over populated East coast, then
>you may think that the antagonism people show to one another is a
>natural and necessary part of life. It isn't and it is pretty clear
>that a large part of this is from overcrowding. I go home to
>California almost yearly and every year it becomes more like the East
>Coast. The once pleasant people are now cranky and irritable.
Ditto my experience in moving from NY to HI. When I moved
here seven years ago, honking your horn was penultimate to sounding
a fire-alarm; now impatient beeping is part of the backdrop.
Eric Stevens
On Thu, 16 May 1996 15:01:15 -0800, mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie)
wrote:
>Stupidity is an incurable ailment
Stupidity is a fatal disease.
Eric Stevens
Government bureaucracies are created to address
problems, not to solve them.
Yuri Kuchinsky
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3195a838...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz
: (Eric Stevens) writes:
: >
: >On Sat, 11 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT, bri...@carnell.com (Brian Carnell)
: >wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Ah...one of the Ehrlich-ian nuts. So why has this population 'bomb'
: >>continually turned out to be a dud?
: >
: >Long, slow fuse?
: Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
: It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
: The prophets of doom did not just get the *date*
: wrong - but the *direction* of change. There's
: less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
This is a lie. More people are hungry now _in absolute terms_ than ever
before.
: less hunger than in the 1960's when Ehrlich predicted a
: global famine. Minerals cost less now than they did when
: the Club of Rome predicted their depletion.
: Etc.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky :: * * * * * *
Toronto :: All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.
:::::::::::::::::
http://www.io.org/~yuku
Gary Petiford
Contact your doctor, you may have contracted an incurable ailment.
Dittoheads have been educated beyond their
intellectual capacity.
P. Marks
On Thu, 16 May 1996, Don McKenzie wrote:
> In article <4negd0$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
> > Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
> > It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
> >
> Beneficial to whom? You?
>
> > The prophets of doom did not just get the *date*
> > wrong - but the *direction* of change. There's
> > less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
> > less hunger than in the 1960's when Ehrlich predicted a
> > global famine. Minerals cost less now than they did when
> > the Club of Rome predicted their depletion.
> > Etc.
>
> You're mentioning a few peripheral elements. Why did even
> such a stalwart growth exponent as R. Reagan long for the
> 50s again? Even an idiot should realize that infinite expansion
> in a finite space won't work. Of course if you believe in a
> Startrek future...
>
> When I was young I could wander in the Sierra for days
> without seeing another human. Now you need a permit to
> even walk a trail! Of course you'd probably use an ATV.
>
> --
> Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA
>
> Stupidity is an incurable ailment
>
>
No the prices of NEARLY ALL raw materials - commodities has come down in
real terms over the last several decades. General inflation has hidden
this information from you.
Paul Marks.
jw
In <319b797d...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric
Stevens) writes:
>On 16 May 1996 06:02:08 GMT, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>>In <3195a838...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz
>>(Eric Stevens) writes:
>>>
>>>On Sat, 11 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT, bri...@carnell.com (Brian Carnell)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah...one of the Ehrlich-ian nuts. So why has this population
'bomb'
>>>>continually turned out to be a dud?
>>>
>>>Long, slow fuse?
>>
>>It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
>
>decreasing?
No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
It is tapering off.
My point, however, was not this - but that the
population has achieved the size that was considered
disastrous by people who coined the term "population
explosion". The explosion, in this sense, has happened;
the disaster did not; its opposite did.
jw
In <mcaldon-1605...@la-dial2-04.wavenet.com>
mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) writes:
>
>In article <4negd0$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>> It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
>>
Yes, among others - among 5.7 billion others.
>> The prophets of doom did not just get the *date*
>> wrong - but the *direction* of change. There's
>> less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
>> less hunger than in the 1960's when Ehrlich predicted a
>> global famine. Minerals cost less now than they did when
>> the Club of Rome predicted their depletion.
>> Etc.
>
>You're mentioning a few peripheral elements.
Not at all. If hunger is so peripheral, why do
the above-mentioned prophets of doom lay such stress on it?
But they are right in that. Hunger is not peripheral: if you
starve to death, you are dead; and even before that,
your life is blighted. In hungry countries, there
is no chance of abolishing torture or tyranny -
nothing seems too cruel compared to hunger.
But all other significant indicators of well-being point the
same way.(Life expectancy tells teh whole story.)
Things are improving with population growth.
>Why did even
>such a stalwart growth exponent as R. Reagan long for the
>50s again?
He did not - not for the population levels or
the production levels of the 50's. If he did, he would not be
a growth exponent, would he? Perhaps he was nostalgic
for the moral standards of the days when he was
younger. But that's usual in an old man.
>Even an idiot should realize that infinite expansion
>in a finite space won't work.
This is not our problem. The space utilized by humans is
doubling every 15 years or so.
> Of course if you believe in a
>Startrek future...
The particular show? Can't tell, I never watch it.
People in outer space? Who doesn't?
>When I was young I could wander in the Sierra for days
>without seeing another human.
Don't you have a room? Lock the door and you
needn't see a human for months. If solitude is what
you are after. Bur in that case, why are you
posting to 10 groups at once? :-)
> Now you need a permit to
>even walk a trail!
You have my sympathy. I don't like regulations.
Let us abolish them all.
Eric Stevens
>On Fri, 17 May 1996 06:52:28 GMT, stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric
>Stevens) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 1996 15:01:15 -0800, mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Stupidity is an incurable ailment
>>
>>Stupidity is a fatal disease.
>>
>>
>>Eric Stevens
>>
>>Government bureaucracies are created to address
>>problems, not to solve them.
>
>Contact your doctor, you may have contracted an incurable ailment.
>Dittoheads have been educated beyond their
>intellectual capacity.
Aah! A product of modern education.
Read it again and if you can comprehend the english language you will
see that I am not actually 'dittoing' Don Mckenzie's post.
By the way, are you aware that you are cross-posting to an obscene
number of news groups. Please delete 'sci.environment' from the header
for your next flash of blinding genius.
jw
In <4ng6ef$1...@samba.rahul.net> Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-;
>
>It's one thing to discuss the issue, in a reasonable, rational way,
but
>it's another to argue by calling your oponents names, as the following
>people have done recently:
>
> "prophets of doom" - jw <jw...@ix.netcom.com>
> "Malthusians" - jw <jw...@ix.netcom.com>
> "Ehrlich-ian nuts" - Brian Carnell <bri...@carnell.com>
> "doomsayer" - John McCarthy <j...@Steam.stanford.edu>
>
>
>If you can't argue without restorting to playground tactics, then it
>only goes to prove in my mind how shallow your arguments must be.
>
>-- hwj
>
>P.S. If I have a name for you, it's "The namecallers".
How consistent of you! :-)
"Malthusian" is not a four-letter word. It is an exact
term, denoting people who consider population growth
undesirable. "Prophets of doom" is synonymous with
"those who predict disaster". Such people exist -
I am speaking of them - why not say
so? If they are right in the prediction,
it is not disparaging; if they are wrong - who's
at fault but they?
I stand by this terminology:
there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Once in a while I do permit myself playful epithets -
somehow you did not pick on those, but on
sober, civil, precise words expressing precise thoughts.
