I seldom start a thread, but A@AisA posted on a recent thread about this issue on "Farmers Need Cash To Survive Drought" and Al Lloyd, (sp) has posted on water issues. I think people need to wake up to the fact that we are breeding ourselves off the planet. My only child was born in 1960 and the population has doubled since then. 39 years!!

Perhaps we should tax people for having more than two children rather than giving them tax breaks. And how about banning fertility clinics; there are thousands or children that need good homes. Why is the right to breed, such an "off limits" issue? Some think Y2K is a conspiracy, planned in advance, to reduce the population? What do you think? Name me one environmental problem that is not the result of overpopulation.

Here's my favorite quote by one of my favorite authors, Edward Abbey. I'm sure I'll be flamed like a weed in a grass fire, but I have on my flameproof, multi-colored, new age outfit.

"The purpose of love, sex, and marriage is the production and raising of children. But look about you: Most people have no business having children. They are unqualified, either genetically or culturally or both, to reproduce such sorry speciments as themselves. Of all our privileges, the license to breed is the one most grossly abused."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 22, 1999

Answers

I agree the "license" to breed is grossly abused. Unfortunately no government is qualified to determine who is fit to reproduce. The sorry mess there is now, (with the majority of parents being unfit), is much better than having a government actually tried to regulate reproduction.

Personally, I'd love it if 100% of Americans voluntarily stopped having children and immigration levels were linked to the death-rate. IMO "imported Americans" tend to be higher quality than the home- grown variety.

-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), August 22, 1999.

Edward Abbey can talk shit all he wants,society needs less than average people.The smarty-big-brain types certianly don't want to clean their own toilets.and let's not enen start talking about licences for childbirth.

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@large.com), August 22, 1999.

Got great news for you, gilda: Y2K may SOLVE the overpopulation problem!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

over population??not if species die-back starts in 4 months...

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@uahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Gilda

I do believe that there is a country that you would love...And they have a birth policy which they enforce to....It is called China, Red China, i.e. Communist China.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), August 22, 1999.

The Chinese "choice" was an incredibly difficult decision, and one that I applaud. Their leaders were looking at demographic and agricultural data that led to only one conclusion:

Reduce the birth rate by draconian measures, or
Sit back and watch as famine and politcal instability ended their culture.

So the powers that be reached a "resolution" that if not *good* was at least fairly implemented. (There was no good resolution) Abortion can be psychologically painful. Probably not as painful as watching your 10 and 15 and 21 year old children starve to death...

Berry.

-- Berry Picker (BerryPicking@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Never happen, Gilda. Smacks too much of common sense. But remember, Mother Nature abhores a crowd. Be it in the goat barn or the forest, she WILL cull her crop through earthquake, flood, hurricane, disease and perhaps the insaneness of man.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

In China there are now so few girls per boys that the men are importing Korean wives.

Overpopulation is obviously a problem globally. Man could deal with the numbers of ppl in much better ways ecologically, but short-sightedly chooses the fast easy convenient throw-away society.

We didn't have kids. Nuff said :-)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 22, 1999.

Gilda:

I agree that overpopulation is a big problem, but who has the right to say who has the right to live, and who doesn't.

Maybe if y2k is a real disaster, you'll be among the first wave of deaths. Sounds fair, doesn't it - this is one way of reducing the population.

-- Scarlett (creolady@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

apokoliptic, Abbey was not talking about "less than average people." He was talking about people who are unfit to raise children regardless of their intellectural, social, or economic class, or any other strata of society you care to address. Unfit parents occur in all levels of society. The average person has no monoply on being unfit for parenting.

Abbey himself, was born in West Virginia, of good but average parents. He has very little regard for the "smarty big-brains type," as you call them. The quote about license, does not literally mean "licenses for childbirth."

I might add that Abbey was virtually ignored by the mainstream literati in New York, who considered him an anarchist because he deeply distrusted the government, and uncouth because he did not always follow literary formalities. He had a great love of nature, was a strong believer in personal liberty, and was a cynic about mankind and social movements. His book, Desert Solitaire, has been in print for 25 years.

Much of what makes him so popular is that he often says what others only think. He is fearless in his criticism of sacred cows..

There is a great websit if you want to know more about hiim, called Abbey's Web. One of his mottos, like Thoreau before him, was "resist much, obey little."

Also, he was under the FBI's scrutiny for years, but they never, ever bothered to read one of his books. I suppose they considered him a serious threat to the government because he criticized them so often.

Another good book about his life is "Epitaph For A Desert Anarchist," by Jim Bishop.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 22, 1999.

Gilda,

Overpopulation is not the problem, Over Governmentation is the problem.

People die in Africa because of corruption on a large scale and not because the earth is overpopulated.

If Americans were "allowed" to live their lives freely, that is live on their own land without fear of being removed from that land because of failure to pay property tax or Income tax then people may tend to move out to less populated areas and live a different lifestyle. But government steps in and controls the situation so that industry might have their "workers" and government might have their "taxpayers".

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), August 22, 1999.

would tend to agree with Taz- nature will have her way- we have resisted so far- AID meds, etc-but there is only so much we can do against nature- and unfortunately- just a small reduction won't even be felt in the global scheme of things- ie: what has happened in turkey is a true tragedy- but even if ultimately 50,000 people have perished in the quake- which is a number I do expect to be close to reality- that is only the size of a small US city- nothing by global population standards.

As regards china-I think they had a hard choice to make- and even though I do honor personal freedoms and choice- choosing to have multiple children and bringing down the whole country is not a sound choice IMHO- so I don't see that the govt had any real choice but to do what they do- and it is selfish of couples to try to circumvent the ruling and have more- while others are doing their part and having only one.

Unfortunately- the only thing that will help reduce the global population by any significant level is a meteor strike, or global epidemic- anthrax or something similar- I'm not advocating this-just what I think is reality. Y2k won't even come close to doing this.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), August 22, 1999.

Abbey's Web

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), August 22, 1999.

Gilda,

If the United States Government would uphold the Constituion of the this land then we would be secure in our "persons, houses," etc. It is my opinion that this would go a long way in reducing the so called overpopulation problem. People could spread out. But no the government wants to control.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just a little side note for today...(Isa 5:8 KJV) "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!"

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), August 22, 1999.

Few parents were more poorly qualified, by today's standards, than Edward Abbey's. Poor, hardscrabble West Virginia farmers, the father had to shag logs alone to make ends meet. Yet they raised several (?six) children, including cantankerous Ed, outlived by his dad, in fact. Gilda, as always, your words are frightening and filled with hate: you sound exactly like a nazi eugenicist, opting to choose some 'elite' genetic element at the expense of the rest of us. Dear me, I thought Mr. Hitler had taught us enough about that temptation. How soon we forget.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), August 22, 1999.

I'm sorry, but anybody who would refer to the miracle of life I've experienced in having two beautiful children as, "BREEDING", is sadly chugging down the road of life without any spiritual guidance. It is a perfect example of how we find ourselves trapped within a society of no vision, morals, or ethics. Species die off is a normal aspect of the circle of life, but we continue attempts to cheat God's will and wind up with a new set of medical 'problems' like abortion, mercy killing, nursing homes, abandoned elderly, and the multitude of individuals who must be 'cared for' for the duration of their lives due to medical interventions done on the basis of selfish refusal to just let them go as intended. Too busy 'playing' God to notice. My Grandfather was a prominent surgeon and cancer researchist. He struggeled with this fine line. If *asked*, he would have told you he was a man of great faith. It *used* to go hand in hand with the profession. Upon the arrival of me, me, me, money, money, money....we ran into big problems.

This country was based on faith. Yes there are those who 'use' it like a crutch, similar to a substance abuse problem. If you are unable to care for children, choose not to have them or choose not to have any more. IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICE. I believe God wanted faith to be used as a guide, an example. He gave us the ability to choose. Life is a test and we are failing it miserably, due to bad choices, all around us. Our government treats people of faith like they are currently treating preparers. The word Christain has become lumped into the same pile with militia, right-wing extremists or Y2K preparers. Can't you see that? Targeted, labeled, accused and persecuted by our OWN government? "cowering in churches waiting for the world to end....determined to buy desert land and hoard gold, bullets and Skoal in their pickup trucks." This is from OUR PRESIDENT. This country voted a Marxist into office TWICE.

For the last time......hopes of restoring, preserving and protecting the planet's environment will never be successful without the death of Billions. We're organic, it would be good for the soil. Those remaining would be stupid fools to allow a return of the fossil fuel industry and everything that comes with it, among other things. The Earth would heal itself and restore and replenish what we have destroyed, in our ignorant, greedy quest to be Gods. Without this aspect of the circle of life, we're cooked and so will be the planet, no ifs ands or buts. We've made too many bad choices that cannot be reversed any other way.

Goats "breed". People create "miracles" with the help of God. Get over it.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 22, 1999.

Will Continue:

Very well said. We need more people like you.

-- Scarlett (creolady@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

Yes, Scarlett, we do.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

I was discussing the Navy report with another GI and ended up in uncharted conspiracy territory. This particular plot is a first though, as far as I know, and so I thought I would pass it along. It is based on a conversation that I just had that went something like this:

GI: Governments continue to lie and spin. The leaked Navy report by Jim Lord is the latest example. The important thing is to know *why* they are lying.

Me: We have kicked this around before. The answers usually include avoiding a panic, bank runs, a collapse in the financial markets, and the people cant take the truth mentality, etc. You know, round up the usual suspects.

GI: But suppose that these usual suspects mask a deeper reason behind the *deliberate* lies? What might the rationale be for keeping the Y2K truth continually spun and swept under the rug by the governments, in increasingly obvious collusion with the mainstream press?

Me: I dont know. NWO? Third way? I have seen some conspiracy type plots discussed.

GI: There are now more people than ever. This is decreasing the limited planetary supply of things like natural resources. At the same time the world population continues to increase. People are going to die from Y2K. Six out of seven of the most populated countries in the world are reported to be in very bad Y2K shape: China, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Russia, and I think Brazil. There are too many people on this planet all needing the same limited things. What is the carrying capacity of our spinning blue planet?

Me: You think it is possible that the powers that be are looking to Y2K as a means to wipe out a large part of the world population?

GI: Its possible. Have you read Clancys Rainbow Six? The leaders will be nice and safe in there bunkers when TSHTF and then emerge to take control of a much smaller population.

Me: No, I never read it. My opinion on these conspiracy theories has been that if we assume that there really is a conspiracy then no matter how much they plan things results always turn out differently than expected. Chaos theory.

-- (motherof@ll.conspiracy), August 22, 1999.

Gilda:

Of coarse your points are valid and tied to such a deeply rooted emotion, such a sensible dialogue on a forum such as this will only degrade into mud slinging and insults.

These are things that are usually resolved not by consciuos thought, but through catastrophic events whether through nature, or man caused.

I think that wars (except nuclear possibly) are not sufficient. Famine on a world wide scale, while not pleasant to comtemplte, nevertheless could be the event that will cause a shrinkage of the population by a significant percentage.

Y2k could of coarse cause these things to occur.

As for birth rates being controlled, our civilization is concered with "rights" rather than "duty", so It will not be done voluntarily. Regretably, huge masses of people have to die and it will be forced upon mankind in the most unpleasant of ways eventually.

regards,

Bob P

-- Bob P (rpilc99206@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

Few more futile enterprises exist than expecting a discussion on human over-population of the planet to remain focused on the best interests of the human race.

The Earth probably could support 20 to 30 billion people. Food would consist of algae pellets, water would be rationed, going out of doors would be hazardous to health, but very few open spaces would exist anyway. The levels of atmospheric contaminants now found only in our larger cities would prevail worldwide. Both travel and the unrestricted dissemination of news would have to be rigidly controlled.

And -- even then -- the arguments against limiting population growth would continue, buttressed as always on theologies devised in the Fertile Crescent thousands of years ago, designed for a world long vanished.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 22, 1999.

I like the way you start this post, Gilda; I only had one child an that was 39 yrs. ago. You're an excellent manager, Gilda.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), August 22, 1999.

Jim, thanks for making the link to Abbey's web.

Taz, you're right, natural thinning often happens when overpopulation of animals occurs in nature.

So Ed Abbey's father raised a large family and outlived his son. Being a poor W. VA farmer does not mean he was "poorly qualified" for parenting by any standards. But had he been too lazy to "shag logs" to earn a living, abused drugs and alcohol, beat his wife, neglected his children and was a permanent welfare recipient, the equation changes dramaticall

One of my grandfather's raised 9 children, but that doesn't mean that I can't see the writing on the wall, and will follow suit like a dumbhead with little concern for the planet, or my grandchildren Spidey, once more you have blessed me with one of your kindly, Christian posts. Does this mean I've been promoted from a" witch" to a "Nazi?"

motherof@llconspiracy, I'm glad that someone addressed the Y2K conspiracy point in my post instead of just blasting away, hashing the same old tired arguments and slinging mud. I've read this "conspiracy to reduce the population with Y2K" on several threads, and I thought it was utter nonsense as most conspiracy theories often are. But *if* the powers that be decided they wanted to do a population reduction, they sure picked the perfect tool, the computer.

Bob P, wouldn't it be wonderful, if we as a thinking species, could decide in a rational way to reduce our population voluntarily. But no, as you say, it will take a "catastrophe" to put the brakes on producing so many little "miracles." And we call animals dumb.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 22, 1999.

Gilda: Your question answers itself. It already is.

Best,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

One of my grandfather's raised 9 children, but that doesn't mean that I can't see the writing on the wall, and will follow suit like a dumbhead with little concern for the planet, or my grandchildren

You have grandchildren?? Why did you let that child of yours breed???

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 22, 1999.

Will continue...that was my favorite out of your responses so far.

gilda...You are bound to attract flames when you use inflammatory language, eg. "the right to breed". I feel more sad than upset. You applaud China's one child policy. Have you read about the reality of implementing it? Have you read of the horrific infanticide that takes place? It is common to kill the "over quota" healthy newborns by injecting formaldehyde into their heads. Drowning is also used. Apparently your ethics say the end justifies the means. To say you have criticized Christians for hateful behavior on many postings is probably an understatement. It seems that cruelty is not wrong as long as it fits your worldview. I recommend Stephen Mosher's book "A Mother's Story" to anyone who would like to know the reality of China's one child policy.

"And how about banning fertility clinics; there are thousands or children that need good homes. " I agree that our system is abysmal in dealing with children who need families. Have you ever tried to adopt? We did. We tried to adopt through the system... not an infant either, asked for a child that was hard to place. We went through a home study to adopt a "Jane Doe" who was biracial, had drug addict mother, unknown father and was four years old. We qualified with flying colors, until they found out I had just become pregnant. We already had two children, and were not "newbies" to parenting, but no matter how we fought the system, they would not allow us to adopt that little girl who had already been floating in the foster system for four years without a name! A few years before that, we tried to adopt an eight year old deaf girl, but her social worker shut the process down when we told him that we would be transferred out of state the next year. He admitted that he wanted to be able to track her more closely. I think if you talk to people, you will find that it is not that they are not willing and eager to give homes to many of these children, but our wonderful government has a racket going. Follow the money and you will see why more kids are not being placed into homes. It seems the height of arrogance to deny fertility help to couples.

" Name me one environmental problem that is not the result of overpopulation." I believe you will find man's greed and corrupt nature responsible for many environmental problems. There are factories and businesses that have polluted our waters to save money.

"Most people have no business having children. They are unqualified, either genetically or culturally or both, to reproduce such sorry speciments as themselves." This view seems to be the height of arrogance. Does this person have an infallible crystal ball? Who can predict which child from which famly will grow up to be a mensch? Human beings make choices, and these choices have astounded logic and predictablity throughout history, for good and for bad. A classic example is Beethoven. The above reasoning would have extinguished his genius and contribution to humanity. It is one thing when natural disasters reduce the population. It is chilling when human beings feel they have the right to decide who has the right to live.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

I repeated myself, but the truth remains that whoever feels they have the right to make these choices for others must feel they "know best" and that is rooted in pride and arrogance. No human "knows" that much.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

Mumsie:

Your criticisms are valid. It is not a question of the "quality" of our seed, but of the quantity. The world can sustain [with high technology] 20 or 30 or more million people; but at what cost in the quality of life. This may be a mute point, because, I am saying can we continue to live like I did when I was young. Well, we can't now. Too many people. What decision will we make? Don't know. We should be thinking about it.

Be

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

Soylent Green

-- x (x@y.now), August 22, 1999.

Father of five and, if had to do over again, would have ten, as would Mrs. Big Dog. Glad that those who don't want children don't have any: ours will have five each and so forth and the Big Dogs (and friends) will come, over time to inhabit the earth.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 22, 1999.

Gilda: Good try.

To those who object to the word "breed": How about "spawn"? People object to words like "breed" referring to humans evidently think that they (the human race) are not subject to the same constraints and laws of nature as are deer, coyotes, cats, dogs, rats, and cockroaches. "They" (the poor dumb [lower] animals) "breed" while we "superior" humans plop out "God's little miracles of life." Sheesh!

Mark Hillyard's quote -- Isa 5:8 KJV) "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!" seems to be overlooked by most bible thumpers in favor of "Go forth and be fruitful" an instruction which has been accomplished and then some.

But, as others have said, nature (reality) will achieve a balance. That could be a population of 30 billion living in apartment blocks, algae and SOYLENT GREEN for food, and a once a year pass for two days on a beach somewhere.

Or it could be a die-off soon from the present 6(?) billion to 1 billion. Or it could be in 10 years after the population has dubled to 10-12 billion and a die-off to 1 billion. All you bleeding hearts concerned about people dying -- which is better 6 down to 1, or 12 down to 1?

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 22, 1999.

What amazes me about those who view the world as overpopulated, is that they never seem to consider themselves as among the excess chaff. They are enlightened, necessary, useful, and therefore worthy denizens of the planet. None of them volunteer to prematurely die and make room. I read the original post to my teenage daughter (19) (without commenting) and her response was "That's sinister. How old is she? Why does she have a right to live? We should look at her physical exam, and analyze and decide how much she's contributing to society now. People of my generation already don't respect the elderly, so by the time these people are old, Generation X is going to say 'alright, it is overpopulated, let's get rid of them'. I don't even want to get old because my peers are already so hard. And if people don't want to have kids, who will take care of them when they're older?" So that is the meaning of Generation X, they will X out the unfit to live and "breed" or "spawn". You do reap what you sow.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

Correction to above book title: It is "A Mother's Ordeal" by Stephen Mosher.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

If the size of the Earth was twice as big as it is, I would agree with those here who think the more the merrier. However, its not. What the Chinese are doing, and it's admittedly very disturbing, has become necessary. The human species breeds (sorry Will) like rabbits. Like the Fibonacci sequence: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, ... We have to plan now for the future, because by the time we get there, it will be too late. Can you come up with a better way to curb the Chinese population explosion?

The long term solution is the colonization of space. This is should be the goal of the human race, and not to turn the planet into a spent shell by recklessly adding humans to an already overpopulated world.

-- a (a@a.a), August 22, 1999.

Regarding the comment about attempts to cheat "God's will", how do you explain fertility clinics? It seems to me that if God wanted someone to have a baby, He would give it to them naturally, and there would be no need for these clinics. (At least not for Christians.)

Like that couple who had the octuplets. They claimed it was God's will and a miracle. Yet I believe the true miracle would have been if it had happened without the help of science.

-- what (what@god's.will), August 22, 1999.

farmer and berry picker thanks for your, logical and balanced posts.

Mumsie I did not mention, or "applaud" China's policy for curbing population anywhere in my thread, but I do agree with farmer and berry picker that "they [China] had a hard choice to make." What would you have had China do, sit around and watch thousands of children die slowy from disease and starvation? Do you have a better solution to go with your criticism of their policy. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to make the hard decisions, or come up with a humane, but workable solution.

The problem is serious, I did not create it, so why are you attacking me, rather than the problem. The US will have to deal with it sooner or later, or they will untimately be in the same position as China. If Y2K is serious, the problem will only be made more difficult.

farmer says Y2K "won't even come close" to reducing the population in siginificant numbers, so shouldn't responsible people be thinking about the future instead of just leaving this mess for our grandchildren to deal with.

WC, call it what you like it, but human beings are animals, and whether you prefer a euphemism such as "miracle of life" or "making love," it is still breeding which is something all life forms on do to carry on their species. It seems you'd rather preach a sermon than tackle the hard issues of what we are facing in the future, Y2k or not. Yet you don't flinch at "the death of Billions," in "hopes of restoring, preserving and protecting the planet's enviornment...." You simply say, "We're organic, it would be good for the soil."

Mark your Bible quote is very relevant to this issue. Unfortunately it's not the one we hear often enough.

KoFE, you misquoted me. I said, "My only child was born in 1960 and the population has doubled since then--39 years!" My point was how quickly it has doubled, what is your problem with that.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 22, 1999.

I don't think overpopulation itself has to be a problem. There is enough arable land and food to feed the world many times over right now,able to support tens of billions.

The problem is that famine/starvation is used as a political weapon in many if not most cases. That is, frantic distribution of aid to striken areas often doesn't get where it needs to go because of armed thugs who decide that certain factions among their countrymen need to die off.

Another secondary problem is that huge amounts of soybeans and grain are used to feed cows and pigs. This is great for a western diet where daily meat is considered a must, but for the rest of the world it means that cows and pigs are a higher economic priority than starving human children. Who cares if decent meat/dairy substitutes can be made from soy that would ultimately far less expensive if the demand was there? Gotta sell them Big Macs!

Tree huggingly yours,

Coprolith (who just enjoyed one of those sinful Big Macs today)

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 22, 1999.

Hey other "a": Getting into space (again?) would be too cool, but I read once upon a time that given the present population explosion that we couldn't shuttle people off the planet faster than they BRED/SPAWNED.

Taking Gilda's figure of 40 years to double -- I think it's less now, 25 or 30 -- but let's say 40, and there's no die-off, and let's say we can ship people off a planet as fast as they breed, so the population stays stable. In 40 years 12 billion on earth. In 80 years, 12 billion on earth, 12 billion on Mars. In 120 years, 12 billion on Earth, 12 billion on Mars, 24 billion in the asteroids and/or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn (whatever) ...

You see where I'm going with this. The population increase has to be controlled at some time, or we'll drown in our own shit.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 22, 1999.

Is anyone aware of the changing birthrates in certain countries i.e., Europe, and some parts of Asia and Latin America? ABC News ran a special (believe it was Nightline) where they examined this purported phenomenon. As it turns out several countries are no longer having enough children to maintain "replacement" (~2.1 children per adult female) levels. Some of the countries mentioned (not only in the Nightline show but other sources) are Italy (~1.3), Russia (1.6 or 1.9), and Thailand (1.6). In fact, several countries have had dramatic decreases - as an example Malaysia went from having 6 children/mother (in the 60's) -> 2.3 children/mother (80's). The explanation by most experts for this decrease was attributed to the raising of the women's educational levels. Now, I am not suggesting that we should abanadon efforts to focus attention on this problem but this does provide a glimmer of hope...Regards,

-- william holst (w_holst@hotmail.com), August 22, 1999.

Gilda, I think enviromental damage is done by mismanagement more so than overpopulation, but you are right about the fertility clinics and such (extreme mismanagement); I have been hearing quotes from people like Kissinger "useless feeders" - referring to people over 65, so anything that sounds even close to that rubs me the wrong way.People are constantly being bombarded by programming urging them to consume while conservation is outside the mainstream. Cutting the rainforest to raise beef for McDonalds is criminal mismanagement. We are being taught that life is cheap in order to protect the status-quo.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), August 22, 1999.

My wild ass figures:
Non-wog countries are 1/5 of the population and are reproducing at only 1.5 per female. Wog countries with some control are 1/5 and just at replacement rate of 2.1. Out-of-control wog countries are 3/5 and are reproducing at 3 per female.
Seems like a weighted average would still be well over 2.1
However, that IS a good argument.

Question is: Are resource capabilities and waste disposal capabilities sufficient to maintain even the present population if that population even approached the wealth of Europe or even that of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc? Answer: NO. So the wog nations won't get wealthier and their populations increase (until a die-off), or they do get wealthier, but more and that wealth has to be devoted to handling their shit, in which case they are not really wealthier.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 22, 1999.

Don't worry all you'se guys...

The illuminati plan is for a population cull anyways, they have been doing this quite effectively now in Africa for many years (Aids) - wait and see...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 22, 1999.

Perhaps some of us are forgetting one thing. The earth doesn't belong to US, it belongs to God. He does have a plan and an agenda and you aren't going to change it and woe unto those who would impliment or give consent to a Mengala or Nazi type racial purification program or the Chinese model of forced abortion.

If you think that you are ever going to have a nice, prosperous society by making up your own rules I suggest you read chapter 18 of Leviticus and then consider (starting with) verse 24: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am goiing to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. (26) ...The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable thing, (27) for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. (28) And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you".

Gilda and some of you others might like God's upcoming population reduction program. Y2K may just be the trip wire for the begining of such sorrows where 1/4 of the worlds population is wiped out by war, famine and plague. In addition to your food buckets and water perhaps some knee pads wouldn't be a bad idea.

Consider from Revelation: Rev. 6:4 "Then another horse came out, a fiery red one, Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword. ..... (6) Then I heard what sounded like a voice ...saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damge the oil and the wine!" Rev. 6:8 "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."

In His service S. David Bays

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), August 22, 1999.

Mumsie, I agree with you! People are brainwashed when it comes to this subject. They think overpopulation in the cause of a lot of the worlds crises.

China is the crulest of the cruel. How can you people approve of such hideous actions of caging a woman, tying her up and ripping her child apart. Did anyone see Nightline when Ted had a Chinese official that had defected with video tape of what they do?

Can you imagine being jailed until you give birth and then have the goverment KILL your child. Heartless most of you on this thread are just heartless and it makes me want to Weep. Most of the worlds problems are caused be selfish people in GOVT. and Corporations that pollute and etc. I could go on but what is the use. No wonder the world is going to hell in the proverbial handbasket with attitudes like most of the ones above. FLAME ME, I DON"T EVEN CARE!

-- Mother of four (MOM@Home.com), August 22, 1999.

Mumsie, I agree with you! People are brainwashed when it comes to this subject. They think overpopulation in the cause of a lot of the worlds crises.

China is the crulest of the cruel. How can you people approve of such hideous actions of caging a woman, tying her up and ripping her child apart. Did anyone see Nightline when Ted had a Chinese official that had defected with video tape of what they do?

Can you imagine being jailed until you give birth and then have the goverment KILL your child. Heartless most of you on this thread are just heartless and it makes me want to Weep. Most of the worlds problems are caused be selfish people in GOVT. and Corporations that pollute and etc. I could go on but what is the use. No wonder the world is going to hell in the proverbial handbasket with attitudes like most of the ones above. FLAME ME, I DON"T EVEN Care!

-- Mother of four (MOM@Home.com), August 22, 1999.

what : I explained my position on medical intervention. A fertility clinic makes a living with medical intervention, does it not?

gilda : human beings have a few more advanced features in the brain capability department than 'most' animals....Dr. Dolittle. One of these abilities is to absorb information and form conclusions and solutions based upon logic, as opposed to animal instincts (our President). This gives us the ability to ascertain the difference between ourselves and animals. I've yet to decide which category of biological species you belong in, but, I'll keep examining your situation.

There are many who are grateful, inspired and enriched by they're personal, private relationship with *their* higher being (sometimes known as God). If this actually offends ANYONE, I'm deeply sorry. I have no doubt that *for me* this relationship is ideal. I don't care if you choose this path or not. REALLY. Just get the hell off of the rest of our backs about it. It's all about choice. As far as your population fears, THERE IS NO SOLUTION SHORT OF MASSIVE REMOVAL FROM THE PLANET. Are you afraid to die? When it's over, it's over, for *you* anyway. Not for me. When it comes to things that are out of my control, I have something I trust will do the job. All the rest of you can continue looking for others to blame for the poor choices all the *animals* have made. (Friggin' whales driving like maniacs, damn owls plowing down rain forests......you know, animals)

Big Dog, your post has suddenly moved me from an 8+ to Infomagic (ROTF) :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 22, 1999.

In my post above I neglected to mention the problem of garbage and trash, which is already critical in the industrialized nations..

Nevertheless and notwithstanding, the cruelty some here have criticized originates with those people who engender children in greater numbers than our ecosystem can support. Above and beyond replacement of deaths, what's the point of making more and more babies? We've been given free will in this and many other respects. We've been given the intelligence to understand the consequences of our actions. Usable Lebensraum is pretty much filled already.

When deer overpopulate an area (which happens regularly) either they starve to death in large numbers, or the bag limits are increased to reduce the population. Lemmings take care of their population surges on a regular basis, by migrating en masse to jump in the ocean.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 22, 1999.

Oh come on!! Let's talk about the famine in China. Have you studied the causes? How about the time the Brilliant-not Mao decided that birds were eating the crops, and pulled all available bodies to chase and kill any and all birds? Result? Out of control insects that devoured the crops. There are other examples if you will dig past your "too many human feeders" mantra. Exactly right that we have the capability to feed our population. How many people in India starve while cows meander around munching? How about the people who starve in Africa while evil men steal the food we send? If you start laying out agricultural facts and possibilities, then famine should be just a word in the dictionary. It is exactly your "I'm important and you're not" attitudes that fuel these inhumanities. You believe you can manage the population and create utopia? Good luck. I don't believe in luck, but you will need a whole lot of it. I'm still waiting for one of you to volunteer yourself to the great Cause of lowering the earth's population. Oh wait,... you are one of the keepers, right? Uh huh.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

Mumsie, Mother of 4, Bays -- You're basically all the same -- religious cranks. Some preacher fills your empty head with pablum and you obligingly regurgitate it on cue.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 23, 1999.

Dear Gilda the problem seems to be overcomsumption not overpopulation.Hope you will live to visit the underground factories and the cities and farms on the sea bottoms---We will prevail!

-- merek mura (merek@aloha.net), August 23, 1999.

Atlantic Monthly, August 1999 Max Singer, "The Population Surprise" http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99aug/9908popdrop.htm

...Because in the past two centuries world population has increased from one billion to nearly six billion, many people still fear that it will keep "exploding" until there are too many people for the earth to support. But that is like fearing that your baby will grow to 1,000 pounds because its weight doubles three times in its first seven years.

...The evidence now indicates that within fifty years or so world population will peak at about eight billion before starting a fairly rapid decline.

-- Procrastinator (enlightenment@openmind.com), August 23, 1999.

Andy, you said, ""The illuinati is for a population cull anyways, they have been doing this quite effectively now in Africa for many years (Aids) - wait and see.."

Do you have anything to back up the above statement? Just curious.

Also, how would, or could the "illuminati plan" possibly work in the US? It doesn't sound logical to me. Our government seems to be pro a large population. They refuse funds for Planned Parenthood, they give tax deductions for every child that's born, whether 1 or 10, etc., -- and why?--all because they require lots of tax money from lots of taxpayers to support their foolishness. It doesn't seem to me like a "population cull" would be in their self-interests, as they depend on, and promote large populations of future consumers to support the 1% of the top monied class who help them get into office.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 23, 1999.

Gilda, you still haven't explained why you are allowing your child to breed. If you really believe in this cause, why are you adding to the problem???

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 23, 1999.

Black Pot, what a foolish question. Exactly how much control do you, or anyone else, exercise over your grown children? I'll answer your question, now you answer mine.

First, growing up, my son heard all about overpopulation, and how important it was to be a good parent. Second, I stressed that being a responsible person meant having no more than two children, to replace him and his wife, and that being a responsible parent meant giving his child a loving, nurturing home. Third, my son did not marry until his 30's. They now have one child. They are expecting another, and when it arrives he is having a vasectomy.

