Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile Catastrophes

On 2008-05-10 00:17 +0100, John Holmes allegedly wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 2008-05-09 05:30 +0100, John Holmes allegedly wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>>>> ... While I certainly don't deny the influence of capitalist 
>>>> machinations in this whole affair, the thing that strikes me 
>>>> mostly is how painstakingly, through the whole board of the 
>>>> discussion about food and famine, the subject of overpopulation
>>>>  is avoided. This goes for the general subject of poverty as 
>>>> well. At the same time, countries that attempt to implement 
>>>> rational measures to control their populations, to wit control
>>>>  of births, are scoffed at (like China) or even hindered (like
>>>>  some African countries). The Earth is ****ing overcrowded. In
>>>>  rich countries as well as in poor ones (only it is more 
>>>> flagrant in poor ones). The last article posted by Vngelis 
>>>> claims that global agricultural production is sufficient to 
>>>> nourish the staggering six-plus billion. Maybe it is (although
>>>>  one would have to ask additionally: what's "enough"? Is a bowl
>>>>  of rice enough?). But there's more to life than food.
>>>> 
>>>> We live in a finite world. As well as everything else, 
>>>> resources are limited. The more entities resources have to be 
>>>> distributed among, the lesser each entity has. Not only food, 
>>>> but also energy and space. Should be simple enough to 
>>>> understand.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet the Earth's population is projected to grow -- how much? I
>>>>  tend to forget marish figures -- staggeringly over the next 
>>>> very decades. Will agricultural output rise fast enough to 
>>>> sup****t twice as much as today -- and even more? Maybe. But 
>>>> tell me this: when it comes to the point where the whole 
>>>> biomass is part of the human nutrition cycle; where each atom 
>>>> is in either soil or fertiliser or crop or cattle or food or 
>>>> crap, ergo no "nature"; where we all have to live in six-tatami
>>>>  rooms (if we're lucky) -- when it comes to this, what the ****
>>>>  are we supposed to live FOR?!
>>>> 
>>>> Birth control is one of the most critical issues of our time 
>>>> (and one of the greatest taboo at that). It is generally 
>>>> critical, for political reasons: scarcity leads to inequality,
>>>>  inequality to oppression. But is even more critical in our 
>>>> time, for the Earth's ecosystem is on the verge of being 
>>>> lastingly harmed. Species are disappearing at a frightening 
>>>> rate. Pollution and desertification are rampant. If we don't 
>>>> take control over our numbers in our hands, nature will. If we
>>>>  do not control our births, eventually nature will control life
>>>>  -- through starvation. No amount of "regulation" of 
>>>> speculations will change that. And it applies to capitalist or
>>>>  socialist/communist societies alike.
>>>> 
>>>> -- DF.
>>>> 
>>> Does this have anything to do with your advocacy of mass murder 
>>> in another thread?
>>> 
>>> -jh-
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> -- DF.
>> 
> I certainly did write this. If your advocacy of mass murder of 
> "settlers" in another thread was intended as a "joke," it was in the
>  worst possible taste, and was reminiscent of similar "jokes" that 
> have been imputed to Stalin by his enemies such as Khrushchev.

Surreptitious, my dear Watson.

Firstly, what I wrote as to "mass-murder" of "settlers" can hardly be
called advocacy thereof. I introduced it with a comment, I quote:
"since we already are in the business of telling other people what they
ought to do with their country, anyway".
This comment was meant to be ironical and should be understandable
against the background of what Vngelis' wrote. He appeared to been keen
on imposing expelling of those "settlers", to which I answered that
expelling them would be even worse than shooting them for the interests
of the Bolivian people. What's more -- and this has been elaborated in
greater depth by David --, the issue of what's a "settler" and what's
not is an entire problem for itself, making the proposed "solution", the
"mass-murder" even more hypothetical and, at least as I meant it,
ironical.
I clearly didn't _advocate_ it. I made it entirely clear what
solution I advocated, and if you didn't see it I suggest you read the
post again.
I must point out, though, that on the other hand I do not at all share
the sentiment of horror and pacifist tremor which transpires from your
last two posts. I certainly wouldn't mind if the Bolivian latifundia
owners where shot as a whole -- firstly because it's not my country and
I therefore have no business in telling them what to do, and secondly
because I have little sympathy to spare for aristocrats.

Secondly and much more im****tant is your bringing this subject into this
thread in the first place. Here's the one-hundred dollar question:
where, my dear Watson, did I, in this thread, speak of murder or
homicide? Hmm? You imply I did and that's clearly malevolent. You're
implicitly equating birth-control with murder, and you don't even have
the guts to state it openly, unlike the religious s***, which I suggest
you turn to for a new group of friends and like-minded people. Unless
that was a mistake or misunderstanding on your behalf, in which case I
suggest you correct it.

As to what you write about "'jokes' imputed to Stalin": I don't give a
crap. My views on Stalin are the same as Trotsky's and I consequently
couldn't care less about his good name -- or about Khrushchev's, for
that matter.

-- 
DF.