As for whether or not my arguments. or those of the
other authors you named, are
"shallow" - that can only be ascertained by considering
the arguments themselves. If you can...
Yuri Kuchinsky
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote [replying to a reasonable question]:
: >> Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
: >> It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
: >>
: >Beneficial to whom? You?
: Yes, among others - among 5.7 billion others.
Your moronic drivel is just sooooo tiresome...
Who gave you the right to speak for all those people, a lot of whom are
suffering terribly from the effects of overpopulation?
: Don't you have a room? Lock the door and you
: needn't see a human for months. If solitude is what
: you are after.
This was probably the result of you practising your unique social skills?
I am sure you are not just pissing a lot of people off on the Net, but
also in real life.
Yuri.
Kevin (Kelsoman@Bridge.Net)
Jim Halperin <jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If anyone is interested, a detailed exploration of the future in the
>form of a novel (not available in bookstores until October) may be read
>in its entirety for FREE on the Web to anyone willing to participate in
>an electronic survey. Please check out <http://www.truthmachine.com/> I
>promise you very interesting takes on population control, the world
>economy, and justice--among many other things.
Thanks guy...I have this one bookmarked and am anxiously waiting to
get to read it. Thanks again :-)
Kevin (Kels...@Bridge.Net)
Don McKenzie
> My point, however, was not this - but that the
> population has achieved the size that was considered
> disastrous by people who coined the term "population
> explosion". The explosion, in this sense, has happened;
> the disaster did not; its opposite did.
Another grand generality. So you know the "size that
was considered disastrous" as well as the "people who
coined the term..."
How do you know the present size is not disastrous?
Such things don't happen overnight. Oh, I forgot; if
it doesn't happen in your lifetime, it doesn't count.
You have accomplished something. You annoyed
me.
--
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA
Stupidity is an incurable ailment
Scott Nudds
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Hardly: the population explosion *has* occurred.
: It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
Can you provide any causual evidence for your claim? Your faith in
what you are apparently unable to prove seems highly irrational.
- Hoover Hypocrite ---------------------------------------------------
"The Biomass Alliance doubtless includes farm organizations. The image
that comes to mind is that of a large number of piglets squirming to get
at a teat of the sow." - John McCarthy in SCI.Energy
2 weeks later...
"My research has indeed been supported by the Government - almost
entirely by the Defense Department..." - John McCarthy in SCI.Environment
--
Wayne Hayes
In article <4njqtu$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, jw <jw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <319b797d...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric
>>"Has" occurred? Are you saying that the world's population is now
>>decreasing?
>
>No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
>It is tapering off.
Bullshit. Can you provide a source? My 1994 Global Almanac says the
global annual rate of increase of the world's population is almost
exactly 2%, giving a doubling time of 35 years. This rate has been
pretty much constant for several decades, and in fact has only
fluctuated by a fraction of a percent in more than a century. It
*will* slow down within the next 50 years, but for the worst possible
reason: mass starvation and/or epidemic.
Here's some facts from a lecture by Henry Kendall (nobel prize 1990)
from the John C. Polanyi Inauguration Nobel Laureate Lectures in Toronto
last year. I transposed each of the lectures from memory at the
end of each day (there were 3 days). All of this stuff can be had it
http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne/other/nobel-lectures.html
- snip -
Kendall is (was?) the president and one of the founders of The Union of
Concerned Scientists, a global association of scientists, many of them
very pre-eminent, who are concerned about the moral use and possible
repercussions of science and technology. They have drafted a document
that has been signed by hundreds of very eminent scientists worldwide,
entitled (from memory) "A Warning to Humanity from Scientists and
Technologists". About half of all living Nobel Laureates have signed
it, and many uppity-ups in famous scientific circles, eg England's
Royal Society (correct name?) Swedish Academy of such-and-such, etc.
He read the first few sentences of the declaration, and it was very
blunt, something like (very paraphrased from my memory) "Humanity
cannot continue it's present level of exploitation of the Earth for
much longer. If it continues, calamity on a global scale as never seen
before will occur in the foreseeable future."
Salient points made during his lecture:
- cannot possibly actually predict the next 50 years, because there are
going to be many unforeseen circumstances and advances. But we can say,
generally, the possible bad outcomes of continuing "business as usual"
on a global scale for the next 50 years.
- population is basically the root of most global problems. Viz:
- population now is 5.7 billion - 1 billion in industrialized
countries, 4.7 in developing countries. In 50 years, it will grow to
10 billion, however only from 1 to 1.2 in industrialized countries --
the remainder in developing countries.
- 1 out of every 5 people in the world right now are malnourished; 1 in
10 children are severely so, such that they will either die or suffer
permanent physical/mental damage. Although part of this food shortage
can be attributed to bad distribution, it is in large part an actual
shortage. We are pushing the limits of the Earth's ability to produce
food for increasing billions of people.
- Due to the projected distribution of population growth, it is clear
that the food problem will only get worse in developing countries.
- food problems are caused by many factors: about 80% of all arable
land in the world is already in use; some of it is not being used
properly, eg no crop rotation, so the soil is highly strained and not
producing good yields. Erosion of said soil is also a problem, eg in
places like the Amazon basin, forests are cut down to grow food; within
a few years the soil is eroded away because crops do not hold soil like
a forest; and the farmers must move to a new patch of forest.
- irrigation is another major problem. Even if the soil is arable,
getting enough water to the area can be difficult. This is even a
problem in the US, arguably the most advanced industrialized nation.
If it's hard for the US, it is not reasonable to expect other nations
to have the resources to properly irrigate. (improper irrigation, even
if enough water can be found, can again lead to erosion).
- technology is not a "magic bullet". It is unreasonable to expect
that technology will soon provide an answer to the food problems. In
addition to the basic problems of irreversible soil erosion and water
shortages, we must realize that, when crops are done "properly" (ie, in
the industrialized nations), the yield already is about as close to 100%
efficiency as is possible; at the very least, close enough that a few
percent increase is negligible. We are quickly approaching a hard
limit -- a "brick wall" -- in food supply. And even if we could
increase food supply by, say, a factor of 3, there is still the
distribution problem, and the fact that the current exponential growth
of population means that any constant increase in food supply is going
to give us no more than about an extra 50 years (less than one human
lifetime).
- Fish shortages are the best example of the strain we're putting on
food supplies. Although only about 2% of the world's food comes from
fisheries, the critical fish shortage starting to appear worldwide is
an indicator of forthcoming problems. I'm not sure I'm recalling the
following correctly, but I think he said that Canada is one of the only
countries in the world that is officially recognizing the problem and
forcibly (by law) stopping it's own fishermen from overfishing. Many
other countries are not (I don't recall if he mentioned any other
industrialized countries); it can be shown that economically, it is
most profitable to hunt a species to extinction, and then forget it.
Of course, it is reasonably obvious that this is not a good idea
ecologically. Not only are the fish gone, but we have no idea what
other indirect problems this can cause the the global biosphere.
- Population is a global problem, and industrialized countries must not
think that the population problem is somebody else's problem, even
though the actual growth is in developing countries: "It's not true
that only one end of a boat can sink."
- We are already seeing the beginnings of mass migrations of
"ecological" refugees: people who can't live in their traditional homes
for simple lack of food, water, etc. Imagine how much worse this will
be with twice as many people on the planet. It will be the cause of
serious political unrest, both intra- and inter-national.
