On May 10, 11:06=A0am, "Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Don't you read science fiction. The way we get more space is by =A0
> terra-forming other planets.
>
> I don't have a position on population, except that, if limitation is =A0
> necessary, it is a task (under my definition) rather than a demand,
making=
=A0
> a position now less im****tant. One tendency that did have the opposite
=A0=
> position were the LaRouchites, when they were still socialists, =A0
> immediately following their break with the Sparts. The LaRouchites said
=
=A0
> that the inherent goal of human progress was to increase our numbers and
=
=A0
> populate the universe.
>
> In spirit, I'm with them, not with you. And I'm not even convinced
there's=
=A0
> a position to be taken besides one in "spirit." We cannot foresee all
=A0
> possibilities, as required rigorously to exclude possibilities such as
the=
=A0
> long-term sustainability of human population growth. There is a =A0
> significant school of bourgeois demographics that contends that the way
=
=A0
> out of the energy inpasse is to expand the world's population as fast as
=
=A0
> possible, as the small elite smart enough to find technical solutions
=A0
> increase in pro****tion to the general population growth, and scientific
=
=A0
> progress is very sensitive to their numbers. Perhaps too geneticist for
=
=A0
> some of you...
>
> If I had to lay bets on the course a future communist society will take,
=
=A0
> it will be toward the expansive recommendation. What you leave out is
that=
=A0
> accepting the apparent limitations means accepting not only a limited
=A0
> population but limitations on technical progress. Not only will there be
=
=A0
> fewer of us, but we shall all be increasingly poor. My "faith" is that
=A0=
> communism will accept the risk of growth, will not shrink before the =A0
> unknown.
>
> srd
>
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:52:12 -0700, Daniele Futtorovic =A0
>
>
>
>
>
> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 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
> >>>> =A0 =A0 Philosophy News Keywords: BABYKILLERS, EXCESS BILLIONAIRES,
E=
XCESS
> >>>> HAS-BEEN SILOCONE INJECTED ACTRESSES TOO
> >>>> =A0 =A0 Source: AP, from Moscow Idaho... very apropros
> >>>> =A0 =A0 Published: 24April2000 Author: unk
> >>>> =A0 =A0 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
t=
o
> >>>> 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
lik=
e
> >>> to have ***, but you can have *** without having babies". Hell, I'd
=
=A0
> >>> 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 =
=A0
> >>> 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
actuall=
y
> >>> 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
clearl=
y
> >>> more than even the religious s*** would advocate. What's their =A0
> >>> 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=
=A0
> >>> 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
thei=
r
> >>> 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
somethin=
g
> >>>> 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 -
> >> =A0The 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.
> >> =A0D
>
> > 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 =A0
> > 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 =A0
> > 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.
>
> --
> srd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think SRD put it no the proper context: Sci-Fi. A small, bitsy
correction: I don't think there were "LaRouchites" in 1965. It wasn't
until about 1967 that he had a groupsicle of Colombia students around
him.
David
|
