On 2008-05-10 07:07 +0100, nada allegedly wrote:
> On May 9, 6:09 pm, Daniele Futtorovic
> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-09 11:05 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is the main thesis that the world to be 'sustainable' it would
>>> require a population of only 250m. This is a policy of mass
>>> genocide.The American Final Solution
>>> The worlds problems stem from capitalism and under education, gross
>>> disparities in wealth etc.
>>> Turner: World's Problems Stem From Overpopulation
>>> Philosophy News Keywords: BABYKILLERS, EXCESS BILLIONAIRES, EXCESS
>>> HAS-BEEN SILOCONE INJECTED ACTRESSES TOO
>>> Source: AP, from Moscow Idaho... very apropros
>>> Published: 24April2000 Author: unk
>>> Posted on 04/24/2000 12:29:06 PDT by Seruzawa
>>> Turner: World's Problems Stem From Overpopulation
>>> Monday, April 24, 2000
>>> THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>> MOSCOW, Idaho -- Increasing numbers of people are putting a harmful
>>> burden on the planet's resources, media mogul Ted Turner told a
>>> University of Idaho forum. Turner, the founder of Cable News Network
>>> and vice chairman of Time-Warner Inc., noted Saturday was the 30th
>>> anniversary of Earth Day. He was the closing speaker at the Borah
>>> Symposium on "Natural Resource Conflicts in the 21st Century."
>>> Turner said Friday that he first got involved in environmental issues
>>> by sup****ting efforts to save whales. "If we stopped killing the
>>> whales, maybe we can stop killing each other," he said.
>>> It soon became apparent to him that society would have to save
>>> everything; just like a human body, a good heart doesn't do you much
>>> good if your lungs are bad.
>>> Turner blames the world's troubles in part on the rapid growth of the
>>> human race. When he was born in 1938, the world population was about 2
>>> billion. It recently reached 6 billion, he said, noting the white
>>> rhino population has dropped by 99 percent.
>>> Since agriculture started about 15,000 years ago, human society has
>>> gone from a sustainable society to one of exploitation. "The more of
>>> us there are, and the more stuff we use, the more impact we have," he
>>> said.
>>> But the birthrate is dropping as people learn about family planning,
>>> Turner said. "Most people like to have ***, but you can have ***
>>> without having babies," he said. It is time to clean up and go back to
>>> an era of sustainability, he said. Society has the knowledge and the
>>> technology, so it has no excuses. "We have to learn to use technology
>>> intelligently to save ourselves, instead of stupidly to destroy
>>> ourselves," he said.
>>> He encouraged students to vote in the November election for
>>> politicians who are talking about the future, energy efficiency and
>>> disarmament.
>>> "Use your heads," he said.
>> A excellent suggestion, and one that it would be good to see put into
>> practice, here and elsewhere.
>>
>> Nevermind what kind of person Turner is, for now. Pray tell me what is
>> wrong with what he said as re****ted in the bit above? "Most people like
>> to have ***, but you can have *** without having babies". Hell, I'd
wish
>> I could hear that more often.
>>
>> I don't care about Turner in this context. I don't care whether he is a
>> hypocrite with a secret agenda, I don't care whether he's meaning well.
>> Simply look at what's written and tell me what you can find to say
>> against it. Is it correct or is it not?
>>
>> If he's sincere, he's clearly out of phase with his class.
>> Overpopulation is a vital interest of capitalists and aristocrats. Too
>> many people means greater competition for limited jobs, hence lower
>> wages. Too many people mean scarcity of food, hence higher prices. Too
>> many people means scarcity of room, hence higher rents and mortgages.
>> Too many people means poverty, poverty means weakness, weakness means
>> easier control.
>>
>> This whole campaign of associating birth-control policies with the
>> superrich is disgusting. It is obvious who's behind it: the religious
>> s*** (see article posted by Vngelis in the thread: "Massive Starvation
>> For World Feared Over Myanmar..."). A thoroughly hypocritical attempt
to
>> appeal to the poor, to feed off a well-deserved sentiment of envy and
>> hatred towards the elite, in order to further their anti-humanist
>> agenda. The essence of religion is to subject your life, your
>> individuality, to a non-existent entity which they fortuitously have a
>> (state-enforced) monopoly of representing. What a coincidence!
>>
>> The religious sentiment in the m***** feeds off rotten ***uality, as
>> created in young children by the family, with strong sup****t from
>> churches. At the heart of religion is ***ual life. Hence nothing puts
>> those who profit from religion into greater danger than people actually
>> having CONTROL over their ***ual life, that is controlling diseases
>> (syphilis, AIDS -- what dreadful time churches have had between the
>> time penicillin was discovered and the advent of AIDS!), controlling
>> when you have a child et caetera. A healthy and normal ***ual life
>> involves genital activity roughly a few times a week. Say two times.