- Industrialized nations must help underdeveloped nations in many
areas: education (farmers, birth control, higher education to give
people something else to do other than reproduce, especially women);
money to help build better systems.
--
|| Wayne Hayes, wa...@cs.utoronto.ca
Friends don't let friends watch _Friends_. || Astrophysics & Computer Science
|| http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne
Brian Carnell
On 11 May 1996 16:39:20 GMT, 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F)
wrote:
>Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
>: This is simply wrong as an examination of FAO figures clearly
>: demonstrates.
>Have you not considered that FAO is wrong and the Cornell study is right?
I would consider this if we were seeing a huge jump in food prices or
some other indication that available food is declining per capita
worldwide. There is no evidence for this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell http://www.net-link.net/~briand/
bri...@carnell.com
Brian Carnell
On Tue, 14 May 1996 17:42:30 GMT, dk...@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu (DK)
wrote:
>jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>
>>I suspect most readers have missed my
>>_ZPG Carol_ on Christmas - so I reprint it.
>
>I won't perpetuate this carol but I will ask how old you might be?
>
>I was born in '48. In that relatively short time I have watched the
>quality of life decline dramatically and that decline is obviously due
>to the huge increase of the population in this country.
Are you serious? Have you been awake all these years, because you
seemed to have missed a lot.
In 1950, for example, per capita GDP (in constant 1985 dollars) was
$8,605. By 1989 it was $18,282.
In 1963, per capita consumption of calories was 3,067, while in 1992
it was 3,642 -- a 19 percent jump.
I suppose to you eating more and having more money represents a
decrease in the quality of life.
Brian Carnell
>On Sat, 11 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT, bri...@carnell.com (Brian Carnell)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Ah...one of the Ehrlich-ian nuts. So why has this population 'bomb'
>>continually turned out to be a dud?
>
>
>Long, slow fuse?
Nope. Bad pseudo-science.
Ehrlich and people like Lester Brown at the World Watch Institute seem
to simply hate people just because they hate people.
Their predictions always fail, so they just go on making more
predictions of impending doom.
Brian Carnell
On 15 May 1996 04:36:43 GMT, alte...@ix.netcom.com(Peter M. Blackman
) wrote:
>There is an alternative to chlorine that I have just recently read
>about. By exposing the water to ultraviolet light bacteria is killed.
>The present method limits the throughput so at present it is not
>practical. Our engineers are at work at work trying to find better
>ways to treat our drinking water. Pete
Excellent information Pete.
Of course some environmentalist will claim that exposing water to
ultraviolet light will cause some health problem.
Brian Carnell
On 17 May 1996 16:50:09 GMT, yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>This is a lie. More people are hungry now _in absolute terms_ than ever
>before.
Largely because they live in the communist areas such as China which
you support. I guess your solution would be to force more of their
mothers to abort.
Brian Carnell
>In article <4negd0$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>You're mentioning a few peripheral elements. Why did even
>such a stalwart growth exponent as R. Reagan long for the
>50s again? Even an idiot should realize that infinite expansion
>in a finite space won't work. Of course if you believe in a
>Startrek future...
Because Reagan was an idiot who dreamed of a past that never was. A
lot like the overpopulation enthusiasts.
You're not seriously suggesting, are you, that population will expand
infinitely?
>When I was young I could wander in the Sierra for days
>without seeing another human. Now you need a permit to
>even walk a trail! Of course you'd probably use an ATV.
Oh for the good old days, right! Death to progress!
Nicolas Martin
Paul Makepeace wrote:
>>Oh yea right. We're trying to convince everyone that the planet has a
mouth and stomach and eats food. Sure. And we wan't to distort the truth so
that people think that a university contains a brain of its own. Yeah! We
have an evil hidden agenda! Distort and evade!
And when we see a phrase like "Iraq invaded Kuwait", its an attempt to make
people think that the territory of Iraq grew arms and grabbed a sword and
attacked!
Or could it possibly be the following:
When someone says "the planet eats" it means "the people of the planet
eats" and "a university studied" means "people at the university
studied", and anyone with even the most miniscule brain would understand
that and not need to have it explained to him or her. Sheesh.<<
------
If that is what environmentalists mean, Paul, then let them say that. Of
course, that is not what they mean. They speak of the planet as a living
organism and wish to promulgate the "Mother Earth" paradigm so that people
will feel compassion for the planet.
Of course, I didn't say anything about the agenda (sic) being "hidden." It
is there for all who read and listen. The distortions and evasions are on
the public record.
As for "Iraq invaded Kuwait," I think that is a distortion, as well. It
suits the news media and the governments of those countries to whoop up
public opinion, but the facts are more subtle. The dictatorial government
of Iraq ordered the invasion of the country of Kuwait. The people of Iraq
didn't necessarily agree with the invasion, they probably didn't know it
was going to happen. Even most of the Iraqi soldiers may have opposed the
invasion, but they had little choice but to participate if the alternative
was to be shot. "Iraq," in this example, may refer to the command of one
man over thousands of unwilling or reticent troops. That doesn't make for
boffo headlines, does it?
This sort of distortion appears daily in the news (that term also being a
similar distortion that serves the interest of those who are selling it).
Politicians depend on the pretense that they speak for "all Americans," or
"all parents." They pretend that opposition doesn't exist, except possibly
from the fringe. They want to marginalize potential opposition.
My suggestion is this: environmentalists should say what they mean. If
they mean "people eat," then it is just as easy to write that as "earth
eats," is it not? Why do we need imprecision when we have simple words
that are exact. "Earth eats" could refer to the planet, or, if you are
right, the animals, the plants, the people. Who knows? Why not just be
clear?
George Orwell had, by most reckonings, more than "the most miniscule
brain," and he explained how language is used to deceive in the manner
I've described. I grin knowingly when a senator refers to the support of
"the people," or an environmentalists says that a "university studied."
Those are merely hyperbole meant to puff up the speaker and bolster his
point with postering and nonsense in the absence of facts. I'm confident
that a person who says "Harvard did a study," has no idea who did the
study and has never read the study. Otherwise, why not quote the study? It
makes it rather hard to evaluate a given study if the person mentioning it
doesn't know its name or who authored it. In that circumstance, how do we
even know the study even exists?
The simple solution is to say, "Bruce Ames published the results of a
study entitled, "Natural carcinogens in the diet," in the apr. '96 issue
of Science." That way we can all go get the article and read it. Isn't
that a bit more worthy than "UC Berkeley published a study." What study?
Where is it? Was it done by a biological researcher or a political
scientists (so-called).
One final observation about this thread. Both sides seem more adept at
personal insults than at argumentation. People who rely of calling others
"stupid" or "nuts" don't offer much to a discussion. In fact they detract,
and their points are generally made without proof. Why don't all of you
find actual sources, quote them, use them to make reasoned arguments, and
try to behave as if you have some respect for the opposition and the
facts. Is that too much to ask?
jw
In <4nl2gv$f...@news1.io.org> yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote [replying to a reasonable question]:
>
>: >> It has been a highly beneficial explosion.
>: >Beneficial to whom? You?
>
>: Yes, among others - among 5.7 billion others.
