Shortening life spans to learn respect - side effects

[dav...@agent.com]

And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
it on medical procedures and assisted living!

And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!

[...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:12:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

So become a public benefactor and die already!

Sheeeesh...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com:
>
>>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>
>>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>
>So become a public benefactor and die already!

When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
When did you give up? Be honest!

[Wolffan]

On 2016 Apr 26, dav...@agent.com wrote
(in article<60qthb5n8h3b3g612...@4ax.com>):

Yesterday.

Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.

>
> When did you give up?

Haven’t given up, just getting enough ammo.
> Be honest!

Stand still so I don’t waste ammo.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:01:55 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

What, you still around? When are you going to die to
demonstrate your plan?

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com:
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>
>>>>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>
>>>>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>
>>>So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>
>>When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>>When did you give up? Be honest!
>
>What, you still around? When are you going to die to
>demonstrate your plan?

The plan doesn't go into effect until it achieves
general acceptance!

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:21:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

I didn't say "put it into effect", I said "demonstrate it".
You know, to show whether it has any merit; once you're dead
we can evaluate whether it achieved its stated goal and
should be implemented. Learn to read for comprehension.

[jillery]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:44:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:21:39 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>
>>>>>So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>>>
>>>>When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>>>>When did you give up? Be honest!
>>>
>>>What, you still around? When are you going to die to
>>>demonstrate your plan?
>>
>>The plan doesn't go into effect until it achieves
>>general acceptance!
>
>I didn't say "put it into effect", I said "demonstrate it".
>You know, to show whether it has any merit; once you're dead
>we can evaluate whether it achieved its stated goal and
>should be implemented. Learn to read for comprehension.

Not that I wish him ill, or want him dead, but if he did die, there
might be a little more peace in T.O. which is about 1 part in 7
billion of the world, give or take.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com:
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>
>>>>>So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>>>
>>>>When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>>>>When did you give up? Be honest!
>>>
>>>What, you still around? When are you going to die to
>>>demonstrate your plan?
>>
>>The plan doesn't go into effect until it achieves
>>general acceptance!
>
>I didn't say "put it into effect", I said "demonstrate it".
>You know, to show whether it has any merit; once you're dead
>we can evaluate whether it achieved its stated goal and
>should be implemented. Learn to read for comprehension.

You forgot to say "Simon says"! lol

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:01:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

OK. Simon says, learn to read for comprehension. Better now?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:37:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

One small step for a group...

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com:
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>
>>>>>So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>>>
>>>>When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>>>>When did you give up? Be honest!
>>>
>>>What, you still around? When are you going to die to
>>>demonstrate your plan?
>>
>>The plan doesn't go into effect until it achieves
>>general acceptance!
>
>I didn't say "put it into effect", I said "demonstrate it".
>You know, to show whether it has any merit; once you're dead
>we can evaluate whether it achieved its stated goal and
>should be implemented. Learn to read for comprehension.

When the President says we need to fight and die,
you send him a text msg: "You first! You first!"

[dav...@agent.com]

Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote

>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>wrote:
>> > dav...@agent.com:
>> >
>> > > And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>> > > more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>> > > it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>> > >
>> > > And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>> > > because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>> >
>> > So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>
>> When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>
>Yesterday.
>
>Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
>Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.

"Peace cannot be kept by force;
it can only be achieved by understanding." --Albert Einstein

[jillery]

On Mon, 02 May 2016 01:18:37 -0400, dav...@agent.com wrote:

>Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dav...@agent.com wrote
>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>wrote:
>>> > dav...@agent.com:
>>> >
>>> > > And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>> > > more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>> > > it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>> > >
>>> > > And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>> > > because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>> >
>>> > So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>>
>>> When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>>
>>Yesterday.
>>
>>Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
>>Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.
>
>"Peace cannot be kept by force;
>it can only be achieved by understanding." --Albert Einstein

Do you really think one can withhold medical treatment from people
without force?

>>> When did you give up?
>>
>>Haven’t given up, just getting enough ammo.
>>> Be honest!
>>
>>Stand still so I don’t waste ammo.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 02, dav...@agent.com wrote
(in article<6oodibhcoau51pe2o...@4ax.com>):

> Wolffan<AKWo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > dav...@agent.com wrote
> > > Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>wrote:
> > > > dav...@agent.com:
> > > >
> > > > > And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
> > > > > more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
> > > > > it on medical procedures and assisted living!
> > > > >
> > > > > And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
> > > > > because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
> > > >
> > > > So become a public benefactor and die already!
> > >
> > > When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
> >
> > Yesterday.
> >
> > Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
> > Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.
>
> "Peace cannot be kept by force;
> it can only be achieved by understanding." --Albert Einstein

That so? I guess that the reason why the Nazis ain’t running Germany no
more is ‘cause everyone else was so understanding. Thou art a twit.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 May 2016 07:30:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com>:

Actually, he has a sort-of point (even if it has nothing to
do with his "plan", which would require a good deal of force
to implement): Once we understood the Nazis we made them
peaceful; "There ain't nothin' more gentle and peaceful than
a dead man" (from "The Rifle, Man").

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 May 2016 01:17:03 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

[Wolffan]

On 2016 May 02, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<gs3fibdgpbee4fnqs...@4ax.com>):

Ah. Someone else who read Mad magazine back when it was funny.

[John Stockwell]

Dave, Ghandi said "be the change". If you are still here by next Monday, then
we know that you are just an idle bullshitter.

-John

[Matt Beasley]

jillery wrote:
> dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >Wolffan wrote:
> >> dav...@agent.com wrote
> >>> Bob Casanovawrote:

> >>> > dav...@agent.com:
> >>> >
> >>> > > And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
> >>> > > more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
> >>> > > it on medical procedures and assisted living!
> >>> > >
> >>> > > And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
> >>> > > because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
> >>> >
> >>> > So become a public benefactor and die already!
> >>>
> >>> When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
> >>
> >>Yesterday.
> >>
> >>Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
> >>Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.
> >
> >"Peace cannot be kept by force;
> >it can only be achieved by understanding." --Albert Einstein
>
>
> Do you really think one can withhold medical treatment from people
> without force?

I don't want to withhold treatment. I want to
stop /preventing/ some communicable diseases.
Prevention and treatment are two different things.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 May 2016 13:51:51 -0400, the following appeared

Take a gold star! ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com>:

We already know that. He has repeatedly refused to
demonstrate the validity of his "plan"; that's for the peons
to do.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 11:16:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Matt Beasley
<less...@gmail.com>:

>jillery wrote:
>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> >Wolffan wrote:
>> >> dav...@agent.com wrote
>> >>> Bob Casanovawrote:
>> >>> > dav...@agent.com:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>> >>> > > more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>> >>> > > it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>> >>> > > because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>> >>> >
>> >>> > So become a public benefactor and die already!
>> >>>
>> >>> When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>> >>
>> >>Yesterday.
>> >>
>> >>Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
>> >>Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.
>> >
>> >"Peace cannot be kept by force;
>> >it can only be achieved by understanding." --Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>> Do you really think one can withhold medical treatment from people
>> without force?
>
>I don't want to withhold treatment. I want to
>stop /preventing/ some communicable diseases.
>Prevention and treatment are two different things.