>> This would amount to one hundred times a year, and about four thousand
>> times over the time in which the human body is fertile, i.e. when a
>> child can result. Given that women are fecund roughly one tenth of the
>> time, this would mean FOUR HUNDRED children in one life. That's clearly
>> more than even the religious s*** would advocate. What's their
solution?
>> ABSTINENCE. Their ultima ratio. Do not have fun, do not have pleasure.
>> It's a sin. This is the essence of the religious program.
>>
>> And that's fair enough. At least they're straight-forward about it.
>>
>> But what's with Vngelis? He's posting their propaganda, repeatedly, on
a
>> Marxist forum. What's his agenda? We don't know, for he's done nothing
>> but hiding behind quotes.
>>
>> Audiatur et altera pars. So I ask Vngelis to please lay out before us
>> all, in his own words, what his position is.
>>
>> What's his position with regards to religion?
>>
>> What's his position with regards to ***ual life, procreation,
>> contraceptives and abortion?
>>
>> What's his position with regards to overpopulation? Is the Earth
>> overpopulated? Is it not in the interest of the people to control their
>> own numbers through control of births, if it serves their well-being,
>> their happiness?
>>
>> Note that I do not separate between this program and the communist
>> program. Control of population is not possible within this system, for
>> it is contrary to the interests which drive it. So when I say "control
>> their own numbers", I do mean "control their own numbers in a
>> socialist/communist society".
>>
>>
>>
>>> 7 Posted on 04/24/2000 12:45:14 PDT by dfwgator
>>> [ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
>>> To: Seruzawa
>>> Oh sure, Turner's goal of total sustainable World population at
>>> 250,000,000, which he has proclaimed more than once before, is
>>> attainable by euthanasia, sterilization, genetic engineering,
>>> selective genocide and abortion and birth control. Certainly something
>>> we can all buy into. How about you??
>>> 8 Posted on 04/24/2000 12:45:23 PDT by rangergrunt
>> Disgusting. An outlet of the globalised left Vngelis has often made a
>> point to bash. Justly so, in my view. But why does he speak their
>> tongue all of a sudden?
>>
>> --
>> DF.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The problem here Daniele is that you don't even define
> "overpopulation". Some of the poorest areas of the world are quite
> "underpopulated" (Eritrea, Somalia, Mongolia, etc). "Overpopulation"
> is like "not enough money". For whom? Compared to what? With out a
> serious analysis...something I think Turner is not doing, BTW, about
> what it means to be 'sustainable', then talk of 'overpopulation' is
> like Vngelis talking about problems of immigration: it's all bourgeois
> clap-trap.
>
> D
That's a legitimate point.
But it doesn't deal with the question entirely. Indeed, it evades the
whole using the pretext that one bit of it can't be or hasn't been
answered.
The basic question is: *can there be* overpopulation? Do we *need* an
upper bound or not?
Second question: through which means should such an upper bound be
enforced?
Up to this point, without even touching on the numbers, I think the
question is valid and, what's more, crucial. Nevermind the bourgeois
clap-trap.
Next question, correct: how high is this upper bound? As to that, I do
not know. But even without going into a "serious [numerical] analysis",
we could try to agree with respects to what such a bound ought to be
determined. We could speak about what would influence such a bound. Of
course, resources are crucial, but there's also more than just those:
there's space, space, space. Even beyond to point of housing, it sucks
to always have to be in places flooded with people. It sucks not to be
able to enjoy some quietness. It sucks not to be able to enjoy bits of
nature alone (how many wild areas in the US are NOT fenced off?).
As to resources, there's the question of what standard of living is
desirable, globally. If the standard of living would be globally the
same as in the US, without any technical improvement, it would be a
catastrophy. Nevertheless, a standard of living like that in the US and
even higher, much higher, is how it should be. So how do we get to that
without destroying the globe and what bits of untouched wilderness there
are left?
Those are all questions a communist program MUST deal with. Your hiding
behind numbers is evading the whole question, and it's wrong, logically
and politically.
You state some areas are underpopulated. I would tend to disagree. I'm
not quite sure any area CAN be underpopulated. The lesser, the better.
It would actually be more appropriate, IMO, to seek for a LOWER bound:
"how many people do you NEED to build a complex economy and to ensure
the best standard of living possible?", than an upper one.
Nevermind Turner. You're saying it's all bourgeois clap-trap. I don't
think so. I think it's rather a remnant of humanist feeling/education in
some parts of the aristocracy. But maybe they have a secret agenda, I
don't know. I think the idea that they're planning to reduce population
is utter religiously-induced nonsense. But even if it isn't. Intercourse
them. Let's talk about what the communist program is. Let's talk about
what WE would do.
--
DF.
|