>
>Your moronic drivel is just sooooo tiresome...
Then don't read it... I won't miss you much.
>Who gave you the right to speak for all those people, a lot of whom
are
>suffering terribly from the effects of overpopulation?
So you say. Yet the opposite is true.
Proof: life expectancy has grown as the population did.
>: Don't you have a room? Lock the door and you
>: needn't see a human for months. If solitude is what
>: you are after.
>
>This was probably the result of you practising your unique social
skills?
>I am sure you are not just pissing a lot of people off on the Net, but
>also in real life.
You omit the context. The poster I was responding
to had complained of a lack of solitude. Not I.
jw
In <1996May18....@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> wa...@cs.toronto.edu
(Wayne Hayes) writes:
>
>In article <4njqtu$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, jw
<jw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <319b797d...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz
(Eric
>>>"Has" occurred? Are you saying that the world's population is now
>>>decreasing?
>>
>>No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
>>It is tapering off.
>Bullshit. Can you provide a source?
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base.
Updated 2-28-96
Year Growth
rate
1970 2.07
1975 1.76
1980 1.71
1985 1.68
1990 1.58
1995 1.41
2000 1.28
jw
In <319e8d1f...@nntp.net-link.net> bri...@carnell.com (Brian
Carnell) writes:
>
>On Tue, 14 May 1996 17:42:30 GMT, dk...@psych1.psy.sunysb.edu (DK)
>wrote:
>
>>jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suspect most readers have missed my
>>>_ZPG Carol_ on Christmas - so I reprint it.
>>
>>I won't perpetuate this carol
That's quite OK: I am able to do it myself.
I had some very pleasing mail about it.
>>but I will ask how old you might be?
>>
>>I was born in '48.
I am much older.
>>In that relatively short time I have watched the
>>quality of life decline dramatically and that decline is obviously
due
>>to the huge increase of the population in this country.
No, it has improved dramatically. Brian gives you
some valid proof below; here is some more.
E.g, this Internet is a *great* improvement:
we communicate with millions of people at
minimal expense; we have a huge pool of
data at our hands. This is just a recent
thing. And think of the computer
power in people's hands (e.g., multiply computer
speed by disk space and divide by price).
Color TV, VCRs, inexpensive air flight,
instant photography, hi-fi music, copiers,
pocket calculators - all these have enriched
people's lives in your lifetime. And zillions
of other things that make life easier, more
comfortable and more interesting.
New books, new art, new music
and new movies have been added to our
common heritage.
Work is, on the average, more interesting and more
diverse now.
Air is better, water is better,
food is better. Even lovers of wild nature
(for example) can see much more of it now because
of better transporation and greater incomes.
People are much healthier now and live much longer
than they did in 1948.
jw
In <4nn8df$1...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw)
writes:
><jw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In <319b797d...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz
>(Eric
>>>>"Has" occurred? Are you saying that the world's population is now
>>>>decreasing?
>>>
>>>No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
>>>It is tapering off.
>
>>Bullshit. Can you provide a source?
>
>Updated 2-28-96
>
> Year Growth
> rate
>
> 1970 2.07
> 1975 1.76
> 1980 1.71
> 1985 1.68
> 1990 1.58
> 1995 1.41
> 2000 1.28
The 2000 figure is a projection, of course.
I did not include further projections because
they are not facts, and have been wrong in the
past; but for a date just 4 years off,
I believe they can't go far wrong.
jw
In <4nnbv2$d...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) writes:
>
>In <mcaldon-1805...@la-dial1-27.wavenet.com>>>> population has achieved the size that had been considered
>>> disastrous by people who coined the term "population
>>> explosion". The explosion, in this sense, has happened;
>>> the disaster did not; its opposite did.
>>How do you know the present size is not disastrous?
ife is better now than it was at a lesser
population size. If that one was not disastrous, then
this one is not, a fortiori. If this one is,
let us then try a greater size.
>>Such things don't happen overnight. Oh, I forgot; if
>>it doesn't happen in your lifetime, it doesn't count.
Sure it does.
But here is a little problem for a green brain.
A brick wall is S yards away. How soon
will you hit it if you move, at velocity V,
*away from it*?
Answer: soon enough, if you *reverse direction*.
The world population is growing healthier
and wealthier with each decade of its growth;
but we have a long way to go yet.
The recipe for disaster is to stifle this
growth.
We have serious problems: poverty, disease,
natural disasters. Death itself is a disaster
that awaits each of us.
Problems do not usually solve themselves.
People solve them; they are the problem-solvers.
The more problem-solvers in the world, and the more
means they have at their disposal, the more
assurance that we can cope with each new problem.
The worst danger to the world is, at present,
the anti-growth, conservationist, stagnationist
movement.
Scott Bryan
Gee folks... the grain we feed our livestock is more than enough to
feed the entire human world. Lots of it doesn't even get used for
food products. It ain't the amount, it's what we do with it.
Glen Raphael
In article <4niao1$3...@news1.io.org>, yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : There's
> : less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
>
> before.
No, that is the lie. _Fewer_ people are hungry now _in absolute terms_
than ever before. Surprising but true: the number of people classed by the
United Nations as chronically undernourished fell from 942m in 1970 to
786m in 1990. (Source: _The Economist_, April 20th, 1996, p. 71)
Glen Raphael
--
Glen Raphael
rap...@liberty.batnet.com http://www.batnet.com/liberty
"Without Mint Milanos, life would have no meaning." - Nietzsche
jw
In <mcaldon-1805...@la-dial1-27.wavenet.com>
mca...@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) writes:
>
>In article <4njqtu$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw)
wrote:
>
>> My point, however, was not this - but that the
>> disastrous by people who coined the term "population
>> explosion". The explosion, in this sense, has happened;
>> the disaster did not; its opposite did.
>
>was considered disastrous" as well as the "people who
>coined the term..."
>
>it doesn't happen in your lifetime, it doesn't count.
||"When you reach a point where you realize further
||efforts will be futile, you may as well look
||after yourself and your friends and enjoy
||what little time you have left. That point
||for me is 1972" -- Paul Ehrlich,
author of _The Population Bomb_ and
^^^^
_The Population Explosion_ (_Look_ magazine, Apr. 21, 1971)
>You have accomplished something. You annoyed
>me.
Quite unintentional.
But here is some old stuff to take your mind off
your annoyment:
In <45ico6$d...@shellx.best.com> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
writes:
>
>Jay Hanson cited Lester Brown, another one of his nutty pseudo
>scientists, as evidence that we were about to starve:
>
>Jwas cited some idiotic predictions by Lester Brown:
>
>>-> Lester Brown, 1967: " The trend in grain stocks indicates clearly
>>-> that 1961 marked a worldwide turning point ... food
>>-> consumption moved ahead of production."
>>->
>>->
>>->UN Food and Agriculture Organisation data:
>>->
>>->Year Calories per capita per day in the Third World
>>->
>>->1963 1940
>>->
>>->1992 2473
>>->
>
>To which Jay Hanson made the fascinating reply:
>>So what? What is you point. Please be specific.
Thank you. I did not notice this question...
My specific point is: the sky is _still falling_.
The end is _still nigh_.
