Good evening everbody.

Are the following true ?

Rapid population growth. Deforestation. Pollution levels rising. Global warming.

Destruction of the Human Habitat.

If any or all of the above are true would any resposible Government allow it to happen ?

What conditions would be required to allow a Human Cull to take place.

1.Complete dependence upon the system.

Are we dependent on the system:

Food Water Electricity Gas Medicine Jobs Transport.

Is the above true for the vast majority of us ?

Who controls the system and with what do they control it.

Press y2k the cull begins, humans die back to a level the planet can sustain.

The survivors live to perpetuate the human species. Best Wishes.

-- Graham hyslop (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.co.uk), June 04, 1999

Answers

Rapid population growth. Nope - been slowing for years. Fact is, the countries with the largest birth rates, are also the ones with the highest death rates at early ages.

Deforestation. In the eighties we were not supposed to have one single rain forest left by 1995. We still have rain forests.

Pollution levels rising. Again, no, they have dropped steadily since the 50's. They only APPEAR to have risen because we now regard many more things as 'hazardous waste' than formerly. The 'rising pollution levels' are an illusion similar to the illusion you experience when riding a train and it seems as if the station has suddenly decided to slid towards the back of the train.

Global warming. Absolutely not proven to occur. Moreover, even if you accept the premise that the Earth is getting warmer, they have not proven it is not part of a natural cycle.

Destruction of the Human Habitat. ? My habitat is just fine.

Go read the early books published on these subjects - Malthus is a good one, then read The Population Bomb. Then sit back and THINK - if this stuff was real the human population would be under 2 billion right now. Then laugh and go on with your life.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

With respect paul your talking out of your ARSE.

-- Graham hyslop (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.co.uk), June 04, 1999.

don't worry paul,you can just wash it all down the river....

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

Graham

>>>>>>>>> Press y2k the cull begins, humans die back to a level the planet can sustain.

The survivors live to perpetuate the human species. Best Wishes. >>>>>>>>

True or not this is beyond the mandate of the group plus the fact that we can do little about the above situation. True if it happens, but the Government folk are just as vulnerable to this kind of failure as the sheep.

You are in the UK? Good bloody luck on surviving what you suggest. Why bother mentioning it. By the way if it is true, I believe you should have such out rageous claims well documented, on a web site and links where possible.

Otherwise you are just a polly feeder and that is the last thing we need right now. The Y2K risks are enough to get folks aware without the red herrings of duebious thought patterns.

Paul

The arctic and antarctic ice packs are receiding. This is a consern of alot of folk and it is a problem. Having lived up north it is a VERY real threat to the eco system. It is very fragile.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 04, 1999.

Graham, real easy to say that Paul is speaking out of his arse, isn't it? Got proof, or are you just like every other liberal lackey, and believe everything that is spoonfed to you. Take Paul up on his list, and then debate the facts. Symbolism without substance, you do seem to epitomize it.(Notice how I used the z instead of s. When did it become fashionable to use s in place of z?) Graham, this is not directed at you. Maybe it should be on another OT thread.

-- Mike (Boxman9186@aol.com), June 04, 1999.

Graham, congratulations on your restraint in exercising such typical British understatement when describing Paul Davis.

DAVIS - Rapid population growth. Nope - been slowing for years. Fact is, the countries with the largest birth rates, are also the ones with the highest death rates at early ages.

OLD GIT - Yes, quite, this is why Mexico City is expected to reach 30 million pop by the turn of the century. The water table is being depleted at such an alarming rate that the sinking of the city is measured almost in feet per year.

DAVIS - Deforestation. In the eighties we were not supposed to have one single rain forest left by 1995. We still have rain forests.

OLD GIT - IF, Paul, IF the decimation continued apace. It has slowed, not stopped. Check out erosion in those countries with what small percentage of the rain forests are left. Tell us the percentage now remaining since those 1980s reports.

DAVIS - Pollution levels rising. Again, no, they have dropped steadily since the 50's. They only APPEAR to have risen because we now regard many more things as 'hazardous waste' than formerly. The 'rising pollution levels' are an illusion similar to the illusion you experience when riding a train and it seems as if the station has suddenly decided to slid towards the back of the train.

OLD GIT - My God, this is the same "argument" some neanderthals use about rape! We don't really have any more rape cases than we used to, it just LOOKS that way because, we now include husband raping wife, boyfriend raping girlfriend, and date rape--and more women are reporting rapes than they used to. But it's all an illusion!