Every Christmas they buy two new tricycles to donate to the police department for their annual Toys for Tots drive for needy children. And they also they don't seem to have the utter disrespect for older people that some people their age, and younger, have. They help a couple in their 80's with chores, as the man has recently suffered a stroke, and the couple's own children do not live close. If this sounds like I'm bragging, that's too bad. They are caring responsible adults, and I'm proud of them both.

Having said that, you know as well as I do, that we teach our kids as best we can to be responsible adults. But how they live after they leave home may be totally different from what we hoped, and there's nothing we can do about it. I know many people my age that are now in their retirement years and are raising their grandchildren because their grown kids won't care for them..

Does this answer your inquisition?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 23, 1999.

Gilda, I share your concern about overpopulation, but I don't think our forum, or any forum, can cope with more than one huge topic at a time.

(For people wondering how huge a problem overpopulation is right now, not in the future, I recommend a book that you, Gilda, may already be aware of, "The Ends of the Earth", by Robert D. Kaplan.)

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 23, 1999.

Black Pot, what a foolish question. Exactly how much control do you, or anyone else, exercise over your grown children?

If you can't control your children, then you shouldn't have had one. That was your first mistake.

First, growing up, my son heard all about overpopulation, and how important it was to be a good parent.

A good start, considering your breeding of him was a bad idea in the first place.

Second, I stressed that being a responsible person meant having no more than two children, to replace him and his wife,

So you taught him to simply continue the overpopulation problem rather than try to reduce it. This was your second mistake.

Third, my son did not marry until his 30's.

This is irrelevant.

They now have one child.

Another mouth to feed on an already overpopulated planet.

They are expecting another,

And another mouth to feed.

and when it arrives he is having a vasectomy.

Closing the barn door after the horses leave. At least no other horses will get out.

They are caring responsible adults, and I'm proud of them both.

If they were caring responsible adults, they would not have bred two more mouths that need feeding, adding to an already overburdened population and creating more waste and filth in our landfills and sewers.

Having said that, you know as well as I do, that we teach our kids as best we can to be responsible adults.

You did a lousy job.

But how they live after they leave home may be totally different from what we hoped, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Then you shouldn't have had him in the first place. You bred a mistake and taught him to breed even more mistakes. And you wonder why we have an overpopulation problem??

I know many people my age that are now in their retirement years and are raising their grandchildren because their grown kids won't care for them.. Well, I'm sure they taught their kids as best they could to be responsible adults. But how they live after they leave home may be totally different from what they hoped, and there's nothing they could do about it. Right???

Does this answer your inquisition?

It sure does.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 23, 1999.

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 23, 1999.

gilda, you certainly know how to open a can of ugly, scary creepy worms. But I love it, makes people think.

We cannot continue at this rate, and Mother Earth is right now doing something about it. Andy brushed on it with the AIDS epidemic in Africa (I don't have a link for you, but I'm in the medical field and I keep a close eye on these things), but what is even worse and much scarier than AIDS is the fact that antibiotics are VERY FAST becoming innefective with even the most common infections; staphilococus, which has now mutated to a strain that is resistant to our last resort antibiotic Vancomicine is spilling out of the nursing homes and hospitals and infecting the general population, those who don't have natural immunity to it die of it. 200 cases this year, including many young children. We are fast aproaching the days when there were no antibiotics, and Small pox, tuberculosis are coming back. Ebola. AIDS. New diseases are springing up. A global epidemic will cull back the population more effectively than nuclear war or a comet striking the earth. Within 10 years, if there is not another discovery of a miracle cure such as penicelin was (and later the new antibiotics it spawned).

Overpopulation is bad for the human race. Sorry to the religious people if I sound arrogant, but it's a fact. We either manage ourselves more effectively, or Mother Earth will do it for us. I have no desilusion that I could be gone from this planet anytime Mother Earth chooses.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 23, 1999.

Thank you Chris for illustrating my point about the "can of worms" that medical intervention has opened up as a result of our quest to cheat God's will, while heavily lining pockets along the way. Don't forget about our selfish and frightened refusal to accept it.

Well done!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 23, 1999.

"Species die off is a normal aspect of the circle of life, but we continue attempts to cheat God's will and wind up with a new set of medical 'problems'"

Will Continue, I agree with that yes, except for the God's part. Instead of saying we attempt to cheat God's will, I'd say we're extremely innefective at attempting to fool Mother Earth.

"Upon the arrival of me, me, me, money, money, money....we ran into big problems. "

I am in complete agreement with this. And the refusal to let go of the dying and elderly, just to make more money.

Religious faith or lack thereof shouldn't pit us appart on basic facts.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 23, 1999.

Absolutely. Then we agree that man (aka "Animal") has disturbed and wrecked havoc upon the natural order (aka "circle of life") to the extent of creating (acting as a "supreme Being") unnatural levels of over population. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. I can't help but wonder if somewhere, someplace, some 'form' of supreme being might be a bit ticked off about our arrogance. Time will tell.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 23, 1999.

Hospice is the better way.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 23, 1999.

I agree completely A&L! I have cared for the dying as well. It has always amazed me to witness the innocent, honest acceptance of death and beyond, displayed by children who have not been programmed to fear it, like adults. Perhaps because they have less 'baggage' to contend with and account for.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 23, 1999.

Mumsie, I love you!!! Thank you for restoring balance and humanity to what sounded very much like the Nazi formula for reducing the population of the world. True, at present mankind is cramped into cities and we have problems to resolve. However, if our resources were spent in creatively addressing the problems as challenges, rather than in making wars for cruel gain (i.e., Kosovo), then every living human being could easily be accommodated. On this forum the general populace of contributors seems in consensus with the notion that we resent so much governmental control of our lives. Yet here was someone starting this thread which hints at control over that most intimate choice of human beings. When any person or government thinks they have a right to do this, watch out all of you!!!

By the way, I live in a congested suburb of DC. Yet in my area there are far, far more foreign-born persons than those born here. They live mainly in subsidized housing and have numbers of children. Yet we have jobless and homeless native born citizens for whom we have found no solutions. I am always asking myself why our immigration policy is so out of synch with harsh realities?

There is incongruity here also in this respect: this forum and its sister-forum on preparing for Y2K appear to be devoted to helping the maximum number of persons to SURVIVE the effects of Y2K and attendant expected dangers. We welcome "newbies" and try to nurture their quest for late advice on how to do so. What kind of message does such a thread serve to give to them? Why is it even here?

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

Mumsie mumbled:

How many people in India starve while cows meander around munching?

You are living in a dream world Mumsie. The cow is an integral part of the Indian economy, providing raw energy, fuel (burning dung) and building material (houses of dung). If they were to attempt something as shortsighted as roasting their cows in a fleeting Big Mac Attack, their society would perish. Why do you think cows are sacred Hindu animals to begin with? The taboo on pork in the Middle Eastern countries had a similar origin.

I'm curious: at what point do you think overpopulation would become a problem? 8 billion? 10? 15? 20? 50?

-- a (a@a.a), August 23, 1999.

A... I do believe in Jesus Christ, but I don't go to church. I'm not Catholic or Mormon either. We decided that everyone pours their time and life's energy into something. What most people give their lives to ends up being forgotten dust. My husband and I realized that a child is the only miraculous, completely unique and eternal choice for us (make that seven total, five of which are boys). We are raising our children to have hearts that will care for others and a sense of responsibility as to what they can and should contribute to mankind. What are you giving your life's energies to? What pablum are you referring to? It sounds like you were reared on pablum too..."Mein Kampf".

"Early on in his studies, (Josef) Mengele had been introduced to the work of the social Darwinists, who nearly a half-century earlier, in Victorian England, had argued that 'biology is destiny'...The social Darwinists espoused a program of active intervention to ensure that only the 'best' people survived. They wanted to encourage the genetically fit to have more children, while those of questionable stock would remain childless. The theories of the social Darwinists evolved and gained credence, so that by the 1920's several countries, including Germany and the United States, were fostering a eugenics movement. In Washington, for instance, as Congress was considering new immigration laws, several members advocated the need to limit entry of Eastern European refugees on the grounds that they would "contaminate American blood." While arguing for passage of the 1924 Immigration Act, some lawmakers maintained that Latin Americans, Slavs, and even the Irish were 'mentally and morally inferior to Nordics.' There was an idealistic component to the eugenics movement, which flourished in Germany long before Hitler. German scientists were not that different from their American and English counterparts in promoting their programs of 'racial hygiene'. Eugenicists everywhere saw themselves as visonaries, idealists working for a better world through the human gene. They were to create a Utopia, a world free of poverty, illness, and all other physical and mental handicaps. The Germans, however, carried racial science further than did the theorists of other nations, ...." "Once the SS guard knew we were twins, my sister and I were taken away from our mother, without any warning or explanation. Our screams fell on deaf ears. I remember looking back and seeing my mother's arms stretched out in despair as we were led away by a soldier. That was the last time I ever saw her." ~Children of the Flames (Lagnado and Dekel) (not Jewish either A...try, try again) As an aside, if things get Really bad, we have lots of strong healthy boys to work with us as we garden and work at other life sustaining chores. How 'bout you?

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

a..."ass"umes... I gave one example, and it did not suggest wholesale slaughter of every cow. Have you read much of the history of the people of India? Thought not.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

And still waiting for that volunteer... Also have two questions for A (or whoever): 1) Can you explain why you think you are not one of the surplus that needs to be culled, or why you are more worthy to live? 2) Can you explain who you think is wise enough to make that choice?

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 23, 1999.

a -- I'm not sure if it's 50B, but after 13 generations of Big Dogs, each having five children each, there will be 6,103,515,600 or so of us, if my calculator is correct. This is quite exciting and will finally make the world safe for Big Dogs. Alternatively, we can send some of us to an interesting planet. Who says doomers don't have an eye on a post-Y2K world!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 23, 1999.

Penicillin was discovered somewhere around 1925. What was the world's population at that time? Consider the subsequent medical breakthroughs discovered and invented by 'animals' since then. Had this level of disturbance to the natural order of life NOT occured, what might today's population calculate to be? Naturally, we would need to figure an estimate of deaths that 'would' have been attributed to the untold number of disorders, disease, illness, medical conditions, etc, and then estimate the number of 'animals' that would have never been 'bred'. I hate math. Funny, at the time, these discoveries and inventions where proclaimed to be "miracles" and the entire world turned with open arms to embrace them.

To suggest we eliminate all medical practices and the entire drug industry, (short of simply making people as comfortable as possible until the end is at hand) would be a possible solution to the concerns expressed here. We kinda 'goofed' on that bone-headed idea of distorting nature (wouldn't you say so, environmental and biology buffs?) WE JUST ALL WANT TO LIVE FOREVER! Birth and death have natural orders in the circle of life. Some of you continue to propose we screw with the natural occurence of birth, claiming it is necessary for *correcting* the way we screwed the pooch in the death department! Let's see, what else can we play with here? Tell you what, crunch some numbers and get back with us, OKAAAAY?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 23, 1999.

LIBERALS. destroy an unborn child, ban birth, but DON'T look cross- eyed at a Homosexual! Too weird for me.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 23, 1999.

I'm a newbie on this forum. I was hoping to meet some people who were as interested in Y2K as I am. I've only been reading on this forum about two weeks. I don't have much time and today I came on this topic because I've always been interested in the environment. I'm genuinely sorry I did. I have never seen any people a hateful and mean as the people on here.

The things that Kettle or Pot answered the person Gilda were terrible. I can't imagine tearing anyone down like that. You are a cruel person.

Then the rest of you began a feeding frenzy. Chritians--I guess not by my estimation. You make me ashamed to call myself a Christian. I won't be back. I was told this website was full of crazies, but I didn't believe it. Now I do.

-- Eilene Morgan (Smith@Earthling.net), August 23, 1999.

I'm a newbie on this forum. I was hoping to meet some people who were as interested in Y2K as I am. I've only been reading on this forum about two weeks. I don't have much time and today I came on this topic because I've always been interested in the environment. I'm genuinely sorry I did. I have never seen any people as hateful and mean as the people on here.

The things that Kettle or Pot answered the person Gilda were terrible. I can't imagine tearing anyone down like that. You are a cruel person.

Then the rest of you began a feeding frenzy. Chritians--I guess not by my estimation. You make me ashamed to call myself a Christian. I won't be back. I was told this website was full of crazies, but I didn't believe it. Now I do.

-- Eilene Morgan (Smith@Earthling.net), August 23, 1999.

Aww chucks Eileen. Too bad, you could have learned a thing or two. Like how human beings other than yourself really think. I know it's scary, but with time, you develope a tough skin and you need that to REALLY be prepared for Y2K.

Good luck.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 23, 1999.

My first wife and I tried unsuccessfully for more than eight years to have a child. After my wife had major surgery, we were told our chance were less than 25 percent.

We gave up (well, you know what I mean). Into our ninth year, she became pregnant and we were the happiest people in the world.

My daughter is 18 now, and she is talented, polite, caring, intelligent and is a fine citizen. She has positively affected many lives, and I don't mean the families.

She spent her final free summer in Mexico helping build homes for homeless Mexicans. I wish I had four more just like her.

Sometimes I think the notion that bringing children into the world is a bad thing came a generation too late.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), August 23, 1999.

Gilda: I know that you will be glad to volunteer your 2nd grandchild to be sacrificed on the altar of your New World Order.

To whom it may concern: "Mother Earth" is a pantheistic religious concept which is coming back into vogue which the Bible prophesies of in the days just before our Lord, Jesus returns. It's called worshipping the creation instead of the Creator. It is a blatant, in your face, rejection of God, His great handiwork (the effects of sin notwithstanding) and His offering of Life Eternal through His Son Jesus who took up your death on the cross.

We see lots of earth worship through the world wide environmental movements. Is this related to Y2K? I think so. It all works together.

S. David Bays

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), August 23, 1999.

You mean there's a name to my belief?! Awesome.

Gilda, I feel...um...blessed. I've been deemed a witch. I guess it's a matter of time that I'll be called a Nazi too, eh.

Well Mr. Bays, if you believe that I'm a sign of the impending Second Coming, I'm glad I could be of service. Whatever makes you tick to get you motivated to prepare.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 23, 1999.

Sorry to see you go Eilene. If it's any consolation, in a '10', you could always eat your Bible.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 24, 1999.

Read my book.

(Daniel Quinn helped with the typing.)

-- Ishmael (gorilla@thecircus.org), August 24, 1999.

Well gee Mr. Bays, I guess I HAVE been a Pantheist all my life and never knew it!

I've looked it up and was pleasantly surprised. You won't mind that I advertise a Pantheist website here for the benefit of the readers, since you yourself feel free to preach what I feel is dangerous idiocies.

Pantheism credo

"We see lots of earth worship through the world wide environmental movements. Is this related to Y2K? I think so. It all works together."

You bet it's all related! We're in this y2k mess because of tunnel vision, sheep mentality, and egotistic behavior such as yours. I could tell you that humans have done this to themselves with their own hands and not some god's will until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are ready to accept explore reality, I'd be wasting my time.

Good will to you too Mr. Bays.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 24, 1999.

Gilda, your statements here re overpopulation are very intuitive. I also have been population conscious for many years. I chose to have one child, then a vasectomy, back in 1969. My oldest son (fact is, I helped raise two more kids, whom I consider just as much mine as my "biological" son. And my other two kids feel the same way. Blood is NOT thicker than water, if you don't want it to be.

A couple of people have stated that you haven't done a good job parenting because you "can't control your own child". Ridiculous! They either have very strong control issues to work on, or they have never had any children of their own. I personally would be embarassed to have a grown up child whom I could "control". Who needs to raise a robot. You do the very best job you can, then hope for the best; that and always be available to confer with your offspring in a non- judgemental way.

Scarlett says, "who has the right to say who has the right to live, and two doesn't". Scarlett, Gilda did not promote this idea. I don't think any sane person would claim the this right. However, we, as citizens of the U.S.A. and of the planet Earth have a right, indeed a responsibility, to turn around the terrible destruction of our environment for the sake of ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, our fellow animals, plants; all of "GOD'S CHILDREN."

Mark Hilyard claims that "Overpopulation is not the problem, Over Governmentation is the problem.

People die in Africa because of corruption on a large scale and not because the earth is overpopulated.

Mark, if you believe this in light of all the evidence to the contrary, I hope you are in a very small minority, or we'll never solve the problem.

How many billions of people would it take to convince you that we have a problem, Mark? How many polluted rivers, lakes, and skies? How many race wars? How much snarled traffic in our cities? how much worldwide starvation? How much insolvable immigration problems?

You also state, " If the United States Government would uphold the Constituion of the this land then we would be secure in our "persons, houses," etc. It is my opinion that this would go a long way in reducing the so called overpopulation problem. People could spread out"

Mark, if people "spread out" that would help with the crownding problem in the cities, but would cause more problems than it solves. The countryside would become as intolerable as the cities are now, plus the amount of pollution caused by all the commuting would be even worse.

Spidey, I absolutely am floored that you would say " Gilda, as always, your words are frightening and filled with hate: you sound exactly like a nazi eugenicist, opting to choose some 'elite' genetic element at the expense of the rest of us. Dear me, I thought Mr. Hitler had taught us enough about that temptation. How soon we forget." Where do you get this strange interpretation of what Gilda is suggesting? Rather than filled with hate, I believe she is filled with love--love for all the people and others with whom we share this planet.

W.C., you state, "I'm sorry, but anybody who would refer to the miracle of life I've experienced in having two beautiful children as, "BREEDING", is sadly chugging down the road of life without any spiritual guidance.

WC, you're being petty. Breeding, or whatever you want to call it, the point was not in the choice of words. This is a much more serious topic than semantics.

By the way, (WC and her fellow radical right Christers are going to hate me for this) a couple of my lesbian friends call my wife and me "breeders". I suppose it's because we have kids and the two lesbian ladies don't.

While I would never suggest that a person change his or her sexual preferences, it is nevertheless true that, as a class of human, homosexuals contribute a lot less to the destruction of the invironment, by not contributing so heavily, if at all, to the population problem.

WC continues, "Goats "breed". People create "miracles" with the help of God. " WC, If you believe all the bible thumping you give out, you surely must think that goats also "create miracles", since goats are, by the normal biblical interpretation, creations of god as much as humans are.

Bob P says, "As for birth rates being controlled, our civilization is concered with "rights" rather than "duty", so It will not be done voluntarily. Regretably, huge masses of people have to die and it will be forced upon mankind in the most unpleasant of ways eventually. "

Bob, while I think you are most likely correct, I still believe we need to at least TRY to prevent such a sad scenario from happening. Reading the statements from many of the folks on this thread, I fear it is going to be an even harder battle than I previously thought. There are folks with totally new, and totally unbelievable arguments here which I have never imagined possible.

Tom Carey, thank you for your contribution. I would never have believed that I would witness the day when the air at 30,000 feet would be brown and translucent all the way from San Francisco to Denver to Dallas, Texas, but I have seen this on the last few trips I have made there. Sad.

Mumsie, you quote gilda as saying " Name me one environmental problem that is not the result of overpopulation."

You countrer "I believe you will find man's greed and corrupt nature responsible for many environmental problems. There are factories and businesses that have polluted our waters to save money."

You are absolutely right, Mumsie, about greed and corrupt nature. But, of course, if the population were much smaller, there would be many less factories and businesses to pollute our waters (not to mention the rest of our environment)

Big Dog, it's people like you (I'm not sure if you're serious or not, though) who are the biggest part of the problem. Do the math; you'll find that, in a mere five generations, your little dogs and bitches will number over 152 BILLION people--enough to overpopulate twenty earth sized planets!!!! Would you and your offspring please choose another solar system to try this experiment?

A--right on.

mumsie, when you ask,

"What amazes me about those who view the world as overpopulated, is that they never seem to consider themselves as among the excess chaff. ", I have to wonder what makes you think gilda is considering anyone "excess chaff"?

a, colonizing space is one possible, though I believe unlikely, solution. Consider the cost, both economically and environmentally, involved in lifting the mass of that many people out of earth's gravity well. Besides, what will we do to the planets that we immigrate to? Kill all the "inferior" natives?\

coprolith says,

" I don't think overpopulation itself has to be a problem. There is enough arable land and food to feed the world many times over right now,able to support tens of billions."

You MAY be right about the amount of arable land, although I have some doubts; however, do we have enough water to grow crops on this arable land? I think not. And do we have enough atmosphere to absorb all the pollution these untold billions of people generate? Do we even WANT TO build all the infrastructure necessary to support these hordes of people? Why?

I certainy agree with you about the cows, coprolith, although I'm biased, being a veggie.

William says, "Now, I am not suggesting that we should abanadon efforts to focus attention on this problem but this does provide a glimmer of hope."

Thanks for sharing that, William. I hope you're right. Nonetheless, I've read what appear to be very reliable projections which indicate that, even if we WERE able to limit child bearing to two per female RIGHT NOW, the population would not reach stablility until somewhere around 2050, with a total population WAY higher than it is now. Sorry, I'm not positive about the figure, somewhere around ten or twelve billion if I recall correctly.

Personally, I'd love to see the population stabilize at around ONE BILLION. Without a mass starvation, war, etc. But this will never happen in our lifetimes.

S David Bays sez,

" Perhaps some of us are forgetting one thing. The earth doesn't belong to US, it belongs to God. He does have a plan and an agenda and you aren't going to change it and woe unto those who would impliment or give consent to a Mengala or Nazi type racial purification program or the Chinese model of forced abortion. "

S David, you are way out of line here; no one is trying to implement "racial purification" WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM, S DAVID?????

If it's true, as you believe (I don't believe it, as I am a Deist, as well as a paganistic pantheist), that "the earth belongs to god", don't you think your god gave us free will? Don't you think we should use our free will to take good care of the "god's earth"?

Mother of four says, "People are brainwashed when it comes to this subject." I agree with you, some people do show signs of brainwashing. For instance those who refuse to look at the numbers. I promise, mom of four, we won't come looking for your excess babies. We will only try to prevent you from having any more.

Tom Carey says "Nevertheless and notwithstanding, the cruelty some here have criticized originates with those people who engender children in greater numbers than our ecosystem can support. Above and beyond replacement of deaths, what's the point of making more and more babies? We've been given free will in this and many other respects. We've been given the intelligence to understand the consequences of our actions"

Right on again, Tom! Too bad so many of us are so slow to use this intelligence in regards to population.

merek mura says,

Dear Gilda the problem seems to be overcomsumption not overpopulation.Hope you will live to visit the underground factories and the cities and farms on the sea bottoms---We will prevail!

Well, merek mura, I for one would rather that the earth remain habitable on the surface. I don't want things to get so bad that we are forced to live on seafloors, nor on other plantes. What's the deal with some of you guys? Do you really think we should just trash the world, then move to a new location?

Pot kettle black, I think I hear your mommy calling you...

Chris says, "Overpopulation is bad for the human race. Sorry to the religious people if I sound arrogant, but it's a fact. We either manage ourselves more effectively, or Mother Earth will do it for us. I have no desilusion that I could be gone from this planet anytime Mother Earth chooses. "

You got it, bro.

Elaine Seavey says, "On this forum the general populace of contributors seems in consensus with the notion that we resent so much governmental control of our lives"

Elaine, you are right. That does appear to be the prevailing attitude here. I certainly share it. Nevertheless, we population control types have been trying to get people to limit their family size voluntarily for over thirty years. During that time, the population of the planet has almost doubled. I am not in favor of government intervention, but something certainly needs to happen! Please, please tell me another way to get a handle on this catastrophe before even more millions of innocent kids die.

WC again,

LIBERALS. destroy an unborn child, ban birth, but DON'T look cross- eyed at a Homosexual! Too weird for me.

So, WC, would you rather have billions of people starve to death rather than controlling (not banning) birth rates?

Eilene Morgan says,

LIBERALS. destroy an unborn child, ban birth, but DON'T look cross- eyed at a Homosexual! Too weird for me.

Believe it.

S David Bays again (hah! howdja like the double meaning of that one?)

Gilda: I know that you will be glad to volunteer your 2nd grandchild to be sacrificed on the altar of your New World Order.

S David, HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

Gilda, thanks so much for starting this thread. Maybe, MAYBE, some good will come out of sharing all these different views among ourselves.

By the way, my oldest son, a veterinarian, has two boys. He may try for a girl. I hope not. I would much rather he follow the advice of my daughter, who plans to have one child and adopt one or two more.

My other son and his girl haven't decided yet whether they'll have kids or not. They do discuss such things with their mom and me, though, which I greatly appreciate.

What part of the country do you live in, Gilda? Your basic philosophy reminds me of Eugene Oregon, or possibly Austin, Texas. I hope you will keep writing your opinions here on the forum in the future.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 24, 1999.

KL:"I don't think any sane person would claim the this right. "

KL:"Rather than filled with hate, I believe she is filled with love-- love for all the people and others with whom we share this planet." Gilda: "Perhaps we should tax people for having more than two children rather than giving them tax breaks.... how about banning fertility clinics....." Gilda: "Here's my favorite quote .... Most people have no business having children. They are unqualified, either genetically or culturally or both, to reproduce such sorry speciments as themselves..... " KL:"Rather than filled with hate, I believe she is filled with love-- love for all the people and others with whom we share this planet."

Hmmm....Sounds real loving to me....Not!

Gilda:"What would you have had China do, sit around and watch thousands of children die slowy from disease and starvation? Do you have a better solution to go with your criticism of their policy. " What would you have them do Gilda? Does even reluctant approval of murdering healthy newborn infants sound loving? Or is that healthy culling? Semantics KL?

By the way, (WC and her fellow radical right Christers are going to hate me for this) a couple of my lesbian friends call my wife and me "breeders".

Gee KL...did you corner the market on homosexual friends? Think not. Mine was in my wedding and godfather to my child, but he knows I am radically opposed to what I consider the unnaturalness of his lifestyle, and that I believe the same unnatural practices and promiscuity are a threat to his health and his very life. Sounds like liberal arrogant hogwash to me. As long as you brought the following up... KL: "homosexuals contribute a lot less to the destruction of the invironment, by not contributing so heavily, if at all, to the population problem. " Sure hope you aren't including the homosexuals who have a fondness for children, and the ones who are supporting NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Lover Assoc)

KL: WC continues, "Goats "breed". People create "miracles" with the help of God. " WC, If you believe all the bible thumping you give out, you surely must think that goats also "create miracles", since goats are, by the normal biblical interpretation, creations of god as much as humans are. " Yes KL, but what you consider god or goddess, we consider God. Makes a big difference. And as with Y2K and other issues, time will one day tell who has found the Truth.

KL: "I have to wonder what makes you think gilda is considering anyone "excess chaff"? Gilda: "Here's my favorite quote .... 'Most people have no business having children. They are unqualified, either genetically or culturally or both, to reproduce such sorry speciments as themselves. '" Wonder no more.

KL: "Besides, what will we do to the planets that we immigrate to? Kill all the "inferior" natives?" I see you are above such a terrible thing. But killing those babies, well, I guess that's different. Oh, sorry, culling the overgrowth...? Oh, those silly semantics.

KL: "Do we even WANT TO build all the infrastructure necessary to support these hordes of people? Why? " KL: "I believe she is filled with love--love for all the people and others with whom we share this planet." That loves keeps oozing out! Hordes.... it implies a certain distasteful mass. Not how you referred to your own offspring... er, um... products of breeding. Sorry, those semantics again.

KL: "S David Bays sez, woe unto those who would impliment or give consent to a Mengala or Nazi type racial purification program or the Chinese model of forced abortion. " S David, you are way out of line here; no one is trying to implement "racial purification" WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM, S DAVID????? Maybe David was coming from historical reality and truth...."Early on in his studies, (Josef) Mengele had been introduced to the work of the social Darwinists, who nearly a half-century earlier, in Victorian England, had argued that 'biology is destiny'...The social Darwinists espoused a program of active intervention to ensure that only the 'best' people survived. They wanted to encourage the genetically fit to have more children, while those of questionable stock would remain childless." (quote from a book about Mengele...Children of the Flames)

KL: "Don't you think we should use our free will to take good care of the "god's earth"? " Yes, I do KL, it's called good stewardship. Only I want to care for God's earth. You want to be one of the gods.

KL: "I promise, mom of four, we won't come looking for your excess babies. We will only try to prevent you from having any more. .... I believe she is filled with love--love for all the people and others with whom we share this planet." I guess this is what you call smother love? (pun intended)

"Nevertheless, we population control types have been trying to get people to limit their family size voluntarily for over thirty years I am not in favor of government intervention, but something certainly needs to happen! " Well, we freedom types suggest you move to China, rather than force your views upon others. Because what you espouse is exactly that. KL: "We will only try to prevent you from having any more. ...." KL:"By the way, my oldest son, a veterinarian, has two boys. He may try for a girl. I hope not." You could always try to be present at the birth and dispatch the excess population, as you seem to approve of in China. Or have them sterilized? What did you have in mind for Mom of Four? Try it on them first.

KL:"I don't think any sane person would claim the this right. "

What shall we now decide is your mental state KL? Or should I ask... moral state?

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Everyone (liberals and conservatives) STILL refuse to acknowledge the role we have played in our intervention of death. Al chose instead to focus on my 'Bible thumping'. This comes as NO surprise to me. Fill a room full of atheists, have one individual simply say the 'word' God, and the sucking sound of ass-holes puckering will be deafening. That person will be lucky to get out of the room alive, verbally abused, recieving 'incomming missles' all the way to the door. Atheists despise having 'Bible thumpers' FORCING their beliefs upon them, it is SO politically incorrect. It IS politically correct for atheists to FORCE their beliefs upon everyone, however. It has become obvious that our politics often come down to this basic of most personal choice. So, I shall once again suggest the problem of over-population could be resolved by discontinuing our intervention of death. We have disrupted the natural order (biologically AND spiritually). There appear to be NO takers on this suggestion. WHY? I feel it has something to do with our insecurity about our own mortality. I can certainly understand how the atheists would be so horribly 'uncomfortable' about this. There would appear to be many of faith who don't care to touch it with a 10 ft. pole either. Hmmmm

Let's face it, there would be hundreds of thousands out of a job if that occured, as well. Money, money, money! You see, the intervention of death is a booming, multi-billion dollar 'enterprise' now, isn't it?

Don't *PREACH* to me about *controlling* people's RIGHT to experience the *MIRACLE OF BIRTH*...........small, frightened, selfish hypocrites! As soon as you are willing to release the grip we have on our 'control' over the natural occurence of DEATH, you may THEN suggest stripping me of the grandchildren I so look forward to loving and caring for. Atheists are every bit as PUSHY as ANY 'Bible thumper' I've ever known. Shame on you, you have a soul and don't even know it. PotKettleBlack hit the nail on the head!

One last thing.....to object to my distaste for referring to this process as 'breeding', pointing out the fact that it is merely a 'word', is ignorant. Did you allow your children to walk around in public spewing forth , "fuck-off"? It's only a word after all.......

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

WC, I'm the only admitted Atheist who posted here. Did I ruffle your feathers that much?

"Atheists despise having 'Bible thumpers' FORCING their beliefs upon them, it is SO politically incorrect. It IS politically correct for atheists to FORCE their beliefs upon everyone, however."

Is making you aware of my difference of opinion on religion "forcing" it upon you? You seem to be suffering from a case of "christian procecutionitis". I don't feel like I "despise" you, but you sure spit your words at me.

"So, I shall once again suggest the problem of over-population could be resolved by discontinuing our intervention of death. We have disrupted the natural order (biologically AND spiritually). There appear to be NO takers on this suggestion."

I DID agree with you on this, what am I? Chopped liver? But in terms of reducing the global overpopulation in any significant amount, that is still subject to debate. The old and dying who are maintained alive by extraordinary measures such as ventilators, intravenous feedings, and painful and expensive surgery as done on 80/90 year olds who end up dying painful and slow death in hospitals from complications anyway, are IMO inhuman and a reflection of greed, both from the medical field and the families, who are selfish; unwilling to let go, or unwilling to make hard decisions. But even if this problem was resolved, would the percentage of such people allowed to die be significant enough to be relevant to population reduction? I think not. The fact is that people live longer and healthier lives in general.