We can all sleep soundly
as long as Lester Brown is predicting the worst. Wake
me if he stops...
jw
In <raphael-1905...@liberty.batnet.com>
rap...@liberty.batnet.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
>
>In article <4niao1$3...@news1.io.org>, yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
wrote:
>> jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> : There's
>> : less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
>>
>> This is a lie. More people are hungry now _in absolute terms_ than
ever
>> before.
>
>No, that is the lie. _Fewer_ people are hungry now _in absolute terms_
>than ever before. Surprising but true: the number of people classed by
the
>United Nations as chronically undernourished fell from 942m in 1970 to
>786m in 1990. (Source: _The Economist_, April 20th, 1996, p. 71)
>
>Glen Raphael
Thank you for this statistic, which I did not have.
However, when I said "less hunger", I was speaking,
of course, of percentages - which is the only sane
way to evaluate progress wrt hunger, poverty, crime, infant
mortality or any similar phenomenon.
If a tribe of 1,000 people has 1,000 hungry people,
that tribe is hungry; a planet of 6 billion people
could be considered almost hunger-free if only
1,000 of them were hungry. It is obvious, and
Yuri was simply trying to mislead - besides
being (as you say) wrong about the numbers.
In our case, the world's population was 2,764 million
in mid-1970; it became 5,282 million in mid-1990.
This means that in 1970, 25.4% of the people were
chronically malnourished - but in 1990, only 14.8%.
This is great, huge progress - in only 2 decades.
It also served a less important but interesting purpose:
it tested the neo-malthusian theories about
the finitude of the world's resources.
Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown and others
proclaimed, near the beginning of this period,
that the battle to
feed mankind is lost, that the die-off will
begin in 1970s and continue through 1980's.
That was because they believed that the earth could
feed no more people than it did in 1970.
This is where absolute figures are interesting,
too. Let us count those people that are
*not* chronically malnourished - those whom
the world feeds more or less adequately.
There were 2,764 million
of them in 1970 - and the neomalthusians believed
that this was about the limit. Instead, the number
jumped to 4,496 million in twenty years.
The limits proved a mirage, an optical illusion
like the horizon line - which recedes as you approach it.
It was the same with energy resources or any other
that crisis predictors could point to.
They have all been transcended - how, by what miracle?
A human, not a divine one - people did it.
In other words, the population did it.
Population was not a problem - it was a solution.
So it has always been - and the people who
will save the future world from its problems
are now in cradles,
attempting to stick their toe in their
mouth - a sticky problem to train on.
Let us have more of these experts.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: On 17 May 1996 16:50:09 GMT, yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >This is a lie. More people are hungry now _in absolute terms_ than ever
: >before.
: Largely because they live in the communist areas such as China which
: you support. I guess your solution would be to force more of their
: mothers to abort.
I suppose that you can prove that less people starve in Africa than in
China?
Your one-track mind can see no other factors in creating poverty other
than this Communist obsession of yours?
Yuri.
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Brian Carnell http://www.net-link.net/~briand/
: bri...@carnell.com
--
Yuri Kuchinsky
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4nl2gv$f...@news1.io.org> yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: >Your moronic drivel is just sooooo tiresome...
: Then don't read it... I won't miss you much.
I know you won't. But if you insist on spouting anti-Nature propaganda in
an environmental group, I and others will be there to speak for Nature.
: >Who gave you the right to speak for all those people, a lot of whom
: are
: >suffering terribly from the effects of overpopulation?
: So you say. Yet the opposite is true.
Not.
: Proof: life expectancy has grown as the population did.
Life expectancy does not equal the quality of life. Simple, but not for a
nit-wit such as you.
Yuri.
: >: Don't you have a room? Lock the door and you
: >: needn't see a human for months. If solitude is what
: >: you are after.
: >
: >This was probably the result of you practising your unique social
: skills?
: >I am sure you are not just pissing a lot of people off on the Net, but
: >also in real life.
: You omit the context. The poster I was responding
: to had complained of a lack of solitude. Not I.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The world population is growing healthier
: and wealthier with each decade of its growth;
This is a blatant lie. People like you are the enemies of humanity,
because they try to mask and discount the very real and increasing
suffering of the impoverished masses of the 3 world.
You are a sick man, jw.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Glen Raphael (rap...@liberty.batnet.com) wrote:
: In article <4niao1$3...@news1.io.org>, yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: > jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > : There's
: > : less hunger now than there was in Malthus's time;
: > before.
: No, that is the lie. _Fewer_ people are hungry now _in absolute terms_
: than ever before. Surprising
Why do you say "surprising"? Is it because you _know_ deep inside that
these stats are phoney? I guess so...
: but true: the number of people classed by the
: United Nations as chronically undernourished fell from 942m in 1970 to
: 786m in 1990. (Source: _The Economist_, April 20th, 1996, p. 71)
Great, you got some stats from the pro-business pro-growth publication,
and this is the final word?
This is statistic-juggling, nothing more.
I've spent many years in the 3 world, and my information comes from seeing
things with my own eyes and talking to people. I've lived with the poor
people in those ever-increasing miserable slums. I've seen how they
suffer.
So, yes, I stand by what I said. The human misery in _absolute terms_ is
now GREATER THAN EVER. And nobody would deny that the misery of Nature is
OBVIOUSLY SO now. These two are interrelated.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
: Glen Raphael
: --
: Glen Raphael
: rap...@liberty.batnet.com http://www.batnet.com/liberty
: "Without Mint Milanos, life would have no meaning." - Nietzsche
--
John McCarthy
Yuri Kuchinsky includes:
I've spent many years in the 3 world, and my information
comes from seeing things with my own eyes and talking to
people. I've lived with the poor people in those
ever-increasing miserable slums. I've seen how they suffer.
So, yes, I stand by what I said. The human misery in
_absolute terms_ is now GREATER THAN EVER. And nobody would
deny that the misery of Nature is OBVIOUSLY SO now. These
two are interrelated.
How could he possibly know that on the basis of personal experience?
This is mere bombast.
How many countries did he spend years in?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Heather Hollick
Scott Bryan <ana...@nwrain.com> wrote:
This is debatable. In _The Population Explosion_ (pp6-67) the authors
argue that we have already passed the point were re-distribution will
solve the hunger problem.
Heather Hollick
Heather Hollick
jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>The world population is growing healthier
>and wealthier with each decade of its growth;
>but we have a long way to go yet.
>The recipe for disaster is to stifle this
>growth.
I am afraid I do not see this "healthier and wealthier" thing outside
the developed countries. Yeh, things appear to be improving in my
neighborhood but at what price? I read about soil erosion and the
decline of fresh water sources and I wonder if we aren't running on
borrowed time.
>Problems do not usually solve themselves.
>People solve them; they are the problem-solvers.
>The more problem-solvers in the world, and the more
>means they have at their disposal, the more
>assurance that we can cope with each new problem.
You imply that the number of problem solvers born is in direct
proportion to the number of people born. I am not sure this is true.
In the undeveloped countries I would say that the number of problem
solvers per capita is lower than elsewhere. That leaves it up to the
develped countries to fill the gap. Are we doing so?
>The worst danger to the world is, at present,
>the anti-growth, conservationist, stagnationist
>movement.