Are you willing to forego preventive treatment for yourself,
for *all* diseases? If so, feel free to do so, but stay away
from others so they don't become unwilling participants in
your experiment.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you contract a disease after
refusing preventive treatment the best you should hope for
is to be quarantined; no palliative treatment should be
administered. Your choice; you take the consequences.

>> >>> When did you give up?
>> >>
>> >>Haven't given up, just getting enough ammo.
>> >>> Be honest!
>> >>
>> >>Stand still so I don't waste ammo.
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

And what difference do you see between the two, as far as the force
that would be required, and the results assuming you accomplished it?

[Matt Beasley]

jillery wrote:

It doesn't take a whole lot of force to put the consequences
of our actions on other creatures & future generations, does it?
I see it as "pay now or pay later". Whatever your conscience allows.

[jillery]

So you see no difference between withholding treatment and not
preventing communicable diseases. Of course, that's my point; there
is no difference in the amount of force required for either. I'm glad
you agree.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 03 May 2016 12:49:29 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

> If so, feel free to do so, but stay away
>from others so they don't become unwilling participants in
>your experiment.
>
>And as far as I'm concerned, if you contract a disease after
>refusing preventive treatment the best you should hope for
>is to be quarantined; no palliative treatment should be
>administered. Your choice; you take the consequences.

So that's OK by you?

[dav...@agent.com]

Stopping prevention would consist primarily in banning some vaccines.
Withholding treatment would mean preventing doctors from doing
their job. Not even close in the amount of force required.

[jillery]

Banning known good vaccines *is* a case of preventing doctors from
doing their jobs.

Try to think about what you post *before* you post it, if only for the
novelty of it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:07:35 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

If he could do that he never would have posted his idiotic
"plan" in the first place.

[dav...@agent.com]

The only way we could possibly enact the shortening of life spans
is by passing a law thru Congress, by our elected representatives,
which means there would have to be general agreement in the
public to do so. It would be no harder to enforce than any other
law passed by Congress.

[jillery]

Your argument above is that any law passed by Congress implicitly has
the support and cooperation of the people it affects. If that were
true, there wouldn't be any problem with illegal firearms and drugs.

But I'll do you one better. To pass a Constitutional Amendment
requires approval of Congress *and* a super-majority of 3/4 of all
state legislatures. By your reasoning, any such legislation would
have even more support by the public. Now go look up what happened
with Prohibition.

You really, really should think about what you post before you post

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/12/16 11:14 PM, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>>>>>>>>

> [...]

> The only way we could possibly enact the shortening of life spans
> is by passing a law thru Congress, by our elected representatives,
> which means there would have to be general agreement in the
> public to do so. It would be no harder to enforce than any other
> law passed by Congress.

Have you ever considered studying actual real-world demographics, and
looking to see what factors affect population growth and decline?

Short of world pandemic on par with the mediaeval Black Death (and even
that would be only a temporary fix), probably the most effective known
way to reduce population growth is to make jobs readily available to women.

Have you been to Japan lately? What is their vaccination rate? What is
their population growth rate?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:02:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

>On 5/12/16 11:14 PM, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> [...]
>> The only way we could possibly enact the shortening of life spans
>> is by passing a law thru Congress, by our elected representatives,
>> which means there would have to be general agreement in the
>> public to do so. It would be no harder to enforce than any other
>> law passed by Congress.
>
>Have you ever considered studying actual real-world demographics, and
>looking to see what factors affect population growth and decline?
>
>Short of world pandemic on par with the mediaeval Black Death (and even
>that would be only a temporary fix), probably the most effective known
>way to reduce population growth is to make jobs readily available to women.
>
>Have you been to Japan lately? What is their vaccination rate? What is
>their population growth rate?

His mind (such as it is) is made up; stop trying to confuse
him with facts.

[dav...@agent.com]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> [...]
>> The only way we could possibly enact the shortening of life spans
>> is by passing a law thru Congress, by our elected representatives,
>> which means there would have to be general agreement in the
>> public to do so. It would be no harder to enforce than any other
>> law passed by Congress.
>
>Have you ever considered studying actual real-world demographics, and
>looking to see what factors affect population growth and decline?

So what's your plan for peace?

[dav...@agent.com]

General agreement doesn't mean Unanimous agreement!

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com:
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>dav...@agent.com:

>>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>
>>>>>So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>>>
>>>>When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?

>>>>When did you give up? Be honest!
>>>
>>>What, you still around? When are you going to die to
>>>demonstrate your plan?
>>
>>The plan doesn't go into effect until it achieves
>>general acceptance!
>
>I didn't say "put it into effect", I said "demonstrate it".
>You know, to show whether it has any merit; once you're dead
>we can evaluate whether it achieved its stated goal and
>should be implemented. Learn to read for comprehension.

My plan is for all people to demonstrate respect for other creatures
and future generations, to make it easier to learn to respect
each other! Not hard to understand!

[dav...@agent.com]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> [...]
>> The only way we could possibly enact the shortening of life spans
>> is by passing a law thru Congress, by our elected representatives,
>> which means there would have to be general agreement in the
>> public to do so. It would be no harder to enforce than any other
>> law passed by Congress.
>
>Have you ever considered studying actual real-world demographics, and
>looking to see what factors affect population growth and decline?
>
>Short of world pandemic on par with the mediaeval Black Death (and even
>that would be only a temporary fix), probably the most effective known
>way to reduce population growth is to make jobs readily available to women.
>
>Have you been to Japan lately? What is their vaccination rate? What is
>their population growth rate?

What about all the other countries? If you pick and choose,
you can paint any kind of picture you want!

[Mark Isaak]

Isn't that exactly what you are doing, presenting just one unresearched
strategy?

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/14/16 10:45 PM, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dav...@agent.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>> The only way we could possibly enact the shortening of life spans
>>> is by passing a law thru Congress, by our elected representatives,
>>> which means there would have to be general agreement in the
>>> public to do so. It would be no harder to enforce than any other
>>> law passed by Congress.
>>
>> Have you ever considered studying actual real-world demographics, and
>> looking to see what factors affect population growth and decline?
>
> So what's your plan for peace?

Double-paned windows. They cut down a lot of the outside noise.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 02:11:15 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

That's a wish, not a plan. Plans have implementation
strategies. And you *still* refuse to say when you plan to
demonstrate yours, starting with your voluntary infection.
Again, I suggest H5N1, and no treatment.

[jillery]

...or general disagreement or Unanimous disagreement! The point is, a
law passing Congress has at best a marginal correlation to any
hypothetical agreement of it from the general public. The greater
correlation, by far, is its support from monied special interests
groups.

>>But I'll do you one better. To pass a Constitutional Amendment
>>requires approval of Congress *and* a super-majority of 3/4 of all
>>state legislatures. By your reasoning, any such legislation would
>>have even more support by the public. Now go look up what happened
>>with Prohibition.
>>
>>You really, really should think about what you post before you post
>>it.