""WHY? I feel it has something to do with our insecurity about our own mortality. I can certainly understand how the atheists would be so horribly 'uncomfortable' about this."

It makes sense that all humans, whatever our faith, be "insecure" about our own mortality. That's called the self-preservation instinct. However, I can myself assert that I am not anymore "horribly uncomfortable" as an atheist to die than you might be. In fact, I have no fear of having to confront hell or anything like that. My only fear is to have to confront a slow, painful and horrifying death process, or die too young when my family is still dependant on me.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

Chris, you have taken my comments too personally. There are several others who participated far more aggresively on this thread, who have made their beliefs known on this forum previously. It was NOT an attack to *your* individual contribution. My apologies, if taken as such. You, in fact, *were* the ONLY person, out of 80 some posts, who specificly addressed this subject. Thank you. You ALSO pointed out the problems newly created in our quest to eliminate massive deaths by disease. Please rethink your position of over-population being 'caused' by the number of new births ALONE.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Sorry (blush). I meant to point to the fact that I felt I *had* included people of 'faith' in my suggestion that there appears to be an awful lot of insecurity towards our mortality. This too appears somewhat hypocritical in light of the fact that Christains (and others) anticipate eternal life. To me, this displays a lack of 'trust and faith' in their own belief. I believe in God, but I still know BS when I smell it.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Everyone (liberals and conservatives) STILL refuse to acknowledge the role we have played in our intervention of death. WC chose instead to focus on his 'Bible bashing'. This comes as NO surprise to me. Fill a room full of cristians, have one individual simply say the 'word' earth, and the sucking sound of ass-holes puckering will be deafening. That person will be lucky to get out of the room alive, verbally abused, recieving 'incomming missles' all the way to the door. Cristians despise having 'atheists' FORCING their beliefs upon them, it is SO politically incorrect. It IS politically correct for cristians to FORCE their beliefs upon everyone, however. It has become obvious that our politics often come down on the cristians side to this basic of most personal choice. So, I shall once again suggest the problem of over-population could be resolved by discontinuing our intervention of death.

It could be. But wouldnt it be freindlier to just not have so many babies for a while.

This thread would be funny if it wasn't so sad and full of hate

-- (Nobody@gets.it), August 25, 1999.

Please point to any statement by me that announces I am a Christain. I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in God. There is no doubt that I am perfectly capable of offending both sides of this fence.

Don't care. We have created a tragic imbalance within the eco-system, and obviously, people still aren't 'comfortable' in discussing it. They NOW (after the damage has been done) prefer to 'solve' the results by creating a further imbalance in their 'control' of birth.

Please sing along, "I want the WHOOOOLE circle of liii-iife in MY hands, I want the WHOOOOLE circle of liii-fe in my hands".

People are just so arrogant, selfish and continually stupid, eh?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Thanks for clearing things up WC.

"Please rethink your position of over-population being 'caused' by the number of new births ALONE."

I never said anywhere that it was caused by new births alone. It should be easy to deduce from what I posted that I also think that the problem is caused by better medical knowledge and medications leading to longer, healthier lives, at least in the western cultures. But the birth rate has also declined, willingly. Another problem in western countries is the taking in of immigrants, many of which are under-educated and prolific. In the third-world countries, where famine, desease and drought is a problem, you will notice that their culture encourages making babies as fast as they can. This is to counteract the death rate, which I view as an instinctive self-preservation. When these people emigrate to western countries, they need to be educated, or "re-cultured", as quickly as possible. The self-preservation instinct become disfunctional in an overpopulated and rich culture.

Since I haven't stated my position on the birth rate, I will here. I am for educating the public in greater efforts and ecouraging self-limitation on family size. I am not for government imposed limits on how many children a family can have, such as in China. Although I agree with a poster above that China had to take drastic measures for their own survival, which is unfortunate. If they had planned better ahead of time with education etc...but that's not possible in the communistic mindset, educated people are thinking people who are not easily enslaved.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

All RIGHT. COOL! Now Chris, we're gettin' somewhere! You stated, "This is to counteract the death rate, which I view is instinctive self-preservation."

(falls within the natural order of the eco-system)

You comment further, "The self-preservation instinct becomes disfunctional in an over-populated and rich culture."

(I submit my observation that *this* culture has disrupted the eco- system with their arrogant denial of death and also function by feeding upon the 'riches' involved in this disruptive behavior.)

Who is in need of further education?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Chris: "Is making you aware of my difference of opinion on religion "forcing" it upon you? .... .....I am not for government imposed limits on how many children a family can have, such as in China. Although I agree with a poster above that China had to take drastic measures for their own survival, which is unfortunate."

This has to make me wonder where you would stand if China's policy were implemented in your own country. When you say China "had" to take drastic measures.... it sounds like you would force your opinion to me.

Will continue: "This too appears somewhat hypocritical in light of the fact that Christains (and others) anticipate eternal life. To me, this displays a lack of 'trust and faith' in their own belief."

There are some practices that I know believers have engaged in that I totally disagree with, eg. heart transplants. I believe that this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches the life is in the blood. There is no such thing as "brain dead" under this criteria. I heard a radio show with two previously "brain dead" people interviewed. They told of their families resisting the request to "harvest their organs". It appeared they were mighty happy about that refusal now. Both made full recoveries. Reading the Bible brings me to the belief that Death is 1) Not to be feared. 2) Means we will be with God 3) Although not to be feared, is still to be fought, because Life is Sacred. Our advances in medicine have created some hard calls; however, I do not believe in the useless feeder philosophy either. I read an account by a doctor (in Britain beginning his training) of a woman in her early sixties, who was told along with her family, that there was nothing that could be done other than to make her comfortable until she died. The young doctor who witnessed this was upset, because he was aware that a surgical procedure could have given her another ten to fifteen years of good living, since she was otherwise in good health. He was warned severely to be quiet, and told that it would not be cost effective to treat her otherwise. I do not believe in no longer cherishing and caring for a person because they have become somehow inconvenient. My mother is in the last stages of her life with serious diabetic complications. She requires a great degree of care now. I cherish every conversation and shared moment that remains with her. I gladly give my energy, money and time for whatever precious hours remain. On the other hand, when my grandfather was clearly actually dying, he was hooked up to machines that cost money, but did nothing of true value. He ended his life hooked up to these machines and oozing blood, because he was Dead! To me, this was grotesque and seemed only motivated by some kind of greed. We do live in a "throwaway" society, and the ultimate deadly fruit of that is still ripening and yet to be fully tasted and realized. Columbine was an appetizer, in my opinion.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

Mumsie, you're rambling and picking at particular ethical, philosophical, religious and social issues when the title of this thread is clearly "The Big Picture". We know you have different opinions on all these specific matters, as all the rest of us do. That's why nothing seems to get done or solved in time with any major problem. On a forum like this, the thread simply turns into an ugly stew of personal attacks and emotions if we don't make a concious effort to focus on the big picture, that is in this case, the main causes of overpopulation.

"This has to make me wonder where you would stand if China's policy were implemented in your own country. When you say China "had" to take drastic measures.... it sounds like you would force your opinion to me."

Your logic and comprehention appears twisted to me. My opinion is only that, an opinion. No matter how "forceful" my choice of words appear to you, they still remain opinions and only you have control over wether you'll accept them or not.

I said "Although I agree with a poster above that China had to take drastic measures for their own survival, which is unfortunate."

Now lets analyse this sentence. I said I agree with the POSTER's opinion that CHINA HAD to take drastic measures. In other words; yes poster you're right, china decided it had to take drastic measures for self-preservation, and THAT is unfortunate (the drastic measures).

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

Chris, what you view as rambling, I view as realism. Every "Big Picture" is broken down into incremental realities. You feel that China "had" to implement infanticide (albeit "unfortunate"), and I do not agree. I do not see the cause of their famine as rooted only in overpopulation, and I do not believe their "cure" of government mandated murder will ultimately reap the desired result. China has also been known to sell fetal parts for consumption, harvest organs from prisoners, mow down students demonstrating for freedom, and unjustly imprison people that are then used for slave labor. This is all part of China's "Big Picture". These are the incremental realities I am talking about. It is one thing to discuss in philosophical terms the "Big Picture", but quite naive not to extend the logic and projection of it into reality. Many Europeans were very anti-Semitic, and in the "Big Picture" felt it would be best to get rid of the Jews. Why do you think the Holocaust was allowed to be perpetrated with such little protest by civilians? Most of those same people that agreed with Hitler did not want to dirty their hands, sully themselves or face the incremental realities of Hitler's "Big Picture". This is why one of our generals forced German civilians to tour the death camp in their neighborhood....to show them just exactly what the "Big Picture" came down to. An "ugly stew"? I don't know how to pretty up infanticide or "culling".

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

Al said,

"Big Dog, it's people like you (I'm not sure if you're serious or not, though) who are the biggest part of the problem. Do the math; you'll find that, in a mere five generations, your little dogs and bitches will number over 152 BILLION people--enough to overpopulate twenty earth sized planets!!!! Would you and your offspring please choose another solar system to try this experiment?"

Yes, I was serious. The math is wrong: more generations till we reach 152 billion Big Dogs.

The Big Dogs are going to live, Al, and multiply. You're doing what you want to do (hey, we live in an era of "choice", correct?): you discourage your children from "breeding". Cool. Mine are going to breed like crazy for generations. We love babies, children, grandchildren and more. We like family. Our choice.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 25, 1999.

Mumsie, my name is Al. Not KL.

mum: Gee KL...did you corner the market on homosexual friends? Think not. Mine was in my wedding and godfather to my child, but he knows I am radically opposed to what I consider the unnaturalness of his lifestyle, and that I believe the same unnatural practices and promiscuity are a threat to his health and his very life

Nope, I'm sure I don't have any corner on homosexual friends. There are millions of them in this country alone. I don't have millions of friends; I do, however have quite a few homosexual friends. I don't exactly seek them out, but I certainly don't have a problem being friends with them.

I am also radically opposed to their "unnatural" practices, for myself. What they want to do with their own friends is fine with me. I do believe that promiscuity is a threat to health and life, whether the promiscuity is practiced by a homosexual or a "flaming heterosexual", such as myself. I consider myself fortunate to have come into my "hormonal" years during the sixties and seventies, when there were no known incurable diseases. Those were great party years! Ahhh, nostalgia is not what it used to be...

mums:

Sure hope you aren't including the homosexuals who have a fondness for children, and the ones who are supporting NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Lover Assoc)

Your hopes are my commands, mumsie. I believe in the right to one or more consenting ADULTS to practice whatever sex acts they are comfortable with. Not men and boys.

mums: KL: "I have to wonder what makes you think gilda is considering anyone "excess chaff"? Gilda: "Here's my favorite quote .... 'Most people have no business having children. They are unqualified, either genetically or culturally or both, to reproduce such sorry speciments as themselves. '" Wonder no more.

Sorry, mumsie; you didn't really address my question. Please read it again, ok?

mumsie::

KL: "Besides, what will we do to the planets that we immigrate to? Kill all the "inferior" natives?" I see you are above such a terrible thing. But killing those babies, well, I guess that's different. Oh, sorry, culling the overgrowth...? Oh, those silly semantics.

Mumsie, really now! Wherever did you see me indicate that I am in favor of killing babies? I am NOT. NEVER HAVE BEEN. You're letter is starting to sound a bit reactionary.

Mum: KL: "Do we even WANT TO build all the infrastructure necessary to support these hordes of people? Why? Hordes.... it implies a certain distasteful mass

My dictionary defines "horde" as "a throng or swarm, as of people, animals or insects" It defines "throng" as "a large group of people gathered or crowded closely together, a multitude". Do you consider a throng distateful, Mumsie? I don't, in some circumstances; I LOVE going to the Oregon Country Fair, for instance, where hordes of people (over 50,000 in a single weekend) gather for food, entertainment, comraderie, and to share knowledge. I WOULD consider a population density on this scale, covering the whole earth, or even my whole county, to be a bit distastedful, yes. I value my space, as most people do, I think. After the OCF, I always feel a sense of relief at returning to my forty-three acre forest home.

Mumsie:

KL: "S David Bays sez, woe unto those who would impliment or give consent to a Mengala or Nazi type racial purification program or the Chinese model of forced abortion. " S David, you are way out of line here; no one is trying to implement "racial purification" WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM, S DAVID????? Maybe David was coming from historical reality and truth...."Early on in his studies, (Josef) Mengele had been introduced to the work of the social Darwinists, who nearly a half-century earlier, in Victorian England, had argued that 'biology is destiny'...The social Darwinists espoused a program of active intervention to ensure that only the 'best' people survived

Mumsie! Please! Think before you type! Are you really accusing me of favoring Nazi racial purification, or Chinese style forced abortion because of something SOMEONE ELSE WROTE? Something someone else wrote, in fact, in the friggin' 19TH CENTURY? Give it up, mumsie.

mum: KL: "Don't you think we should use our free will to take good care of the "god's earth"? " Yes, I do KL, it's called good stewardship. Only I want to care for God's earth. You want to be one of the gods.

Mumsie, you have such a sweet name. It makes me think of my grandmother--someone old, wise, kind, and loving. You are disillusioning me, here. You are sounding very mean sprited. I REALLY don't want to be one of the gods. I haven't got the time, desire, or ability to be one of the gods. I have all the gods I need right here in my forest. They are wonderful gods; they provide almost everything I need. If only they'd make the trees that die split themselves into firewood and lumber. BAD gods!

mum:

Well, we freedom types suggest you move to China, rather than force your views upon others. Because what you espouse is exactly that. KL:

Sorry mumsie, but I doubt I'll ever move to China. I'm told that their government is even more repressive than ours. As far as forcing my views on others, yes, I guess I do do that on occassion, like when I vote, and when I speak out at public meetings like the Planning Commission, the County Board of Commissioners, etc. If you don't speak out, if you don't vote, you're right, you can't be accussed of "forcing your views on others". But I, like a small percentage of the folks in this country, am willing to take the time, take the risks, and to the research necessary to help guide the government to make the tough decisions. One of these tough decisions is to ADDRESS THE POPULATION ISSUE. Seems you bleeding hearts would sweep all our problems under the rug, and say, "Oh well, it's the will of god. Not to worry. It will all come out in the wash." Or in the millenium.

Well, I've got news for you, Mumsie. There are a lot of people such as myself who will continue to try to do what we think is the right thing for ourselves, our families, and our brothers and sisters on this planet--including all those people of color, homosexuals, and liberals, who are so frightening to you. We'll continue to try to stop the population explosion AND the terrible waste and greed, before we all drown in our own shit.

As I stated on my earlier post, we've been trying to affect the population through voluntary measures for over thirty years. I have strongly opposed mandatory limiting of birthrates for this entire period; I HATE big government. I could write for hours why I hate it so much. But after seeing the population double in this time period, having seen the huge crowds of people (yes, HORDES) crowding the planet ever increasing, I am less and less convinced that voluntary measures will work. It is beginning to seem that the only alternatives may be either mandatory controls or some terrible die off. Which one is worse? That's the $64,000 question.

Will C:

So, I shall once again suggest the problem of over-population could be resolved by discontinuing our intervention of death. We have disrupted the natural order (biologically AND spiritually). There appear to be NO takers on this suggestion.

Ok, WC, I'll bite. Are you suggesting that we discontinue all medical treatments, or only certain ones? I'm not particularly in favor of a lot of this high tech death intervention. If I need a new heart (Yeah, I know, what heart, right?) someday, I believe that would be a sign that my time has come to find out the "truth" about rebirth, the soul, reincarnation, whatever. I have made out and signed a document called a "physicians advisary" also known as a "living will" which instructs my wife, kids, doctor, and anyone else who gets involved, regarding the fact that I don't want any "heroic" measures" taken if I am in a terminal condition. My dad had a very similar document. He died two weeks ago, without having to be subjected to months, or years, of pain and suffering at the hands of a medical establishment which, in Dad's opinion, would have kept him from passing on to the next level of reality at the proper time.

Is this the type of thing you have in mind, WC? Or to eliminate ALL medical treatment? I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

If we discontinue ALL medical care, I'm sure that the population problem will take care of itself sooner or later. I personally think that this would be a rather strange way to deal with the problem, but at least it would work.

If we only discontinue those "heroic measures" like transplants, kidney dialysis, and such, I don't think the effect on the population will be very noticeable. I suspect that most people who get this type of intervention have already finished having kids.

WC: small, frightened, selfish hypocrites!

If you're referring to me, I take offense. I don't believe I am small, nor frightened. Why are you saying this? Just to cause waves, or something?

I do admit to being a hypocrite, SOMETIMES. Try as I might, I have a built in propensity to make mistakes. If you point out a hypocracy, I'll examine it. I have even been known to change my mind. I'm willing to examine your theory of population control through eliminating certain medical practices, for instance.

WC: One last thing.....to object to my distaste for referring to this process as 'breeding', pointing out the fact that it is merely a 'word', is ignorant. Did you allow your children to walk around in public spewing forth , "fuck-off"? It's only a word after all.......

Interesting question, WC. No, I didn't "allow" my children to walk around in public spewing forth "fuck off". I didn't exactly follow them around and spy on them, though. I told them that there are certain words that certain people take offense at. I told them there was nothing inherently wrong with the words themselves. For instance, my mom tells me that the word "piss", which, in this part of the country at least, is considered "vulgar", was considered the "proper" word for urine, when she was a girl (back in the teens) Now we expect the kids to use all these cutsie words like "pee-pee, tush, thingie, ca ca" Ha! I also told them that people who insist on saying things like, "then the fuckin' asshole tells me the goddam mother fuckin thing....etc. are simply too ignorant or lazy to get a command of the language. It's easy for them to substitute "fuckin" for some other, more explicit, adjective. But I don't really know what difference all this semantics talk makes, in regards to the overpopulation problem.

By the way, WC, you are right about one thing. I'm capable of being as pushy as you thumpers are. Sorry. I don't think any of us are going to affect anyone's opinion about population, religion, or y2k, for that matter, if we try to FORCE our opinions on them, and it is easy to be impatient and do exactly that.

WC: Fill a room full of atheists, have one individual simply say the 'word' God, and the sucking sound of ass-holes puckering will be deafening

:-() oh my... You have much better hearing than I, WC.

Actually, my mom is a Christian. It gives her a lot of comfort. I acknowledge her faith, as she asknowledges mine, which is quite different. The difference between her Christianity and that of many Christians (the ones I call christers), is that she doesn't believe that she is right all the time, that anyone whose beliefs differ with hers are damned to eternal fire, etc. I have lots of friends, including some of the homosexuals, who are Christians; we get along fine. I have NO christer friends. Can't stand to be around their holier than thou rantings.

All in all, I think this exchange has produced a lot less anger and name calling than I would have expected, considering the sensitivity of the topic. Heck, I've gotten attacked far worse for saying that I thought that someone's opinion that y2k would be the end of civilization was too extreme!

Thanks, all for your thoughts. I personally have gained from some of your ideas.

Al

BTW, WC, for some reason, I thought you HAD identified yourself as a Christian. No? Are you, though?

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 25, 1999.

Mumsie, you are describing human intervention upon the natural order of death. It matters not 'who', 'when', or 'why'. Mankind does not decide this. Mankind has chosen to disrupt the outcome. This has created a dysfunctional imbalance in what had once been a perfectly functional system. Did we think 'we' were too good for this system? Did we cling selfishly to our refusal to let go of those chosen to cease existing within said system? Is fear involved? Perhaps all of the above? The outcome remains the same. Mankind has chosen to take 'control' of what had once been a 'delicately' balanced system.

What a shame. In our arrogance, we ignored the perfect opportunity to simply be grateful to participate within a complex, well tuned system of systems. We simply thought it could be improved upon, similar to the mess created known as Y2K. We have made one poor 'choice' after another and in the process, have spit upon our gift of life and the planet which sustains our very existence. I do consider life a gift and apologise to any this may offend. I consider death a gift as well and pitty those who struggle with demanding an 'answer'. In the end, there never is one. It is not my place to question this. I do not control this system. I did not create it. I 'chose' to 'trust' because the alternative only made me angry, hateful and was leading me to becoming dysfunctional. Science began to ask why and how, and 'evolved' into the destruction of the system in which it had been so determined to explain. What began as simple questions turned into 'wonderful improvements', 'monumental discoveries' and now we are faced with the results of 'fooling with Mother nature'. I find the act of cloning, and freezing ourselves (like a steak) disturbing as well. To fool further is not the answer. It will solve nothing. It is beyond further human intervention no matter how wonderfully brilliant and clever we may think we are. Is it possible that it might be best to simply release the Tiger's tail and allow it to return to it's rightful place? No. We would be forced to make sacrifices that are simply out of the question, in all reality, taking human nature into consideration. Human beings don't sacrifice. They expect everything around them to. We agree there is serious trouble brewing on the horizon and it 'may' provide an opportunity to have learned from our mistakes and prevent repeating them. Sooner or later, we WILL be faced with serious questions. The FIRST one needs to be, "How did we get ourselves into this mess to begin with?".

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Al:

I believe there is a God. I believe he exists over everyone.....EVERYONE. I don't 'practice' my beliefs 'by the book' or 'to the letter'. I rule out nothing but the suggestion he (she? it?) doesn't exist.

(Here's where I take 'incomming' from both sides, ah well, I should have built the other milking stand instead.) LOL

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 25, 1999.

Al, I apologize for accidentally using your middle and last initials to identify you rather than your first name. It was unintentional.

"They are unqualified, either genetically or cultural." My dictionary's definition of chaff is: "something comparatively worthless". Comparison is inescapibly obvious in that quote. "Wherever did you see me indicate that I am in favor of killing babies?" Are you against China's policy of infanticide to control population?

"Do we even WANT TO build all the infrastructure necessary to support these hordes of people? Why?" Why are they mere "hordes" and why do you feel entitled to your "forty-three acre forest home. " Every horde is comprised of unique individuals. I interpreted your use of the word hordes in context with the rest of your commentary.

"Are you really accusing me of favoring Nazi racial purification, or Chinese style forced abortion because of something SOMEONE ELSE WROTE? " Well, you also wrote.... "I am less and less convinced that voluntary measures will work. It is beginning to seem that the only alternatives may be either mandatory controls or some terrible die off" What mandatory controls do you speak of? Then we can judge any similarity to those espoused and enforced by the Nazis and China.

"You are disillusioning me, here." So sorry. The name was bestowed long ago by children, probably from a book they read . I never claimed to be sweet or wise, and old is relative. "You are sounding very mean sprited" My use of your initials was unintentional. Your flip versions seem, dare I say, mean spirited? Are you using a double standard? "I have NO christer friends. Can't stand to be around their holier than thou rantings" That sounds mean spirited to me Al. I have friends that I would consider liberal and they would consider me conservative. We have heated discourse often on "issues", and yet retain great affection for each other as unique human beings. Apparently you have no tolerance for those who disagree with you.

"including all those people of color, homosexuals, and liberals, who are so frightening to you. " Frightening? Only the thought that people like you could dictate public policy, legislation, medical ethics, and could strip away our rights is frightening. Very few people have ever frightened me. Someone who espouses wickedness, claiming that the end justifies the means is frightening. Perhaps I should be frightened of you.

"It is beginning to seem that the only alternatives may be either mandatory controls or some terrible die off. Which one is worse? That's the $64,000 question." This is an easy question for me. I would rather live on less land, lower my standard of living, share my food and resources, and attempt to help others rather than murder another human being.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

Hey, I just did Big Dog's math and I feel much better!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

Mumsie, no offense was taken by your having addressed me as Ak.

As far as your other comments, I give up trying to explain my position AGAIN. You keep repeating your objections to issues I am not espousing.

I will only address the following:

"It is beginning to seem that the only alternatives may be either mandatory controls or some terrible die off. Which one is worse? That's the $64,000 question." This is an easy question for me. I would rather live on less land, lower my standard of living, share my food and resources, and attempt to help others rather than murder another human being.

WHY, WHY, WHY, WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYY, do you INSIST on correlating my views with "MURDERING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING"? This is a VERY rude thing that you do. I am a very sensitive person. I love my fellow human beings. I would NEVER promote killing another human being.

HOWEVER, I am personally not interested in lowering my standard of living for another ten or twenty billion people who DO NOT EVEN EXIST! Obviously, all of our living standards will be lowered by these hordes, to the extent that you, and yours continue to promote overpopulation.

But really, Mumsie, how much do you think you (and I, and our grandchildren) will be able to lower our standard of living before we all just starve to death, or die of lung cancer from the polluted air, water, and space?

Do you REALLY believe that we can continue expanding the population FOREVER? Is there NO limit, in your mind?

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 25, 1999.

"As far as your other comments, I give up trying to explain my position AGAIN. You keep repeating your objections to issues I am not espousing."

About time you woke up Al...or are you really awake? You went on still, beating your head against the wall ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

Al K said:

HOWEVER, I am personally not interested in lowering my standard of living for another ten or twenty billion people who DO NOT EVEN EXIST! Obviously, all of our living standards will be lowered by these hordes, to the extent that you, and yours continue to promote overpopulation.

Al, you da MAN!

-- a (a@a.a), August 25, 1999.

"Human beings don't sacrifice. They expect everything around them to."

Makes this entire conversation an enormous waste of time, doesn't it? It applies to BOTH sides of the fence.

Perhaps a 'miracle' of sorts, is in order.............

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.

Al K. Lloyd writes:

I do admit to being a hypocrite, SOMETIMES. Try as I might, I have a built in propensity to make mistakes. If you point out a hypocracy, I'll examine it.

Ok, examine this:

HOWEVER, I am personally not interested in lowering my standard of living for another ten or twenty billion people who DO NOT EVEN EXIST! Obviously, all of our living standards will be lowered by these hordes, to the extent that you, and yours continue to promote overpopulation.

Good premise, but oh...what's this???

By the way, my oldest son, a veterinarian, has two boys. He may try for a girl. I hope not. I would much rather he follow the advice of my daughter, who plans to have one child and adopt one or two more.

My other son and his girl haven't decided yet whether they'll have kids or not. They do discuss such things with their mom and me, though, which I greatly appreciate.

My my, quite a brood you have going there. Two sons and a daughter??? And they've already bred more people to add to the horde??

It is you and yours that have continued to promote overpopulation by breeding all these people. Population control starts at home. Especially your home.

Gotta go now, I hear my "mommy" calling me.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 26, 1999.

Gilda,

I say tax the hell out of people with more than two kids. Tax the yuppies for building those gigantic, forest raping, houses. Better yet, limit the size of houses and the number of kids. Sterilize welfare women who have more than one kid. Fine people who eat at McDonalds more than once a month. I'm sick of paying high insurance premiums for their cholestral and heart attacks.

The list is endless!!

-- anti-chainsaw (tree@hugger.com), August 26, 1999.

Chris and Al, as you may have noticed I quit posting several pages back. When people twist everything that's said, quote out of context, refuse to carry on a civilized discussion, attack your family, have no concern for future generations, or the earth, call you horrible names, quote Bible passages, never answer legitimate questions, and in general treat anyone that disagrees with them with discounting scorn, then there's no point in continuing. It's like trying to run through tar; you get covered with filth, but you don't make any progress.

We're leaving for vacation as soon as our house sitter gets here, but even if I were here, I wouldn't post another word on this thread. For as Bob P said at the beginning, "Of course your points are valid and tied to such a deeply rood emotion, such a sensible dialogue on a forum such as this will only degrade into mud slinging and insults." They have very effectively run off most of the posters who didn't agree with their short-sighted views.

Thanks to all of you who have attempted in vain to keep the dialogue focued on the questions. Chris thanks for the link to the Pantheism credo, I've joined the group and I'm looking forward to meeting new people who are as concerned about this planet and its inhabitants as I am.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 26, 1999.

Sorry about the typo, that should have read, "deeply *rooted* emotion."

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 26, 1999.

When people twist everything that's said, quote out of context, refuse to carry on a civilized discussion, attack your family, have no concern for future generations, or the earth, call you horrible names, quote Bible passages, never answer legitimate questions, and in general treat anyone that disagrees with them with discounting scorn, then there's no point in continuing.

Agreed. Next time, try not to do all of those things and maybe you'll have better luck with your posts.

Have a nice vacation.

-- (ha@ha.ha), August 26, 1999.

Gilda, I'm disapointed you took it all so personaly. This is the internet after all, these people aren't your neighbors. There is nowhere better than here to discuss such deep problems. The mudslinging and ignorance is inevitable and unavoidable; but we must keep on trying to discuss through all that tar and mud if any progress in educating the masses that there is horrible problem is to be made. Your insights are needed. Enjoy your vacation, hopefully you'll come back relaxed with a new and stronger shield against the mud and tar ;-)

pot@kettle.black, I also have 3 kids. But I've made MY contribution. My mother had 9.

It's all relative.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.

pot@kettle.black, I also have 3 kids. But I've made MY contribution. My mother had 9.

LOL, some contribution. So, if all your siblings "contributed" as you did, we'd end up with 27 more mouths to feed. Yeah, nice job.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 26, 1999.

Some of my siblings have done even better than me, there's only 22 new mouths to feed ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.

Attacking the messenger is not answering my questions either. I would really like to hear specific answers to specific questions. Just exactly how would you stop Mom of Four? Do you approve of China's policy or do you condemn it? What kind of "mandatory" controls would you propose, approve, and help implement in your own country? If they are mandatory controls, delineate the difference between those and what was used and is being used by the Nazi eugenicists and China. What kind of people do you deem responsible and wise enough to make these decisions? How strongly would you implement this with your own children and grandchildren? I notice that these questions go unanswered, while the insults continue. How interesting. It is one thing to espouse a vague "Big Picture" philosophy, and another to implement it. I will answer your question now. I personally believe that the population is going to soon be lowered drastically, in fact, much more drastically than people imagine. I think overpopulation will become a moot issue. (Y2K, biochemical warfare, nuclear warfare, famine, crime, and disease etc.) My concern is, in the meantime, the actual individual human beings who have been slaughtered and will continue to be murdered. I stand radically opposed to this as a solution. I believe in responsible stewardship, as opposed to worship of, the earth. I believe the earth has a Creator (Designer) who will hold us all accountable for this. Even as a child, I could not even litter without terrible remorse, and am teaching my children that they are also going to be held accountable. To whom much is given, much is expected. I also believe in the Golden Rule,... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I do not wish to be viewed and assessed by a fallible human as to whether or not they deem I am fit to live or die or give birth. Do you not also believe it is possible that some of the lives destroyed may have made great and wonderful contributions to humanity? Mother Teresa believed that the person who would have developed the cure for AIDS was aborted. (No, I'm not Catholic.) An interesting thought, to say the least. I teach my children that their purpose in life is to serve, and that is above pursuing personal "happiness". Happiness is something that comes and goes as a gift, and is more likely to come when the heart is guided by Love. It sounds as if those who cheer on lowering the population of the earth do not care about the human beings they are discussing. How much have you personally donated to causes such as famine relief, care of orphans, and helping the poor to better themselves? My husband has always made sure to allocate money to these kinds of effort. We have opened our home to someone who was trying to break a terrible cycle of poverty and abuse. We do put our money where our mouth is. I believe if more individuals would personally care about and help more individuals, more things would change than we could dream of. It spreads like the ripples in a pool of water, but sadly, so does apathy, hostility, and violence.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 26, 1999.

Well Mumsie, thanks for taking the time to explain your morals and values. I hold the exac same ones as yours above, and I live them as you do.

I will attempt to do my personal part in answering some of your questions, but it's only me, you've directed all of them at everyone, everybody on earth.

You said "I believe in responsible stewardship, as opposed to worship of, the earth."