This is a strong statement since the anti-growth, conservationist,
stagnationist movement may be comprised of the problem solvers you
referred to above. If this group is not the "problem solvers" then I
don't know where to look for them.
Heather Hollick
"Growth for the sake of growth is the idealogy of the cancer cell."
-- Edward Abbey
John McCarthy
Plow_, the authors backtrack a bit on that claim.
Scott Bryan
Heather Hollick wrote:
>
> Scott Bryan <ana...@nwrain.com> wrote:
>
> >Gee folks... the grain we feed our livestock is more than enough to
> >feed the entire human world. Lots of it doesn't even get used for
> >food products. It ain't the amount, it's what we do with it.
>
> This is debatable. In _The Population Explosion_ (pp6-67) the authors
> argue that we have already passed the point were re-distribution will
> solve the hunger problem.
Heather, I'm not going to argue against population control, I just don't
think human starvation is much of a reason for it. I think the quality of
our biosphere--it's robustness and functional integrity, the diversity it
supports are quite sufficient motivations. Besides, wouldn't we be smarter
to error on the side of caution and have too few people?
BTW--my best friends husband is a bigwig at Cargill. ADM & Cargill
together pretty much feed the world. And ironically, it isn't so much the
cost of the feed that makes livestock expensive--it's the water and waste.
In the same way it's not so much that we can't grow enough food as it is we
can't tolerate the environmental impact of doing so.
Scott Nudds
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: In 1950, for example, per capita GDP (in constant 1985 dollars) was
: $8,605. By 1989 it was $18,282.
How much did wages increase?
: In 1963, per capita consumption of calories was 3,067, while in 1992
: it was 3,642 -- a 19 percent jump.
Fatty food is generally of lower quality and therefore less expensive.
: I suppose to you eating more and having more money represents a
: decrease in the quality of life.
Please tell us how an increase in GDP translates to greater wealth for
the citizens of a country.
Please explain how eating more fat translates to a better quality of
life for the citizens of a country.
--
Scott Nudds
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: You're not seriously suggesting, are you, that population will expand
: infinitely?
Doubtful. Why do you create this straw man?
--
Scott Nudds
: >before.
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: Largely because they live in the communist areas such as China which
: you support. I guess your solution would be to force more of their
: mothers to abort.
Funny, we don't hear of many people dying of starvation in China. All
indications are that their rate of food production has never been better.
What do you think you are talking about?
- Hoover Hypocrite ---------------------------------------------------
"The Biomass Alliance doubtless includes farm organizations. The image
that comes to mind is that of a large number of piglets squirming to get
at a teat of the sow." - John McCarthy in SCI.Energy
2 weeks later...
"My research has indeed been supported by the Government - almost
entirely by the Defense Department..." - John McCarthy in SCI.Environment
--
Scott Nudds
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: It also served a less important but interesting purpose:
: it tested the neo-malthusian theories about
: the finitude of the world's resources.
Is "finitude" a word??? No matter... I was not aware that the finite
nature of the worlds resources was a "theory". Perhaps you can explain
your theory of the infinite nature of the earth.
: So it has always been - and the people who
: will save the future world from its problems
: are now in cradles,
: attempting to stick their toe in their
: mouth - a sticky problem to train on.
: Let us have more of these experts.
You have such faith in your religion. What a shame it is not based on
science. Religions never are.
--
Scott Nudds
: Yuri Kuchinsky includes:
: I've spent many years in the 3 world, and my information
: comes from seeing things with my own eyes and talking to
: people. I've lived with the poor people in those
: ever-increasing miserable slums. I've seen how they suffer.
John McCarthy (j...@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: How could he possibly know that on the basis of personal experience?
: This is mere bombast.
Gee, I don't know John my boy. I can think of no better way to
evaluate the suffering of a people than to actually see it with ones own
eyes.
Do you really think you can know suffering based on measurements of
GDP, rate of fuel consumption, etc?
You need to get out more...
Scott Nudds
jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >>No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
: >>It is tapering off.
: >Bullshit. Can you provide a source?
JW:
: Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base.
: Updated 2-28-96
: Year Growth
: rate
: 1970 2.07
: 1975 1.76
: 1980 1.71
: 1985 1.68
: 1990 1.58
: 1995 1.41
: 2000 1.28
Apparently you don't know what the term "exponential" means Jw.
Please explain to us how growth as expressed as a percentage does not
represent exponential growth.
You appear to be attempting to redefine the term. How conservative of you.
--
Scott Nudds
Glen Raphael (rap...@liberty.batnet.com) wrote:
: No, that is the lie. _Fewer_ people are hungry now _in absolute terms_
: than ever before. Surprising but true: the number of people classed by the
: United Nations as chronically undernourished fell from 942m in 1970 to
: 786m in 1990. (Source: _The Economist_, April 20th, 1996, p. 71)
I have always found the economist to be an unreliable source of
information. The problem here is that the numbers are given for single
years only. I suspect this was done as a method of abusing the
statistics to show a result contrary to the trend.
Does anyone have averages for the decade of the 70's compared to the
decade of the 80's?
Makepeace Paul F
Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: On 11 May 1996 16:39:20 GMT, 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace Paul F)
: wrote:
: >Brian Carnell (bri...@carnell.com) wrote:
: >: This is simply wrong as an examination of FAO figures clearly
: >: demonstrates.
: >Have you not considered that FAO is wrong and the Cornell study is right?
: I would consider this if we were seeing a huge jump in food prices or
: some other indication that available food is declining per capita
: worldwide. There is no evidence for this.
Prices are a very poor indicator of scarcity. You should not rely on it
to measure food supply.
- Paul
*************************************************************************
* "I never give them hell. I just tell them the truth and they think *
* it's hell." *
* - Harry Truman *
* *
* Email: 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca Web page: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~4pfm *
*************************************************************************
Yuri Kuchinsky
Thanks, Wayne, for posting this very relevant info. I was there at these
lectures myself last year, but didn't take notes.
I think the scientific community has pretty well reached a consensus
about this issue. The threat of global population pressure is too obvious
for people who study the real world honestly to disregard.
It is only the religious and crypto-religious fanatics who resist the
confrontation with reality, and prefer to bury their heads in the sand.
All the best,
Yuri.
Wayne Hayes (wa...@cs.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In article <4njqtu$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, jw <jw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >In <319b797d...@news.iprolink.co.nz> stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric
: >>"Has" occurred? Are you saying that the world's population is now
: >>decreasing?
: >
: >No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
: >It is tapering off.
: Bullshit. Can you provide a source? My 1994 Global Almanac says the
: global annual rate of increase of the world's population is almost
: exactly 2%, giving a doubling time of 35 years. This rate has been
: pretty much constant for several decades, and in fact has only
: fluctuated by a fraction of a percent in more than a century. It
: *will* slow down within the next 50 years, but for the worst possible
: reason: mass starvation and/or epidemic.
: Here's some facts from a lecture by Henry Kendall (nobel prize 1990)
: from the John C. Polanyi Inauguration Nobel Laureate Lectures in Toronto
: last year. I transposed each of the lectures from memory at the
: end of each day (there were 3 days). All of this stuff can be had it
: http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne/other/nobel-lectures.html
: - snip -
: Kendall is (was?) the president and one of the founders of The Union of
: Concerned Scientists, a global association of scientists, many of them
: very pre-eminent, who are concerned about the moral use and possible
: repercussions of science and technology. They have drafted a document
: that has been signed by hundreds of very eminent scientists worldwide,
: entitled (from memory) "A Warning to Humanity from Scientists and
: Technologists". About half of all living Nobel Laureates have signed
: it, and many uppity-ups in famous scientific circles, eg England's
: Royal Society (correct name?) Swedish Academy of such-and-such, etc.
