A.D. 2100: Cornell study warns of a miserable life on overcrowded Earth if population and resources are not controlled

FOR RELEASE: Sept. 20, 1999

Contact: Roger Segelken Office: (607) 255-9736 E-Mail: hrs2@cornell.edu

ITHACA, N.Y. -- One hundred years from now, democratically determined population-control practices and sound resource-management policies could have the planet's 2 billion people thriving in harmony with the environment. Lacking these approaches, a new Cornell University study suggests, 12 billon miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth by the year 2100.

"Of course, reducing population and using resources wisely will be a challenging task in the coming decades," says David Pimentel, lead author of the report titled "Will Limits of the Earth's Resources Control Human Numbers?" in the first issue of the journal Environment, Development and Sustainability.

"It will be much more difficult," Pimentel says, "to survive in a world without voluntary controls on population growth and ever diminishing supplies of the Earth's resources."

Even at a reduced world population of 2 billion in A.D. 2100, life for the average Earth dweller will not be as luxurious as it is for many Americans today. But the lifestyle won't be as wasteful of resources, either, the Cornell ecologist predicts. Some observers are seeing early signs that nature is taking a hand at reducing human populations through malnutrition and disease. According to the report, global climate change is beginning to contribute to the food and disease problems.

"With a democratically determined population policy that respects basic individual rights, with sound resource-use policies, plus the support of science and technology to enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment," the report concludes, "an optimum population of 2 billion for the Earth can be achieved."

Then the fortunate 2 billion will be free from poverty and starvation, living in an environment capable of sustaining human life with dignity, the report suggests, adding a cautionary note:

"We must avoid letting human numbers continue to increase and surpass the limit of Earth's natural resources and forcing natural forces to control our number by disease, malnutrition and violent conflicts over resources," the report says.

Among the key points in the report:

-- The world population is projected to double in about 50 years.

-- Even if a worldwide limit of 2.1 children per couple were adopted tomorrow, Earth's human population would continue to increase before stabilizing at around 12 billion in more than 60 years. The major reason for continued growth is "population momentum," due to the predominantly young age structure of the world population.

-- The U.S. population has doubled during the past 60 years to 270 million and, at the current growth rate, is projected to double again, to 540 million, in the next 75 years. Each year our nation adds 3 million people (including legal immigrants) to its population, plus an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants.

-- Increasing U.S. and global population will place restrictions on certain freedoms: freedom to travel and commute to work quickly and efficiently, freedom to visit and enjoy natural areas, freedom to select desired foods and freedom to be effectively represented by government

-- Today, more than 3 billion people suffer from malnutrition, the largest number and proportion of the world population in history, according to the World Health Organization. Malnutrition increases the susceptibility to diseases such as diarrhea and malaria.

-- One reason for the increase in malnutrition is that production of grains per capita has been declining since 1983. Grains provide 80 percent to 90 percent of the world's food. Each additional human further reduces available food per capita.

-- The reasons for this per capita decrease in food production are a 20 percent decline in cropland per capita, a 15 percent decrease in water for irrigation and a 23 percent drop in the use of fertilizers.

-- Biotechnology and other technologies apparently have not been implemented fast enough to prevent declines in per capita food production during the past 17 years.

-- Considering the resources likely to be available in A.D. 2100, the optimal world population would be about 2 billion, with a standard of living about half that of the United States in the 1990s, or at the standard experienced by the average European.

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

Answers

Perhaps those in favor of restricting the Earth's population will further that goal by suiciding.

George

-- George Valentine (GeorgeValentine@usa.net), September 22, 1999.

-- Considering the resources likely to be available in A.D. 2100, the optimal world population would be about 2 billion, with a standard of living about half that of the United States in the 1990s, or at the standard experienced by the average European.

Its totally coincidental that this comes out about 100 days before that little BITR thingy... right?

Anybody at Cornell been turning their brain power on Y2K lately? [if not, why not?]

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 23, 1999.

As stated in the 100 day Senate y2k report on the Food Industry: "...advances in seed, fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide, have made American farmers the most productive in the world. A century ago, the average U.S. farm output fed eight people. Today, it feeds 212."

There are various current and approaching dynamics, (including y2k,) that appear to be reversing the "advances" of this century in the direction of a reduction from the modern fed/farmer ratio. As a consequence, food may be a more widespread limiting factor to human population growth in the future.

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), September 23, 1999.