So we have established that you're ignorant about current events and
history. What remains uncertain is whether you're too lazy, stupid,
dishonest, or some combination of the three, to look up the history of
Prohibition. I leave it as an exercise which is the greater problem.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 07:51:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

But that's *different*! He's *special*!

[dav...@agent.com]

>look up the history of Prohibition.

History is repeating itself as we speak, with the War on Drugs!

[dav...@agent.com]

>Isn't that what you're doing, presenting just one unresearched
>strategy?

If you're not willing to respect other creatures and future
generations (by shortening life spans), why should anyone
believe that you're willing to respect *them*?

[dav...@agent.com]

The plan is to shorten life spans, to demonstrate respect.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 04:26:56 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

You first. Since you don't care for H5N1, how about Ebola?
Or Lyme?

[jillery]

So now you agree with what you disagreed with before, still included
in the quoted text above. I'm glad you finally figured it out.

[dav...@agent.com]

I'm the only one calling for shortening life spans to show respect.
When enough others learn to agree, there will be the support
to get the thing going. So I've *been* leading by example, all along;
it's right in front of your face & you can't see it! lol

[dav...@agent.com]

Oh, I see you're still feigning interest in this subject! lol

[jillery]

To the contrary, I have sincerely expressed nothing but disrespect for
your stupid troll. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

[dav...@agent.com]

>I have sincerely expressed nothing but disrespect for
>your stupid troll. I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference.

You don't have to like the way Nature works;
you just have to accept it!

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 18:18:07 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

And yet you adamantly refuse to shorten your own. A pity,
that...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 23:06:07 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

Nature abhors a vacuum; guard your skull carefully.

[dav...@agent.com]

Politics as Usual Tool Kit:
1. Play the blame game 2. Tell lies 3. Call names
4. Put words in mouth. 5. Put spin on it.
6. Change the subject. 7. Play dumb. 8. Be sarcastic.
9. Get angry. 10. Make threats. 11. Get violent.

[dav...@agent.com]

That ain't gonna happen, because y'all are feigning interest
in this subject! You don't have a dog in the hunt!

[jillery]

The only poster feigning interest in this subject is you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:23:17 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

We know that; you're "special".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 16:24:35 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

OK; you've done that...

> 2. Tell lies

Can't tell if you've done that; you may just be stupid.

> 3. Call names

OK; you've done that...

>4. Put words in mouth.

OK; you've done that...

> 5. Put spin on it.

OK; you've done that...

>6. Change the subject.

OK; you've done that...

> 7. Play dumb.

OK; you've done that...

> 8. Be sarcastic.

OK; you've done that...

>9. Get angry.

OK; you've done that...

> 10. Make threats.

None from either side, AFAICT...I won't classify your idea
of forced non-treatment as a "threat" since it's so inane.

> 11. Get violent.

Ditto; it's difficult to "get violent" in an electronic
discussion.

So out of your eleven points, you've used eight, for a
batting average of .727. Now if you could just translate
that into something productive...

[dav...@agent.com]

Empty assertion; no example given.

>> 2. Tell lies
>
>Can't tell if you've done that; you may just be stupid.
>
>> 3. Call names
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

>>4. Put words in mouth.
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

>> 5. Put spin on it.
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

>>6. Change the subject.
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

>> 7. Play dumb.
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

>> 8. Be sarcastic.
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

>>9. Get angry.
>
>OK; you've done that...

Empty assertion; no example given.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 23:01:28 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

Interesting; I gave as many examples as you did. I guess
that's another instance of your "specialness".

<snip additional whining>

>>> 10. Make threats.
>>
>>None from either side, AFAICT...I won't classify your idea
>>of forced non-treatment as a "threat" since it's so inane.
>>
>>> 11. Get violent.
>>
>>Ditto; it's difficult to "get violent" in an electronic
>>discussion.
>>
>>So out of your eleven points, you've used eight, for a
>>batting average of .727. Now if you could just translate
>>that into something productive...

Guess not...

[dav...@agent.com]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:

>>Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> dav...@agent.com wrote

>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off>wrote:
>>>> > dav...@agent.com:
>>>> >

>>>> > > And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>>>> > > more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>>>> > > it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>>>> > >
>>>> > > And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>>>> > > because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>>>> >
>>>> > So become a public benefactor and die already!
>>>>
>>>> When did you start trying to develop a plan for world peace?
>>>
>>>Yesterday.
>>>
>>>Step 1: shoot annoying in-duh-viduals, starting with dav...@agent.com
>>>Step 2: enjoy the resulting peace.
>>
>>"Peace cannot be kept by force;
>>it can only be achieved by understanding." --Albert Einstein
>
>Do you really think one can withhold medical treatment from people
>without force?

What the treatment for measles, mumps, chicken pox, pertussis,
and influenza? Drink fluids & get bed rest.

[dav...@agent.com]

dav...@agent.com wrote:

>And shortening life spans will also help families by keeping
>more of the estates in the family, instead of spending
>it on medical procedures and assisted living!
>
>And shortening life spans will help relieve traffic congestion,
>because a small percentage of drivers will be home sick!
>

>[...]

And shortening life spans will defuse ethnic and sectarian
tensions, kinda like in War of the Worlds, except instead of
having the aliens as the unifying factor, it'll be overpopulation
that's defeated! lol

[jillery]

You would have been been better off to be silent, and let people think
you a fool, than posting the above and proving it.

[dav...@agent.com]

Part 6 of 9: Treatment
How to Treat Measles

There is no prescription medication to treat measles. The virus and
symptoms typically disappear within 2-3 weeks. However,
your doctor may recommend:

* acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches
* rest to help boost your immune system
* plenty of fluids (6-8 glasses of water a day)
* humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat
* vitamin A supplements
http://www.healthline.com/health/measles#Diagnosis5
===========================
Part 3 of 5: Treatment
What Is the Treatment for Mumps?

Because mumps is a virus, it doesn’t respond to antibiotics or other
meds. However, you can treat the symptoms to make yourself
more comfortable while you’re sick.

* Rest when you feel weak or tired.
* Take over-the-counter pain relievers, such as acetaminophen
& ibuprofen, to bring down your fever.
* Soothe swollen glands by applying ice packs.
* Drink plenty of fluids to avoid dehydration due to fever.
* Eat a soft diet of soup, yogurt, and other foods that aren’t hard
to chew (chewing may be painful when your glands are swollen)
* Avoid acidic foods and beverages that may cause more pain in
your salivary glands.
http://www.healthline.com/health/mumps#Symptoms2
================================
Part 7 of 9: Treatments
How Is the Chickenpox Treated?

Most people who are diagnosed with chickenpox will be advised to
manage their symptoms while they’re waiting for the virus to pass
through the system. Parents will be told to keep children out of
school and daycare to prevent spread of the virus. Infected adults
will also be told to stay home.