The slight difference with me is this: I too believe in responsible stewardship AND worship the earth.

My third child was not planned, an "accident" of my passionate side, but like you I don't believe in "slaughtering" my "mistakes", and I'm extremely happy with this decision. So I took measures to prevent any further "happy mistakes". It's a sacrifice on my part, as I would have loved a larger family like the one I was raised in, but since I believe in quality of life vs quantity, I made a concious "rational" effort to do my part in population control. Not that my parents didn't provide us with a quality life growing up, but the times and circumstances then were very different, and they weren't not aware as I am of the over-population problem. The religion and culture in which they lived prevented them from that. That is why I say educating people is the only humane way to control population.

My husband and I are doing the best we can to raise and educate our children, but ultimately it will be their own decision as adults on how many children if any they will have. So far, large families are not in their minds, and they have been educated about birth control/family planning as soon as they reached puberty, and so I feel I will have been successful with my own contribution.

I'll leave this debate with this last post. Comes a time when we get stuck in place and we spin our wheels, and I feel that's what's happening here with me.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.

"That is why I say educating people is the only humane way to control population. "

This I agree with, as long as it is up to individual parents to educate their children, and not imposed, mandatory education for all children.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 26, 1999.

Sorry pot kettle black; had you read my earlier contribution you would possibly have known that my younger son and daughter do not share my genes. I got sterilized right after my only biological child was born, 28 years ago.

Mumsie,

The problem for me as far as giving specifics on how to mandate population limits is that it is too complicated and too controversial for me to be able to come up with all the specifics.

For the third, or maybe fourth, time, I will repeat: I do not favor "the actual individual human beings who have been slaughtered and will continue to be murdered" . I actually don't even know what slaughter you are referring to, unless you are referring to abortion. I don't know of any slaughter that is being carried out for eugenics purposes, for instance. I'm NOT in favor of eugenics, as I believe I have made very clear. Eugenics, as I understand it, has been proposed (and practiced in some areas, even legalized in some US states in the early part of this century) for the purpose of "improving" the human race. My concern is with controlling the birth rate, per se, not the "quality" of the children who are born.

You state, " I also believe in the Golden Rule,... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I also believe in the Golden Rule, Mumsie. In fact the Golden Rule is my credo. Although I believe that the Bible is an interesting read, and not divinely inspired, I do believe that there are some very good guidlines therein. I try to put into practice many of what lots of Christers only preach. The Golden Rule, if practiced by more people, would solve a lot of our problems.

"It sounds as if those who cheer on lowering the population of the earth do not care about the human beings they are discussing. How much have you personally donated to causes such as famine relief, care of orphans, and helping the poor to better themselves? My husband has always made sure to allocate money to these kinds of effort. We have opened our home to someone who was >trying to break a terrible cycle of poverty and abuse. We do put our money where our mouth is. I believe if more individuals would personally care about and help more individuals, more things would >hange than we could dream of."

We have a fundamental disagreement on this. I guess we will never see eye to eye, unfortunately. I feel that the people who want to lower the population (and this is only through attrition, by the way, not by killing people) do so because they DO care about the rest of the people in the world. I admire you for all the charitable activities you cite. However, none of these activities will help in the long run, as long as the population continues to grow.

You state that you believe the population is about to start shrinking through nuclear war, y2k, biochemical warfare, etc. But what if the population doesn't start shrinking for those reasons? I personally hope like hell that the population does not shrink through such terrible means. Would you really rather the population shring through disease, violence and suffering rather than through limiting the number of kids we have to two per family?

By the way, you mentioned earlier that you were willing to live with less space, less food and water, etc, to accomodate the population growth which I anticipate, rather than limiting the birth rate. Have you considered reducing your living standards NOW, in order to help those in need in so many third world countries? Perhaps you could give all but five or ten percent of your income to charities which deal in this type of assistance.

Personally, I have donated as much money to charity as I see fit, considering my responsibility to care for my own family, which comes first. In addition I have done LOTS of volunteer work, including teaching English as a Second Language in the local middle school, as well as to adult immigrants. Perhaps you have done even more than I have; I don't know, and it really is not the point. The point is the FUTURE, which looks bleak to me, because we are destroying our water resources, our soil resources, our quality of life by continuing to POSTPONE dealing with the reality of population pressures.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 26, 1999.

Al, you said,

"Would you really rather the population shring through disease, violence and suffering ..."

I believe I made it clear that I think this will happen whether I "like" it or not.

"Have you considered reducing your living standards NOW, in order to help those in need in so many third world countries? Perhaps you could give all but five or ten percent of your income to charities which deal in this type of assistance..... Personally, I have donated as much money to charity as I see fit, considering my responsibility to care for my own family, which comes first"

Yes, since you ask. We have reduced our standard of living voluntarily, in keeping with our conviction that we are stewards of what we have. Your suggestion that we live on 5-10% of our income smacks of nothing but smug sarcasm, in light of your following comment above.

"The problem for me as far as giving specifics on how to mandate population limits is that it is too complicated and too controversial for me to be able to come up with all the specifics. "

Your answer seems to be vaguely convenient.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 26, 1999.

From Dicken's A Christmas Carol:

"Spirit," said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, "tell me if Tiny Tim will live."

"I see a vacant seat," relied the Ghost, "in the poor chimney corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die."

"No, no," said Scrooge, "O, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared."

"If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race," returned the Ghost, "will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.

"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the Surplus is and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that in the sight of heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. O God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!"

Scrooge bent before the Ghost's rebuke, and trembling, cast his eyes upon the ground.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 26, 1999.

Al says,

"The problem for me as far as giving specifics on how to mandate population limits is that it is too complicated and too controversial for me to be able to come up with all the specifics. "

Mumsie's response:

Your answer seems to be vaguely convenient

Mum, you may know everything; I don't. Most complex problems get solved by many people brainstorming, and eventually coming up with the best solution, one which would not have been thought of by any of the people acting alone. I believe we need to have such a dialogue about world population control. What we have been doing here, on this thread, is merely arguing about whether we even NEED to address the population issue. It appears we cannnot agree on this. I plan to continue my involvement with others who are working on finding a solution. I cannot give up on the solution on the "expectation" that the population is about to shrink drastically, as you have apparently done.

You think my answer is "vaguely convenienet". Not. I will give you a simpled analogy: give me the details on how the world should deal with y2k. Not a "broad" picture; give me all the details. I assume you are here to share ideas with others, since none of us know what all the ramifications will be, nor what is the best way to deal with it. Same thing with the population issue; we believe there is a problem, we KNOW the population cannot expand indefinitely, but no one knows what is the best method to deal with it. I believe it lies somewhere between doing nothing, as you would have us do, and the Chinese method, which is too extreme.

I can certainly see why Gilda got frustrated talking to some of you about this subject, by the wayl

Gilda, sorry to see you getting frustrated. Please visit with us again when you return from your trip. Buen viaje!

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 26, 1999.

Sorry pot kettle black; had you read my earlier contribution you would possibly have known that my younger son and daughter do not share my genes. I got sterilized right after my only biological child was born, 28 years ago.

That's still one too many. This was the son that already has two children and is trying for another? That's two and possibly three more mouths to feed. And when they grow up, the potential for many many more, destroying our water resources, our soil resources, and our quality of life. And all of it caused by you. You could have prevented this, but you chose not to. And now you're calling upon others to make a sacrifice that you were unwilling to make. to solve a problem that you helped to cause.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 26, 1999.

So call me Elbow-come-lately.

I'd like to respond to gilda's original question:

>>Name me one environmental problem that is not the result of overpopulation. <<

Mount St Helens. The Northridge Earthquake. Hurricane Dennis. Want more?

I guess the end of a long ridiculous thread is as good a place for this as any: Sure, we have environmental problems resulting from *population.* But overpopulation? Just when did this occur? Over 116 posts here, and no one questions this unsupported statement. Come on, big brains. What is the criteria for "over" population? When did we cross the line? Until this question is answered, all the preceding verbiage is moot.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Al: "I believe it lies somewhere between doing nothing, as you would have us do"

I have been trying to "listen" to you. I believe that I laid out clearly what I see as our responsibility to respect and care for each other as human beings of irreplaceably unique worth. Your definition of "nothing" seems to be based upon not agreeing with you. I don't think that attempting to adopt unwanted children, donating money to orphans, homeless people, famine relief, and taking people into our home is doing "nothing".

Al:"I can certainly see why Gilda got frustrated talking to some of you about this subject, by the way"

As I said before, you do not seem to be a very tolerant person when it comes to someone disagreeing with you. I'm sorry that frustrates you.

"Mum, you may know everything; I don't" "...give me the details on how the world should deal with y2k. Not a "broad" picture; give me all the details"

You are still attacking the messenger Al. If I had been saying that I believed that Y2K will not be a problem, and that government should do nothing, and that people will be just fine and dandy, it would be reasonable to ask me more specifically what I based this opinion on. I asked some specific questions. Here are the questions again...

"What mandatory controls do you speak of? Then we can judge any similarity to those espoused and enforced by the Nazis and China. I would really like to hear specific answers to specific questions. Just exactly how would you stop Mom of Four? Do you approve of China's policy or do you condemn it? What kind of "mandatory" controls would you propose, approve, and help implement in your own country? If they are mandatory controls, delineate the difference between those and what was used and is being used by the Nazi eugenicists and China. What kind of people do you deem responsible and wise enough to make these decisions? How strongly would you implement this with your own children and grandchildren? I notice that these questions go unanswered, ..."

They should not have all been so complicated to answer based upon your firm convictions. You know that I did not ask for "all" the details either. All right, Y2K,...I believe that people should have been informed years ago when the government set Social Security to working on the problem. I believe that a very basic brochure should have been developed, along with free seminars offered by Red Cross, the utilities etc. The biggest problem has been potentially created by those who consider themselves the few "enlightened" who know better than the hordes, and who feel that their vision and judgement alone is enough to dictate the policy of silence, spin, and whatever else they have in mind. More details? On an individual basis I am working with people to prepare with potable water and water to wash with, basic foods, alternative heat, and a cushion of extra life and death prescription medicines. I researched, printed, copied and mailed at least twenty packets to different parts of the country to be shared and distributed by friends and relatives (months ago). You don't really want to know these details, I know, but could you be remotely this specific as to your ideas for "mandatory" reduction of the population?

"I cannot give up on the solution on the "expectation" that the population is about to shrink drastically, as you have apparently done."

Your "solution" is not mine Al. Charles Dickens said it so beautifully, thank you Mac.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

mumsie says

I don't think that attempting to adopt unwanted children, donating money to orphans, homeless people, famine relief, and taking people into our home is doing "nothing".

Mumsie, I am not trying to run down what you are doing in those regards. It is wonderful that you are such a contributing member of society. What I meant by "doing nothing", as I thought obvious, was doing nothing about controlling the population explosion.

To all reading this thread:

There was a news report on NPR at a little after 5:00 this morning regarding a woman named Barbara Harris (may have been Harrison, I didn't hear it clearly). She has begun a program which is attempting to help solve the problem of women having babies while addicted to crack cocaine. She got frustrated after adopting four crack babies from the same crack addict. Her program involves paying crack addicts to either get sterilized or submit to long-term contraception (IUD was mentioned)

I applaud her efforts; I know I'll get flamed as being a Eugenicist, but actually, it's only my daughter who lives in Eugene; I'm a little farther south :)

Ms Harris runs the whole program with donated funds. I am trying to find out where to send donations. I'll keep you posted.

Anyone with knowledge of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or the equivalent cocaine syndrome, who's name I don't know, will applaud her efforts.

Mumsie, I'm bored trying to explain anything to you; I don't have all the answers; it doesn't matter what all my particulars would be, as I'm in no position to implement them, nor would I want to act alone on something of this complexity. Rest assured that if we implement limits on the number of children allowed per family (or, as would be more enforceable, per woman), I would encourage my progeny to follow this law.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 27, 1999.

Does anyone find it strange that those on this thread who oppose some form of population control and say overpopulation *ain't so*, ALSO say it can be fixed with proper food distribution, say it's a "bump in the road," and say that it's whackos, nut cases, the government, baby killers and eugenists yelling disaster and trying to create panic---well doesn't this sound a lot like Y2K POLLYS ranting at DOOMERS. You bet it does! They refuse to see the problem, like those bad old Y2K pollys refuse to see the problem. And they deny there is a problem.

And doesn't it seem strange that someone so sensitive as WC, who opposes using the word "breeding" for breeding, doesn't object one tad to saying "the sucking sound of a**-h****s puckering will be deafening." Baloney--all while waving her holy-sanctified banner.

And dear old Mumsie, says "Attacking the messenger is not answering my questions either." But all she has done is attack the messenger, Gilda who posted the thread, and then attacked All who attempted to answer her. Mumsie's rambling, mumbling, bumbling, self-centered posts are mainly off topic ravings of one who has spawned her litter and dares anyone to question people's right to breed like rabbits. No offense intended to rabbits. She and WC are a fine examples of how the media works by distortion and off the subject attacks, Chris, Al and the other intelligent life forms on the forum don't stand a chance.

And take old Black Pot Licker. What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks. Al, Gilda, Chris, what the hell is wrong with you people? Don't you know your arguing with the same short sighted, irresponsible jerks who got us into this mess. They are no better than those companies or the government who refuse to acknowledge the Y2K problem. Their motto is "I've got mine, the rest of you, and the world, can go to hell." Don't waste your time arguing with them. The world is filled with fools like this.

By the way, I'm a former nurse and I love little babies. I have a child myself, and certainly everyone should have the right to have at least one child. But unless you've worked in a nursery where you see little crack babies that tremor and shake uncontrollably, or you've been in emergency and see babies and little kids with cigarette burns, broken bones, beaten senseless, brain damaged, starved, kicked, smothered and sexually abused to the point of death, you have NO right to say that no one has the right to breed. And you definitely don't have the right to criticize, Gilda for posting a quote that she agreed with, and I Agree with that "Most people have no business having children." Abbey was right! And I haven't even touched on those babies that are born with all kinds of birth defects, diseases and problems that will plague them the rest of thier lives, if they live, if they have good parents, good homes and good medical treatment, and all because their mothers abused drugs and booze, had every sexually transmitted disease you can think of, and frankly didn't give a damn about their future "miracles." Hogwash on you blind, bleading hearts. Use you heads for something better than to separate your ears.

You people, and you know who you are, who are arguing with the fools like Pot Licker, WC, Mumsie and that ilk, should realize that people like Black Pot Licker have done nothing but insult you and your attempts to be decent, responsible, people. Ask Potty how many kids he has, or is going to have? Hey Potbrain, do you help with any children that have problems and live in orphanages? Would you help an unwed mother who was on crack and had Aids so her baby could have a better chance? Do you do anything but insult other people and their families? You're disgusting. How dare you insult Gilda, Chris and Al about their kids. You too Mumsie! Gilda, Chris and Al's children added together, including Al's non-biological kids, don't add up to as many as you have. And my aren't we defensive of our litter.

Gilda when you come back, don't cop out with these dummies. Chris, Al, start a new thread and make them stick to the issue which was: "Which will be worse Y2K or overpopulation?" That's close I think.

And you guys who know what a problem overpopulation IS should move this onto a new thread, and quit playing defense against these pseudo Christians and sensitive breeders, who won't address issues. Set up some rules of debate, or engagement and if they don't respond in the appropriate manner of caring, concerned adults, ignore their answers.

I read this whole long thread and I finally got irritated enough at Gilda, Al, Chris, a.@a, anti-chainsaw, Tom Cary, Peter, A@A, and others, for allowing themselves to be shouted down by the long- winded, drivel of a few loud mouthed idiots, that I decided to respond! I wanted to chastise you guys for trying to debate those who put you on the defense with their stupid bellowings of hatefulness. Don't let the bas***** get you down! Stick to the facts!

-- page (wondering@strange.net), August 27, 1999.

For a lesson in how to antagonize everyone, see above post

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Elbow Grease, that's called knocking numbskulls with a 4x4 over the head. Tough skinned nurses are good at that.

Page, I've seen what you've seen and we get burned through and through to the point that we lose some perspective. Ignorance is frustrating beyond words, but people still need to be educated, and screaming at them with a 4x4 only tends to put them on the defensive and they dig their heels in deeper. I'm at the point where planting seeds in people's minds is all I can do, and I try to do it still every chance I get. I actually admired Al's patience.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 27, 1999.

Al: "say overpopulation *ain't so*, "

I truly don't "know" Al. I know that there are over-populated areas. I know there are many man-induced inhumanities such as famine and genocide. I cannot see into the future, and I know of no scientific proof (only guesses) as to the earth's population in the future. My 'opinion' is that events will soon unfold which will drastically lower the earth's population. Meanwhile, my concern is with the present and very real violence and neglect that people inflict on other people.

I applaud Al for giving a specific and constructive example that supports his philosophy and opinion on a way to help what he sees as the inevitable over-population problem. I doubt there are many circumstances where I would agree with involunatarily sterilizing people, but if these people are requesting it and lack funds, I might contribute myself. (My niece is an adopted Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby Al. I helped arrange her adoption.) I am wondering if the reason he did not answer my more specific questions was not "boredom" but knowing that specific answers might sound unpleasant to people. It is words like "mandatory" that make me feel alarmed. Especially if the people in charge are as virulently spiteful as "page". I can only hope that Al and others who want to promote lowering the population do not consider "page" a balanced and good representative for their cause. Do you Al?

One strong area of disagreement with this statement from Al...."it doesn't matter what all my particulars would be"

I think the particulars do matter, especially when you use the word "mandatory".

I leave these questions again.

What kind of "mandatory" controls would you propose, approve, and help implement in your own country? If they are mandatory controls, delineate the difference between those and what was used and is being used by the Nazi eugenicists and China. What kind of people do you deem responsible and wise enough to make these decisions?

page's indictment: "Mumsie, says 'Attacking the messenger is not answering my questions either.' But all she has done is attack the messenger......."

page's hypocrisy: "Y2K POLLYS ranting at DOOMERS.....waving her holy- sanctified banner...Mumsie's rambling, mumbling, bumbling, self- centered posts are mainly off topic ravings of one who has spawned her litter and dares anyone to question people's right to breed like rabbits..... old Black Pot Licker. What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks.... short sighted, irresponsible jerks who got us into this mess.... The world is filled with fools like this ....you definitely don't have the right to criticize, .....you blind, bleading hearts....Use you heads for something better than to separate your ears..... fools like Pot Licker, WC, Mumsie and that ilk, .....people like Black Pot Licker have done nothing but insult you ......Hey Potbrain,..... How dare you insult...... my aren't we defensive of our litter.....these dummies.....pseudo Christians and sensitive breeders....long- winded, drivel of a few loud mouthed idiots, .....stupid bellowings of hatefulness. Don't let the bas***** get you down! " page: "What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks." page: "Mumsie, says 'Attacking the messenger is not answering my questions either.' But all she has done is attack the messenger......."

page's advice (which page needs to take): "make them stick to the issue ......Set up some rules of debate, or engagement and if they don't respond in the appropriate manner of caring, concerned adults, ignore their answers....... ....Stick to the facts! "

why page is a scarey person: .... page: "I Agree with that "Most people have no business having children." Abbey was right! And I haven't even touched on those babies that are born with all kinds of birth defects.....By the way, I'm a former nurse and I love little babies..."

page's justification: "But unless you've worked in a nursery where you see little crack babies that tremor and shake uncontrollably,..."

I didn't "work" in that nursery, but I spent volunteer time talking to, and holding babies in a critical care pediatric nursery one summer. page: "And I haven't even touched on those babies that are born with all kinds of birth defects..." One of those babies you refer to was my nephew. He received first rate prenatal care, was born with a serious birth defect that could not be repaired until he reached one year of age. His parents had to give him 24 hour on duty (non-sleeping) vigilant care until then. I guess I'm feeling glad that you weren't his nurse during one of his hospital stays.

There is a difference between debating and attacking ideas, (however passionately) rather than the person who holds them. When we are passionate in our feelings about something, it is easy to let anger and sarcasm slip in at points. I know that I have, but I have also tried to address the words and ideas first and foremost. I will now resist the sarcasm that is begging to come out after reading page's post. I would rather get into the mud with King of Spain, than with page.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

And another of those babies was my son, who was not expected to live past his first week. We spent many nights in NICU and had much to learn about "special needs" after that. My son is now 13, almost as tall as his Dad, has an impressive scar which runs from just below his solar plexus all the way to his belt buckle, and scored 99th percentile on his SAT9s.

But, better he had never been born, eh?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 27, 1999.

Page: Quite a rant. Does my heart good to see someone else give it to the bible thumpers and breeders. The analogy between Y2K GIs vs. DGI/DWGIs, and "Breeding" (my term) GIs vs. DGI/DWGIs was particularly apt.

Mac: And then when your son's wife, girl friend, or concumbine gives birth to more of same, and there's no "heroic" medical services available?

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

Big A,

That comment to Mac was childish and uncalled for. And it is very sad that you are unwilling to see the shallowness of page's rant.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Elbow: I thought my comment to Mac was called for. It's sad that you consider page's rant shallow. Nya-nya, nuh-nya-nya.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

Mumsie says:

" I can only hope that Al and others who want to promote lowering the population do not consider "page" a balanced and good representative for their cause. Do you Al? "

Mumsie, again you are asking me to make conclusions I am unable to make due to limited information. How do I know if Page is a balanced and good representative for my cause? I see that she is very pissed off, and for good reason. I agree with much, or maybe most, of what she says. I am not getting pissed off; I've been exposed to enough abusive language in my 54 years to know that people often spit out a lot of rudeness when they feel threatened by different ideas.

Mumsie, clearly there are ovevpopulated areas, and there are even "under" populated areas, although I think these are much less common. I don't know what the carrying capacity of the Earth is, in absolute numbers. I do believe we are approaching the capacity rapidly, if we have not already passed it. This is a controversial subject, and I think there is a lot of hype on both sides.

However, I think it is intuitively obvious that if the population keeps doubling every so often EVENTUALLY we will surpass the Earth's carrying capacity. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. There is only so much space, so much water, so much sunshine, so much air. If you believe that we will eventually surpass the carrying capacity, does it not make sense to DELIBERATELY limit our population rather than waiting until BILLIONS of people are forced to suffer and die?

I am getting very weary of this debate; I don't feel like I'm reaching you with what I'm trying to say. I don't see the point in your insistence on MY agenda. The more important point is what WE are going to do about the population. I'm only one person, with one person's perspectives. Whether you agree with ME or not doesn't really matter. Even if you could make cogent arguments against MY views, so what?

As I stated earlier, I have only recently become frustrated enough and worried enough about our planet to even consider mandatory limits on population. I HATE government control. I would LOVE it if we could all place limits on our own behavior, but, as demonstrated by the stonewalling I'm encountering here, this is not happening.

Since I have only recently even considered mandatory controls on population, I will continue to be unwilling to give you my "specifics" I don't really have any which I can share with you. As I said, I don't want to pursue mandatory controls. It's just that it seems like that's where we are heading, because people like you (and we all know who I'm talking about--you've make yourselves very obvious) refuse to take responsibility for your share of the problem. Even though some of you may have ten kids, which I think is a terrible thing to do, I won't advocate retroactive abortion. Although I suspect if we get to the Soylent Green stage, the powers that be will even look at that for a solution, when we will otherwise face massive starvation and disease.

Page, I liked your comparison of population arguments with doomer/ polly arguments. The first letter I ever posted on this forum was a question asking ,basically, why everyone just "shouts" at each other, and never listens? For that I got roundly attacked by BOTH sides! Whew!

Page, did you hear this morning about the woman who is paying crack addicts $200 to either get sterilized or submit to long term birth control? Believe it or not she's been getting verbally attacked as being "racist", even though she has not targeted any racial group. There are people who freak out on almost any topic.

By the way, Page, as far as ignoring those who don't debate fairly, I'm afraid if I ignore them all, I'll be preaching to the choir, but the point is well taken. I am getting very tired of this thread. I am going to continue to revisit this thread, but less often.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 27, 1999.

Hmmmmm. Chris and page are both making *their* livings off of the medical/science *disruption* of our eco-system. They now suggest we disrupt the system further by controlling births.

Some people just want to live forever, at the expense of anything and anyone who gets in their way. When you two can come up with a viable solution to what we have created (over-population?) in our pursuit to eliminate death and disease, we may not even need to discuss any further manipulations to the system. The brilliant and miraculous science behind your profession screwed the pooch, like it or not.

You spout off about wanting to 'protect' nature, but appear most unwilling to 'live' it. Hmmmmm. Indeed.

We are talking about the planet aren't we? Ecology, you know, the 'system'? You are demanding people take responsibility for it, correct? Or are you suggesting 'other' people only? I've yet to hear any relistic game plan, just alot of chest beating and finger pointing. Taxing additional children??????? Policing the number of births??????????? That's it?????

At least my suggestion would return the system to the harmony of natural order it once had. What's next in your quest? Federally mandated pooper-scoopers due to the unacceptable time required for feces to return to the soil? I'm shocked some of you don't suffer with terminal nose bleeds do to the altitude of your mounts.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 27, 1999.

A -

Then my son's newborn child may die, but not from want of trying to save him or her. The term "heroic medical services" is more descriptive of the approach than the methods.

You might suffer a heart attack tomorrow. Were I there, I would use all my training to save you, and if we're both lucky (since I just all my First Responder course), you might make it. By a trained medico's standards, my efforts would be pretty clumsy, but they'd be the best I can do. We do what we can with the tools available.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 28, 1999.

Who knows, I might even get a chance to run an airway on you. Fun, fun, fun. 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 28, 1999.

Big A,

That's it, buddy, always lead with your strongest point. You must be quite proud of your response. That was really *special.* It is enough to convince me to change my opinion; there are indeed people who don't deserve to be born.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

WC, I read over your post twice, and still I'm not sure of what I got from it. A lot of anger is apparent. Earlier you mentioned your grand-father was a "prominent surgeon", has this something to do with your anger toward the medical profession?

"Hmmmmm. Chris and page are both making *their* livings off of the medical/science *disruption* of our eco-system."

"I'm shocked some of you don't suffer with terminal nose bleeds do to the altitude of your mounts."

And I'm not shocked from the vomitus that comes out of your mouth, the air is foul one foot from the ground.

That is so off-the-wall for me, I don't know how to respond to this. Page and I are nurses, not scientists or doctors who invented medecal technology. We're but humble servants. A waitress is more respected and doesn't work as hard. I know I've done both.

"They now suggest we disrupt the system further by controlling births."

*I* suggest we *rebalance* the eco-system by controling births, principally by educating people. All my nursing life's been devoted to picking up after the messes of people (those who don't care about their bodies and don't listen to doctor's advice, and those who don't care for other's lives), and their doctors (the negligent and overly full of themselves ones).

"At least my suggestion would return the system to the harmony of natural order it once had."

And just what was that suggestion? That we let the old people die in peace? (as in not using heroic measures with very old, very sick people?) I agreed that that would be one good contribution to the problem, but it's not the ONLY solution, it would still not be enough. And still then, it is a matter of education. It is NOT the place of doctors to make the decisions to refuse heroic treatments, but to the patients themselves if they are sound of mind, or to the family if they are not.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

Chris, you've said more than once "It's a matter of education." What exactly do you mean?

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Educating people on this subjects. For example, with birth control, adolescents as soon as they reach puberty should be educated on birth control methods and family planning. But ofcourse, the parents have to be willing to do that first, so educating parents is needed. By educating I mean making people aware and discuss this topic. There are laws in place (at least in my state) that at 16 a girl can get free exams and birth control pills from family planning clinics without parental consent. That is a good step, but it still doesn't prevent many younger girls from getting pregnant. (I don't want to get into wether such laws should or shouldn't be made to begin with, I'm sure many people don't agree. Fact is they are and it is ONE part of the solution.)

Educating older (and not so old) people that if they want to die in peace when getting old, they need to stipulate that in a "living will". Educate the families of what's involved in terms of emotional angts, time and money when one decides on using all the heroic measures available to keep mom or pop alive until 100. Much of the educating should be and is being done by the medical field workers, but it's on case by case basis, hospital by hospital. National healthcare associations should be more active and more vocal in the process.

And continuing to support and encourage good and higher education for all people, here in the states as well as in poor countries. Educated "breeders" are less prolific ones, for many cultural and personal reasons.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

"Mac: And then when your son's wife, girl friend, or concumbine gives birth to more of same, and there's no "heroic" medical services available?"

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

And does anyone wonder why we worry about a return to Nazi-like eugenics?

Al: "you are asking me to make conclusions I am unable to make due to limited information. ...I agree with much, or maybe most, of what she says. "

Yes, of course, I was asking for your evaluation based on the limited information contained in her post. Apparently, that style of communication pleases you . (Al:"I agree with much, or maybe most, of what she says...")

Al: "By the way, Page, as far as ignoring those who don't debate fairly, I'm afraid if I ignore them all, I'll be preaching to the choir, but the point is well taken. " page: "Y2K POLLYS ranting at DOOMERS.....waving her holy- sanctified banner...Mumsie's rambling, mumbling, bumbling, self- centered posts are mainly off topic ravings of one who has spawned her litter and dares anyone to question people's right to breed like rabbits..... old Black Pot Licker. What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks.... short sighted, irresponsible jerks who got us into this mess.... The world is filled with fools like this ....you definitely don't have the right to criticize, .....you blind, bleading hearts....Use you heads for something better than to separate your ears..... fools like Pot Licker, WC, Mumsie and that ilk, .....people like Black Pot Licker have done nothing but insult you ......Hey Potbrain,..... How dare you insult...... my aren't we defensive of our litter.....these dummies.....pseudo Christians and sensitive breeders....long- winded, drivel of a few loud mouthed idiots, .....stupid bellowings of hatefulness. Don't let the bas***** get you down! " page: "What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks."

(This is not the kind of person I would trust to make decisions about living and dying for a loved one.)

Al: "If you believe that we will eventually surpass the carrying capacity, does it not make sense to DELIBERATELY limit our population rather than waiting until BILLIONS of people are forced to suffer and die? "

I told you before, that I do not "believe" we will reach that point. I believe that nature and man will wreak massive depletion of the population well before then. The lifestyle choices I have made, the allocations of time, money and energy do not indicate that I am doing nothing. Meanwhile, I am more concerned about those who feel for whatever reason that they should strip away our basic rights (which are still protected in America anyway).

Al: "I don't see the point in your insistence on MY agenda"

Because Al, it seemed easy for you to spout off philosophies for dictating social policies and resultant legislations (e.g. population) but it seems strange that you are so reluctant to spell out what implementing your vision would look like for the average civilian. I told you, it's that word mandatory. You do not favor it, but would reluctantly accede to its necessity. I have run the possible scenarios by in my mind. Education... would this be mandatory? What of those who disagree with you? Fines? Taxation? Forced sterilization? Infanticide? None of the "mandatory" scenarios belong in America.

Al: "Even if you could make cogent arguments against MY views, so what?"..."Page, I liked your comparison of population arguments with doomer/ polly arguments. The first letter I ever posted on this forum was a question asking ,basically, why everyone just "shouts" at each other, and never listens? For that I got roundly attacked by BOTH sides! Whew! "

That sounds as though you just contradicted yourself Al. Isn't it the Pollys who say "so what" to cogent arguments?

Al: " people like you... refuse to take responsibility for your share of the problem"

Al, it is what you see as "the problem" and what you see as the impending inevitable sad solution that I disagree with. I cannot advocate forcing people to take birth control or become sterilized. Furthermore, to describe raising my children to be caring, compassionate and giving people as not contributing, or doing nothing is very short-sighted. It seems that you trivialize and negate this merely because I do not agree with your assessment of the problem or solution.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

"Mac: And then when your son's wife, girl friend, or concumbine gives birth to more of same, and there's no "heroic" medical services available?"