I'm afraid that would take from the intelligent gene pool, George. Does it make more sense to plan ahead and control birth rates, or to destroy existing life?

-- Klar (klarbrunn@lycos.com), September 23, 1999.

Klar,

Every attempt to control something (by government or whoever) has served to benefit those in control at the expense of those being controlled. Rather that open that can of worms again, I would rather let nature take its course so that those that are capable of surviving do, and those who are not capable of surviving don't.

Given my first sentence in this reply, you can see that I believe that the suicides that I recommended will _not_ reduce the average intelligence of the world population, merely reduce the number of those who would control it.

George

-- George Valentine (GeorgeValentine@usa.net), September 23, 1999.

Cornell Shmornell - guy's a fuckin idiot.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

Not to worry -- the CULL SCYTHE is about to Swing ...

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

Excuse me, but if the "population controls" really are to be "voluntary", how exactly does that differ from what we do now ?

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 23, 1999.

Cornell Shmornell - guy's a fuckin idiot. -- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

Ok most wise one, care to submit an argument to back up your eloquent statement, or is this all that you're capable of?

Good post a!

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), September 23, 1999.

This is the same UN-Socialist-Malthusian-Enviornmentalist jibberish that makes the rounds every decade or so. These guys at Cornell are just another set of shills for the PTB.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), September 23, 1999.

Mabel,

If you had not happened upon this thread I would be willing to go into a detailed discussion with these other posters. But having gotten a taste of your psychotic mentality the other night, it would be pointless trying to argue with you. Since you boasted about how you would like to go out on the town with your gun to kill innocent prostitutes, I already know that you are among the "kill off the population" crowd, and you would be incapable of understanding an intelligent perspective.

a,

I do appreciate this article and find it interesting, I just strongly disagree with the opinions of this "genius" from Cornell. And that's ALL he's got is opinions. Nothing personal against your decision to post it, of course.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

Does the article even hint at who funded the study?

THis is the same old Margaret Sanger / Planned Parenthood rap of decades ago: the horror of population overflow. Hmm, where do we start, who do we have too many of? In the early Sanger/Planned Parenthood days, those most guilty of the problem were by coincidence of the darker complexion persuasion...

-- Scarecrow (who@cares.hmm), September 23, 1999.

You who are intelligent enough to see the overwhelming threat of an exponentially growing population will always be shouted down by those who either refuse to see, or are too ignorant to see the problem. But believe me, when the food gets scarce, the water is scarce and polluted, the air is like breathing through a polluted electric blanket, and the temperature is soaring, the naysayers will be the first in line to bring their broods to the feeding stations and squall, "Why didn't somebody warn us??? Feed my babies!! Why haven't you done something to avert this!! Do something NOW!"

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

I do appreciate this article and find it interesting, I just strongly disagree with the opinions of this "genius" from Cornell. And that's ALL he's got is opinions. Nothing personal against your decision to post it, of course. -- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

Better @, now state why you disagree with the opinions and we might have something worth reading.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), September 23, 1999.

a,

Back in the seventies, the alarm bell was sounded loudly, when Paul Erlich published "The Population Bomb". Quickly the idea of overpopulation being a problem was attacked by conservative Christians, because of biblical admonisions to "Go forth and multiply". Then the PCers jumped ship, with claims that population control measures would be inherently racist in it's outcomes, and tantamount to genocide. The overpopulation issue then became the domain of moderates. Moderates never get listened to, because infantile extremists do such a good job of painting those in the middle as wishy-washy cowards who can't make up their mind (balance is for people who can't commit, don't cha know?).

So the issue just died away, for a while. Now, when we are facing the possibilities of many-fold losses of critical infrastructure, people, who see that we just might not have the continued capacity to carry the number of people the earth currently has, are beginning to come out of hiding.

There's nothing draconian about the renewed focus on this issue. It's just basic common sense. A huge number of the world's population is kept alive by the technological marvels we have concocted. First, the people in the industrialized nations will feel the burn. Then it will cascade into collapsing the economies of third world nations that depend on export dollars.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone can take their acussations of "fascist/socialist", and shove them where the sun don't shine. When we who have prepared have to be the ones to help shovel all the dead bodies off the street, to keep down the stench and disease, we're all gonna wish that people had heeded earlier warnings and done something about this problem.

The darkly amusing thing about this issue, is the parallel, with the Y2K issue. Warnings have been sounded, but yet it seems that most people poo-poo it. Everybody wants to rationalize the problem away, until it's too late.