DAVIS - Global warming. Absolutely not proven to occur. Moreover, even if you accept the premise that the Earth is getting warmer, they have not proven it is not part of a natural cycle.

Old Git - Check out the research done at Sheffield University in England. They've proven, for example, that plants are changing their habits and habitats, as are birds and butterflies.

DAVIS - Destruction of the Human Habitat. ? My habitat is just fine.

OLD GIT - Where the hell do you live--in the middle of the Grand Canyon? And even that's littered by helicopter and small plane wreckage.

DAVIS - Go read the early books published on these subjects - Malthus is a good one, then read The Population Bomb. Then sit back and THINK - if this stuff was real the human population would be under 2 billion right now. Then laugh and go on with your life.

OLD GIT - You base your opinions on just these two books? When did anyone ever write a research paper where only two sources were acceptable?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 04, 1999.

I've thought those thoughts and they make perfect sense. It would be wonderful for the economy if Social Security and the Welfare system suddenly lost half of there older, frail dependants. Think about all the money that would be available for military spending.

-- Zeda (rickster@n-jcenter.com), June 04, 1999.

Old git Many thanks,I wish I had your patience with these fools.

Best wishes

-- Graham hyslop (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.co.uk), June 04, 1999.

Think about this planet just 100 years ago in 1900, then look at it today, Is doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it will be like in 100 more years if things continue as they are.

-- Michelle (anon@anon.com), June 04, 1999.

When will people understand this planet is our mother she feeds us with every thing we need, air, water etc would you kill your own mother.

Best wishes

-- Graham hyslop (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.co.uk), June 04, 1999.

Brain- You seem tense. Just because there has been alot of polly bombs falling lately is no reason to be ungracious to guests of this forum, with the notable exception of debunker crew who should occupy no one's valuable time.

-- Gia (Laureltree7@hotmail.com), June 04, 1999.

Paul is just waiting for the entire globe to be deforested so his Corp of Engineers can undertake an emergency re-planting of new improved genetically engineered trees.

How's that "fill in the Atlantic Ocean" project coming Paul?

-- a (a@a.a), June 04, 1999.

I do not jump all over Paul Davis when he posts his opinion, I like Paul, he has shown a real Libertarian bent on many subjects.

Having said that, if that is the way he feels about the above subjects, I suspect that we are screwed come Y2K.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

Mike, Brits and the Commonwealth countries use "ise" instead of "ize" in most applications. Americans used to use "ise" too, don't know when it changed.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 04, 1999.

Just today on Science Friday (NPR), a report was released that claimed we were in the beginning stages of a new ice age. It was found that the temperature rise for the entire 20th century was a result of this emerging ice age... so much for global warming !

-- R.A. Mann (ramann@hotmail.com), June 04, 1999.

Gia

I believe a case can be made for anything. I just think the principle of research should be applied to doomers as well as polly stuff. I will never comment on good news or bad if it is well documented. Y2K has given excelant examples on raving loonies chatting on something they know little about.

This is not to say Graham is a raving loonie (unless he is a monty python fan) but on a Naturalist view it is only a matter of time till the earth decides that man is a virus and expells us. Kind of what I consider a Milne 6.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 04, 1999.

Life is terminal illness or something.Why do people get so worked up about dying ??

-- Chris (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), June 04, 1999.

Where are Hallyx & Runway Cat when we need them?

-- flora (***@__._), June 04, 1999.

I feel obligated to weigh in on this thread. But, alas, my heart isn't in it. My views on the subject are well-known, and I am no longer capable of composing 1000 word treatises for people who are unwilling or incapable of doing their own research.

Far from being off-topic, the environmental debate is an accurate parallel to the discussion of Y2K. The upshot, in the words of Paul Simon, is, "A man, he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

The most shameful aspect of this whole thing is that it is not us, but our grandchildren, who wil have to live in the world our attitudes will have created for them. It is for them, not us, that I weep.

Hallyx

"....But man, proud man, Drest in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd, His glassy essence, like an angry ape, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, As make the angels weep...." ---Shakespeare

"The day the world ends, no one will be there, just as no one was there when it began. This is a scandal. Such a scandal for the human race that it is indeed capable collectively, out of spite, of hastening the end of the world by all means just so it can enjoy the show." --- Jean Baudrillard,Cool Memories, chapter 5 (1987).

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), June 04, 1999.

When will people understand this planet is our mother she feeds us with every thing we need, air, water etc would you kill your own mother.