Antihistamine medications or topical ointments may be prescribed or
purchased over the counter to relieve itching. You can also soothe
itching skin by:

* taking lukewarm baths
* applying unscented lotion
* wearing lightweight, soft clothing
http://www.healthline.com/health/chickenpox#Complications6
=================================
Pertussis - Treatment
Many infants and some young children will need to be hospitalized
during treatment, for observation and respiratory support. Some may
require intravenous (IV) fluids for dehydration if symptoms prevent
them from drinking enough fluids. Since whooping cough is a bacterial
infection, antibiotics are the primary course of treatment.

Antibiotics are most effective in the early stages of whooping cough;
however, they can also be used in the late stages of the infection to
prevent it from spreading to others. While antibiotics can help treat
the infection, they do not prevent or treat the cough itself. Cough
meds are not recommended — they have no effect on whooping cough
symptoms and may carry harmful side effects for infants and small
children.

Most doctors suggest using humidifiers in your child’s bedroom to keep
air moist and help alleviate symptoms of whooping cough.
http://www.healthline.com/health/pertussis#DiagnosisandTreatment3
===================================
Self-Care Treatments for Flu

In most cases, the flu just needs to run its course. The best advice
for people sick with the flu is to get lots of rest and drink plenty
of fluids. You may not have much of an appetite, but it’s important to
eat regular meals to keep up your strength. Stay home from work or
school and don’t go back until your symptoms subside.

To bring down a fever, place a cool, damp washcloth on your forehead
or take a cool bath. Over-the-counter pain relievers and fever
reducers like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin) may also
help to bring a fever down.

Have a bowl of hot soup to relieve nasal congestion. Gargle with warm
salt water to soothe a sore throat. Avoid alcohol and don’t smoke.
http://www.healthline.com/health/flu-treatments#Overview1

[jillery]

What you describe below are only palliative treatments of the
symptoms, not of the diseases themselves.

>Part 6 of 9: Treatment
>How to Treat Measles
>
>There is no prescription medication to treat measles. The virus and
>symptoms typically disappear within 2-3 weeks. However,
>your doctor may recommend:
>
>* acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches
>* rest to help boost your immune system
>* plenty of fluids (6-8 glasses of water a day)
>* humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat
>* vitamin A supplements
>http://www.healthline.com/health/measles#Diagnosis5
>===========================

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles#Complications>

"Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from mild
complications such as diarrhea to serious complications such as
pneumonia (either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial
pneumonia), bronchitis (either direct viral bronchitis or secondary
bacterial bronchitis), otitis media,[14] acute brain inflammation[15]
(and very rarely SSPE—subacute sclerosing panencephalitis),[16] and
corneal ulceration (leading to corneal scarring).[17] Complications
are usually more severe in adults who catch the virus.[18] The death
rate in the 1920s was around 30% for measles pneumonia."

>Part 3 of 5: Treatment
>What Is the Treatment for Mumps?
>
>Because mumps is a virus, it doesn’t respond to antibiotics or other
>meds. However, you can treat the symptoms to make yourself
>more comfortable while you’re sick.
>
>* Rest when you feel weak or tired.
>* Take over-the-counter pain relievers, such as acetaminophen
> & ibuprofen, to bring down your fever.
>* Soothe swollen glands by applying ice packs.
>* Drink plenty of fluids to avoid dehydration due to fever.
>* Eat a soft diet of soup, yogurt, and other foods that aren’t hard
> to chew (chewing may be painful when your glands are swollen)
>* Avoid acidic foods and beverages that may cause more pain in
> your salivary glands.
>http://www.healthline.com/health/mumps#Symptoms2
>================================

<http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/vpd/surveillance_type/passive/mumps_standards/en/>

"Mumps, caused by a paramyxovirus, is generally a mild disease with
fever, headache and swelling of the salivary glands, but complications
such as meningitis (in up to 15% of cases), encephalitis or orchitis
may occur. Although the case-fatality rate of mumps encephalitis is
low and overall mortality is 1/10 000 cases, permanent sequelae occur
in about 25% of encephalitis cases. Mumps is a leading cause of
acquired sensorineural deafness among children, affecting
approximately 5/100 000 mumps patients. Mumps infection during the
first 12 weeks of pregnancy is associated with a 25% incidence of
spontaneous abortion, although malformations following mumps virus
infection during pregnancy have not been found."

>Part 7 of 9: Treatments
>How Is the Chickenpox Treated?
>
>Most people who are diagnosed with chickenpox will be advised to
>manage their symptoms while they’re waiting for the virus to pass
>through the system. Parents will be told to keep children out of
>school and daycare to prevent spread of the virus. Infected adults
>will also be told to stay home.
>
>Antihistamine medications or topical ointments may be prescribed or
>purchased over the counter to relieve itching. You can also soothe
>itching skin by:
>
>* taking lukewarm baths
>* applying unscented lotion
>* wearing lightweight, soft clothing
>http://www.healthline.com/health/chickenpox#Complications6
>=================================

<http://www.cdc.gov/features/preventchickenpox/>

"Chickenpox can be serious. Before there was a vaccine, chickenpox
caused about 4 million people to get sick, more than 10,500
hospitalizations, and about 100 to 150 deaths each year.

"Chickenpox can be serious especially for babies, pregnant women,
adolescents, adults, and people with weakened immune systems. It can
cause—

dehydration
pneumonia
bleeding problems
brain infection or inflammation
bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children
including Group A streptococcal infections
blood stream infections (sepsis)
toxic shock syndrome
bone infections
joint infections
death"

...not to mention extremely painful shingles decades later.

>Pertussis - Treatment
>Many infants and some young children will need to be hospitalized
>during treatment, for observation and respiratory support. Some may
>require intravenous (IV) fluids for dehydration if symptoms prevent
>them from drinking enough fluids. Since whooping cough is a bacterial
>infection, antibiotics are the primary course of treatment.
>
>Antibiotics are most effective in the early stages of whooping cough;
>however, they can also be used in the late stages of the infection to
>prevent it from spreading to others. While antibiotics can help treat
>the infection, they do not prevent or treat the cough itself. Cough
>meds are not recommended — they have no effect on whooping cough
>symptoms and may carry harmful side effects for infants and small
>children.
>
>Most doctors suggest using humidifiers in your child’s bedroom to keep
>air moist and help alleviate symptoms of whooping cough.
>http://www.healthline.com/health/pertussis#DiagnosisandTreatment3
>===================================

<http://www.whoopingcough.net/statistics.htm>

"In the 1940s, before whooping cough vaccine was available there were
over 100,000 cases in the UK every year and the mortality rate was
about 1%. After immunization became commonplace the numbers fell
dramatically and instead of numbers being fairly steady year by year,
the pattern changes to 4 yearly cycle of out breaks. It has got more
like 5 yearly recently in the UK.