Common sense usually is a heavy burden, but you do not escape that burden, by refusing to carry it. You either accept the weight up front, or else it is heaped upon you, a thousand-fold, at a later date.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 23, 1999.

Unbelievable. They have eyes but still do not see.

Gilda writes:

"the overwhelming threat of an exponentially growing population"

What is threatening about the population? Perhaps because it is full of people like you who think it is OK to kill off your fellow man? Space? Is that what you're worried about? The population density of a city such as Tokyo exceeds 60,000 per sq. mile. These people choose to live here, and it is actually one of the most productive and progressive areas of the world. If you apply those types of densities to the rest of the planet's inhabitable surface, you will see there is room for at least 200 times our current population, or over 1 trillion. 200 TIMES the current population! This is not even considering that with advances in technology we will be able to create much more inhabitable space ABOVE the surface in skyscrapers, floating cities, etc. Ever see the Jetson's? Life imitates art, in fact the flying cars are already being produced. Space certainly isn't a problem, and by that time we will be inhabiting the moon, Mars, and other planets.

"too ignorant to see the problem"

Rather ironic that you said that... because it is YOU (and the genius from Cornell) who are too ignorant to see the real problem, even though you spelled it out right in front of your very own face:

"when the food gets scarce, the water is scarce and polluted, the air is like breathing through a polluted electric blanket, and the temperature is soaring"

I'm not going to waste too much time arguing about "food scarcity", because that one holds no water whatsoever. It just happens to be perceived as an immediate threat because people need food everyday, so this is the easiest way to scare them. We destroy hundreds of tons of crops because we have too much to sell, we dump thousands of tons of perfectly good food into landfills every day. The fact of the matter is that the human race is capable of producing far more food than is necessary for the population, they just have certain "economic" problems with distributing it.

Now, getting to the crux of this matter, you nailed it on the head Gilda...pollution, and man's stubborn insistence on continuing to use non-renewable energy. This jerkoff from Cornell writes an article in "the first issue of the journal Environment, Development and Sustainability" yet bases his conclusions on the utterly ignorant assumption that we MUST continue to use non-sustainable energy and resources! THAT is why I think he is an idiot. The alternatives are there, and it is high time that mankind WAKES UP and sees the smog in front of their face, and DO SOMETHING to change, instead of repeating the same self-destructive behaviors OVER and OVER again! What you are saying is like saying that if you run out of gasoline you should throw away your car. Except you are talking about the most precious gift that God has given us, LIFE! Reducing the population might be a temporary fix, but it still doesn't solve the REAL problem of pollution and using the wrong types of resources.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

Bokonon, very well said. Yes the parallel to Y2K is glaring. People make fun of the pollies for not "getting it" aboutY2K, but about overpopulation, they are the pollies that don't get it.

There's an interesting little book by Lawrence Lader, "Breeding Ourselves to Death," that should be required reading. And no, it's not a new book. It was written in 1971. Back then, the religious right hadn't silenced politicians into being afraid to mention overpopulation. After he left office, Eisenhower said the population explosion is "one of the most critical problems of our time." Nixon praised Hugh Moore for establishing his education foundation. Lyndon Johnson made repeated statements concerning overpopulation, President Kennedy spoke on the subject, despite the Catholic Church. And Nixon was the first American President to send a message to congress that overpopulation should be dealt with. It' s amazing now to see the support for population stabilization at that time, when today, if we dare mention the word we are verbally attacked.

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

Those who don't believe in birth control and abortion are f*ing idiots -- literally.

Nothing like a post of a bit of common sense to bring out all the religious wackos and bleeding hearts.

The problem -- and it IS a problem -- you religious doofuses -- has a few very simple solutions.
1) Let the wog nations starve.
2) In the U.S. and other similar nations, no more subsidizing of people plopping out rug-rats like turds. (That means no tax deductions, no free schooling, no free medical care.)
3) Using peer pressure and shunning and other forms of discrimination to discourage brainless breeders from dropping more litters.

Don't bother to flame, I'm not going to respond.

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

A,

I don't see any comments from "religious wackos and bleeding hearts" here...where did that come from - prejudice? Open your mind you cowardly ignoramus. The answers are right in front of you.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

A,

Since you're a reasonable man, and never allow your own prejudices to affect your reasoning and decision making ability...maybe you should be the one who evaluates which cultures, races, or creeds require birth and death quotas. What a great idea!! After all...it's for the good of mankind...Hey! Somebody's got to do something,Right?