Best wishes

-- Graham hyslop -----------------------------------------------------------------

The earth is not our mother, Graham, unless you are a neopagan which I am not. While it isn't rocket science to know that it is our space ship, the assumption that it is all collapsing around us is merely that.

The green movement is at its heart political and at its head cares no more for the 'environment' than Bill Clinton does for womens' rights. It merely uses well intentioned (mostly) fools and their money and votes.

The green movement at its heart means people must die for the good of the 'mother'. Which ones? Are you willing to stop sucking air so I can go on?

No one...

absolutely no one, has the right to kill large numbers of innocent, poor people in the name of 'mother earth'.

I guess we could get into a game of " My God can whip your Godess!" But what's the point?

All the people on the planet would fit in Texas with 1000 sq ft apiece. Not roomy, buy hey, what a national park, hmm?

-- WIll Huett (willhuett@usa.net), June 04, 1999.

For anyone who cares, here is how rapidly the world population is "falling".

See how many? Like rabbits!

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

All life reproduces to the limits of it's food supply. It's the normal imperative of nature. Life will "will out". We humans somehow feel we're above all that. I'm no Greenie. What scares the hell out of me is that while we have done a magnificent job of manipulating our food supply that success is so hugely dependent on technology working day i and day out.

Human cull? If not over 2yk then certainly over something. I just don't think we're as smart as we think we are.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 05, 1999.

vhemt

-- A. Solution (zz@xx.org.), June 05, 1999.

Well, if the ice pack in Antarctica does melt, that means a lot more land for Mexicans, Kosovars, Bangladeshians, Chinese, and other human rabbits (pumping out big litters) to move to and build strip malls on. No problemo.

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 05, 1999.

Graham,

The first thought that comes to my mind (twisted as it is) on hearing/reading a diatribe like yours is that you seem to want to hasten the "culling" along a bit. Tell me, when did your appointment as God come through, enabling you to toss off such lofty decisions about what should be with divine ease? Surplus 'animals', indeed. Your arrogance is stunning.

"Responsible government?" Would the Khmer Rouge qualify for your definition of a responsible government? They sure were successful in their 'culling' efforts. They got rid of more "surplus animals" than any other government in recorded history, on a per capita basis.

Why is it that so many who have embraced this point of view (Ted Turner and Al Gore come to mind) are such high profile wasteful consumers of the earth's "scarece resources?" Does their hypocricy know no bounds?

Tell me, if you are so concerned with the state of the earth, why don't you begin the culling process by doing away with yourself?

-- Lee (lplapin@hotmail.com), June 05, 1999.

Hello Lee

I do not wish depletion on the human race, but we are contained within natural barriers just like lions,tigers etc Man has a strong survival instinct rich/poor. the strong man will do any thing in his power to survive the same as the strong lion. The only differance man can see the problems coming and can act accordingly. So the men with the true information will use this to his advantage against the men without true info AGREED. this is called survival its a basic instinct we all have or we we would have all died a long time ago. this is not something i wish but it is something we all have to except if not y2k in the near future. Many thanks to all your contributions.

Best wishes

-- Graham hyslop (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.co.uk), June 05, 1999.

Graham etc, re: "Are the folllowing true"...(Rant mode on)

World population - it's certainly growing,(see Deedah's link) though I don't know if the acceleration of growth is still accelerating. Decelerating acceleration I think is what we got. We certainly have a long-term acceleration in the numbers of people living a "westernized" lifestyle, although the asian economic crisis put a dent in that. Obviously, gas-guzzling, tv advert-watching, middle-class? consumer mallzombies cause the environment many more hassles than do bronze age peasants, (although they do their share of damage too.)

Too many people? Most definitely!, and , most definitely NOT! There's too many people if we just keep on going with our modern ways, doing things they way they are currently done. Each person adds to the problems, pretty much, because we have not established modes of living which minimise our negate impacts upon eco-systems. Social, economic, cultural, political forces mitigate against people's efforts to reshape their lives and societies in manners conducive to survival of ecosystems. If our world was transformed in such a way that individuals and communities were in control of their own production and labour, and lived in decentralised, self-sufficient communities, AND were adult enought to realise that most of the physical things that moderns cling to are in fact impediments rather than helpers towards a fulfilling and meaningful life...THEN, we could probably fit a hundred billion humans no worries. And why not try? The more the merrier, as long as they can be reasonably accomodated. We all value human life, so lets try to sustain a whole lot more of it. But we don't just need to try to have as many humans as possible at once, we have to wake up and realise that