: He read the first few sentences of the declaration, and it was very
: blunt, something like (very paraphrased from my memory) "Humanity
: cannot continue it's present level of exploitation of the Earth for
: much longer. If it continues, calamity on a global scale as never seen
: before will occur in the foreseeable future."
: Salient points made during his lecture:
: - cannot possibly actually predict the next 50 years, because there are
: going to be many unforeseen circumstances and advances. But we can say,
: generally, the possible bad outcomes of continuing "business as usual"
: on a global scale for the next 50 years.
: - population is basically the root of most global problems. Viz:
: - population now is 5.7 billion - 1 billion in industrialized
: countries, 4.7 in developing countries. In 50 years, it will grow to
: 10 billion, however only from 1 to 1.2 in industrialized countries --
: the remainder in developing countries.
: - 1 out of every 5 people in the world right now are malnourished; 1 in
: 10 children are severely so, such that they will either die or suffer
: permanent physical/mental damage. Although part of this food shortage
: can be attributed to bad distribution, it is in large part an actual
: shortage. We are pushing the limits of the Earth's ability to produce
: food for increasing billions of people.
: - Due to the projected distribution of population growth, it is clear
: that the food problem will only get worse in developing countries.
: - food problems are caused by many factors: about 80% of all arable
: land in the world is already in use; some of it is not being used
: properly, eg no crop rotation, so the soil is highly strained and not
: producing good yields. Erosion of said soil is also a problem, eg in
: places like the Amazon basin, forests are cut down to grow food; within
: a few years the soil is eroded away because crops do not hold soil like
: a forest; and the farmers must move to a new patch of forest.
: - irrigation is another major problem. Even if the soil is arable,
: getting enough water to the area can be difficult. This is even a
: problem in the US, arguably the most advanced industrialized nation.
: If it's hard for the US, it is not reasonable to expect other nations
: to have the resources to properly irrigate. (improper irrigation, even
: if enough water can be found, can again lead to erosion).
: - technology is not a "magic bullet". It is unreasonable to expect
: that technology will soon provide an answer to the food problems. In
: addition to the basic problems of irreversible soil erosion and water
: shortages, we must realize that, when crops are done "properly" (ie, in
: the industrialized nations), the yield already is about as close to 100%
: efficiency as is possible; at the very least, close enough that a few
: percent increase is negligible. We are quickly approaching a hard
: limit -- a "brick wall" -- in food supply. And even if we could
: increase food supply by, say, a factor of 3, there is still the
: distribution problem, and the fact that the current exponential growth
: of population means that any constant increase in food supply is going
: to give us no more than about an extra 50 years (less than one human
: lifetime).
: - Fish shortages are the best example of the strain we're putting on
: food supplies. Although only about 2% of the world's food comes from
: fisheries, the critical fish shortage starting to appear worldwide is
: an indicator of forthcoming problems. I'm not sure I'm recalling the
: following correctly, but I think he said that Canada is one of the only
: countries in the world that is officially recognizing the problem and
: forcibly (by law) stopping it's own fishermen from overfishing. Many
: other countries are not (I don't recall if he mentioned any other
: industrialized countries); it can be shown that economically, it is
: most profitable to hunt a species to extinction, and then forget it.
: Of course, it is reasonably obvious that this is not a good idea
: ecologically. Not only are the fish gone, but we have no idea what
: other indirect problems this can cause the the global biosphere.
: - Population is a global problem, and industrialized countries must not
: think that the population problem is somebody else's problem, even
: though the actual growth is in developing countries: "It's not true
: that only one end of a boat can sink."
: - We are already seeing the beginnings of mass migrations of
: "ecological" refugees: people who can't live in their traditional homes
: for simple lack of food, water, etc. Imagine how much worse this will
: be with twice as many people on the planet. It will be the cause of
: serious political unrest, both intra- and inter-national.
: - Industrialized nations must help underdeveloped nations in many
: areas: education (farmers, birth control, higher education to give
: people something else to do other than reproduce, especially women);
: money to help build better systems.
: --
: || Wayne Hayes, wa...@cs.utoronto.ca
: Friends don't let friends watch _Friends_. || Astrophysics & Computer Science
: || http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~wayne
--
Yuri Kuchinsky :: * * * * * *
Toronto :: All power corrupts, but we need the electricity.
:::::::::::::::::
http://www.io.org/~yuku
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
http://www.io.org/~yuku | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
George Boggs
In article <4nq7aj$h...@knot.queensu.ca>, 4p...@qlink.queensu.ca (Makepeace
Paul F) wrote:
> [...]
>
> Prices are a very poor indicator of scarcity. You should not rely on it
> to measure food supply.
>
Yeah. I mean, look how scarce dirt is and how abundant platinum is. If you
compare the price per gram, you can see that the whole darn thing is
backwards. Same thing for nitrogen and xenon. And as cheap as wheat is,
why, you'd think that there was a *surplus* or something. Geez.
G. Boggs
gbo...@uswest.com Evolution is cleverer than you are.
-- Francis Crick
Mark O. Wilson
yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4nl2gv$f...@news1.io.org> yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>
>: >Your moronic drivel is just sooooo tiresome...
>
>: Then don't read it... I won't miss you much.
>
>I know you won't. But if you insist on spouting anti-Nature propaganda in
>an environmental group, I and others will be there to speak for Nature.
Who gave you the right to speak for nature?
Mark O. Wilson
yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: The world population is growing healthier
>: and wealthier with each decade of its growth;
>
>This is a blatant lie. People like you are the enemies of humanity,
>because they try to mask and discount the very real and increasing
>suffering of the impoverished masses of the 3 world.
The statistics given by others indicate that it is you that is lieing. Do
you have any counter statistics, or do you expect us to accept your
word alone?
Mark O. Wilson
yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Your one-track mind can see no other factors in creating poverty other
>than this Communist obsession of yours?
Communism has created more misery in the last 50 years then all other
causes combined.
sn...@swcp.com
[newsgroups trimmed]
In article <4npdc7$a...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote:
>jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >>No; but its increase is not exponential any more.
>: >>It is tapering off.
>: >Bullshit. Can you provide a source?
>JW:
>: Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base.
>: Updated 2-28-96
>: Year Growth
>: rate
>: 1970 2.07
>: 1975 1.76
>: 1980 1.71
>: 1985 1.68
>: 1990 1.58
>: 1995 1.41
>: 2000 1.28
>Apparently you don't know what the term "exponential" means Jw.
>Please explain to us how growth as expressed as a percentage does not
>represent exponential growth.
>You appear to be attempting to redefine the term. How conservative of you.
Is anyone else confused by Scott's reply?
Why do jw's figures not indicate non-exponential behavior? What does
percentage have to do with this?
snark
Scott Bryan
This is completely off-topic, but does anyone wonder how our language
will ever evolve to be self-authenticating (like the language of our
genes) if we never disconnect our prose from its source?