In the United States in 2012 there were over 41,000 reported cases.
This is the highest number for about 60 years. There were 18 reported
deaths. In 1999 there were 7,288 cases. In 2000 there were 7,867. The
CDC has an excellent website with up to date information and
recommendations on the treatment and prevention of whooping cough
(pertussis). USA CDC site"

>Self-Care Treatments for Flu
>
>In most cases, the flu just needs to run its course. The best advice
>for people sick with the flu is to get lots of rest and drink plenty
>of fluids. You may not have much of an appetite, but it’s important to
>eat regular meals to keep up your strength. Stay home from work or
>school and don’t go back until your symptoms subside.
>
>To bring down a fever, place a cool, damp washcloth on your forehead
>or take a cool bath. Over-the-counter pain relievers and fever
>reducers like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin) may also
>help to bring a fever down.
>
>Have a bowl of hot soup to relieve nasal congestion. Gargle with warm
>salt water to soothe a sore throat. Avoid alcohol and don’t smoke.
>http://www.healthline.com/health/flu-treatments#Overview1

>===================================

<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/>

"Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at
5%–10% in adults and 20%–30% in children. Illnesses can result in
hospitalization and death mainly among high-risk groups (the very
young, elderly or chronically ill). Worldwide, these annual epidemics
are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe
illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths."

Your pointless posts of symptomatic treatments notwithstanding, the
results of preventable diseases add to the cost of living but don't
significantly reduce the total population.

[dav...@agent.com]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your posts of symptomatic treatments notwithstanding, the

>results of preventable diseases add to the cost of living but don't
>significantly reduce the total population.

I think a significant number of elderly would refuse or be
indifferent to treatment for influenza, especially the ones
experiencing "a long illness". And I think zero growth, merely
holding steady at 7.4 billion, would take a lot of the heat off the
present situation. Going all the way to 8 and then 9 & 10 billion,
without a plan, without precedent, is insanity.

[jillery]

And how 'bout them Mets?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:12:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... ;-)

(At least, I *think* I was the first to use that...)

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:54:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:12:26 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 23:41:33 -0400, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Your posts of symptomatic treatments notwithstanding, the
>>>>results of preventable diseases add to the cost of living but don't
>>>>significantly reduce the total population.
>>>
>>>I think a significant number of elderly would refuse or be
>>>indifferent to treatment for influenza, especially the ones
>>>experiencing "a long illness". And I think zero growth, merely
>>>holding steady at 7.4 billion, would take a lot of the heat off the
>>>present situation. Going all the way to 8 and then 9 & 10 billion,
>>>without a plan, without precedent, is insanity.
>>
>>
>>And how 'bout them Mets?
>
>Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... ;-)

I thought it time to give some back.

>(At least, I *think* I was the first to use that...)

Yes, at least in this newsgroup.

[dav...@agent.com]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Your posts of symptomatic treatments notwithstanding, the
>>>results of preventable diseases add to the cost of living but don't
>>>significantly reduce the total population.
>>
>>I think a significant number of elderly would refuse or be
>>indifferent to treatment for influenza, especially the ones
>>experiencing "a long illness". And I think zero growth, merely
>>holding steady at 7.4 billion, would take a lot of the heat off the
>>present situation. Going all the way to 8 and then 9 & 10 billion,
>>without a plan, without precedent, is insanity.
>
>And how 'bout them Mets?

"re-read for comprehension"

[jillery]

re-think for coherence.

[dav...@agent.com]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Your posts of symptomatic treatments notwithstanding, the
>>>>>results of preventable diseases add to the cost of living but don't
>>>>>significantly reduce the total population.
>>>>
>>>>I think a significant number of elderly would refuse or be
>>>>indifferent to treatment for influenza, especially the ones
>>>>experiencing "a long illness". And I think zero growth, merely
>>>>holding steady at 7.4 billion, would take a lot of the heat off the
>>>>present situation. Going all the way to 8 and then 9 & 10 billion,
>>>>without a plan, without precedent, is insanity.
>>>
>>>And how 'bout them Mets?
>>
>>"re-read for comprehension"
>
>re-think for coherence.

All the other critters have to put up with natural enemies,
and they don't like it, too. What a shame!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 16:55:49 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 11:54:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 00:12:26 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 23:41:33 -0400, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Your posts of symptomatic treatments notwithstanding, the
>>>>>results of preventable diseases add to the cost of living but don't
>>>>>significantly reduce the total population.
>>>>
>>>>I think a significant number of elderly would refuse or be
>>>>indifferent to treatment for influenza, especially the ones
>>>>experiencing "a long illness". And I think zero growth, merely
>>>>holding steady at 7.4 billion, would take a lot of the heat off the
>>>>present situation. Going all the way to 8 and then 9 & 10 billion,
>>>>without a plan, without precedent, is insanity.
>>>
>>>
>>>And how 'bout them Mets?
>>
>>Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... ;-)
>
>
>I thought it time to give some back.

Aw, gee... <shuffles toes in dust> ;-)

>>(At least, I *think* I was the first to use that...)
>
>
>Yes, at least in this newsgroup.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:46:45 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

....and many of them have evolved ways to deal with those
enemies, at least part of the time, just as we have. The
fact that we have developed the ability to deal with enemies
of which most "critters" are totally unaware is just a mark
of our greater ability to observe and analyze reality,
something you might want to try sometime. But see below...

>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!

So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
to do what you won't?

And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
birth rate goes. But since that's rational, and may even be
doable (unlike your "plan", which would require the
equivalent of the Gestapo for enforcement), I'm sure you'll
reject it.

HAND

[jillery]

Yes, I suppose it is a shame. But that's what happens when they don't
treat their diseases. OTOH they don't have to put up with one-trick
trolls. I leave it as a exercise which is the better deal.

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:06:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Thank you for adding some rationality to davidp's fountain of noise.
In a similar spirit, I add to your point. As you say, we are facing
some hard Malthusian limits. But as davidp illustrates so well if so
unintentionally, it's a mistake to read Malthus' cautionary tale so
simplistically, and focus on just population size.

As you say, exponential expansion can't continue forever. But the
reason is because populations have an impact on the environment beyond
mere numbers. Each individual's environmental impact is tremendously
elastic, in the amount of resources consumed and the amount of waste
produced.

As China's great population experiment draws to a close, it showed
that people can increase their environmental footprint far faster than
they can reduce their absolute numbers. As any traffic engineer will
testify, we can build and buy vehicles far faster than we can build
roads. And simply adding more roads makes traffic even more complex
and chaotic.

It does no good to simplistically control our numbers if at the same
time we don't control our environmental impact. It does no good to
have just one child, when one buys an X-acre ranchette instead of a
1000 sq. ft. apartment. Which is why improving standards of living,
while it correlates to reduced birth rate, doesn't correlate to
reduced environmental impact. Which is why conservation, resource
management, and pollution controls are at least as important as birth
control, if not moreso.

As a reductio ad absurdum, since U.S. per capital consumption is the
highest in the world, then from a Malthusian standpoint, Davidp and JJ
Lodder should join forces, combine W.H.O with the World Court, and
prevent health care for only us 'merkins.

[dav...@agent.com]

but we STILL haven't figured out how to live in peace!

>something you might want to try sometime. But see below...
>
>>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>
>So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>to do what you won't?

Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
forward, to one of us, moving forward!

>And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
>increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
>need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
>expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
>environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
>and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
>multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
>world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
>birth rate goes.

We're spending 2.3% of world GDP on military stuff now,
that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Are you keeping up with the reports on the refugee crisis?
It's occurring on every continent!

[jillery]

>>something you might want to try sometime. But see below...
>>
>but we STILL haven't figured out how to live in peace!

and your "plan" would only make it harder.

>>>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>>
>>So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>>your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>>to do what you won't?
>
>Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
>forward, to one of us, moving forward!

Wrong again. It's the same subject. You don't get a pass just
because you thought it up. You don't get to wait until everybody else
has committed to your "plan". Think globally, act locally. Lead by
example.

>>And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
>>increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
>>need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
>>expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
>>environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
>>and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
>>multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
>>world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
>>birth rate goes.
>
>We're spending 2.3% of world GDP on military stuff now,
>that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

What purpose? You don't say. Based on your "reasoning", you should
welcome another method of random mass death and mutilation.

>Are you keeping up with the reports on the refugee crisis?
>It's occurring on every continent!

And your point is...? At least try to make a coherent point, if only
for the novelty of it.

>>But since that's rational, and may even be
>>doable (unlike your "plan", which would require the
>>equivalent of the Gestapo for enforcement), I'm sure you'll
>>reject it.
>>
>>HAND

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 01:09:50 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

No, but that has nothing to do with "natural enemies". HTH.

>>something you might want to try sometime. But see below...
>>
>>>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>>
>>So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>>your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>>to do what you won't?
>
>Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
>forward, to one of us, moving forward!

No, moron, I'm saying that since your "plan" seems at best
counterproductive and at worst a path for a tyranny greater
than most we've seen it's up to *you* to demonstrate its
worth; the easiest way to do that is to implement it on
yourself so we can observe the results. Do it now.

>>And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
>>increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
>>need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
>>expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
>>environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
>>and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
>>multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
>>world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
>>birth rate goes.

>We're spending 2.3% of world GDP on military stuff now,
>that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Uh, no, it has nothing to do with it. Were you dropped on
your head at an early age?

>Are you keeping up with the reports on the refugee crisis?

Yes, and that is *also* irrelevant to either your
misbegotten "plan" or my observations.

>It's occurring on every continent!

Antarctica, too?

>>But since that's rational, and may even be
>>doable (unlike your "plan", which would require the
>>equivalent of the Gestapo for enforcement), I'm sure you'll
>>reject it.
>>
>>HAND

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:45:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Agreed, but in the final analysis population size is the
ultimate limiter. It matters not how efficient our food
production methods become, since at some point the human
race, if expansion continues unchecked, would contain *all*
that's available of some necessary element (carbon is the
one Asimov picked as an example). Of course we could never
realistically even approach that population density, but it
does set an absolute upper limit on population size.

>As you say, exponential expansion can't continue forever. But the
>reason is because populations have an impact on the environment beyond
>mere numbers. Each individual's environmental impact is tremendously
>elastic, in the amount of resources consumed and the amount of waste
>produced.
>
>As China's great population experiment draws to a close, it showed
>that people can increase their environmental footprint far faster than
>they can reduce their absolute numbers. As any traffic engineer will
>testify, we can build and buy vehicles far faster than we can build
>roads. And simply adding more roads makes traffic even more complex
>and chaotic.
>
>It does no good to simplistically control our numbers if at the same
>time we don't control our environmental impact. It does no good to
>have just one child, when one buys an X-acre ranchette instead of a
>1000 sq. ft. apartment. Which is why improving standards of living,
>while it correlates to reduced birth rate, doesn't correlate to
>reduced environmental impact. Which is why conservation, resource
>management, and pollution controls are at least as important as birth
>control, if not moreso.

No argument with any of that, since IMHO it's correct. But
davidp's monomania is population size, so that's what I
addressed.

>As a reductio ad absurdum, since U.S. per capital consumption is the
>highest in the world, then from a Malthusian standpoint, Davidp and JJ
>Lodder should join forces, combine W.H.O with the World Court, and
>prevent health care for only us 'merkins.

Try suggesting it to the UN; I'm sure the majority would
approve... ;-)

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:32:01 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Incorrect. The maximum limit is whatever limit is reached first. It
might be energy, or fresh water, or food, or the inability of the
ecosystem to cope with our waste, both biological and inorganic. It
is not population density, nor absolute numbers, as each depends on
the technology required to sustainably support that many people. For
example, according to Wiki, the average global population density is
around 100 people per livable square kilometer, but Singapore has a
density about 77 times that. There's lots of wiggle room here (no pun
intended).

You know that agriculture supports more people than hunting/gathering.
In the same way, the number of people on Earth right now is due
essentially to our ability to artificially fix nitrogen from the
atmosphere, as that determines how much protein can be grown. We
would run out of everything else before we came close to running out
of atmospheric nitrogen. Something as simple as switching from animal
protein to plant protein would at least double our food production.

[dav...@agent.com]

It has to do with the original post, about learning respect
now, to avoid the continual fighting! Didja fergit?

>>>something you might want to try sometime. But see below...
>>>
>>>>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>>>
>>>So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>>>your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>>>to do what you won't?
>>
>>Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
>>forward, to one of us, moving forward!
>
>No, moron, I'm saying that since your "plan" seems at best
>counterproductive and at worst a path for a tyranny greater
>than most we've seen it's up to *you* to demonstrate its
>worth; the easiest way to do that is to implement it on
>yourself so we can observe the results. Do it now.

The subject is ALL OF US, learning to respect each other!

>>>And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
>>>increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
>>>need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
>>>expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
>>>environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
>>>and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
>>>multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
>>>world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
>>>birth rate goes.
>
>>We're spending 2.3% of world GDP on military stuff now,
>>that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
>
>Uh, no, it has nothing to do with it. Were you dropped on
>your head at an early age?

How the hell are you gonna increase living standards when
you're continually spending 2.3% on military because you
don't know how to live in peace?

>>Are you keeping up with the reports on the refugee crisis?
>
>Yes, and that is *also* irrelevant to either your
>misbegotten "plan" or my observations.

How the hell are you gonna increases living standards when
millions are force to live in refugee camps, far from their homes,
which are being destroyed by fighting?

>>It's occurring on every continent!
>
>Antarctica, too?

If all you can do is find exceptions, you don't have SHIT
in your arsenal!

[dav...@agent.com]

No, it would make it easier to learn respect now, because
it's an unselfish act, which is unheard of in politics!

>>>>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>>>
>>>So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>>>your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>>>to do what you won't?
>>
>>Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
>>forward, to one of us, moving forward!
>
>Wrong again. It's the same subject. You don't get a pass just
>because you thought it up. You don't get to wait until everybody else
>has committed to your "plan". Think globally, act locally. Lead by
>example.

The subject is ALL OF US, trying to learn respect, together.
You don't get to avoid the issue by focusing on one person.