....WE GOT OURSELVES A NICE LITTLE PLANET HERE...if we play our cards right we could easily have, say, 2 billion humans at any given time, FOR THE NEXT BILLION YEARS! And by that time we will surely have evolvo'd into something "better" (If I may use a non-darwinian term in this context.) And even if we hold out for 500 years then we will surely have the capacity to populate space. This seems a better idea than having 10 billion destructive ignorant idiotic humans in 2030, by which time things would most likely be totally fucked - long term prospects of the ecosystem, and more importantly, the species would be grim. (I am a rabid greenie, but this is primarily because I value humans highly, and humans' experience will be devastated if their planet is. Earth IS lovable for its own sake as well.)

Deforestation??? Oh yoouuu betcha! Africa, S. America, and especially Asia are going bald faster than anyone can come to terms with. Just a year or two ago, there was that major forest fire disaster in Indonesia which was mostly man-made. Maybe the acceleration of deforestation is also decelerating, but it's still chugging along, causing a 1001 problems.

Pollution Levels rising?? In some places - no, things have improved, but overall Yes, it's still getting worse. Lots of the pollution created by and for the first world is shipped to the third world, (as if they didn't have enough problems.) I recently read the words of Rubin's replacement Summers?, who explained what wonderful economic sense this all made, sending our pollution to the poor countries. He seems like a fine upstanding moral person.(S) Y2k threatens to pollute a lot.

Global Warming??? It's occuring all right. What its cause is? I dunno. It could be greenhouse gases like they all say, or it could be one of a few other things. The sun, maybe.

Graham said "If any or all of the above are true would any responsible Government allow it to happen" Allthough my mind is far from made up on such issues, I feel that the average person's wish for "responsible government" is even more outlandish and contrary to experience, than the anarchists' wish for a peaceful, functioning society devoid of government. If you think that anarchism is impossible, I would recommend you check out the history of northern Spain in the 1930's... should be an eye opener.

If y2k were to substantially cull the number of humans,(i.e. 1B+) this would make it the most horrible event ever, but looking at things as a cold-blooded utilitarian, I would have to say that it would be for the best. Better for a premature, y2k induced civilisation collapse to come now, rather than for it to come in 30 years time from extreme environmental degradation. The argument against this position says that in those thirty years we have, (being an optimistic pessimist here) humans might well come up with the solutions to the our earth-use problems, thereby averting eco-collapse and civilisation collapse.

My reply would be : Trend analysis...do you really see ANY substantial improvements being made? Have the economic powers done anything other than windowdressing and PR with regard to ecological problems? The overwhelming majority of the humans are struggling to survive, day to day - their established patterns are largely the cause of the problems..have they ANY means of changing this??? Have they the will, or even an understanding of the necessity for change? No corporation seems ready to substantially forego competitive advantage in order to reduce the impact of their activities. No government is willing to address this as an emergency which they only have one chance to successfully address. (hmm, sounds familiar.)

30 years to hope for a miracle breakthrough of some sort; but the recent history of technological advances which promise salvation is most depressing...the inventions get invented all right, the solutions are technically feasible, but the political clout of the mega-bucks stifles any change. Patents get bought up, sinister phone-calls, inventors' brakes fail mysteriously...I'm sure you've all heard the stories, and I've followed many of them up and found them to be probably true. If you want a clean cut, above board example, read ALL about the 10 year history of cold fusion. Hundreds of scientists - pro's and cranks - are still working on it, getting amazing, reproducible results, refining their theories and practices...and no-one gives them any attention or money. They put forward a very strong scientific case for having discovered maybe the greatest breakthrough of all time, and no-one wants to know about it! (And technological progress would still be just the start.)

Power centralisation kills progress! And capitalism (or whatever you would call what we've got) is an amazing system for the centralisation of power. Money talks, and coerces, and kills. And money goes where money grows, bringing all the power with it; but money is blind to the problems that it causes, and those of us who can see the problems tend to cry a lot.

-- humpty (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), June 05, 1999.

Humpty Humanity will never see sence (by which a living thing becomes aware of the external world)on its own. it is to blinded by greed,consumerism,envy etc. that is what makes me want to cry. It needs a big ugly horribly terrifying wake up call.

Best Wishes.

-- Graham hyslop (Bob@ghoward-oxley.demon.co.uk), June 05, 1999.