I know it's very difficult for me to discount the weight of an authority
I respect and admire, but I'm begining to wonder if that's such a good
idea. Any thoughts?
: Here's some facts from a lecture by Henry Kendall (nobel prize 1990)
: from the John C. Polanyi Inauguration Nobel Laureate Lectures in...
: ... a global association of scientists, many of them
: very pre-eminent, ...
: ... that has been signed by hundreds of very eminent scientists ...
: ... About half of all living Nobel Laureates have signed
: it, and many uppity-ups in famous scientific circles, eg...
Don McKenzie
In article <4nngd0$8...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
[snip]
> >>How do you know the present size is not disastrous?
>
> ife is better now than it was at a lesser
> population size. If that one was not disastrous, then
> this one is not, a fortiori. If this one is,
> let us then try a greater size.
>
> >>Such things don't happen overnight. Oh, I forgot; if
> >>it doesn't happen in your lifetime, it doesn't count.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> But here is a little problem for a green brain.
> A brick wall is S yards away. How soon
> will you hit it if you move, at velocity V,
> *away from it*?
>
> Answer: soon enough, if you *reverse direction*.
>
Another simplistic analogy. To "reverse direction" may
not be possible. This protracted wrangle reminds me that
"a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion
still." I'm outa here.
--
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA
Stupidity is an incurable ailment
AnnE R. Austin
Not crazy about you using Cargill and ADM on the same line, SB. If you
do, please put Cargill 1st! ;)
antirush
On Mon, 20 May 1996 14:00:05 +0000, Scott Bryan <ana...@nwrain.com> wrote:
BIG GIANT_ASS SNIP!
I've read that the Earth's MAXIMUM Population is Near 10 Billion.
If this is so, give or take 2 Billion, We are in some serious ass trouble..soon!
But lets just wait and see, follow the GOP Plan...
If it DOES Happen...Oops.!
-------------------------------------------------
You Can't Polish A Turd..It's STILL A Turd...
-------------------------------------------------
jw
In <4nopp5$j...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> hhol...@ix.netcom.com (Heather
Hollick) writes:
>jw...@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>>The world population is growing healthier
>>and wealthier with each decade of its growth;
>>The recipe for disaster is to stifle this
>>growth.
>
>I am afraid I do not see this "healthier and wealthier" thing outside
>the developed countries.
No, this even more true outside trhe developed countries.
Healthier: life expectancy in underdeveloped countries
increases by about half a year every year; in developed
countries by about two months every year.
Wealthier the GNP of underdeveloped countries grows by about
6 percent every year: about 4 percent per capita.
In developed countries, it is about 2 percent overall,
about 1 percent per capita.
>Yeh, things appear to be improving in my
>neighborhood but at what price? I read about soil erosion and the
>decline of fresh water sources and I wonder if we aren't running on
>borrowed time.
Well, we are not. These and similar fears have been
voiced since immemorial times, and growth has continued.
Soil erosion does not prevent increased
crop yields now, and cannot in the future.
Agriculture does not really
need soil: soil is merely one possible
conduit for water and nutrients to
each the plant.
As for fresh water resources: water
is recyclable, and there's more than enough
salt water that can be made fresh.
Both these concerns - and most others -
are really reducible to *energy* resources.
And these are quite inexhaustible.
Just the sunlight hitting the Earth every year
could supply all human energy needs for several
thousand years.
>>Problems do not usually solve themselves.
>>People solve them; they are the problem-solvers.
>>The more problem-solvers in the world, and the more
>>means they have at their disposal, the more
>>assurance that we can cope with each new problem.
>
>You imply that the number of problem solvers born is in direct
>proportion to the number of people born. I am not sure this is true.
Of course it is true: all people solve problems.
You might question whether their collective productivity
in problem-solving is proportional to their numbers,
and you would be right: it is much more than
proportional, due to the effects of cooperation
and information exchange. This is why progress
is palpably accelerating.
>In the undeveloped countries I would say that the number of problem
>solvers per capita is lower than elsewhere.
This is of course not true: see above. Their *productivity*
in problem solving, as in other things, is less -
but it is growing.
>That leaves it up to the
>develped countries to fill the gap. Are we doing so?
More and more: because there are more and more of us
as new nations join us.
Also because *our* problem-sloving productivity is
improving, too - the computer revolution alone is
increasing it rapidly in practically every field.
More and more people are busy producing information
(every unit of which is different)
rather than standard, uniform objects.
>>The worst danger to the world is, at present,
>>the anti-growth, conservationist, stagnationist
>>movement.
>This is a strong statement
But not hyperbolic: I do mean it literally.
>since the anti-growth, conservationist,
>stagnationist movement may be comprised of the problem solvers you
>referred to above.
No, unless you count one and the same universal "solution":
do not live, and then you do not have to worry.
These people represent the resistance to progress,
the friction that slows it down.
>If this group is not the "problem solvers" then I
>don't know where to look for them.
Why, we've just discussed a solved problem:
the world is feeding twice as many people
as it did in the sixties, and feeding them
better. Who has solved this problem?
Certainly not the stagnationists who insisted it
couldn't be done! - but geneticists, selectionists,
engineers, chemists, traders, investors - and of course
farmers. These people are the problem solvers;
so are programmers and plumbers and carpenters and
car mechanics; and of course all parents.
All productive, constructive
people. But not muggers and burglars, or regulators
and taxers. People who deal in hard facts and logic,
but not quacks and ideological mythmakers.
Rationalists and empiricists, but not New Age shamans.
People who painstakingly separate truth from
error, and not those who babble that all truth is
relative.
People who pulled us up from the
hunter-gatherer age, and are propelling us into the
space age, and not those who would reverse this
progress.
Those who say: there's a limit ahead,
let's fall back and stay back, do not provide
a *solution* - but those
who advance to the limit and transcend it, do.
These are the motor of progress - and those are
its drag.
The environmentalist movement is almost entirely on
one side of this distinction:
anti-human, anti-progress, and anti-truth.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Mark O. Wilson (Mark.O...@atlantaGA.ncr.com) wrote:
: yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >jw (jw...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <4nl2gv$f...@news1.io.org> yu...@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
: >
: >: >Your moronic drivel is just sooooo tiresome...
: >
: >: Then don't read it... I won't miss you much.
: >
: >I know you won't. But if you insist on spouting anti-Nature propaganda in
: >an environmental group, I and others will be there to speak for Nature.
: Who gave you the right to speak for nature?
Nature.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: I've spent many years in the 3 world, and my information
: comes from seeing things with my own eyes and talking to
: people. I've lived with the poor people in those
: ever-increasing miserable slums. I've seen how they suffer.
: So, yes, I stand by what I said. The human misery in
: _absolute terms_ is now GREATER THAN EVER. And nobody would
: deny that the misery of Nature is OBVIOUSLY SO now. These
: two are interrelated.
: How could he possibly know that on the basis of personal experience?
: This is mere bombast.
Well, then perhaps you should watch more TV? How about "The Hard Copy"?
: How many countries did he spend years in?
Philippines, India, China, Mexico, Thailand, Egypt... the list can go on.
How many do you want?
: --
: John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
: *
: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
--