>>>And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
>>>increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
>>>need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
>>>expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
>>>environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
>>>and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
>>>multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
>>>world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
>>>birth rate goes.
>>
>>We're spending 2.3% of world GDP on military stuff now,
>>that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
>
>What purpose? You don't say. Based on your "reasoning", you should
>welcome another method of random mass death and mutilation.

The purpose of increasing living standards.
Re-read for comprehension!

>>Are you keeping up with the reports on the refugee crisis?
>>It's occurring on every continent!
>
>And your point is...? At least try to make a coherent point, if only
>for the novelty of it.

How are you gonna increase living standards when millions are
forced to live in refugee camps, far from home, while their homes
are being destroyed?

[Ernest Major]

Observation is that in times when early death from disease was more
common people showed less respect for others, and in places where early
death from disease is more common people show less respect for others.
This leaves us to conclude that your proposals have the reverse effect
to what you claim is your objective, and to question whether your
motivation is as claimed.

>
>
>>>> something you might want to try sometime. But see below...
>>>>
>>>>> and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>>>>
>>>> So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>>>> your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>>>> to do what you won't?
>>>
>>> Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
>>> forward, to one of us, moving forward!
>>
>> No, moron, I'm saying that since your "plan" seems at best
>> counterproductive and at worst a path for a tyranny greater
>> than most we've seen it's up to *you* to demonstrate its
>> worth; the easiest way to do that is to implement it on
>> yourself so we can observe the results. Do it now.
>
> The subject is ALL OF US, learning to respect each other!
>

You want people to die prematurely. You need to learn to respect other
people.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/14/16 11:32 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> [snip to the nitpick]

> Agreed, but in the final analysis population size is the
> ultimate limiter. It matters not how efficient our food
> production methods become, since at some point the human
> race, if expansion continues unchecked, would contain *all*
> that's available of some necessary element (carbon is the
> one Asimov picked as an example).

If you are referring to Asimov's essay, "Life's Bottleneck", his example
was phosphorus.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[jillery]

So now you're talking politics. You should work for Trump.

>>>>>and they don't like it, too. What a shame!
>>>>
>>>>So, are you ready to infect yourself as a demo project for
>>>>your "plan" yet, or are you still a coward who wants others
>>>>to do what you won't?
>>>
>>>Again, you're changing the subject from all of us, moving
>>>forward, to one of us, moving forward!
>>
>>Wrong again. It's the same subject. You don't get a pass just
>>because you thought it up. You don't get to wait until everybody else
>>has committed to your "plan". Think globally, act locally. Lead by
>>example.
>
>The subject is ALL OF US, trying to learn respect, together.
>You don't get to avoid the issue by focusing on one person.

But you just said immediately above the subject was all of us moving
forward, not all of us learning respect. Apparently you have no idea
what you're talking about.

>>>>And BTW, even though your "plan" to limit population through
>>>>increased death rates at earlier ages is idiotic, we *do*
>>>>need to address overpopulation at some point since geometric
>>>>expansion cannot continue forever in a restricted
>>>>environment. Probably the best way is to limit birth rates,
>>>>and the best way to do that seems to be, by observation of
>>>>multiple cultures, to increase living standards across the
>>>>world; the higher the living standard becomes, the lower the
>>>>birth rate goes.
>>>
>>>We're spending 2.3% of world GDP on military stuff now,
>>>that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
>>
>>What purpose? You don't say. Based on your "reasoning", you should
>>welcome another method of random mass death and mutilation.
>
>The purpose of increasing living standards.
>Re-read for comprehension!

Increasing the death rate by withholding medical treatment is the
antithesis of increasing living standards. This is what I mean about
your incoherent posts.

>>>Are you keeping up with the reports on the refugee crisis?
>>>It's occurring on every continent!
>>
>>And your point is...? At least try to make a coherent point, if only
>>for the novelty of it.
>
>How are you gonna increase living standards when millions are
>forced to live in refugee camps, far from home, while their homes
>are being destroyed?

Living in refugee camps works as well as withholding medical
treatment, as far as teaching people respect for future generations by
reducing their health and lifespan. Based on your one-trick troll, you
should be all for it. So what's your objection to refugee camps that
doesn't apply as well to withholding medical treatment?

[dav...@agent.com]

I was talking about the alternative that Bob Casanova offered,
that of increasing living standards to bring about lower birth rates.
If we stabilize or reduce population, there's a chance for higher
living standards throughout the developing world, but if we keep
going toward 9 and 10 billion, there's very little chance. Rising
seas, pressure released in ethnic/sectarian conflict, loss of
habitat, greater pollution, water wars, etc. will guarantee that.

[dav...@agent.com]

Influenza would affect mostly the elderly, saving them from
suffering long illnesses. "(Influenza) pneumonia is the old man's
friend." is a physician's saying from the 19th century.

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 02:54:53 -0400, dav...@agent.com wrote:


<mercy snip for focus>

And increasing GDP on military stuff is also a way to reduce the
population. So once again, what's your problem with that?

[dav...@agent.com]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:

>>>>The purpose of increasing living standards.
>>>>Re-read for comprehension!
>>>
>>>Increasing the death rate by withholding medical treatment is the
>>>antithesis of increasing living standards. This is what I mean about
>>>your incoherent posts.
>>
>>I was talking about the alternative that Bob Casanova offered,
>>that of increasing living standards to bring about lower birth rates.
>>If we stabilize or reduce population, there's a chance for higher
>>living standards throughout the developing world, but if we keep
>>going toward 9 and 10 billion, there's very little chance. Rising
>>seas, pressure released in ethnic/sectarian conflict, loss of
>>habitat, greater pollution, water wars, etc. will guarantee that.
>
>And increasing GDP on military stuff is also a way to reduce the
>population. So once again, what's your problem with that?

Influenza would affect mostly the elderly, saving them from
suffering long illnesses. "(Influenza) pneumonia is the old man's

friend." is a physician's saying from the 19th century. That's
one way to increase living standards.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:59:53 -0400, the following appeared

Yes, but I think you missed the point. All of your examples
are, IMHO, "elastic" to at least some degree; running out of
a required element isn't.

> It
>is not population density, nor absolute numbers, as each depends on
>the technology required to sustainably support that many people. For
>example, according to Wiki, the average global population density is
>around 100 people per livable square kilometer, but Singapore has a
>density about 77 times that. There's lots of wiggle room here (no pun
>intended).

Sure, and that's exactly why I was careful to specify the
only limit in which "wiggle room" is nonexistent and thus is
an "absolute upper limit". I'd also note that the stated
population density of Singapore, like that of most major
urban areas, fails to take into account the land required to
supply the city with food and water, and is thus an
overstatement of effective density.

>You know that agriculture supports more people than hunting/gathering.
>In the same way, the number of people on Earth right now is due
>essentially to our ability to artificially fix nitrogen from the
>atmosphere, as that determines how much protein can be grown. We
>would run out of everything else before we came close to running out
>of atmospheric nitrogen. Something as simple as switching from animal
>protein to plant protein would at least double our food production.