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

And does anyone wonder why we worry about a return to Nazi-like eugenics?

Al: "you are asking me to make conclusions I am unable to make due to limited information. ...I agree with much, or maybe most, of what she says. "

Yes, of course, I was asking for your evaluation based on the limited information contained in her post. Apparently, that style of communication pleases you . (Al:"I agree with much, or maybe most, of what she says...")

Al: "By the way, Page, as far as ignoring those who don't debate fairly, I'm afraid if I ignore them all, I'll be preaching to the choir, but the point is well taken. " page: "Y2K POLLYS ranting at DOOMERS.....waving her holy- sanctified banner...Mumsie's rambling, mumbling, bumbling, self- centered posts are mainly off topic ravings of one who has spawned her litter and dares anyone to question people's right to breed like rabbits..... old Black Pot Licker. What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks.... short sighted, irresponsible jerks who got us into this mess.... The world is filled with fools like this ....you definitely don't have the right to criticize, .....you blind, bleading hearts....Use you heads for something better than to separate your ears..... fools like Pot Licker, WC, Mumsie and that ilk, .....people like Black Pot Licker have done nothing but insult you ......Hey Potbrain,..... How dare you insult...... my aren't we defensive of our litter.....these dummies.....pseudo Christians and sensitive breeders....long- winded, drivel of a few loud mouthed idiots, .....stupid bellowings of hatefulness. Don't let the bas***** get you down! " page: "What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks."

(This is not the kind of person I would trust to make decisions about living and dying for a loved one.)

Al: "If you believe that we will eventually surpass the carrying capacity, does it not make sense to DELIBERATELY limit our population rather than waiting until BILLIONS of people are forced to suffer and die? "

I told you before, that I do not "believe" we will reach that point. I believe that nature and man will wreak massive depletion of the population well before then. The lifestyle choices I have made, the allocations of time, money and energy do not indicate that I am doing nothing. Meanwhile, I am more concerned about those who feel for whatever reason that they should strip away our basic rights (which are still protected in America anyway).

Al: "I don't see the point in your insistence on MY agenda"

Because Al, it seemed easy for you to spout off philosophies for dictating social policies and resultant legislations (e.g. population) but it seems strange that you are so reluctant to spell out what implementing your vision would look like for the average civilian. I told you, it's that word mandatory. You do not favor it, but would reluctantly accede to its necessity. I have run the possible scenarios by in my mind. Education... would this be mandatory? What of those who disagree with you? Fines? Taxation? Forced sterilization? Infanticide? None of the "mandatory" scenarios belong in America.

Al: "Even if you could make cogent arguments against MY views, so what?"..."Page, I liked your comparison of population arguments with doomer/ polly arguments. The first letter I ever posted on this forum was a question asking ,basically, why everyone just "shouts" at each other, and never listens? For that I got roundly attacked by BOTH sides! Whew! "

That sounds as though you just contradicted yourself Al. Isn't it the Pollys who say "so what" to cogent arguments?

Al: " people like you... refuse to take responsibility for your share of the problem"

Al, it is what you see as "the problem" and what you see as the impending inevitable sad solution that I disagree with. I cannot advocate forcing people to take birth control or become sterilized. Furthermore, to describe raising my children to be caring, compassionate and giving people as not contributing, or doing nothing is very short-sighted. It seems that you trivialize and negate this merely because I do not agree with your assessment of the problem or solution.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

(Sorry, think I double posted accidentally.)

PS Regarding A's eugenic-like insult to Mac, the silence from certain posters is deafening.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

How about a dose of REALITY here? A is A. A is not not A.

It is only in this soft (and I personally like soft, myself also) modern age has keeping people alive who otherwise would be "toast" been possible. It is a luxury!!

Mac and others may have spared themselves some emotional anguish by keeping their son alive. They spare themselves mental anguish, they spare themselves feelings of guilt were they to pull the plug, they spare themselves the approbation of various bleeding hearts for not doing/having done all that was possible.

In these "heroic" cases, however, it is not usually the family that pays for it -- it is others in the medical insurace group, or the taxpayers in general. Many taxpayers might have had use for that money themselves to get the extra bottle of vitamins that might have prevented the cold that turned to pneumonia that killed them (or other similar scenarios).

Keeping a defective (excuse me, I should be more p.c. and say 'differently configured') alive from birth is another manifestation of the Y2K syndrome: "Don't deal with the hard question/problem now; we'll worry about it later."

So, Mac has spared himself some pain, guilt, etc. -- AND BY SO DOING IS POSSBILY SETTING HIS SON UP TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH A SIMILAR PROBLEM.

I'm listening to a rerun on Art Bell this very moment. The website for the guest is www.y2kwomen.com. We've got two or three generations of narrow birth canal women "bred" now. A lot of them got and are getting pregnant so the due date will be AFTER 2000-01-01. Childbirth has always been a risky business. There's gonna be an "epidemic" of deaths if they can't get a caesarian.

Back to my starting point, back before luxurious times, the "differently abled," the infirm, etc., who could not be supported were set out into the forest, onto an ice flow, or whatever.

There was a custom called the "midwife's option." The midwife took a quick look at the fetus/baby as it emerged, and made a quick decision. If it looked OK, then OK. Any obvious deformity, and she made sure it did not take its first breath. "Sorry, stillborn." That is a sacrilege, blasphemy in today's wussified world.

Harsh, naziish? No, realistic. And, not a bad thing. So there!

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.

A young paramedic walks the streets of Cleveland, intent on teaching more paramedics. He was saved by the so called Heroic measures that have been discussed. However, it is my, and a number of other people's considered opinion that the Lord has a special duty for this young man because of the incredible set of coincidences that surround his survival. I have talked to most of the people involved in his case, and come away from the interviews with the consensus feeling, from EACH of the people I have talked to that they were instruments of the Lord.

HE was hit by a car going through an accident scene at aproximately 65 miles an hour, and came to rest aproximately 150 feet from the point of impact. One squad had responded to the accident, only to go down with brake failure, and to require the services of an additional squad (3rd on scene). This 3rd squad could ONLY approach the scene via the area he landed in, and arrived within 5 seconds of his copming to rest. He was boarded, collared, fully packaged and loaded in under 90 seconds, but the job was done COMPLETELY, due to one medic INSISTING on everything being done BY THE NUMBERS. The transporting ambulance made the trip in under 2.5 minutes. In late evening traffic. Now, I'M GOOD, but WITHOUT traffic, I can only get that time down to 7 minutes from the scene to Metro. An I PUSHED the car I checked the time in to the edge of BOTH our envelopes. I have NO IDEA how they did it in a large truck framed squad, but the timing on the dispatch tapes doesn't lie.

In the ER he was seen by the best trauma surgeons (2) in the state, both ex-military, one from the King County trauma system. They stabilized him as well as they could in the ER and asked for an aorta scan. The best radiologic medicine doc was there to do the scan. When the dye was released in the vena cava, and entered the heart things were fine, until it exited the heart and disappeared, pooling in the chest under the left lung. Seems he had a severed aorta, with just a couple clots guiding blood to the arch.

Next coincidence is the presence of the best thoracic/vascular surgeon, finishing up a case upstairs. As soon as the films were read, Chris was hurried to surgery and the t/v surgeon was called out of his procedure. There was some discussion on his departure until the Chief of Service actually told him to "get the F out of his procedure and RUN down stairs." They dropped his lung, repaired the aorta, re-inflated the lung and started to move him to ICU. On the way the respiratory guy indicated they were having a hard time ventilating him. NOT unusual with cases where the lung has been dropped and re-inflated. They expected the vent to do the job in ICU. It could not. At this point Dr. Fallon had to eviscerate him in the ICU in order to ventilate him. Not an unusual procedure for the Military but NOT on the list in a civilian ICU. 3 days later he was able to use mesh to close the abdomen and a week later the abdomen was completely closed.

with ALL of these coincidences, those of us who have looked at the case are simply waiting to see what God has in store for this young man, because he certainly arranged EVERYTHING into a chain to save him.

Chuck

Who figgers you can code him any number of times as long as what you get back is CHUCK and not one more time than that.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 28, 1999.

Now I am wondering if A (A@AisA.com) is just a soulless-government- planted-disinformation Troll...

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

This is NOT Gilda making this post. Gilda left on vacation 2 days ago and I'm the house and pet sitter. I hope I don't get into trouble for posting on this forum. But Gilda DID give me permission to use her computer. Before she left she asked me if my parents were concerned about y2k and I told her they were, but that I wasn't supposed to talk about it. Then she told me about a y2k forum she posted on and she thought I might like to read a thread she'd started. Before I go on, I'll tell you that I'm 16, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting here. She didn't say anything about me posting.

I didn't know why she thought I would be that interested in reading about y2k, cause I hear so much about it at home. But I finally found the thread (I didn't know it was in the archives) and it took me a long time to read it. This thread is awesome, and now I know why she told me I might be interested in it.

Before I go on, I want you to know that my parents believe in sex education in school and also from them. They also believe that our earth is the sacred souce of everything like our food, water, and shelter that we need to live. They have always told my sister and that babies are special, and the earth is special and both should be treated with a lots of care and love.

I don't know anyone on this forum but Gilda, and I started reading with an open mind. I belonged to a debate team last year and I wanted to see how much this debate or discussion would be like ours. Well I have to tell you that on that part I'm disappointed.

At our school we have a Baby Think It Over Program, and it is a the best programs to prevent teen pregnancy that I know of. I did not take the program as I'd already decided I wasn't going to have kids until I got through college, and then had a few free years to work or do some interesting things, and then IF I got married I would have not more than two children. This would be because of my own concern for overpopulation and the earth, and because I think that is enough.

It makes me mad when I hear adults say everyone should have the right to do as they please about the size of their family. That's exactly what past generations of adults have done and now my generation is paying for it in over crowded schools, parents who had too many kids and can't pay their way, and all the pollution from too many people buying too many things adn throwing them in the trash.

Last year my parents took us on vacation to Yellowstone. My mother had a picture of her when she was my age taken there in front of this huge rock. I wanted to have my picture taken in the same place, but I couldn't because it was now roped off because of so many people defacing it and causing other problems. The park was jammed with wall to wall cars and all kinds of rigs. Lots of adults went where the rangers said not to and broke other rules, and some kids were just as bad. If you don't believe in population, go to Yellowstone or Yosemite.

I don't want to take sides in this war, for this is nothing like a debate, or even a discussion. But I don't think its right to accuse Gilda, Al, Page and others of wanting to get rid of babies. The way I read it, that is not what they were saying at all. I took it to mean that they did not think it was right for drug addicts, and alcoholics and people that don't care about their babies to make babies. This is what they were saying in my opinion. Our school is doing a lot of good with the Baby Think It Over Program, and some of the girls who all they want to do is have a baby have changed their minds when they see how much work and responsibility it is. One girl said, I got so tired of that baby waking me up that I shook it, I wanted to stuff a sock in its mouth.

You can tell by reading Page, the nurses post that she has seen some horrifying sights. She felt sorry for these little babies, I'm only a highschool student but I could tell that. She was mad that their sicko parents didn't care enough to prevent their births in the first place.

I've got to go feed all the cats and dogs, but I want to just say one more thing. I hope I'm not going to get in trouble over this, but I believe you have to stand up for what you think is right, especially when its about little kids and the earth. I don't want to live on a planet without lots of trees, andimals and birds and clean water and air. I may have a granchild someday (although I can't imagine it) but I would want it to have some left of nature, rather than all those wall to wall people like at Yellowstone.

I belong to a school ecology group and our teacher says the earth can support many more people, but only at the risk of ruining our eco system and quality of life for future generations. We have been learning how to take water samples from runoff places and then we have them tested. It's very scary what all show up in this water.

I'm sorry I took up so much space, but I decided to take a chance and post here. We've been taught that discussion or debates are supposed to be logical and polite. And I hear all the time about kids acting so awful and calling people names, guess where they get it from , and it's not the movies and music. I'm on a population forum where people would get kicked off If they call people who believe that overpopulation is a problem, nazis. I know Page was mad, but its hard not to get mad when people won't look for answers to a geniune problem.

Chris, Gilda is not a quitter. She was just trying to get everything done before they left on vacation. Her husband was recovering from major surgery and wasn't able to help much. Plus she has a big garden and had been canning a lot but couldn't get it all done. I'm allowed to pick the rest of the veggies and take them to the Farmer's Food and Flea market this Saturday to raise money for another Baby Think It Over doll.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 28, 1999.

You're lucky, it's early in the morning, King of Spain is sound asleep so he won't be able to ask you his very special question.

Anyhoos, what a ***great*** post, didn't catch your name, I think you speak very eloquently for the next generation and I'm sure echo their true feelings.

When I was a kid back in England I remember walking around Stonehenge, feeling the stones, basking in the power of that very special place.

Today you can't get anywhere near the stones, it's all totally off limits. At Avebury you can still touch the stones but that is probably going to change too...

India, despite it's unbelievable poverty, is facing a continuing mind- boggling population explosion... China is pretty much in the same boat although they practice female infanticide...

Somethings gotta give. Maybe mother Gaia (sp) will have her way in the very near future.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.

Glad your story had a happy ending Chuck. Many don't. I'd consider that a 'lucky' story.There are many 'unlucky' ones as well. Should we blame God when they don't turn out happy? Who 'created' the mechanical machinery involved? Who created traffic jams? CT scans? Electric paddles? It's really quite a booming business, isn't it? Without it, I might not be here, do to the inavailability of one of my needed participants. It's like a time machine story. If one traveled back in time and killed my great, great, grandfather, I would disappear from 'today'. You get the picture.

I DO believe that God created nature, life, death, birth. Disease exists as an necessary aspect of the circle of life. Species die off 'controls' population problems and keeps the species strong. This WAS a system created by someone other than man. MAN must take responsibility for how MAN has used it. Man has disrupted it and thrown it out of balance. Get it Chris? Pretty arrogant and stupid, eh? BUT.....we took it many steps farther than that level of stupidity. We have NOW created 'new' viruses and diseases in our quest to stomp them ALL out. Mankind is NOW 'playing' with disrupting DNA. We want to *CREATE* and *IMPROVE* on God's work, because we are brilliant and above any of God's original, primative work (what an amateur).

I wouldn't say I'm angry, just terribly disappointed. We have displayed arrogance, superiority, ungratefulness, ego, distrust, fear and completely closed our eyes to the gift we all were given.....this circle of life 'thing' that we have struggled to improve upon, never asking what the original intent was behind it all. What possible use do WE have for a house fly? Is it possible God had a purpose for it? Does it not support the ingredient of 'disease' necessary to the health and well being of the system as a whole? We've filled our big brains with such impressive 'knowledge' that we have no room for the basic truth. We are unable to be grateful for anything we find to be uncomfortable to us. We shall continue this quest to improve upon what had once been so beautifully balanced and functional until we destroy it completely. How do you suggest we 'fix' it? I've been given the impression some of you have concluded that further intervention is the answer. I believe we've had quite enough of that level of 'intelligence' already. By all means, educated me futher. You seem to know the answer.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 28, 1999.

Page writes:

And take old Black Pot Licker. What has he contributed? Nothing but meaness and attacks.

Actually, there's much more to it if you actually bother to read, but I'm sure it's just easier for you to spin it to your liking.

Al, Gilda, Chris, what the hell is wrong with you people? Don't you know your arguing with the same short sighted, irresponsible jerks who got us into this mess.

LOL!!! You mean Gilda with her son and grandchildren, Al with his son who's got two children and wants more and Chris who's got three kids and they have twenty two first cousins??? Okay, so who got us into this mess??

They are no better than those companies or the government who refuse to acknowledge the Y2K problem. Their motto is "I've got mine, the rest of you, and the world, can go to hell."

No, that's your motto. "I've got my kids, the rest of you and the world should make the sacrifice that I wasn't willing to make."

Don't waste your time arguing with them. The world is filled with fools like this.

Probably because people like you keep breeding and filling the world up with them.

By the way, I'm a former nurse and I love little babies. I have a child myself,

So you're another breeder contributing to the problem. Nice job.

"Most people have no business having children." Abbey was right!

So then why did you have one???

Ask Potty how many kids he has, or is going to have?

None. Zero. Zip. I'm actually helping to solve the problem, unlike you who are simply contributing to it.

Hey Potbrain, do you help with any children that have problems and live in orphanages?

Not at the moment.

Would you help an unwed mother who was on crack and had Aids so her baby could have a better chance?

Sure, I'd be glad to.

Do you do anything but insult other people and their families?

Yes, I point out blatant hypocrisy in people who are too stupid to realize it.

You're disgusting. How dare you insult Gilda, Chris and Al about their kids. You too Mumsie! Gilda, Chris and Al's children added together, including Al's non-biological kids, don't add up to as many as you have. And my aren't we defensive of our litter.

Okay, so Gilda, Chris, and Al are allowed to be defensive about their litter, but Mumsie is not?

You're disgusting.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 28, 1999.

Thanks pot. Maybe this will give Chris a 'clue' to just one small aspect of my comment "do to the altitude of your mounts".

High horse Chris.....get it? Arrogance. Superiority. Ego. Self- righteousness. Savior to the rescue of the pitifully uneducated, inferior members of YOUR species. It's all *our* faults you proclaim. (as you clutch your medical science paycheck)

How did some of *you* ever figure Y2K out? You haven't even concluded how the eco-system is SUPPOSED to work. Your education came from books? Is that all? Keep working on it. Life is deeper than a spoon.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 28, 1999.

Chris,

I was hoping for a different response. But education is the key, Chris. There *is* a well-documented solution to "uncontrolled" population increases which is dependent of education. (I am using the term euphemistically. The solution is uncontrolled, or at least self-controlled, as well) Birth rates in industrialized countries are markedly lower than in Lesser Developed Countries. The theory is that improved education => better jobs => prosperity => limited family size. Focusing only on birth control education is too narrow in scope, as its justification is more closely allied with declining moral standards (out of wedlock statistics) than anything else. Training young people to make better moral judgments is essential, and is a step in the right direction. But that is noticably absent, and even if included, is still insufficient. Giving families an economic incentive, and the belief that their goals are attainable; that they can achieve improved living standards, has proven to be the *best* method for reducing family size. Not some totalitarian, coercive, control-freak's abortion policy. IOW, increased economic freedom yields lower birth rates. And, I might add, this is in spite of tax breaks (in the US) for families with children.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Wonderful post, Gilda's house and pet sitter!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 28, 1999.

Will: "Should we blame God when they don't turn out happy?"

Depending, of course, on your definition and concept of God, no, not if you believe in the sovereignty of God. He created man to have free will, and that includes all the inherent blessings and curses that accompany it.

Will continue: "We want to *CREATE* and *IMPROVE* on God's work, because we are brilliant and above any of God's original, primative work (what an amateur). "

And so has it always been... "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground. You who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation ...On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying, 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms, Who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, Who did not open the house of his prisoners?'~ Isaiah 14:12-17

Every religion that I have studied thus far, other than Christianity, teaches that 1) We are gods 2) We can become gods 3) We can reach heaven/god etc. by being a good person. Only Judaism/Christianity teaches that God is God, above all, and that we are clearly part of His creation, and need His help and intervention.

If someone's worldview is rooted in self-godhood, they will naturally want to play god. Following that logic, those who are more gifted/enlightened/worthy shall dictate what rights the other less worthy and more inferior humans shall have, based upon their own feelings, emotions, and natural reasoning.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Dear House/pet sitter, I think it is wonderful that you posted. The fact that you care enough to do so says volumes about you. In no way do I wish to attack you, but in the spirit of debate, I have comments and/or questions.

"my parents believe in sex education in school and also from them. "

My husband and I would rather that parents teach their children in a timely and good manner, but obviously many parents will not touch this issue. I was taught sex education in school also, but it was a far cry from today's sex education classes. Sex ed. has increased in scope and gone beyond the anatomy and mechanics of sex and reproduction, to condoning sex as long as it is "safe". Unfortunately, we have not seen a corresponding decrease in sexual activity, and teenage pregnancies and abortions are still high.

"At our school we have a Baby Think It Over Program"

This program I applaud wholeheartedly and would gladly support. We have a program like that at our house, but it is a real Baby that is giving our older kids firsthand knowledge of what taking care of a baby is all about. Believe me, our teens do not take parenting lightly. When the younger kids are old enough, we will encourage them to help with babysitting, to volunteer at nurseries and daycares, and basically whatever it takes for them to know and understand the realities of babies and what it means to be responsible for those wonderful but demanding little critters.

".....then IF I got married I would have not more than two children. This would be because of my own concern for overpopulation and the earth, and because I think that is enough. "

Should what You think is Enough be the law for every other person? If so, why? "It makes me mad when I hear adults say everyone should have the right to do as they please about the size of their family. That's exactly what past generations of adults have done and now my generation is paying for it in over crowded schools, parents who had too many kids and can't pay their way, and all the pollution from too many people buying too many things adn throwing them in the trash. "

I know a little about crowded schools, my husband has worked with and in them for years. He is an electrical engineer and has done dozens and dozens of school projects in many states. In this capacity, he is more closely linked, (as in aware of) to the financial policies and hi-jinks of the school districts's financial administrative departments. We have seen more graft, waste, corruption, embezzlement and politics than you could shake a stick at. It is horrific. For example, there was a school for deaf children in L.A. that was featured in a news article. It told how the lack of air- conditioning and resultant high summer temperatures was causing the hearing aids to malfunction and shut down for these poor children. My husband called and offered to do the electrical engineering work free for this school, but was ignored. Why? Politics. They were not through milking that situation. They cared more about the publicity/money generating possibilities than they did about those poor kids. There is almost always money that should be available to ensure uncrowded schools, smaller classrooms, and decent pay for good teachers, but it seldom gets to those good causes. We have found this to be true in more than one state. Logic dictates that a smaller population will in no way ensure better school conditions, as long as there are corrupt people around who would mismanage the funds they are entrusted with. As to the parents who are having more kids than they can pay for, I can only assume you are referring to the welfare population. I believe that our welfare policies are creating a monster in this country. I do believe in programs to help people who are down and out, but I would like to see the policies tightened up. I think it is a mistake to subsidize illegitimate birth to the extent that we currently do. Regarding pollution, it is true that larger quantities of polluters will generate more litter, but could this not also be an area for education? Why not have every student in public schools spend a portion of time every year helping to clean up local areas? This might be a very effective method to educate, motivate, and decrease the careless and irresponsible mindset of people who litter and pollute. Perhaps when these same students entered the business and industrial world, they would carry the same level and respect for the beauty of nature with them, and we would see improvements in those areas also. As far as people buying too many things, you are getting into murky territory that smacks of socialism. If we give away our Bill of Rights and our freedoms, what happens if the new socialistic government becomes corrupted and taken over by very bad people? What recourse would you have then for whatever upset you?

"I wanted to have my picture taken in the same place, but I couldn't because it was now roped off because of so many people defacing it and causing other problems"

This sounds more like a deteriorating society/civilization than an over-populated one. When the earth was much less populated, there were always rude, selfish, grasping and violent people aplenty to make it hellish for those who were there with them.

Lots of adults went where the rangers said not to and broke other rules, and some kids were just as bad....

People believe they are not accountable anymore. What do you think is the root of this? Again though, I do not see this as being related to overpopulation.

"I took it to mean that they did not think it was right for drug addicts, and alcoholics and people that don't care about their babies to make babies"

I understood that also. I did not understand the attacks that accompanied it. If winning a debate means - whoever calls the most and ugliest names and throws the most mud wins - then that post was a winner. I believe an important aspect of debate is being able and willing to explain, amplify, and support your opinions, rather than taking any disagreement as a personal insult that requires a personal attack.

"She was mad that their sicko parents didn't care enough to prevent their births in the first place."

Yes, apparently these people do not "think" about these things, and seem to be totally self-absorbed. Drugs do terrible things to the soul. People would sell their mother, child, soul, whatever for their drugs. They are truly slaves to their addiction.

"I believe you have to stand up for what you think is right, especially when its about little kids "

This is what America is all about, the right to believe and express and fight for what you believe in. If expressing our beliefs ever means succeeding in extinguishing those basic rights for others, we will cease to be America.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Mumsie, this applies to you: You can try and try to teach a pig to speak. It's not gonna work, and all it does is annoy the pig.

You can obviously string words together but that doesn't make the output intelligent or intelligible.

I have suffered fools like you too long on this thread. Bye.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.

Elbow Grease, Gilda's Pet Sitter made my point so perfectly! It was such a pleasure to read. (Don't worry Pet Sitter, Gilda will be proud of you for posting this I'm sure.)

So it seems the school system that at least Pet Sitter goes to has taken to task to educate children in family planning AND the ecologic impact of over-population.

I use the term education in its broadest sense; to impart knowledge to another person; to make others aware that there is a problem; to discuss the problem and exchange facts and solution, etc. etc. etc. Training could be used as part of education, but I don't use this term because it implies "doing by rote", as being trained to operate something without really understanding how the mechanism works. For example, my kids were "trained" to wash thier hands after using the toilet as toddlers, but they didn't understand "why" they had to (desease control etc).

Elbow: " Focusing only on birth control education is too narrow in scope, as its justification is more closely allied with declining moral standards (out of wedlock statistics) than anything else. Training young people to make better moral judgments is essential, and is a step in the right direction. But that is noticably absent, and even if included, is still insufficient."

You're right that only focusing on educating young people in family planning is insuficient for the overall problem, and that is why I mentioned other ways in my post above. I only gave some examples of education, since you asked what I meant by "education is needed". I disagree however that this type of education "is noticably absent". Apart from the obvious example Pet Sitter is, I know many parents who've done the same as I have with my own children, plus I know that there are many other school systems who have some sort of "sex education" program, of which Pet Sitter's is an example. Our school district has its own, and they too have an "ecological awareness" program where they actually take our kids in the field and test waters etc.

Also, I concede that education in general is only one part of the solution; this is my contribution here on this debate. I'm open to other effective, humane solutions. "Educate" me.

Pot Kettle, I'll bite to your trollish bait:

"Okay, so Gilda, Chris, and Al are allowed to be defensive about their litter, but Mumsie is not?"

It's almost as if you didn't read my post at all where I mentioned that I had done my own contribution to the best of my ability within the circumstances I had, by reducing my family size compared to my parents. With the better education I recieved, I was able to do that. If you let your emotions, especially disgust and anger cloud your brain, you will miss many logical links to what you read, if you're able to think logically to begin with. Same goes for Will Continue.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

BTW A is A, I find your contributions on this thread, although raw and hard to swallow, logical.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

A...thanks for so "eloquently" demonstrating how intolerant people who can't bear to be disagreed with, and do not do well in reasonable discourse resort to hostilities and name calling.

Chris, it is "logical" if the aim is to produce wonderful "physical" specimens. This was the Nazi's eugenic goal.

Mac, the people I have known who went through the kind of physical traumas similiar to your son's while young, seem to always have an extra depth of compassion for others. I pray that there will always be those who will value the spiritual aspect of man above the physical.

I'm hoping to hear from some midwives on this thread now. I have known four personally, and they would never purposefully end the life of any infant.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Hi everybody. I was so surprised and glad when I logged on here and found that people were replying to me. I was afraid the webmaster might ask me to leave, cause I didn't read the rules first.

I told my mom I posted on here and she said I should have asked "the group" if it was ok first, but I never thought of it at the time. I apologize for not asking and also for my bad writing and punctuation. I was in a big hurry this morning to get everything done before I went to the Flea & Farmer's Market and I didn't have time to read over what I'd written. I spent to much time blabbing.

We sold lots of stuff. My mom gave us a bunch of old picture frames and Gilda left 4 big boxes of books for us to sell, and I'd got here early and picked the veggies, and then two other girls showed up with LOTS of stuff and we had a good day. We made $103.00! Cool!

I'm going to come on later and post to some of replies. But I'm so grimy after being on that hot parking lot all day that I'm going to take a shower first. Then I have to feed the cats and dogs. They are feeling lonesome and neglected cause I didn't have time to fuss over them this morning. One of the cats is here on my lap while I'm trying to type. I'm spending the night here so I'll have more time.

Mumsie I'll have to think about some of the things you asked me. Sometimes it seem like you shape what others say into something different than what they meant. And I don't mean this to be disrespectful. Gilda is sometimes blunt spoken, but she always says exactly what she means and she's really a very nice person. And of course I don't know you, but some of your posts kind of scare me off. I'm sure though that your are a very good, well meaning person.

But it's like with Abbey's quote that Gilda put on this thread. It was blunt but I agree with it too, because it seems that some people don't really want babies, they just don't take precautions to prevent what they don't want. And when you get something you don't want, you don't always take care of it or appreciate it. I'm not sure that makes sense, but I hope it does.

Anyway I'm off to the shower and then the Meow Mix and Dog Chow routine and then I'll be back. I do some of my best thinking in the shower, so maybe I can answer like I've learned something in 16 years.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 28, 1999.

Pot Kettle, I'll bite to your trollish bait:

"Okay, so Gilda, Chris, and Al are allowed to be defensive about their litter, but Mumsie is not?"

It's almost as if you didn't read my post at all where I mentioned that I had done my own contribution to the best of my ability within the circumstances I had, by reducing my family size compared to my parents. With the better education I recieved, I was able to do that.

Actually, it's almost as if you didn't read my post at all because I was not responding to you, I was responding to Page. In addition, my comment above had nothing to do with your contribution to reducing family size. It had to do with the fact that Page commented on how defensive Mumsie got about her "litter" while simultaneously defending Gilda, you, and Al for doing the same. Try reading it again.

If you let your emotions, especially disgust and anger cloud your brain, you will miss many logical links to what you read, if you're able to think logically to begin with.

Sounds like you need to take your own advice.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 28, 1999.

Well,this thread is a case in point demonstration of Lord Buddha's wisdom that ego causes suffering.Fellow nutbags,quit quibbling,go out and buy more beans!

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Dear House Sitter,

You said: "Mumsie I'll have to think about some of the things you asked me. Sometimes it seem like you shape what others say into something different than what they meant. And I don't mean this to be disrespectful."

I am a stickler for words. Admittedly. If someone says something, I assume that first and foremost that they "mean it". Sometimes people say things without having thought through what they are actually saying. For example, A was upset at my using the comparison to Nazi eugenics. Please keep in mind, that this word is repugnant to people now, but was not when Nazis were in power. The German people joined the Nazi party, most of them gladly and willingly. I have studied what they believed. They were proud and passionate about their beliefs, and felt they were true, right and necessary for Germany to flourish. There is much more to Hitler and the Nazis than just the concentration camps. Those camps were built on a philosophical and religious foundation that supported them, which included the German people in general. There were people like Dietrich Bohnhoeffer who protested and resisted, but far too few. Even the mainstream churches and clergy supported the Nazi philosophy. I included some of their beliefs earlier in this post. This association with the Nazi's philosophy seems to be the most inflammatory or insulting to people. I consider it a blunt truth. I did not say..."You would have supported the concentration camps, or etc." We are talking about eugenics. Eugenics is about population control, and who has the right to reproduce.

I agree with what you say about Gilda, based on reading her previous posts. If she weren't so persistently hostile to and intolerant of Christians (basing this on her prior postings, and meaning, she would probably never accept me on that basis), we could probably be friends. I enjoy people who are straight shooters. I feel that some of the attacks made against Gilda by other posters were out of line. I do not feel that she is a hypocrite by having a child. I feel that it is easy to see and believe the best about the posters that you agree with and ignore what was bad about them, and to ignore the validity of and miscontrue the contents of others. I would like to be able to vehemently disagree with an issue, and not attack the person. So, for the record, to Gilda, when she returns, I am sorry for anything that I said that would be taken as a personal attack on you.

I'm not sorry yet for calling A a soulless troll, but I'll work on it. :)

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

BELIEVE OR DIE Uncontrolled Thinking, controlled by "Bob," will usher in a SPIRITUAL REBIRTH and a CASCADE of ASTOUNDING RICHES AND POWER to those "in the know" -- while billions of deserving Conspiracy dupes FRY in HELL ON EARTH!!

Mr. Reagan thinks there should be more RELIGION in this country. Well, have we got a religion for him!!

MORE NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED THAN THE QABALLAH!! MORE AMBIGUOUS THAN THE I CHING! SCARIER THAN THE OLD TESTAMENT!! MORE MONSTERS AND DEMONS THAN THE BHAGAVAD-GITA!! MORE HATE AND INTOLERANCE THAN EVEN THE MORAL MAJORITY NEWSLETTER!! AND MORE SHEER BULLSHIT THAN THE BOOK OF MORMON!!!

THE CHURCH OF THE SUBGENIUS:.

SALVATION, or SALIVATION?

Just Another Excuse for Assholes, or the Last Bastion of "Human" Dignity??

Makers of... DR. DOBBS'. Natural Herbal "WOE-B-GONE" GOOD $ LUCK

Guaranteed Hair Growth Formula (Canine Urethral Glandulars & Capucine Monkey Pineal Extract (Punch-40) MADE IN MALAYSIA Endorsed by DRS. 4 "BOB" " We make illness an art form."

NOTE TO TRUE SUBGENII: DO NOT SHOW THIS MATERIAL TO FULLBLOOD HUMANS. The humiliation of finding out the truth would be too much for their PATHETIC HUMAN MINDS. Or, even worse, they may believe they are SubGeniuses!!

NOTE TO HUMANS: Why are you even bothering to read this? You don't "get" it... it seems obnoxious to you... you this it's "stupid"... because, although we understand how you think ALL TOO WELL, you can't for the life of you understand how we think. WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU, ASSHOLE?

NOTE TO LOVING CHRISTIANS WHO WANT TO KILL US: Look, we're for peaceful co-existence. We're not really that far apart. You worship the Vindictive Crybaby SchoolMarm Jesus -- many Subs worship the Live-It-Up, Hell-Raisin', FIGHTIN' JESUS. You worship a dead guy on a stick, we worship a chopped-off head that gets hit with a stick. Isn't there some common ground? (The Founder of Christianity wans't as squeamish as his modern fan club. He was compassionate towards the weirdos, sinners, and victims of his day, and he was also PISSED at the NORMALS of his day. And, like "Bob," he didn't want to KILL them, but merely to LEAD them, as a shepherd leads his flock. Keeping them happy until the slaughter. The Harvest...ahhh, yes... THE HARVEST!!!)

-- PRAISE BOB!!!!! (rev.IvanStang@subgenious.com), August 28, 1999.

Praise Bob! The first ROTFLMAO post in a long time!

-- zzz (zzz@wokeup.com), August 28, 1999.

Hey, guys and gals! Didja miss me? I had to work :( this a.m. and then install my new solar water heating system :) Hey, the water's already too hot to shower in without mixing in a bunch of cold water. I can't believe it. A friend of mine designed the system, and it's awesome, and cheap, too.

Anyhow, I have a few messages, having read all these new posts, and feeling somewhat refreshed from my shower:

Gilda's house and pet sitter: I found your views extremely refreshing and sophisticated, especially when I think back to my daughter's performance when she was 17. She was a wonderful kid, but began running with the "sosh's"--you know the football heroes, cheerleaders, etc. Generally from age 11 to 18 she was into partying and not a whole lot else. What a waste. She's extremely intelligent. Fortunately, she has got her life in order, has graduated from Lane CC in Eugene, and begins U of Oregon this fall, planning to go into drama therapy. Sorry to digress, but I am one proud papa!

House/animal sitter, I hope you can have the patience to continue contributing to this forum. I think it might be helpful if you used your own name, or "sitter" or something. It would possibly avoid confusion between you and Gilda.

As far as not "reading the rules", it's never too late. Actually, I think that the majority of the posters here have yet to read them, or at least they (and I ) at least don't follow the rules, e.g. using real names and email addresses.

Mumsie, I am done answering your attacks, queries, and complaints. DONE! No matter how many times I have explained the same thing to you, over and over, you will apparently never understand my point, or at least not acknowledge it. "Sitter" was right when she said, "Sometimes it seems like you shape what others say into something different than they meant" So true. Bye, Mumsie.

Will Continue, I am also pretty fed up with your rantings. I might answer you some more, as I'm not quite as blown away with you as I am with Mumsie.Might. No promises. I'm sure you'll both be crushed.

I can't believe that I EVER responded to Pot Kettle Black. Whoa! Chris, PKB isn't worth wasting your "breath" talking to. I will not resort to his/her name calling, but, by jimminy, he doesn't seem to have the ability to grasp even the most elementary logic. For instance, those of us who have had even one kid are responsible for the world's population problems? Helllooooooooo? PKB, could you please tell me that you are at least a few years younger than "Sitter"? If you are, I apologize, and will cut you more slack. But somehow, I can't imagine someone the age you are acting like being interested in this forum, let alone this thread.

With this little missile of joy, gotta go. ttyl

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 28, 1999.

Hallelujah! "Subgenious" has a site!
http://www.subgenius.com/
(Note spelling)
Bible thumpers, moralists, PCs, and others without a sense of humor -- you enter at your own risk.

-- zzz (zzz@wokeup.com), August 28, 1999.

I can't believe that I EVER responded to Pot Kettle Black.

Me neither, since you continue to miss the obvious point.

Whoa! Chris, PKB isn't worth wasting your "breath" talking to. I will not resort to his/her name calling, but, by jimminy, he doesn't seem to have the ability to grasp even the most elementary logic.

Oh, but I do, far more so than you apparently, as shown below:

For instance, those of us who have had even one kid are responsible for the world's population problems?

Yes. Try to grasp the elementary logic to the idea (and it really is pretty elementary).

Helllooooooooo?

Hi.

PKB, could you please tell me that you are at least a few years younger than "Sitter"? If you are, I apologize, and will cut you more slack.

I'm not, but my age really shouldn't be an issue, unless you just want to steer the conversation into a completely irrelevant area. I can't imagine why you'd want to do that.

But somehow, I can't imagine someone the age you are acting like being interested in this forum, let alone this thread.

I'm interested in many things. Right now I happen to be interested in exposing the blatant hypocrisy that is so obviously eluding you.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 28, 1999.

Dear House Sitter,

"Mumsie I'll have to think about some of the things you asked me. Sometimes it seem like you shape what others say into something different than what they meant. And I don't mean this to be disrespectful."

Pardon me for butting in. The perception that Mumsie is "shaping" what others may have said results from her responding not only to the words, but the implications and consequences of those words. As an example, take the Edward Abbey quotation with which you agreed perhaps a bit too hastily.

>>The purpose of love, sex, and marriage is the production and raising of children.<<

Just a little thought will reveal that this statement is patently false. Are you looking for a Life Partner, or someone with which to produce childred? Conversely, neither love nor marriage is necessary for the production of children.

>>But look about you: Most people have no business having children.<<

This is nothing more than an arrogant, subjective value judgment. "Most people"??? By what objective criteria can *anyone* honestly say that?

>>They are unqualified, either genetically or culturally or both, to reproduce such sorry speciments as themselves.<<

Coupled with the "Most people" phrase, this is merely a subjective opinion, not a verifiable fact. What are the "genetically and culturally" acceptable qualifications? The statement borders on racism.

>>Of all our privileges, the license to breed is the one most grossly abused.<<

The supporting statements are so deeply flawed that the conclusion is ludicrous.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Pot Kettle:"LOL!!! You mean Gilda with her son and grandchildren, Al with his son who's got two children and wants more and Chris who's got three kids and they have twenty two first cousins??? Okay, so who got us into this mess??"

First off, you're logic here is bent to suit your arguement, you purposefully ignore the fact that my sibling's decendents are not mine, and Gilda's grand-children are not part of her "litter" either. You're muddling things on purpose. Page:"You're disgusting. How dare you insult Gilda, Chris and Al about their kids. You too Mumsie! Gilda, Chris and Al's children added together, including Al's non-biological kids, don't add up to as many as you have. And my aren't we defensive of our litter."

Page was just pointing that out.

Pot Kettle: "Okay, so Gilda, Chris, and Al are allowed to be defensive about their litter, but Mumsie is not?"

Chris:"It's almost as if you didn't read my post at all where I mentioned that I had done my own contribution to the best of my ability within the circumstances I had, by reducing my family size compared to my parents. With the better education I recieved, I was able to do that. If you let your emotions, especially disgust and anger cloud your brain, you will miss many logical links to what you read, if you're able to think logically to begin with. Same goes for Will Continue."

Pot Kettle:"Actually, it's almost as if you didn't read my post at all because I was not responding to you, I was responding to Page."

I was very aware that you were addressing Page, but I was responding to you about your observations on my "defensiveness". I have nothing to defend, I did what I did and I simply said so.

Pot Kettle:In addition, my comment above had nothing to do with your contribution to reducing family size. It had to do with the fact that Page commented on how defensive Mumsie got about her "litter" while simultaneously defending Gilda, you, and Al for doing the same. Try reading it again."

And I did. As I said, you twisted what Page said to fit your accusations. You either do it on purpose or you and Mumsie are as logically challenged and have an affinity for each other.

Is it any easier for you to understand in HTML format? My dog does nice tricks too, but he still can't understand that 2+2=4

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

I'll spare you the results of my finishing touches.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

First off, you're logic here is bent to suit your arguement, you purposefully ignore the fact that my sibling's decendents are not mine,

I didn't ignore anything. I did say they were your kids first cousins, did I not? But okay, we'll just stick to your having bred three waste-spewing mouths to feed. Forget their cousins.

and Gilda's grand-children are not part of her "litter" either.

Not directly, but they are a result of her bad decision to breed in the first place. Are you beginning to understand now?

You're muddling things on purpose.

Only in your dreams.

I was very aware that you were addressing Page, but I was responding to you about your observations on my "defensiveness". I have nothing to defend, I did what I did and I simply said so.

Bwahahahaha. This is something you "simply said":

pot@kettle.black, I also have 3 kids. But I've made MY contribution. My mother had 9.

Sounds pretty defensive to me. You've made YOUR contibution, eh?? Well, guess you sure told me!! LOL.

As I said, you twisted what Page said to fit your accusations.

I didn't twist anything, except perhaps your mind with some really simple logic.

-- (pot@kettle.black), August 28, 1999.

blah blah

-- (1@1.1), August 28, 1999.

Hi, Gilda's pet, house and garden sitter here.

Mumsie, I've been thinking over what you said, and I was trying to think of an analogy that would explain why I feel we should limit our families to not more than two and one would be better. Here's the two examples that came to me. First, you say that "You know of no scientific proof (only guesses) as to the earth's population in the future." That's true up to a point, but when you look at history, you can often predict the future. For instance, I'm sure you know that it took humans millions of years to reach 1 billion, sometime in the l800's. We reached 2 billion in only 100 years, the 3rd in 30 years and the 4th in only 15 years and as Gilda said, it has doubled in 39 years. I might be slightly off on this, but it's close. So if you look at how fast we reached, or will reach 6 billion, in Oct. I think, you can be fairly sure that unless some catastrophe, like those you mentioned happens, then it could easily double again. I'm only 16, and I'm horrified at the thought of twice as many people as are here now. Mumsie they could be your grandchildren that might suffer much worse from famine that from death from a sudden catastrophe.

Here's my second analogy. This really happened. Some of the civic leaders in the town where my grandma lives put on a free fish fry to get people interested in building a city pool for the town. They had lots of fish, but lots more people showed up than they were expecting--like hundreds. When they saw they would run out, one of them asked over the loudspeaker for everyone to take less, and "go away a little hungry," so everyone could have some. Well, most people only took one piece, but some people didn't care about the others and just loaded their plates up, and of course some went without fish. So it seems to me that if people were asked, not forced, to limit their families to two kids, but some went ahead and had 4 or more, then they would be knocking other people out of what few natural resources were available.

In our science class we studied exponential growth, using sand fleas for our model. An example was that your dog may have only a few sand fleas, but when they breed, each flea has or lays hundreds of eggs and increases the population exponentially, like 50x causing a rapid increase in the amount of fleas on your dog, or in your house. So if I have only one child, and my sister had four, and my one child has only one child and hers has four each, you have a rapidly increasing population. And that is why I think we should begin right now to voluntaily limit our families so that we will never be put in the position of being forced to limit our families.

Mumsie, you seem to be very well read about the history of the Nazis and Hitler, and especially their atrocities as concerns eugenics. And I say the following with great respect, but you accuse Gilda of bashing Christians. Well she is very well read too about the history of the American Indians, especially the Plains Indians, and how the Christian missionaries worked with the government in many cases to destroy their culture and their religion. There were some missionaries that genuinely tried to help the Indians, just as those you mentioned that helped the German Jews, but their goal was to convert, no matter what it took, or what it did to their families, homes, religion or land.

I don't know if you saw the documentary on PBS about the Dakotas, but it was the saddest thing I've ever seen in my life. These two old Indian women, sisters, were talking about how they were taken from their families, by missionaries, made to wear "civilized clothing," told never to pray to their Indian God of nature or they would be beaten and punished, and made to learn English and never to talk their native language even to each other, and then when they found out they were sisters, they separated them so they couldn't have any familiy contact, and this poor old woman told that as she cried her eyes out, about how much she missed her older sister. My sister had gone with me to babysit two little boys and we got to crying as we watched the horrible things they went through, and the two little boys I was sitting with started to cry too. It was like quite a bawling scene.

And I read about the blankets they gave the Indians with the small pox virus in them. And I read the life of Quannah Parker, Sacejewaa (sp) and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and I know why Gilda attacks Christians. We ruined the Indians culture even more than Hitler ruined the Jewish peoples. And Gilda taught me to be sure and check and see that the books I was read had biliographys so that I would know the author could back up every claim he made.

Mumsie I agree with you that their is lots of waste and greed in the school system, but there are also lots of genuinely caring, excellent teachers in school. And its true that jocks are the upper class in school, and sports are king. But I enjoy it anyway--most times.

I have to disagree with you about sex education. Kids should be taught safe sex. Here's why. Some kids probably will never have sex during high school, but there are plenty that will and some of them even brag about it. So I think it's better to teach everyone safe sex, so that IF they are sexually active they don't get pregnant or get a disease. Better to be safe than sorry.

I'm sorry I can't answer all your questions, I'm just too worn out. But I thank you for taking the time to write me your interesting post. I hope I haven't offended you, for I surely didn't mean to.

One thing I didn't understand in Gilda's post was about "some think y2k is a conspiracy to reduce the population." I really didn't know what she meant there, except for the one post the fellow made. Wow that really got my curiousity up.

Chris, I sure hope your right about Gilda not minding me posting on her computer. I have a computer at home, but we're not on the Internet. But I sometimes post on a teen talk forum and it's fun, but this has really been amazing. Lots of people on here! Thanks for you kind words. I know I talk too much, but I've really enjoyed this.

Ashton and Leska, thank you very much. I'll try and not get too puffed up.

Bye, The sitter.

-- gilda's sitter (jess@listbot.com), August 28, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

The Big Picture: Is overpopulation worse than Y2K?? Probably not, at least in the near term. Another question: "Is talking about overpopulation worse than talking about Y2K?" Absolutely. Both distract us from working on preps, but in the case of talking about overpopulation, there's no redeeming possibility of coming up with ideas on how to prep better, unless anybody forgot to include birth control pills and/or condoms. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned chasitty belts.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 28, 1999.

Gilda's Sitter, I'm humbled by you're wisdom and intellect. At 16 you show great promise, and were all the kids like you we would have it made :-)

If Gilda gives you a hardtime for posting here, she will get a hard time from ME ;-) Keep up your awesome attitude and don't let old sour adults take the brightness out of it!

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

Chris, I think you have an obligation to tell gilda's house sitter the truth about "safe" sex.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Check your fact before you make any statement:

1. the federal government pays farmers big money to keep a certain portion of their land unfarmed. This is one of this country's biggest subsidy payments that has been going on for over 50 years.

2. Still, the US exports much of it's agricultural and livestock overseas. We have too much to consume domestically.

3. Population growth in the US is almost flat, growing less than 1% per year.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

-- ceres (survive@y2k.com), August 28, 1999.

Elbow Grease, Sitter said "I have to disagree with you about sex education. Kids should be taught safe sex. Here's why. Some kids probably will never have sex during high school, but there are plenty that will and some of them even brag about it. So I think it's better to teach everyone safe sex, so that IF they are sexually active they don't get pregnant or get a disease. Better to be safe than sorry."

I gather from that s/he has his fact straight enough, that statement didn't give me the impression that there's something s/he doesn't understand. "Safe" sex is doing it in a manner that will not cause you to get either pregnant (or impregnate someone), or catch a desease. S/he implied that the only "safest" way is to not have sex, but if they are going to anyway, they should be taught the proper precautions.

Elbow, I feel as if you're pulling my leg with your posts, as if you egg me on to continue :-P I'm tired of this arguement, it's not even a debate.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

gilda's house sitter,

You do *not* know why gilda bashes Christians. Her hatred for Christians, and rejection of Christianity occurred in her youth. Her discovery of the plight of American Indians and the involvement of Christian missionaries provided her with a rationalization for that hatred. I was here when she began posting on this forum, and she has consistently (and compulsively) posted, without provocation, her anti-Christian rhetoric to many, if not most of the religious threads even though she avows that she "can't stand" to read them. I suggest you do a little research in the archives for anything with "God" or "Bible" in the title. You will see what I mean.

Speaking of research, it is not enough to check for bibliographies in the back of a book. The citations may be spurious, the bibliographies may be spurious, even the source documents may be spurious, or erroneous.

"some think y2k is a conspiracy to reduce the population."

There are powerful people in this world who seriously propose that the only solution to "overpopulation" and "pollution" is to eliminate over 95% of the world's human population. Seriously. I suggest you read up on some of the pronouncements of Maurice Strong, George Soros and even Prince Charles of England. Might open your eyes. There is further speculation that these advocates might see and manipulate Y2K as a mechanism to trigger their goals.

With regard to your fish analogy, you might be interested to know that similar arguments have been put forth to condemn the entire structure of this country and other industrialized nations for "unfair" "overconsumption" of natural resources. They wish to force "rich" countries to return to third-world living conditions. Is that the future you look forward to?

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Chris,

>>Elbow, I feel as if you're pulling my leg with your posts, as if you egg me on to continue :-P I'm tired of this arguement, it's not even a debate. <<

No, I'm not pulling your leg. And, no, I didn't consider this a debate, just a conversation. We may not see eye-to-eye exactly, but just now we are on the same side. I was offering you "first opportunity."

I did not see the implication in house sitter's comments that the safest way is not to have sex. You may have inferred it, but I looked carefully without success. I hoped you would respond unequivocally to the error in her statements. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX. That deserves capitalization. Chris, too often we hear only what we hope to hear from young folks. We believe, infer, assume that they really understand the risks involved. It does not hurt to spell it out. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX. "Taking precautions" is a euphemism these days for playing "Russian Roulette."

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

I'm not convinced that this is a problem that we will have to worry about in the long term. More and more diseases are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and with AIDS and other new and exciting viruses making a name for themselves, Ma Earth will handle this problem for us.

If not, I have faith in the human's ability to cull it's excess numbers through brutal conflict, leopards do not change their spots, as the high level of civility on this forum so aptly demonstrates.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Elbow Grease,

There is a way to practice safe sex. It is called masturbation. I practiced it extensively as a younger man, and found that I hardly ever injured myself at all.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Uncle,

In the long term, we're all dead. I agree.

>>Oh yeah, one more thing. <<

That goes a long way to explaining your abbreviated attention span. :-)

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Dear sweet Chris.... "You're disgusting. How dare you insult Gilda, Chris and Al about their kids. You too Mumsie! "

Um... I'm not the one who said ...'You're disgusting!'; however, if any of my litter grow up to save your life or the life of one you love one day , I'll try to impress upon them not to disgust you by the knowledge that they came from a large family.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

Dear House Sitter,

"I'm only 16, and I'm horrified at the thought of twice as many people as are here now"

I understand that, but I hope you can understand my abhorence at what "forcing" people comes down to in the end. I would rather work on increasing agricultural yield, improving literacy and education, and just about anything other than ever "force" birth control, sterilization, and/or abortion.

"Well, most people only took one piece, but some people didn't care about the others and just loaded their plates up, and of course some went without fish."

Yes, this is an accurately sad reflection of human nature. I can give you another from my husband's work safety films. There was a large restaurant fire, and many people died because the door opened inwards instead out, and people just jammed up against it. No one would back up, so no one got out. I have read about people being crushed and trampled by fans at a soccer game. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, when I study history, most people are never satisfied. If you read the history of warfare, conquering was not necessarily done because people needed "more", they just had the lust to conquer and kill. You will have these kinds of people no matter what the population size is. So if you are saying that the only way to reduce the population is to "force" people because they will not do it voluntarily, you are stepping onto slippery ground. You would need to rescind or strip some basic rights that America has always protected. You said you were concerned because you had not read the rules of this forum. If you lived under a repressive regime, you would be worried about posting at all. You could say something that was considered subversive or politically incorrect by the powers that be, and simply "disappear". It happens. You either "agree" with the government, or else. I hope this will never be so in America. It would have to be human beings making these kinds of decisions (to force people not to have children). I do not personally know any human beings with that kind of infallible wisdom and knowledge. I do not know of any governmental system that is immune to corruption and upheaval. If you give a government this kind of power, do you think the rulers/leaders would stop at exactly the line that you wished them to? I don't.

"In our science class we studied exponential growth"

Yes, and in that vein, I am hoping to rear seven children who will take integrity and truth with them into adulthood, and use whatever talents they have to benefit mankind....Seven children who will remain faithful to their spouse, and raise their children to be caring, responsible and compassionate people. I see that as a good thing. Their father and I came from less than ideal upbringings. We are working hard at this parenting business, and expect to see them do an even better job one day.

"We ruined the Indians culture even more than Hitler ruined the Jewish peoples. "

I cried my way through "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" when I was young. I grew up where there were reservations. A good friend of mine grew up on a reservation. If you are beginning to study history, you will find that the history of mankind, period, is full of heartbreaking stories. There have been people who called themselves Christians who have done terrible things. Ditto for every other religion. Keep in mind that these acts are perpetrated by individual human beings who made the choice to do so. I see Man as the problem, not Christianity. Did you ever watch "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons? My whole family cried. Yes, it showed how the institutional "church" was responsible for condoning and allowing the slaughter of innocent natives, but it also showed the individual men of true faith who lived and died with their beloved brothers/natives. This is a more balanced representation of true history. Be careful of whoever glorifies one group of people as all good, or villifies another as all bad. The American Indians themselves, particularly some tribes, had a history of violence and cruelty. You would probably not have enjoyed being a female in many of those tribes. I see good and bad when I study just about any people/culture/era. One good thing that Judeo/Christianity brought to the world was the concept that women were not just property. Another example is the history of slavery in America. There were those who professed to be Christians and owned slaves, but there were many more who in the name of Christ gave their very lives to end slavery. If you study the history of abolition, you will find true Christianity in it. Speaking of slavery, it is still being practiced in Africa, by black people. Christians are also being persecuted and slaughtered in many nations. Rwanda's recent genocide is an example of that. Islamic nations are notorious for brutal persecutions. An Australian man and his son were recently burned alive in their car by Muslims because they were Christians. I haven't heard true Christians rising up with declarations of hatred and vengeance because of that. There are good and bad people in every country, and of every color and strata of society. If you would like to read more about the destruction of Jewish culture and lives, try "Mila 18" by Leon Uris. It's a novel, but well researched. Also, one difference is that the Jews have endured centuries of persecution and slaughter. Then, let's not forget the millions that Stalin murdered, or the millions that Mao murdered. Or Tiananmen (sp?) Square. Man is the problem.

"I agree with you that their is lots of waste and greed in the school system, but there are also lots of genuinely caring, excellent teachers in school. "

Yes, my point about the waste was in response to your complaint about the overcrowded schools. If corrupt people were not siphoning off the funds, there would be more schools, smaller classes, and better pay for teachers. Yvonne Chan's charter school in California is a glowing example of what can be done. My brother-in-law is a wonderful high school Math teacher. He is extremely bright, and could have gone into other more lucrative areas, but chose to give of himself in this way. He is loved by his students, and we're very proud of him. I still correspond with my beloved fourth grade teacher! Let's hear a cheer for the great teachers out there!

I think it's better to teach everyone safe sex, so that IF they are "sexually active they don't get pregnant or get a disease. Better to be safe than sorry. "

I agree with Elbow, there is no truly SAFE sex, only safer sex. I understand your view, but would like to point out that schools that have 'emphasized' abstinence, have had more success in lowering teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy (and correspondingly, STD's).

"I hope I haven't offended you, for I surely didn't mean to. "

Not at all. You seem like an extremely nice young woman. Your parents must be very proud of you.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

Al: "Mumsie, I am done answering your attacks, queries, and complaints. DONE! No matter how many times I have explained the same thing to you, over and over, you will apparently never understand my point, or at least not acknowledge it. "

I believe I have understood your viewpoint. You think that the earth is overpopulated, and heading towards such serious overpopulation that the earth would not be able to sustain the population. You are against government control, but are recently reluctantly seeing the possible inevitable need for it in this case. You do not advocate murdering anyone. Is this right?

I have asked,.... what government controls you foresee as necessary, or more specifically, which of our current rights would you be willing to relinquish/give up for this cause and entrust to Government?

Al, I have tried hard not to "attack" you. Attacking your views, and "queries and complaints" are ways to reasonably disagree and communicate about opposing viewpoints.

"I'm not quite as blown away with you as I am with Mumsie.Might. "

If this makes you feel better, .... okay.

"Bye, Mumsie. "

Bye.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

PS to Housesitter, Regarding conspiracies. I think there can be truth mixed in the strangest of them, but you have to sift through alot of paranoia and disinformation. Good luck! We just watched "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson. It was a fun movie.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

Wow what a lot of posts! Either you guys stayed up a lot later than I did or you got up a lot earlier, and I got up earlier than I aimed too. But Gilda gets up really early so she can work in her garden before it gets too hot, and as she told me, before this site gets so busy she can't get on. So these cats are used to being fed early, and they came in an meowed and jumped all over me until I got up and fed them. Lazy Bones, my sister, wouldn't budge of course.

Once more I'm mortified by my sloppy writing. When I do homework, I rewrite and polish and do better. But on here, I write like I talk, and sometimes it doesn't make sense. My post to Mumsie, about the Indians and missionaries had so many mistakes and bad sentence structure that it was hard to tell who was who. But I'm pushed to get everything done, and I'm slow. Once I lost my whole post and had to start all over. Puke!!

I can't answer all the posts, but I'll answer a few in the order I read them, or I'll get mixed up. My sister stayed all night too, and we laughed like crazy at the Bob posts. (Gilda never told me about him!)

Al, I'm so glad you came back. You're one of my favorite posters as you seem to understand what I'm worried about, and talking about, more than, IMHO Mumsie and others. (NOI=no offense intended.)

Al your description of your daughter sounds like my little sister who's 14. She runs with the big dogs, and is into cheerleading, soccer, clothes, and is a party doll and BOY crazy. She'll whack me when she sees this. But she's smart and makes good grades and she'll be ok, like your daughter, I'm sure. My mother says in some ways I was 25 when I was 2, but she and my dad never compare and they like our differences, and Boy Crazy and I are very close.

Gilda lets us print out neat stuff on her computer on the pages (back side) left from her old business inventory--books. I started printing this post to keep, so when I get old I can look back at it and remember what fun it was--that is if I get old. y2k, the catastrophes Mumsie talks about, war and all this stuff makes me wonder if I'll ever get old. Bonkers (what I call my sister) says "not to worry, die young and leave a good-looking corpse." Sorry for wandering off into my personal trip.

Chris you are a lot better at answering Elbow Grease than I am, so I only have one thing to say EG. If you are so concerned about peoples rights, then why aren't you more concerned with little babies than the rights of unfit parents, drug addicts, HIV moms and so on, to have babies they neither want nor care about. I would rather never have been born than have that kind of a beginning. And there are "unfit parents," a legittimate term used in court to protect battered kids.

Chis, I'm a girl, BTW. Thanks for helping me out with EG. I was talking about my point of view as a teen. I know the teens in my school , although I can't speak for others. There are a few that believe in abstinence totally, which our teacher said is "the only sure thing." But he said, just for those "who aren't that strong, I want you to know about the next safest thing." What more could he do? Would you want kids locked up in barrels, like one man did his kids in this state. Parents don't always know what their kids will do.

And Mumsie I don't think Chris was talking about eugenics at all. I've never met anyone that believes we should go that route. THe way I understand it, by both my school friends and the people that feel same here, is that we see nothing wrong with slowing down the population growth. That does NOT mean killing off living babies, endorsing abortion as birth control, forced sterilization, or killing off baby girls.

Here's an example I read on another population site, and BTW this applies also to people who *refuse* to see y2k as a problem. Here goes; If you heard that in the future there was going to be a terrible virus that might kill thousands, wouldn't you take precautions to protect you and your family. And if something you were doing was going to cause grave injuries to your grandchildren, wouldn't you stop doing it? That's how I see y2k and over population. Say all of you are right , and it isn't a problem. What will it hurt to practice abstinence, or birth control, if for no other reason than to be prepared and lessen the destruction of the planet.

EG, you don't know Gilda. I agree she isn't very diplomatic and I've told her that, and I'm not about to say anything about her behind her back that I wouldn't say to her face. She has been like a grandma to me and Bonkers. One of my grandmas and her grew up together and are good friends, and I know all about her fundamentalist childhood. My grandma says she has more integrity than some pious Christians in the church she goes too. I also know, from my grandma, NOT Gilda, that a girl got pregnant when they were in highschool and she was kicked out of school and the people at church treated her like a sinful whore. Would Christ have approved that? Granny said that Gilda's dad was always quoting some famous person (I forgot who) that said, "This country will not be safe until the last politician is strung up with the guts of the last preacher." That's not accurate, but close. So if Gilda offends you by bashing Christians, I'm sorry, but you don't have to belong to a church or take every word of the Bible literally to be a good, decent, person, which is about as good as some of us can do, my folks say. I don't agree with everything everyone says, even Gilda or mom, but there a lot better role models than some who are considered more Christian. Mom says tolerance is the key to compassion. I'm sorry I ranted. But I came on this forum trying to be objective. But I've seen a lot more *personal* bashing by you and some others, than I have from Gilda, Al, Chris, Andy, a" and some I've missed. Gilda told me she quit for two reasons, the one she wrote herself in her last post, and the other that she had a hundred things to do before they could leave for vacation.

And one more thing. EG, I guess you're saying that if "there is no such things as safe sex," then you should just say, "Oh well, I'm not going to even try to be safe, I'm going to play Russian Roulette." That sounds like something some of the guys at school would say to show off. BTW, my aunt is a librarian, so I know all about original and secondary sources, or as she calls them, "spurious sources"

Mumsie, I'm sorry I didn't get around to your post as it came after these others, but it's not because I'm ignoring it. It's 9AM and all I've got done is feed the kitties. But just one small thing. Last night when the local news came on, Bonkers and I were gobbling up ice cream, and they were talking about all the kids in trailers for lack of schools. And even if all you say is correct, about having more funds for schools if it weren't for corruption, it still doesn't take away from the fact that the announcer said that "their are 53 mllion more students needing hundreds of new schools" This part I got right, but I missed the percentage of increase since 1980.