Probably more, even given the lower "quality" of plant
protein; we'd eliminate one layer of the accepted 10:1 mass
ratio of consumed to consumer (or if you prefer, prey to
predator).

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:37:52 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:

>On 6/14/16 11:32 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> [snip to the nitpick]
>
>> Agreed, but in the final analysis population size is the
>> ultimate limiter. It matters not how efficient our food
>> production methods become, since at some point the human
>> race, if expansion continues unchecked, would contain *all*
>> that's available of some necessary element (carbon is the
>> one Asimov picked as an example).
>
>If you are referring to Asimov's essay, "Life's Bottleneck", his example
>was phosphorus.

Thanks; it's been several decades since I read it. I took a
cursory look through the books of his essays, and the only
one I could find dealing with overpopulation was "Stop!" in
the collection "The Left Hand of the Electron"; it didn't
mention any specific element as the ultimate limiter.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:36:23 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

Would you also recommend other techniques from the 19th
century, like bleeding? How about if we go back a bit
further, and beat them to drive out the demons?

> That's
>one way to increase living standards.

For values of "standards"...

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com:
>>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>>The purpose of increasing living standards.
>>>>>>Re-read for comprehension!
>>>>>
>>>>>Increasing the death rate by withholding medical treatment is the
>>>>>antithesis of increasing living standards. This is what I mean about
>>>>>your incoherent posts.
>>>>
>>>>I was talking about the alternative that Bob Casanova offered,
>>>>that of increasing living standards to bring about lower birth rates.
>>>>If we stabilize or reduce population, there's a chance for higher
>>>>living standards throughout the developing world, but if we keep
>>>>going toward 9 and 10 billion, there's very little chance. Rising
>>>>seas, pressure released in ethnic/sectarian conflict, loss of
>>>>habitat, greater pollution, water wars, etc. will guarantee that.
>>>
>>>And increasing GDP on military stuff is also a way to reduce the
>>>population. So once again, what's your problem with that?
>>
>>Influenza would affect mostly the elderly, saving them from
>>suffering long illnesses. "(Influenza) pneumonia is the old man's
>>friend." is a physician's saying from the 19th century.
>
>Would you also recommend other techniques from the 19th
>century, like bleeding? How about if we go back a bit
>further, and beat them to drive out the demons?

Someone said you stopped beating your wife. Is that true?

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:32:21 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:37:52 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
><eci...@curioustax.onomy.net>:
>
>>On 6/14/16 11:32 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> [snip to the nitpick]
>>
>>> Agreed, but in the final analysis population size is the
>>> ultimate limiter. It matters not how efficient our food
>>> production methods become, since at some point the human
>>> race, if expansion continues unchecked, would contain *all*
>>> that's available of some necessary element (carbon is the
>>> one Asimov picked as an example).
>>
>>If you are referring to Asimov's essay, "Life's Bottleneck", his example
>>was phosphorus.
>
>Thanks; it's been several decades since I read it. I took a
>cursory look through the books of his essays, and the only
>one I could find dealing with overpopulation was "Stop!" in
>the collection "The Left Hand of the Electron"; it didn't
>mention any specific element as the ultimate limiter.

IIRC Asimov was referring to all life on Earth, not just human life.
If your argument is based on that point, I suggest that you're
seriously overstepping the issue. If all life on Earth were at risk
because of some lack of an essential element like phosphorous, then
there were almost certainly several other issues involved in getting
to that point which would have done us in first.

[jillery]

But all those selfish young adults are using resources that should be
reserved for their children. According to your "reasoning", young
adults need to learn respect for their children too.

It's called "coherence". Look it up.

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:19:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

If you mean "required element" as in some nutritional mineral
essential to life, my understanding is the world is unlikely to run
out of any of them before some other and more acute limitation stops
human population growth first. It's not the last limit that counts,
it's the first ones.

What is plastic is what qualifies as a "required element", in the
sense of what is needed to support any given human population. For
example, the world once faced an oil shortage in the 1800s, of whale
oil. Shifting to petroleum eliminated whale oil as a "required
element" for human civilization, and human population continued to
expand without it.

As another example, you might recall Paul Erlich's famous bet with
Julian Simon, back in 1980, when so many problems seemed
insurmountable:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager>

Of the five essential commodities Erlich picked to increase in price
in the following decade, all five decreased. That their prices rose
again later merely illustrates that in a open market, shortages
increase prices, which encourages the market to seek and use cheaper
alternatives.

Look at how easily oil producers were able to first drive down the
price of oil, to eliminate more costly sources that recently came
online, and then drive it back up and maintain a set price that is
profitable to them.

Which is one reason why you shouldn't think simplistically about
population limits by just doing a head count. In that sense, your
line of reasoning here is no better than davidp's.

>> It
>>is not population density, nor absolute numbers, as each depends on
>>the technology required to sustainably support that many people. For
>>example, according to Wiki, the average global population density is
>>around 100 people per livable square kilometer, but Singapore has a
>>density about 77 times that. There's lots of wiggle room here (no pun
>>intended).
>
>Sure, and that's exactly why I was careful to specify the
>only limit in which "wiggle room" is nonexistent and thus is
>an "absolute upper limit".

You're arguing as if cancer or heart disease doesn't matter because in
a few billion years the Sun will bloat up and kill us all. The fact
is there are lots of things that could reduce human numbers between
then and now. Worrying about something like running out of
nutritional phosphorus, or any essential element, is too far in the
future to be relevant. IMO your concept of "absolute numbers" simply
doesn't belong in this discussion.

>I'd also note that the stated
>population density of Singapore, like that of most major
>urban areas, fails to take into account the land required to
>supply the city with food and water, and is thus an
>overstatement of effective density.

Again, you miss the point. Use whatever regional size you prefer;
human population density still covers a wide range. There's no point
in quibbling over specifics when any example makes the point.

>>You know that agriculture supports more people than hunting/gathering.
>>In the same way, the number of people on Earth right now is due
>>essentially to our ability to artificially fix nitrogen from the
>>atmosphere, as that determines how much protein can be grown. We
>>would run out of everything else before we came close to running out
>>of atmospheric nitrogen. Something as simple as switching from animal
>>protein to plant protein would at least double our food production.
>
>Probably more, even given the lower "quality" of plant
>protein; we'd eliminate one layer of the accepted 10:1 mass
>ratio of consumed to consumer (or if you prefer, prey to
>predator).

Which only adds to my point. It makes ecological sense to eat animals
that eat plants we can't eat ourselves, grown in regions we can't use
to grow other foods. That's how pastoral agriculture used to work.
But that's not what happens now, where animals are corn-fed, and that
corn grows on prime agricultural lands.

[jillery]

False equivalence. Bob Casanova's question doesn't imply anything you
haven't implied yourself. The problem here is you refuse to consider
the consequences of your alleged solutions, which is one reason I call
your posts a one-trick troll.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:32:24 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

Nope; can't stop what never started. Is that the same
individual from whom you got your "plan"?

So, when do you intend to infect yourself?