Mumsie, you have given me a big incentive to try out again for the debate team this year, which I considered skipping. TTYL

-- gilda's pet/house sitter. (jess@listbot.com), August 29, 1999.

house-sitter,post whenever you can.You display an openess and flexibility that's often missing here.As you can tell from the above posts,once someone squeezes out the chilluns,more and more,parents become inflexible.Probably,it comes from teaching one's children,they get so caught up in being the all knowing mommie or daddy that all humility is lost and differing opinions,instead of being different,become wrong.It's refreshing to hear from someone who thinks and considers,not just spouting/shouting doctrine/dogma.Please excuse my run on sentences,my wife's a technical editing major,and I've come to rely a bit to strongly upon her skills.peace.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 29, 1999.

Mumsie, since your most recent posting was neither an attack, query nor complaint, I am going to respond to it. I appreciate your restating these opinions of mine, thus showing that you were, indeed, "listening" to at least SOME of my positions. Thank you. I nevertheless feel like you have been playing a "game" called "yabutt". In case you are not familiar with it, it works like this: no matter what someone you are having a discussion with, you say," ya, butt what about thus and so?" There is ALWAYS a yabutt available, if you are more interested in beating down their opinions than in genuine dialogue.

You also say,"I do not know of any governmental system that is immune to corruption and upheaval. If you give a government this kind of power, do you think the rulers/leaders would stop at exactly the line that you wished them to? I don't. "

Mumsie, you make a very good point here. I agree. It has always been a big concern of mine in regards to mandatory population control. This is ONE of the reasons I have had (and still have) reservations about any governmental involvement in this. Nevertheless, I continue to get more and more concerned with the population growth rate. I also see that the government, for whatever reason, although I suspect it relates to growing more little consumers, wage-slaves, tax payers, and "customers" of the government handout system, continues to ENCOURAGE population growth. The ways they do this are numerous. They give tax breaks for having children. They, through their insurance company regulations give rate discounts for large families. They continue to "reward" welfare mothers for having large families. I'm sure you can think of other examples; I won't list them here.

So, government is ALREADY involved in this. So is a pseudo governmental organisation, the Vatican. They don't even allow their followers to practice birth control. As I see it, they maintain this stance in order to continue having larger and larger congregations donating more and more of their wealth to the Church.

So as long as there is going to be government, and church, involvement in this arena, I would prefer that these entities reverse their positions, and look at the long term problems, rather than at short term gains for tax and consumer purposes.

Sitter, hi again, thanks so much for the nice words! I am very heartened to witness your enlightened attitude, once again. I hope that your views are representative of a large percentage of your peers. Do you think this is the case?

As far as Elbow Grease and his safe-sex-NOT opinions, of course there is no such thing as totally safe sexual intercourse. But there is no such thing as safe ANYTHING, practically. Many things we do in life are dangerous, to varying degrees. I certainly think that having "safe sex" can be a lot safer than many of our daily activities (driving on a busy freeway comes to mind). Not that I'm trying to encourage people, especially youth, to have sex rather than practice abstinence, but I know that if someone would have suggested abstinence to me when I was a teenager, with all those powerful hormones raging through my body, I would not have given it any consideration at all. It is very facile for people of my age (54) and older to speak of abstinence, now that we've experienced enough sex to have taken the newness out of the experience, and at least SOME of the excitement. Not to mention that the sex drive typically peaks during our youth, and gradually declines thereafter.

You say, about your 14 year old sister, "But she's smart and makes good grades and she'll be ok, like your daughter, I'm sure" Sitter, I hope so. I can tell you that we had a lot of fear and pain for our daughter. She got involved with crystal meth for a while, and we really feared that we'd lost her. Only through a series of bizarre experiences she had with some very underworld type creeps, who hired her to sell magazines in a corrupt scam involving taking money for subscriptions which never happened, beating up an old man who showed concern and compassion for my daughter, and even "slavery". (She and all the other kids working for these creeps soon found out that they didn't get paid, and they were NOT allowed to quit. The creepos would beat up anyone who tried to leave. My daughter, along with I believe it was two others, finally escaped, but were chased at high speed for over fifty miles on I-5! I think that this experience, plus meeting a very caring young man who shared his love and concern (he's now her husband), managed to get her to change her ways before she was too strung out to do so. Feel free to share this with your sis, or anyone else. I was a sixties free love, drugs type, and I still think the drug war is a bunch of BS, but I can tell you that there are some drugs out there which are very dangerous. So I think your sis will probably be fine, as long as she doesn't lose her perspective by using bad drugs.

By saying "bad drugs", I know I am risking that people will have the reaction that I am promoting using "good" drugs. Not at all. I smoked pot for over thirty years, and it has its good points and its bad points. I believe pot is just about like alcohol. I wouldn't recommend that anyone start using either one of them. I finally quit using pot because it interferes with my bicycle riding. Quitting for me was very easy. I have quit drinking alcohol five or six times. It was much harder to quit than pot, and I have always started again. The hardest drug to quit (for me at least) was tobacco. I quit smoking three times over a five year period. I was finally successful in November 1968. Alcohol didn't give me anything like the withdrawal symptoms that tobacco did. Quitting tobacco was extremely painful for a LONG time. A couple of years, I'm thinking.

Since we're talking about population control, and have also explored "unfit parents", I'd like to touch on this latter topic. There is a woman, who I've mentioned earlier, who is paying crack addicts to get sterilized or long term birth controlled. I think this is great. Personally, this is one area where I can see taking very firm measures against the perpetrators; that is, if a woman takes drugs or drinks while pregnant, and causes birth defects in her baby, I think she should be, at a minimum, involuntarily sterilized (hurt me, mumsie, hurt me!). If you've ever read about or experienced what an alcohol or drug fetal syndrome baby, I think you would probably agree with me, although I'm sure that many on this forum would not.

As far as other "mandatory" measures,perhaps they can be avoided, if only we could reverse the government's encouragement of population growth. Maybe instead of tax rewards for having kids, we should be giving cash awards for getting "fixed". Actually, the federal government used to do this, on small scale. My sister, who considered herself to be an unfit candidate to be a parent, for reasons of her controlling and self centered nature, mostly, was able to obtain a free tubal ligation in the late sixties. And I had a vasectomy in 1971, paid for by the federal government. This government handout saved us each quite a bit of money. It would be interesting to find out how much a child born today ends up costing society, financially speaking, and paying potential parents a portion of this to get sterilized. By paying only a portion, the government, and therefore we taxpayers, would actually be saving money in the long run, not to mention how much the quality of life for future generations could be improved.

This thread has gone on so long that I can't even remeber what some of the early posts said. Sitter, you read them more recently than I; did you see if anyone who is against controlling the population numbers ever responded to any of our queries regarding whether or not they thought the population could continue to grow ad infinitum? I certainly don't remember seeing an answer to that.

I'm going to go try out my solar shower again (I can now have guilt free, long, hot showers as often as I like :-). Then I'll eat and come see what's going on here again. No work today, my sweetie's on the Portland to the Coast speed walk race.

See y'all,

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 29, 1999.

gilda's house sitter,

I'm glad to see you've returned this morning. Your last post has clarified some things for me. I will respond to those items where I've been mentioned.

>>... so I only have one thing to say EG. If you are so concerned about peoples rights, then why aren't you more concerned with little babies than the rights of unfit parents, drug addicts, HIV moms and so on, to have babies they neither want nor care about. I would rather never have been born than have that kind of a beginning. And there are "unfit parents," a legittimate term used in court to protect battered kids. <<

(Note 1 to Chris: the above is example 1 of my point about assuming young folks understand what we are saying.)

Miss, I am unsure where your assumption has originated from. What have I said to indicate that I am overly concerned about the rights of unfit parents, etc. and lack concern for their children? I can only guess this has something to do with the Abbey quotation and my analysis of it. Of *course* there are unfit parents; there are volumes of *laws* prohibiting drug use, child abuse and neglect, and those laws should be applied on a case-by-case basis. I can assure you that my abhorrence of these things exceeds gilda's. I have read her opinion on such matters. My *personal* opinion is that the law does not deal harshly enough with unfit parents, HIV moms, drug addicts. My point, young lady, is that *no one* has the knowledge, or the right to make such blanket statements as: "*Most people* have no business having children." *No one* is qualified to determine who is "culturally and genetically" equipped to reproduce. The attitude is elitist and arrogant. Do you believe that anyone making statements like that places himself in the "unqualified" category?

>>I was talking about my point of view as a teen. I know the teens in my school , although I can't speak for others. There are a few that believe in abstinence totally, which our teacher said is "the only sure thing." But he said, just for those "who aren't that strong, I want you to know about the next safest thing." What more could he do? Would you want kids locked up in barrels, like one man did his kids in this state. Parents don't always know what their kids will do. <<

(Note 2 to Chris: "What more could he do?" As already stated, instruction in making good moral decisions is notably lacking.)

Miss, you've filled some holes in your story here. I am reassured that your teacher covered the basics rather well, and that you understand. Unfortunately, he is constrained by many factors from doing the job as it should be done. Please know this: my immediate concern is *your* understanding and welfare.

>>EG, you don't know Gilda. ... My grandma says she has more integrity than some pious Christians in the church she goes too. ... <<

You are right: I don't *know* gilda. What I know *of* gilda is directly from her writings, however. I try very hard to respond only to the words and perspective that she has projected here. And on the subject of Christians, her perspective is not a pretty picture.

>>...So if Gilda offends you by bashing Christians, I'm sorry, but you don't have to belong to a church or take every word of the Bible literally to be a good, decent, person, which is about as good as some of us can do, my folks say. <<

There is a disconnect between the two clauses of your statement. Do you see that? You are excusing gilda's poor behavior toward Christians by saying she is a good, decent person. But if she's such a good, decent person, why does she feel compelled to bash them and their faith at every opportunity?

>>I don't agree with everything everyone says, even Gilda or mom, but there a lot better role models than some who are considered more Christian. Mom says tolerance is the key to compassion. ... <<

You know it's wrong to stereotype, don't you? That's what you're doing here. If you focus on the *worst* example of Christian behavior, and compare it to the best example of "good, decent" (non-Christian) people, is there any question which side will come out ahead? This you call objective? Your mom's view on tolerance is fine. But, according to her own words, gilda doesn't share that view. She is *intolerant* of Christians.

>>But I've seen a lot more *personal* bashing by you and some others, than I have from Gilda, Al, Chris, Andy, a" and some I've missed. <<

Well, miss, I *challenge* you to prove your assertion.

>>And one more thing. EG, I guess you're saying that if "there is no such things as safe sex," then you should just say, "Oh well, I'm not going to even try to be safe, I'm going to play Russian Roulette." That sounds like something some of the guys at school would say to show off.<<

(Note 3 to Chris: "Oh well, I'm not going to even try to be safe, I'm going to play Russian Roulette." One more example of poor decision-making.)

No, miss, I am most definitely *not* saying that. I also believe that this is not *your* personal attitude either. And yes, I'm sure "some of the guys" might erroneously draw that conclusion. Wouldn't you agree that that conclusion is false? I am saying that much more emphasis should be placed on abstinence, chastity, fidelity, marriage, personal integrity, honesty, etc. I am saying that "the guys" need first of all to be taught how to arrive at the correct conclusion.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

gilda's pet/house sitter, obviously you will have to connect your home computer to the Internet! We would be missing much losing you. If your household is in the market for a new computer, we heartily recommend the iMac. A new awesome version will be available by the end of November. Worth waiting for.

If you browse thru this Forum's threads, you'll be back in school with more complete Y2K awareness than anyone else around you. May come in handy soon. Good luck! and thanks for posting :-)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 29, 1999.

Al,

>>As far as Elbow Grease and his safe-sex-NOT opinions, of course there is no such thing as totally safe sexual intercourse. But there is no such thing as safe ANYTHING, practically. Many things we do in life are dangerous, to varying degrees. I certainly think that having "safe sex" can be a lot safer than many of our daily activities (driving on a busy freeway comes to mind). Not that I'm trying to encourage people, especially youth, to have sex rather than practice abstinence, but I know that if someone would have suggested abstinence to me when I was a teenager, with all those powerful hormones raging through my body, I would not have given it any consideration at all. It is very facile for people of my age (54) and older to speak of abstinence, now that we've experienced enough sex to have taken the newness out of the experience, and at least SOME of the excitement. Not to mention that the sex drive typically peaks during our youth, and gradually declines thereafter. <<

Point well taken, with caveats.

I remember my own teen-age years quite well, thank you. And I'd say that the risks at that time pale in comparison to today's. That's an observation, not an excuse. But to equivocate on the issue with "there's no such thing as safe ANYTHING, practically." is disingenuous and misleading. Miss house sitter presented the same argument. While I might expect it from someone her age, maturity should produce more wisdom. To illustrate one small aspect of the inaccuracy of your comparison: How much time is spent driving on a busy freeway, versus having sex? No comparison. The question is not how will young people behave? That's a given. We know how they'll behave. The question is how do we effectively influence young people so they do not count their lives cheap, and destroy them with disease and/or pregnancy from impulsive behavior? As you said, The world is risky enough without that.

>>...did you see if anyone who is against controlling the population numbers ever responded to any of our queries regarding whether or not they thought the population could continue to grow ad infinitum? I certainly don't remember seeing an answer to that.<<

Read my post to Chris, Al. There is a *proven* method for reducing population growth rates which does not require external control or mandatory anything. Only control freaks and racists would object to it. If you are advocating population *reduction,* that's a different problem.

>>It would be interesting to find out how much a child born today ends up costing society, financially speaking, and paying potential parents a portion of this to get sterilized.<<

Correct me if I am objecting to an offhand turn-of-phrase. The viewpoint is skewed. Historically, children have been treated as investments in, not expenses to society. When they reach adulthood and join the workforce, the *vast* majority return that investment to society, and in turn, invest in their children. We invest in schools, hospitals, parks, etc. *for our children,* for our future, and theirs.

That is not to say that I would object to tax incentives for voluntary *permanent* sterilization by *both* parties. Let's say, a substantial tax break for potential parents (no children at all) and a greatly reduced break for parents with existing children. In terms of population growth, one child is a snowball, multiplying with each succeeding generation. And, while I'm on the subject, I agree with you, Al, about sterilizing mothers who drink, do drugs or otherwise abuse themselves while pregnant. In addition, if a woman has an elective abortion, mandatory sterilization for both partners. I *guarantee* a decrease in the number of such abortions. (If for no other reason, the same woman will *not* have multiple abortions and the same man will not cause multiple unwanted pregnancies.) I suggest that any abortion advocate, abortion doctor, worker in abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood member, etc. submit to sterilization. And having our children sterilized is a viable option.... Hmmm.... And felons, drug addicts, alcoholics...Hmmm...

Having said that, just how far do you think these proposals would fly, Al? And why wouldn't they fly, Al? Suddenly, I've become politically incorrect. You see, people always want to keep their *own* options open, while limiting the options of someone else.

Lest I've been misunderstood, I want to make it clear that I believe that a child is a blessing and gift from God. Once conceived, they should be treated as separate individuals with a right to a life of their own. Once conceived, the time of decision (in most cases) concerning that child's existence has passed. Please, do not twist this personal declaration into an abortion debate.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

Bonkers hid the TV zapper so I couldnt' watch the show on C-Span about y2k. People wonder why I'm for limiting kids. One word-my sister! The button on the TV that changes channels doesn't work so I only heard about 2 seconds of some woman saying everything was fine. Now I guess I've ruined my reputation for being so grown-up, but Bonkers drives me crazy sometimes..

Al you are close to Gilda's age, a little younger but close. She calls herself and old hippie in spririt but not fact, because during the 60's she was married and had her boy. She even feels guilty because she smoked cigarettes when she was pregnant, even though I guess they didn't know it was that bad for babies back then. I think that's one reason I like to talk to you and her. Both of you haven't forgot how it was to be young. Once some people get older, they want to make all of us *not* do as they did, but live up to some model of perfection that they imagine as the young persons ideal. Believe me, kids really get sick of this. Then there are other parents that don't give a hoot what their kids do as long as they don't get in trouble or get caught. Gawd, what a soap box I'm on. Bonkers made me do it. (smile)

Al thanks for telling me about your daughter. I hope nobody calls you a bad parent on account of your daughters bad time. I'm not perfect either, but Bonkers and I are both so scared of drugs we won't even listen to kids blowing about their adventures. We do not thing drugs are COOL. Our dad quit smoking because he got so sick of listening to us gripe. But we knew a boy that died from an overdose and I don't think I'll ever forget that. It's Bonkers big mouth that gets her in trouble. I won't tell you what gets me in trouble. (smile)

Mumsie, I hope you don't take offense but you and Bonkers are a lot alike in one respect. Like Al said, she too always has a counter argument, and she's a master at " but on the other hand." It just wears me down. Of course that's the point of doing it.

EG, I'm sorry I made a wrong assumption your view about unfit parents. Now about Abbey's quote, I don't know how familiar you are with his writing, but he was quite a character. And he would probaby be the first to say that he wasn't a good candidate for parenthood. He said a lot off the wall things, but he had some of them right on the money. Lots of things he said was more joking than real. Others he was not joking.

No, I'm not excusing "gilda's poor behavior toward Christians." 1. Because one of her best friends is a devout Christian and they are very close. Another best friend is an agonostic and they are very close. They all get along great. And as gilda says, " if all Christians were like xxxxx I would never say a bad thing about any of them, and if all agnostics were like zzzzz, I'd never fuss at them. 2.) Usually if she attacks a Christian or something they've done, it's probably becaue she thinks they're being hypocritical. 3. She thinks that the Christian religion is not any more important than any other religion and she doesn't think they should be running down other beliefs. My dad feels the same way. But I'm not saying anymore about this, as this is Gilda's business.

I am not stereotyping. I am talking about the people I know. And I know lots of genuinely wonderful Christians, and also the "others." I do want to tell you one little story about Gilda. We live in an area where people come to have fun and be entertained. Once a very religious person came here, and spent lots of money on a big religious entertainment attraction. Everyone thought it was wonderful, including us. It would bring in more money and people. Gilda blasted that too. Some people really got mad at her for running down this guy-- maybe he was a minister, I won't say for sure. Anyway he went broke, had told a thousand lies, and left all kinds of people hanging with big unpaid bills. It really irked some that she was right, but she just shrugged and said she had a BS detector.

No I don't have to real gilda's old posts. I know how she is and what she says. She also gets on rants about corporations, people who dont neuter their pets, people that have cosmetic surgery, politicians and Monsanto. But she is good to us. That's what counts with me and I don't care if she puts on a tutu and does a pagan dance, she's my friend.

BTW Al, I saw that woman on TV that you were talking about, the one who is paying crack addicts to be sterilized or use long term birth control and I think she's great. She trying to find a solution, that's more than those who bashed her are doing--like *nothing*. And you're right about the opposition on here, not addressing the population issues that continue to grow. No one even offered a single, solitary solution. That's what makes gilda so mad--me too.

Thanks everybody for allowing me to crash your BB. It's time for us to go home for awhile. Maybe I'll get to post one more time.

zoobie I like your writing. It sure saves time.

-- housesitter. (jess@listbot.com), August 29, 1999.

Actually, I felt I offered a *complete* solution to ending the problem of over-population. (it's a science worship sort of thing) 'A' appeared to grasp it. Chris thought A's view seemed logical. Most just -shuddered- and kept on typing. Some are too busy keeping 'unworthy, breeding, human trash' ALIVE. (thank you nurse page, for your humane contribution) lol

I consider it the cause and we now have the effect. When you're unable to go to the root of the problem, all that's left to do is whine, blame and point fingers, or continue to ignore it and hope it will go away on it's own (Y2K perhaps?). This 'scratching the surface' stuff is annoying, and a waste of the valuable time some of you have calculated remains, -gasp-. I guess Al feels it's an icky- poo solution offered by a 'ranting' individual, so he'd better sharpen that pointer finger!

Thanks for your contributions, house-sitter! Hold tight to your ideals and innocence, values and passions. Hold tight to gilda, too! We don't always agree, but she's a tough old bird and she knows what's coming. You'll make a fine team!

Gotta go, I have mouths to feed and goats to breed...........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 29, 1999.

Dear House Sitter,

"Bonkers (what I call my sister) says "not to worry, die young and leave a good-looking corpse."

Bonkers is right (and funny!), do what you can and don't forget to go on "living".

"Would you want kids locked up in barrels, like one man did his kids in this state. "

Hey, my five boys get pretty rambunctious at times, do you know where I can order those barrels? :)

I do think it is the responsibility of parents, or any caring mature person to say, "Look, this is the best way or the better way, please don't make the mistakes that I did." What I think young people find harder to swallow are the adults who are still doing "whatever" and telling them "Do as I say, not as I do." As far as being realistic about abstinence, let's also consider what we are really saying. If we say/teach that the sexual drive is so strong, so great, that we cannot contain it, what happens when you actually marry or become involved in a monogamous relationship? Follow through on this rationale. If your mother were to become ill, and unable to have sexual relations with your father for a few months or so, how would you feel about your father sleeping with a neighbor or co-worker? Is that okay? Would you tell him at the beginning of her illness, look Dad, I know you are probably not going to be able to control your sexual drive, so here are some condoms, be careful. I think that you would at least hope he could control his sexual drive, because he made a 'choice' that it was the right thing to do. Our two teenagers (16 and 19) are both practicing abstinence. I was Not taught this by my parents. We were left to muddle through adolescence. Our daughter (19) is also very much in love with someone right now. We discussed the practical ways to help them with this goal, but they know if they were to succumb to temptation, that there would be acceptance and love, not judgement. Meanwhile, we do our best to help them with this laudable goal.

"And Mumsie I don't think Chris was talking about eugenics at all. " Well, read A's posts in their entirety, and Chris's response, and tell me what conclusion you would draw.

I put some below:

Mac: "And another of those babies was my son, who was not expected to live past his first week........But, better he had never been born, eh? "

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 27, 1999.

"A": - Page: Quite a rant. Does my heart good to see someone else give it to the bible thumpers and breeders. The analogy between Y2K GIs vs. DGI/DWGIs, and "Breeding" (my term) GIs vs. DGI/DWGIs was particularly apt. Mac: And then when your son's wife, girl friend, or concumbine gives birth to more of same, and there's no "heroic" medical services available?

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

A: "I thought my comment to Mac was called for....Nya-nya, nuh-nya- nya.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 27, 1999.

Keeping a defective (excuse me, I should be more p.c. and say 'differently configured') alive from birth is another manifestation of the Y2K syndrome: "Don't deal with the hard question/problem now; we'll worry about it later."

So, Mac has spared himself some pain, guilt, etc. -- AND BY SO DOING IS POSSBILY SETTING HIS SON UP TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH A SIMILAR PROBLEM.

Back to my starting point, back before luxurious times, the "differently abled," the infirm, etc., who could not be supported were set out into the forest, onto an ice flow, or whatever.

There was a custom called the "midwife's option." The midwife took a quick look at the fetus/baby as it emerged, and made a quick decision. If it looked OK, then OK. Any obvious deformity, and she made sure it did not take its first breath. "Sorry, stillborn." That is a sacrilege, blasphemy in today's wussified world.

Harsh, naziish? No, realistic. And, not a bad thing. So there!

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.

Chris: "BTW A is A, I find your contributions on this thread, although raw and hard to swallow, logical. "

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

Webster's Dictionary: ~ eugenics: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.

"A" seems to be proud of his eugenicist views, ("Harsh, naziish? No, realistic. And, not a bad thing. So there!"), but squeamish and indignant about being associated with the group that has represented and undertaken the greatest eugenics program in our century. Be sure to understand that the thrust and justification behind the concentration camps was ultimately eugenics, however twisted. The eugenics program began with emptying hospitals and institutions (as in killing them) of the mentally retarded, the physically disabled, and then moved on to who was considered racially inferior, and then also became convenient to dispose of "enemies" of the government. Be careful of letting the camel put his nose in the tent, as the saying goes.

"That does NOT mean killing off living babies, endorsing abortion as birth control, forced sterilization, or killing off baby girls. "

Whether or not a person is for or against those things will become moot if the government is allowed Control in this area. Logically, you must acknowledge that these are currently being practiced by China. As I suggested, read "A Mother's Ordeal" by Stephen Mosher. Now, as I asked before, once we relinquish freedom to the government, why do you think the government will stop at the point you wish them to? When it comes to the government "mandating" policy for family size, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

"If you heard that in the future there was going to be a terrible virus that might kill thousands, wouldn't you take precautions "

If I heard this, I would research it, very carefully. I would want to verify the concern and reality of this, and then I would begin to research the vaccine. Have you read all the controversies surrounding vaccines by the way? Not every medical professional is convinced of their safety or effectiveness. Of the vaccines that my cousin's (who is an infectious disease doctor) children do get, every one is checked for lot number, which are called into the CDC to ensure they are not from a hot batch, i.e., dangerous batch. So, I am not convinced of the ultimate devastation of this "virus" and I certainly am searching for alternatives to any "mandatory" "vaccine".

"What will it hurt to practice abstinence, or birth control, "

Simple. Coming from my viewpoint, which should be as respected as others, I would not have most of the irreplaceably unique and precious children that I have. I do consider them to be gifts and blessings, not liabilities that drain my life or the well being of the earth. We are raising them to be compassionate and conscientious "givers", and I see this as being a tremendous benefit to mankind.

"a girl got pregnant when they were in highschool and she was kicked out of school and the people at church treated her like a sinful whore"

I don't know how much of my personal history I am willing to reveal on this forum, but I was a girl who was ostracized by many in a church when I was a teen. I was wrongly, and unfairly ostracized. Did this hurt? To the point of despairing of my life. Did it affect my attitude toward Christians? Yes, absolutely, until I matured enough to realize that it was individual people "professing" to be Christians who hurt me. My husband was an agnostic when we married, and he became a Christian shortly after that. I was very upset! It took me time to sort it all out. One thing I realized from the beginning though, was not to judge Jesus by the terrible behavior and attitudes of people. Do you think that any people who profess to New Age, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. behave in bad or reprehensible ways? Do you hear people ravaging All people of those faiths based on that? As a matter of fact, check the archives as long as you want, because what I routinely read is Christian bashing, a favorite sport.

"Would Christ have approved that? "

God said, "A bruised reed I will not break." Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." But He also said right after that, "Go and sin no more." Have you read the New Testament? :)

As I said before, be careful of whoever glorifies one group of people as all good, or villifies another as all bad.

""their are 53 mllion more students needing hundreds of new schools"

I would check further into this statistic. On what time frame are they projecting it?

You mentioned an interest in joining your debate team, and I hope that you will. You would probably enjoy the non-fiction works of one of the masters of debate, C.S. Lewis. Agree or disagree, but you will acknowledge his brilliance. You may be familiar with him as the author of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".

I would like to repeat myself once more in closing, and thank you for communicating with patience and civility.

This is what America is all about, the right to believe and express and fight for what you believe in. If expressing our beliefs ever means succeeding in extinguishing those basic rights for others, we will cease to be America.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

Al, what you considered mumbling and tedious, I considered to be dissecting, analyzing and responding to your words. The point is not to "wear you down" as House Sitter commented, but at least she got a "point". It is also not to yabutt you. I will, however, continue to rebutt any and all points that I disagree with or question, and will continue to attempt to critically review the logic and inherent implications. What many people cannot seem to handle, is being disagreed with. Period. It provokes anger, frustration, hostility, and name calling. And THAT kind of response often provokes sarcasm from me.

Al: "Nevertheless, I continue to get more and more concerned with the population growth rate."

3. Population growth in the US is almost flat, growing less than 1% per year. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

-- ceres (survive@y2k.com), August 28, 1999.

I am waiting for someone to rebut this poster.

Al: " I also see that the government, for whatever reason, although I suspect it relates to growing more little consumers, wage-slaves, tax payers, and "customers" of the government handout system, continues to ENCOURAGE population growth..... So, government is ALREADY involved in this. "

This is not the same thing as attempting to rescind or remove protected basic freedoms.

Al: "So as long as there is going to be government, and church, involvement in this arena, I would prefer that these entities reverse their positions,"

I accept the voting arena to resolve this, regarding tax breaks etc.

Al: "I still think the drug war is a bunch of BS"

So do I, Mena as prime example.

Al: "did you see if anyone who is against controlling the population numbers ever responded to any of our queries regarding whether or not they thought the population could continue to grow ad infinitum? I certainly don't remember seeing an answer to that."

I think the uncertainty of that speculation does not even remotely merit allowing Government to take this kind of control.

I'm glad to hear your daughter is doing better. One of my dearest's friend's husband fought a cocaine battle. He eventually successfully quit it at a rehab called Teen Challenge. Not sure why they call it Teen since adults were there. Our cousin successfully went through rehab after multiple tries, and has been clean and sober for the last few years. I'm not sure of the most recent place he went. I am glad to hear that she has someone there who loves her, because even though you do, it is not exactly the same motivating thing as someone you join your heart to. I hope that all her troubles remain behind her, and that there are good days ahead.

PS Did you post about your solar shower on the Prep Forum (cost and supplier etc.) ? I'll have to check.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

chris: "It's almost as if you didn't read my post at all where I mentioned that I had done my own contribution to the best of my ability within the circumstances I had, by reducing my family size compared to my parents."

Gee Chris, one of my grandmothers had twelve, and the other one had eight, so I guess I've done my part too! What a relief!

chris: "you and Mumsie are as logically challenged and have an affinity for each other."

If you are comparing my logic to Elbow Grease, then thank you! If I was the Queen of Spain, I'd be making a puddle for him right now!

Alas, goodbye cruel world! I must leave to swaller some watermelon seeds and keep on breeding my litter!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

I'm house sitters, little sister and I don't have to worry about gilda being mad at me when she sees this, cause old worry wart, my sister will kill me as soon as she sees this. She's out watering, so I'm gonna say what I want to.

Mumsie I have to hand it to you, you beat me anyday answering a question with a question, an man oh man, do you have arguments??? YEESSSSS! Injecting formaldhyde into heads, infantcide, adopt a baby, poor little deaf girls, Nazies, Beethoven, "quatlity" of our seed, volunteer to die early, etc.

I'll tell you one thing Mumsie, cause my sissy is too big of a sissy and to nice to say this, but if either one of us had been as mouthy as your 19 year old daughter to say about anyone on this planet, in this case Gilda, but I do mean *anyone,* the following words,

"That's sinsiter. How old is she? (meaning Gilda) Why does she have a right to live? We should look at her physical exam and analyze and decide how much she's contributing to society now. People of my generation already don't respect the elderly, so by the time these people are old, Generation X is going to say 'alright, it is overpopulated, let's get rid of them. I don't even want to get old cause my peers are already so hard. And if people don't want to have kids, who will take care of them when they're older?"

I'm tellin you, my mom and dad both would have grounded us for about 10 years, and made us so ashamed of talking about older people, or any people, like that, that we would have wished they'd have given us a Singapore caning instead of pointing out what crummy "seeds" we were. Sissyfoos and I don't feel that way about old people and we don't know too many kids that do. Anyway I don't! We may make fun of their driving, but that's all. I like old people and so does sis. Gilda, Grandma, our retired next door neighbors 89 and 92 (and no one taking care of them), are some of the nicest people I know. They may not be able to roller blade, or win beauty contests, but they know lots of things your daughter, and the two of us don't even have a clue about.

You talk about eugenics, and yet you said, "So that is the meaning of Generation X, they will X out the unfit to live and "breed" or "spawn." You do reap what you sow." Isn't that called "eugenics?" Your realy good getting people to run around in circles answering your questions, I know how it's done, I do it too, but not for the reasons you do. You will be happy to know that I'm in deep trouble, but it was worth it.

-- Bonkers (jess@listbot.com), August 29, 1999.

I can't believe my sister pulled this dirty trick on me, and wrote Mumsie that smart aleck post. I was looking forward to coming in here and reading any new posts after I got my work done. Then I came to this and I was sick. It doesn't matter if she didn't like what your daughter said Mumsie, she had no right to do this. Mom will have a fit.

This is the first time we've got to stay all night while house sitting here. Now she's ruined a perfect weekend. Gilda trusted me to take care of things and act responsible. Mom and dad did too.

I'm sorry everybody. I don't know if I'll have a chance to post anymore or not. But I want to thank everyone that talked with me, whether you agreed or not. It was very interesting. I'm sorry everybody. She's only 14, but she knows better. Bye for now.

-- housesitter (jess@listbot.com), August 29, 1999.

gilda = housesitter = bonkers

-- (sick@of.this.BS), August 29, 1999.

Oh boy. I'm not getting between you two sisters and Gilda ;-)

Elbow Grease; "(Note 1 to Chris: the above is example 1 of my point about assuming young folks understand what we are saying.)"

EG, I don't automaticly assuming that young folks understand what I'm saying. I do however, have a sense that Gilda's Sitter understand what I was saying. On the other hand, I don't assume that older people understand what I'm saying either. And I don't have a sense that you understood what I was saying. No fault of yours, falls on me ultimately to convey what I mean.

EG: "(Note 2 to Chris: "What more could he do?" As already stated, instruction in making good moral decisions is notably lacking.)"

If you mean lacking in school, I understand what Sitter meant. I also understand what you mean. The kind of moral teachings you're talking about is from your Christian background. Good moral/values in my opinion, but Christian all the same. Those values would be very appropriate to teach in a Christian school (or other denomination religious school that holds the same values.) But if we're talking public school, that's another ball game. The responsibility to teach such moral/values falls ultimately to the parents. In my opinion, what was said by that teacher of Sitter's was very appropriate. It falls on the parents to enforce the abstinence part, if that's their values. Knowing that not every American parents hold the same value/morals, the public schools at least give the kids the basic knowledge for making safer decisions. "Miss, you've filled some holes in your story here. I am reassured that your teacher covered the basics rather well, and that you understand. Unfortunately, he is constrained by many factors from doing the job as it should be done."

Here you are preaching your values (please note that I don't disagree with it, just that there are other parents who might.) Public schools are tied. Nobody's fault, it's the result of "melting pot".

"(Note 3 to Chris: "Oh well, I'm not going to even try to be safe, I'm going to play Russian Roulette." One more example of poor decision-making.)"

Agreed, but what does that have to do with the point Sitter is making? So many teens are in dire need of parental guidance these days, Sitter is pointing that out with that statement.

"And yes, I'm sure "some of the guys" might erroneously draw that conclusion. Wouldn't you agree that that conclusion is false? I am saying that much more emphasis should be placed on abstinence, chastity, fidelity, marriage, personal integrity, honesty, etc. I am saying that "the guys" need first of all to be taught how to arrive at the correct conclusion."

Yes I agree with you, girls and guys need to be taught all that, starting at home. If they don't have good role models and support at home, the schools can teach all they want but the results won't be the same.

Mumsie: "And Mumsie I don't think Chris was talking about eugenics at all. " Well, read A's posts in their entirety, and Chris's response, and tell me what conclusion you would draw.

Mumsie, I said" BTW A is A, I find your contributions on this thread, although raw and hard to swallow, logical."

Because AisA is being logical doesn't mean I LIKE his ideas or agree with them. It was a comment I made because he complained "I have suffered fools like you too long on this thread. Bye."

If we only take logic into account, eugenics would be the way to go. Animals do it and it works well for the health of the herds/packs etc. But notice I've said I'm for "humane" solutions. I don't consider eugenics to be humane. Prevention is more humane. Preventing crack babies from being born, etc. How to go about such prevention is another can of worms that many have started to discuss. I'm abstaining from giving my own opinion on this, I simply don't feel like getting deeper into the subject.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 29, 1999.

Chris, I couldn't agree with you more completely.

I'd like to complete one teensy unfinished thought.

>>EG: Unfortunately, he is constrained by many factors from doing the job as it should be done."

Chris: Here you are preaching your values (please note that I don't disagree with it, just that there are other parents who might.) Public schools are tied. Nobody's fault, it's the result of "melting pot". <<

I believe you are saying that my values have no place in public school. Although I do feel they belong there, I meant that, essentially, the teacher's hands are tied, just as you said. And again, you are absolutely right; values/ morals teaching is the parents' responsibility. I was remiss in not tying that loose end.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

gilda = housesitter = bonkers

-- (sick@of.this.BS), August 29, 1999. Uh-huh

-- (abc@def.con), August 30, 1999.

Dear Bonkers,

I went up to find the post you referred to:

"....her response was "That's sinister. How old is she? Why does she have a right to live? We should look at her physical exam, and analyze and decide how much she's contributing to society now. People of my generation already don't respect the elderly, so by the time these people are old, Generation X is going to say 'alright, it is overpopulated, let's get rid of them'. I don't even want to get old because my peers are already so hard. And if people don't want to have kids, who will take care of them when they're older?"

I should have clarified, but assumed the other posters realized this was what is called a tongue-in-cheek response. She was playing the devil's advocate. I won't bore you with all the details of the reality of her life and personality, but suffice it to say that she is beloved by her siblings, extended family, and friends, and with good reason. Wherever she has attended classes, worked or volunteered we are sure to receive feedback about her courteous and kind nature. She also has a wickedly wry sense of humor, as most cartoonists do (one of her hobbies). Rest assured that I have no fear of being a "dumped granny" while she lives. One of her new friends since moving to Idaho is around 60. If someone older needed aid or care, count on it, she would be there for them. Hope this clarifies it for you.

If it makes you feel any better, I also have explained to her in subsequent conversations that, despite Gilda's dislike of Christians, that I admire many other things about her, either from reading between the lines, or the kind words from your sister that obviously come from a deep affection.

"YEESSSSS! Injecting formaldhyde into heads, infantcide, adopt a baby, poor little deaf girls, Nazies, Beethoven, "quatlity" of our seed, volunteer to die early, etc. "

I see that you are antagonized. Sorry that the methods of infanticide practiced in China provoke you, but I am merely reporting the truth of this.

Yes, we did want to adopt, does that offend you? Does the fact that we wanted to adopt a deaf child, or help children in a deaf school offend you to the point of sarcasm?

Interesting that you would judge my daughter for being discourteous.

Nazis? I guess WWII is a long time ago and not as relevant for one as young as you.

Do you know anything about Beethoven's family?

If 'quality of seed' was in my post, it was quoting another poster. "Mumsie: Your criticisms are valid. It is not a question of the "quality" of our seed, but of the quantity. -- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

On the other hand, 'volunteer to die' could easily have been a sarcastic response on my part. An impartial reader would not fault me MORE than the others who resorted to prodigious degrees of personal attacks and name calling.

"I'll tell you one thing Mumsie, cause my sissy is too big of a sissy and to nice to say this"

Your sister did not strike me as a sissy; on the contrary, she seems to be quite independent and outspoken,... but "nice", yes, I would completely agree with that description based upon her mature and thoughtful posts.

"So that is the meaning of Generation X, they will X out the unfit to live and "breed" or "spawn." You do reap what you sow." Isn't that called "eugenics?"

Yes, and yes. This is an observation about Gen. X. It is my opinion that the generation who was brought up in a throw away culture will quite possibly justify and rationalize throwing away the elderly, infirm or whoever they feel requires too much sacrifice, money, time and energy, in other words, the "useless eaters". It is what I fear will be reaped, not what I hope for.

"I know how it's done, I do it too, but not for the reasons you do. You will be happy to know that I'm in deep trouble, but it was worth it. "

I also see that you are judgemental, since you assume to know my inner motives, and seem sure that I will be "happy" if you get in trouble. I'm sorry that you believe these things.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

Chris: "I don't consider eugenics to be humane."

My sincere apology for misunderstanding you ~

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

Allright, quit bashing on my fellow x-ers.the "X" in gen-x comes from the algebra variable x because my generation is too multi-coloured and of varied interests to be pidgin-holed into a summation as the boomers seem so desperate to do.For example,I'm an asian studies major who beleves our society would be improved by adopting filial piety, and cane-ing for minor offences.It's really amazing the stereotypes being so arrogantly being thrown around here.Attempt a little more humility in life,everyone will benifit from it.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

sorry zoobieX,...it was a play on words. Really doubt you will find many peers who support a cane whipping on the tush.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

actualy,I think the bottom of the feet is better than the tush.Certianly,people would think twice before spitting on the pavement.(thwack!)

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

WOW! A Buddist Nazi! Now that is unusual.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

"Those who would cane others for spitting on sidewalks, deserve neither canes nor sidewalks"

Bunjamine Fronkline

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

Elbow grease, my statement comparing the risk of sex to other activities' risks, I can see how you might think I was equivocating. After all, many people use this excuse to justify lots of risking behavior, such as smoking, doing drugs, driving while intoxicated, eating junk food, etc. etc. However, I was not trying to equivocate, nor mislead. And please believe me; I was most assuredly NOT being ingenuous. My point was supposed to be that, yes, there are risks to having sex, but that doesn't mean that no one should have sex. It is a calculated risk. Most post pubescent people practice sex, and most of us don't even use a rubber. We married types tend to assume that we won't contract a disease, for instance, because we are in a monogamous relationship. But we are bombarded by reports of infidelity. Who can say with absolute certainty that their sexual partner has never strayed? So from that perspective, even married folks are taking a risk. Does that mean that married couples should not practice sex together? Of course not.

Many married couples also practice birth control. So do unmarried people. The bigger risk to teenage sex, as I see it, is that it is so easy to get into difficult emotional entanglements, without the maturity to deal with it. But I guess that 's how we learn emotional maturity, at least in part, by experiencing difficult situations. I guess what I'm trying to say, in my unfortunatley rambling way, is that if it were I who was currently a teenager, I would certainly NOT choose abstinence, even if all the evidence supports that as the most "rational" decision. I would do much as I did when I WAS a teen. Seek a compatible sex partner, remain monogamous to the extent possible, and treat that person the same way I would want to be treated. The Golden Rule, if you will. I would also make darn sure that my sexual partner and I used precautions to avoid pregnancy, which is what I did as a teen. As a teen I also used a rubber in order to reduce the risk of VD. Later, when VD was thought to be easily curable, I no longer used a rubber, and don't remember ever having sex with a woman who wasn't "on " the pill. This period of time was a mecca for sexual liberation, and I am glad I was able to be in attendance during those ten of twenty years. Today, were I single, I would be much more cautious in my choice of sexual partners, due to AIDS and other incurable STD's.

You state, "The question is how do we effectively influence young people so they do not count their lives cheap, and destroy them with disease and/or pregnancy from impulsive behavior?" I absolutely agree with you, EG. I just don't think that we should expect that most teens are going to be abstinent. They don't take any more risk than adults do, if they take the same precautions, is all. We need to guide them, and try to give them a good self image, so they WILL value themselves. We also need to treat these young people with honesty; I believe that a lot of the problem kids have is cause by their cynicism towards their parents and other adults, who often DO equivocate and who often have very transparent agendas.If the kids don't trust us, due to our not treating them fairly and honestly, they are unlikely to believe us when we tell them what is or is not bad for their health, or any other aspect of their lives.

Al says >>>...did you see if anyone who is against controlling the population numbers ever

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 30, 1999.

Hi, everyone. Our school started today so mom came out an fed the pets this morning. It was pretty hectic but that helped get my mind off what Bonkers did. She told mom what she did herself, and she's grounded for two weeks, and we both have to clean out the chicken house. Mom said I could write one last post and then I'm not allowed to be on here or the net again unless Gilda is here and gives me permission.

So I'll just say thanks once again for the interesting conversation. Mumsie, thank you for your nice words, I'm glad your'e not mad at me. I don't know if you had a little sister, but if you did, you know how they bug you and nosey into your business.

Chris, and Al it was so nice to read your posts. And I don't have time to write much as wer'e just feeding the pets, watering a little and going home, but I want to debate with EG on one more thing. I don't think teachers can teach morals, although it doesn't hurt to try, cause most kids seem to get their morals from parents, family and the people their close too.

And the moral of this adventure is we get to clean out the chicken house. smile

gilda=housesitter= bonkers, does that mean you think we're just like gilda? If so, I don't think that's so bad. But I am sorry I caused this "BS."

-- Pet sitter (jess@listbot.com), August 30, 1999.

gilda=housesitter= bonkers, does that mean you think we're just like gilda?

Right down to the fingerprints.

If so, I don't think that's so bad. But I am sorry I caused this "BS."

Don't worry. You can always try posting as "gilda's cat"

-- (sick@of.this.BS), August 30, 1999.

Sick Mind wouldn't know how a well rounded 16 year old thinks.

Good luck Sitter, it was a pleasure to read your point of view.

"And the moral of this adventure is we get to clean out the chicken house. smile"

Was well worth it! You got to clean more than the chicken house Sitter, you cleaned up this mess of a thread pretty well too ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 30, 1999.

Sitter, Please tell your mother that we request clemency based on the positive contribution that you brought to the forum. By all means, get online at home! One of my teens was discouraged from returning to a teen forum because of the shallow and inane potty mouthing contained therein, and it would be good to have more teens like you posting. I think Bonker's motives were good. I think you were doing just fine without her "defending" you, but her intentions were honorable. I'll think of you while we're cleaning our coop this week too! Salutations!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 31, 1999.

"I don't know if you had a little sister, but if you did, you know how they bug you and nosey into your business."

I have five sisters, and I am the youngest, so I better not be too hard on Bonkers. :)

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 31, 1999.

zoobie,

>"and cane-ing for minor offences"

did you beat your mate today?

Let the 10 begin.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Cleaning the coop won't hurt you, but I sure don't see what it is you're supposed to have done wrong. Since your parents are GIs, I have a good feeling they won't object to my recommending y'all check out a thread in this forum about homeschooling, and particularly Grace Llewellyn's Teenage Liberation Handbook linked, there.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 31, 1999.

Elbow,My post did not all make it to the forum yesterday for some reason. I agree that children "used to be treated as a valuable asset", as I think you said it. I think they are still a valuable asset, as individuals. It's when you look at the ramifications that new people (who all start out as "children"), as a GROUP, start becoming a problem. Here's an analogy: I live in the forest. I love and value all the trees. But if the trees were as successful as we humans have been in having new babies (and yes, WC, in enabling them to live to child bearing age), there would be so many trees around here that I would be unable to get out of my house. ALL the trees would suffer from lack of water, lack of nutrition, and lack of sunlight. The forest as a whole would become very sick. It would also become very susceptible to insects, disease, and fire. Humans are similar; you can't expect the population to grow limitlessly without any negative consequences. This is why I talked of costs to society of all the children being born, vis a vis paying people not to reproduce.

Hope that helps clarify my position.

EG, I like your idea of giving tax breaks to people who voluntarily submit to sterilization. Could it also include actual payments to those who don't pay any taxes?

pet sitter, no one calls me a bad parent. I personally regret that I was not a better parent than I was. My kids tell me that I was a GREAT parent. I think they must suffer from selective memory. All I can say is that I tried to do my best, failed a lot of the time, but most always apologized when I realized what an asshole I had been (a relatively frequent occurence, unfortunately).

I think all of us parent types who care enough to think about what they are doing, and aren't afraid of trying new ideas, and correcting parenting methods that don't pan out, all realize that there is NO perfect parent. We all make mistakes. Lots of them. Just like our kids do. What's the single most important thing is love. Next is honesty and openness.

By the way, pet sitter, give your sister a break, already! Are you saying she's in trouble for posting on this forum? Isn't that what you did? I don't see any problem with that, as long as you guys are computer literate enough to not screw up Gilda's equipment. Ask Gilda.

As far as no one offering other solutions, I have observed one other method which I understand has been having some success. ZPG (Zero Population Growth) has been paying to produce soap operas, believe it or not, which are blatantly propaganda-like. These portray families who limit their population, and are intended to counteract all the other influences which allegedly influence people to have large families. They have reportedly been airing these for several years in third world countries with positive results. I have pretty mixed feelings about TV in general, and propaganda shows specifically, but anyway, that is one more non mandatory suggestion for Mumsie, et al

WC, your "solution", to stop our society's practice of allowing disabled kids to live and grow to maturity, not to mention being controversial in itself, is likely to be too small a part of the overall population problem to affect it in any significant way. Unless you also stop giving any medical care to any people at all. Along those lines, I guess we could do lots of things to make life more difficult for everybody, e.g. stop making stoves, insulation, water pumps, clothing, etc. This would definitely lower the growth rate, but I for one find that pretty regressive.

Mumsie, I did not post any information about the solar shower to the prep forum. My friend's plans are to offer the plans to several different types of systems for sale. His business name is Quicksilver Enterprizes. He either has, or plans to have, a web page with information, but I don't think he has finished doing his testing on all the systems yet. Try searching the web, if you like. I CAN tell you that I built one of his more basic, but not the most basic, systems, and it works very well. Cost me only a little under $9, but I had a bunch of pipe fittings left over from various house building projects, and a friend recently gave me a perfectly good 52 gallon water heater, just because one of the elements had burnt out, and he didn't want to bother fixing it. Too much money, not enough ambition, I guess. So, if you had to go out and buy the water heater (just for the tank, not to use the electric part), the whole system would probably cost between $150 and $200, I would guess. All the other parts besides the tank would cost maybe $$30-$40, I would guess. I'll bug him to finish his testing and get it onto the net! I'm REALLY impressed>

sickof@this.bs; Gilda=sitter=bonkers; I don't think so. If so, she's doing a great impersonation. Besides, if you're sick of it, don't read it. Al

This thread is getting so long that it takes my old Model T Mac a long time to open it. Anyone think it's worth starting it again, or should we let it die? At least the number of caustic attacks seems to have diminished :)

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 31, 1999.

We sit and listen at a young age as you answer with emphasis: "Oh no, one was enough for us!" Or.."Oh no, we're all DONE now. Two was it." Do you know how this makes a small one feel? So we grow up, knowing that we are beloved, yes, but also a $64,00 expense to our parents and society. Of course, we are proud of our family. We are doing our part to limit the population, right? Of course we are special, of course you love us oh so much. You love us so much you only want one of us..or is it two? So we go through school, we work hard at our careers. We decide we don't want any kids. You say you would like to cuddle a grandchild? Well, we are much too busy enjoying our lives without any kids. We have a two income household, and we are enjoying that fancy car. We're sure you will understand, after all, you only wanted one, and well, we are going to do even better with all you have taught us, we aren't going to contribute anything to that "population explosion." You say you are getting lonely? Well-we've been busy with our work and friends. You need someone to take care of you now? Well, I'm sorry but there's only one of me, and I just can't take care of two parents! I've got to work and play besides. However, I have found a nice retirement home. Not to worry, I'll see you at Christmas and your birthday and all that jazz. Of course, now that our generation has grown up and we are all voluntarily limiting our family sizes...we turn to the next possible solution. That's right-our eyes are on you now. I think you all forgot that it's not just the unfit parents and crack babies and large families that are draining ou system. That's right-it's the elderly as well. With millions pouring into the social security, Medicare, Medicaid systems, something needs to be done. If anything, we need to make room for the new generation, the young, strong, and healthy. After all, we're contributing much more than you at this point in time. And since we have been wise enough to hand out breeding licenses and family size numbers, surely it will be a pinch to decide whom is contributing the most to society. Well, you're not quite as fast as you used to be. Of course you still have your memory, but you're a tad bit forgetful at times. Not to mention that little house adn that retirement fund you have? Well, there's plenty of other uses to put it to. DOn't you kno there's still little children starving on the other side of the world? I know you're only 55 yrs old...thank you for volunteering to die. Society will be better off as we get rid of the useless eaters. What's that? You want to live? So do we all... SO DO WE ALL. And Gilda-in your original post you stated "But I have on my flame proof multi-colored new age outfit." Obviously, you didn't. And if you can't take the heat..well you know the rest.

-- Gen X (Just@young'un.com), September 01, 1999.

first of all.I was being mostly toungue in cheek when I talked about cane-ing.I don't use corporal punishment,although I do think a lot of the rudeness in this culture could be solved if certian actions today had consequenses.As to hitting my wife(something that violates all my moral standards and tarnishes my masters reputation merely to suggest),if I raised my hand to my wife,it'd be my last day on earth.I've been teaching my wonderful wife self-defence fur 3 yeary now.Since my wife is aware of my ability and she knows that with my attributes she would have no chance at direct confrontation,she would bend,yield as according to aiki blending with the agression yet not being overcome by it,remaining calm and understanding,entering directly into the agression without trying to change it.Then she'd shoot me in my sleep.Or if she would do as I believe should be done to all wife beaters,pour gas on me and set me on fire while sleeping.And let my terible,painful death be a lesson to all scum who would use greater strength to tyrannize the weak.If "woman is the nigger of the world",it's because more wifes aren't setting thier wife beating bastard husbands on fire,everyone sleeps sometime. Needless to say,I love and respect my wife,and would never use violence to try and win an argument.You can't change someone with your fists,and when someone raises thier hand in anger they've usualy run out of anything to say.If cane-ing were practiced without malice,merely in the spirit of social order and correctiveness,I think cane-ing could have it's place.I understand that's like saying "in a perfect world" and I was really just talking shit to illustrate to mumsie that gen-xers can not so easily be stereotypes as perhaps other generations who perhaps had more strongly identifiable generational characteristics.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Thanks Al. At least you get my point. Progress has created nightmares. Nobody is willing to give it up. What you find 'regressive', I consider natural. Nobody wants to live 'naturally' and therefore we shall reap what we sow. Continued progress will further distrupt the natural order and create new and improved nightmares. We will eventually destroy not only ourselves, but quite possibly take the majority of the 'natural' system with us, in the name of science and disguised as improvements. Nobody is willing to let go of our comforts, and whining about the results of *our* creations becomes a waste of breathe. Give it up or shut up, so to speak. Naturally, my possible solution is utterly out of the question because it is 'against the law' in our present society to simply be willing to accept the hand you were dealt. Science and technology has been forced upon us 'by law' and I reject the notion of any further laws being placed upon the natural order of our delicate ecological system. If anything, I would suggest we begin to limit this increased desire to manipulate it to our liking (medical, fossil fuel, man-made synthetic *garbage*, chemicals, etc.)

Hopefully, if given a second chance to rebuild, the option of allowing this level of destruction to the planet and ourselves will be discussed at great length and evaluated more closely. To live within the boundries of nature, is to live in harmony with our surroundings. We lost harmony before *we* were born and I for one would like to regain it. Unfortunately, some people's idea of roughing it, is being unable to catch the next episode of Jerry Springer, or the loss of their microwave oven......ohhh well. I have no intention of attempting to change anyone's mind about this, I have already set myself up for being considered 'barbaric'. Time will tell.

Tick....tock. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 02, 1999.

zoobie: "she would bend,yield as according to aiki blending with the agression yet not being overcome by it,remaining calm and understanding,entering directly into the agression without trying to change it.Then she'd shoot me in my sleep."

LOL...What an all American Gal!!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

For the record (such as it is), page's inference that I was "shouted down" here is incorrect.

I simply noticed that fetching water with a sieve doesn't work.

See my post of August 22 beginning "Few more futile enterprises..."

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 03, 1999.

Well, I'm back, and it's amazing what a change of scene does for a person. But, I was quite surprised to find that this thread had run amok, and my house and pet sitter had become famous, and her little sis grounded. My! my!

Tom, your water in a sieve analogy is very accurate. But one good thing came out of this long, useless thread for me. I found a new group to discuss ideas with. Chris, I did not take things personally, I was just tired of the crap, and was very busy. I'm glad you enjoyed Sitter's posts, she a great girl, and so is her sister.

And how do I feel about this topic I started. Well, as the fellow said to the waitress, when asked him how he liked his soup, "I'm sorry I stirred it." I must have been in a temporary state of insanity to even imagine I could get a rational and reasonalble discussion from the majority on this forum.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), September 03, 1999.

Hee, hee. The majority seemed to be agreeing with you, gilda.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

nutbag in,nutbag out.

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

"I seldom start a thread, but..."

But when she does she blows my modem ;-) Aww c'mon gilda, look at the bright side, this thread was a good brain workout all in all.

Welcome back, was wondering when you'd be back.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 04, 1999.

gilda! So good to see you still around, and posting pertinent thoughts for life on Planet Earth. I have not read all the replies yet but wanted to say hi and comment to all the nay-sayers, who uninformedly claim that there is no population problem, that they are misinformed. What I want to ask the misinformed is this:

Do you know the living conditions in Calcutta, Bombay, Tokyo? Where I live in S. California, the government no-brains would like to pull another 10 million people to live here (I have the documentation of their congress with builders/developers, they want to make money after all, and don't care about people)...they want us to be Tokyo...we are already overcrowded...they are building homes in places that have to import water.....THINK. They cannot enlarge the freeways fast enough to meet the demand of more cars.

For those who say..."Oh there is all that land in N. Dakota", I say....YOU live there. Overpopulation is a call for bacteria and virus to even up the odds. Your choice....over-population, scarcity, disease....or,...intelligent population limits. As the TV commercial used to say,..."You pay me now, or you pay me later." Are you going to bargain with the living conditions of your grandchildren? Or are you going to be like some of the indigenous peoples who made no tribal decisions until they considered the ramifications into the next seven generations?

--She who stands upon a hill clothed in a sheet

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 04, 1999.

They cannot enlarge the freeways fast enough to meet the demand of more cars.

Solving traffic jams with bigger highways is like solving obesity with a bigger belt. (Not original to me, but I can't remember where I heard it) But, as a staunch Libertarian, I hesitate to say that another government program is the solution. Once enough people have had it with traffic, a bright young man (or woman) who wants to be rich will come up with a solution that people will flock to.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 04, 1999.

Ah, but Unc, you know I am a small-a anarchist, and would never recommend government as the solution.... LOL

--In a sheet, standing upon a lonely but scenic hill,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 04, 1999.

Unc,..there are sociologists studies, a book about city building and cars,..that all say,...if roads are enlarged...more cars will come....hence my comment...and hence your quote. They have one south of me that that is 6-7 lanes wide, and still in peak "rush hour" it is at a stand still. The theory is...the larger you build the roads...the more cars will come...and we in Orange County California are in hopeless detour and gridlock for all the "expansion". A quote from Jubal Harshaw is in order...and I can't think of one...Heinlein, where are you?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 04, 1999.

"For those who say..."Oh there is all that land in N. Dakota", I say....YOU live there."

Donna sounds pretty testy about any more people moving to southern California. I guess this is the Law of "I Got Here First and Have Eminent Domain So Tough Luck". Ah, good old double standards.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

she's welcome to it,after y2k california become the land of Babylon, mon.it no fun shitting yourself to death.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 05, 1999.

Hi, Gilda, welcome back. If they gave awards for inspiring long threads, you'd get a gold star! It's been pretty interesting, too.

Will Continue, I am fascinated by your plans to have society regress (my word, I'll admit), to a more "natural" level. I used to have the same fantasy, many years ago. Have you thought about what level you would consider natural? Would we, for instance, still have tools? What would they be made of? I am not being sarcastic, here; I really did long for a return to the "old ways" when I was a young man. I thought it would be nice to have a population at about the level it was in the early 1900's, with about as much of the gadgets as were available at that time, as well. But I'm interested in YOUR ideal "natural" world.

As I grew older, and wiser (I think), I started seeing holes in my theory that we could go back in time to a simpler lifestyle. Holes in the practicality, not to mention the unlikelihood that it would ever happen.

Have you given this much thought?

Fall's in the air here, folks; hope you're all ready for winter...

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), September 05, 1999.

Hi Donna! Good to hear from you again. I have to agree with you about the road issue. Here in our Tourist Mecca, they build roads nonstop, which are guaranteed to end the traffic problems. HaHAHA! Doesn't work that way. More people, buying more cars, using more roads; there's no end.

Be sure and pay attention to Mumsie, she stated her motto very well, to paraphrase Mumsie the SpinMeister, "I got here first, and I'll Have ALL The Babies I Want, So Tough Luck."

WC-- don't agree with you, but you're a "tough old bird too, and funny as the dickens sometimes too. I like characters too."

Uncle, I don't believe in government control either--too much already. BUT, when people won't agree to stoping pollution, killing off all nonhuman species, and in this case having babies nonstop, it will eventually get to the point that the carrying capacity of the earth will be reached--not in our lifetimes--but, when it does happen, and people being to sicken and die from lack of clean air, water, and food, and they're sinking in their own waste, they *will* get government control, and it will be much worse than what it would have been if they'd practiced a little control on their own.

Donna you may as well save your breath on this thread. It wouldn't make any difference if you could fast forward this whole forum into the future and see what the increasing population in 15 or 50 years would be like, they would say, "Not True, It Ain't a Gonna' Happen!" But Mumsie may be right on this one. We might just all go up in a nuclear blaze of glory and not have to worry about drowning in the poop of 20 billion people.

I do think I should get a Gold Star for creating this Monster Thread. But I'm so tired of waiting for this bloated mass of words to load, I'm starting a new thread, a continuation of the old. Nobody's obligated to carry on this topic, but you ALL have to admit it is interesting. I'll begin my new topic with another pithy quote by one of my favorite authors, the infamous, Edward Abbey. And for my audacity, in admiring a man who hated the government so vehemently, the FBI will probably come and get me and haul me off to some god forsaken place with no trees or animals or flowers, just hoards and hoards of people, where I'll be foced to cook and iron and clean all day long and never be allowed to read a book or be alone or get on the internet again.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), September 05, 1999.

Actually, Mumsie, the point of my post was that human beings have a nasty habit of not looking forward when they make decisions....I was not in California first....I came late...1980,...but even in 1980 there was MUCH less population,...it was already overcrowded, but it was nothing compared to 1999. California is the Cadillac Desert,...desert being the operant word, WATER being the next word of importance...with or without Y2K, this space will not support any more people without turning it into Tokyo, or worse.

In a blink I'd move to 3 acres in in N. California or Oregon and subsistence-farm with a deep well.

--Stands upon a hill wearing a sheet

"They paved Paradise, and put up a parking lot." Joni Mitchell - "Big Yellow Taxi"

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 07, 1999.

This Award is Presented by
TB2K Forum Participants to
Gilda
for Monster Thread of the Year

Semptember 7, 1999

-- (.@...), September 07, 1999.

...

-- (.@...), September 07, 1999.

Gosh, .@..., you know how I love scrolling text, dancing animals, fireworks, twinkling stars, and all that cyber stuff that I haven't a clue how to do. My inner child was delighted! Thanks for the award. Do you think maybe next time we could have music too?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), September 08, 1999.

MusIc????? DieTer DoeS REquEStS, Is thAT Not sO???????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), September 08, 1999.

Be sure and pay attention to Mumsie, she stated her motto very well, to paraphrase Mumsie the SpinMeister, "I got here first, and I'll Have ALL The Babies I Want, So Tough Luck."

Actually, gilda, that's your motto, or haven't you figured this out yet? Maybe one of your grandchildren will explain it to you.

-- (pot@kettle.black), September 08, 1999.

Pot Kettle Black,

Well, I haven't figured that out yet. I've only begun to realize how weird your logic is, too.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 10, 1999.

Well, I haven't figured that out yet.

My guess is that you probably won't. You seem to be in denial, always thinking that "someone else" is to blame without understanding your own contribution to the problem you seek to "solve."

I've only begun to realize how weird your logic is, too.

It's actually very simple. If you were more objective, you would see it too, but your objectivity, such as it is, is blinded by your blatant hypocrisy. How sad.

-- (pot@kettle.black), September 10, 1999.

So, PKB, I'm the problem because I limited my reproduction to one kid? You're too much.

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 11, 1999.

So, PKB, I'm the problem because I limited my reproduction to one kid?

I never said you were the problem, just part of the problem. And you hardly "limited" anything, did you? How many kids does your oldest son have? And how many will they have, destroying our water resources, our soil resources, and our quality of life?

You're too much.

Actually, the argument is that your son and grandchildren are, in fact, too much.

-- (pot@kettle.black), September 11, 1999.