But that seems to be an old idea that didn't quite work out like it was envisioned (see World History 101, especially the chapters on Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and any number of similar visionary despots of the 20th century)

No...somehow I get the feeling that you wouldn't always make the wisest choices. I'm afraid that even you, a man of unquestioned virtue and integrity are still not fit to take on the role of God when it comes to matters of life and death.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), September 23, 1999.

Alright @ before I buy your argument, I have a few questions would like to see your sources of information and their research.

Please list renewable energy resources that dont pollute.

Can modern farms, continue to produce so much food using methods that dont pollute the environment?

If we dont produce as much food can we can we continue to support an increasing population?

People produce waste, how do you handle waste in a manner that generates renewable resources, quickly?

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), September 23, 1999.

IMHO Paul got it right a long time ago. He just had the wrong dates. We can support 20 million people without trouble [in terms of food]. But the quality of life???? In my life time I have seen it go down the tubes. Did you drive in Seattle in 1960 and compare it to 1999? Did you hike the Colorado mountains in the 1950's or the Wind River in the 1960's. Have you done it lately? Have you been to Yellowstone or Glacier? What about the fish populations in Puget Sound and Georges Banks? How about the salmon in Oregon? How about Cape Fear in 1960 compared to now? I could go on and on. The question is not survival but how nice that survival will be. Do you want to leave your children nothing more than a chance for survival at all costs?

Best wishe

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 1999.

Note: that should be 20 billion people. It could be done now without political complications

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 1999.

a@a.a, Great article; thanks. As expected, the ostrich types have come out in force. They seem to believe that if we don't acknowledge the problem, then it doesn't exist. And it's really going to be difficult to pull their heads out of the sand. Or wherever.

@@@@@@@, you're a perfect example of this. Do you really want to live on a planet, the entire surface area of which has the population density of Tokyo? Hello? Sounds so nice. Where would you go to "get away"? To a virtual reality center, where you could envision yourself in a peaceful space, surrounded by something other than concrete and scurrying humans everywhere? Oh, wait--I forgot about your clever plan to have the population density be even GREATER than that of Tokyo by adding "storage room" for more population above ground. Sure, why not build cities one hundred miles high? We could have EVEN MORE people to glorify your plan. Of course, those on the lower level would never get to see the sky, but, hey, we could filter all the air, and put perfume in it. Lots better than all those stinky flowers and trees. And dirt. And those damn messy rivers.

Interesting that you should say you have concerns about us WAKING UP and seeing the smog in front of our faces, and DO SOMETHING to change, instead of repeating the same self-destructive behaviors OVER and OVER again!

You recommend eliminating fossil fuels, rather than reducing population, claiming "Reducing the population might be a temporary fix, but it still doesn't solve the REAL problem of pollution and using the wrong types of resources"

I agree that we should eliminate fossil fuels. But I submit that reducing the population by, say, 75% would eliminate 75% of the population, more or less, even WITHOUT improving our resource use. But to reduce our resource use by the same amount (75%) would only reduce pollution by that amount for a limited amount of time. When the population grows back to the original level, we are back to the same amount of pollution. If you assume that we can improve our efficiency in resource use, that only delays the day when we reach the same level of pollution. And shortages.

You ask if we have seen the "Jetsons". Nope, I haven't seen them, or it. What is it, a TV cartoon? Or fantasy program? Is this what you are basing your projections on?

Gilda, hi, again; I wonder when the thumpers are going to find this post? :) Say hi to the sitter and bonkers!

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 23, 1999.

AlK:

I fail to understand your response. I am evidently one of your "ostrich types" although I don't understand why. What you said made no sense to me. Maybe you could go into more detail.

Best wishes,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 1999.

Mabel,

I find it hard to believe that you haven't heard about alternative forms of energy, but since you seem sincerely interested I'll try to help you.

Your questions:

Q: "Please list renewable energy resources that dont pollute."

God tried to make it real easy for us but we insisted on learning the hard way. The best solutions are often so simple and obvious that we don't even notice them.

A: SUN, WIND, WATER

Q: "Can modern farms, continue to produce so much food using methods that dont pollute the environment?"

A: Of course. Any machinery used to produce food can be powered by the types of energy I just listed.

Q: "If we dont produce as much food can we can we continue to support an increasing population?"

A: We should always try to produce enough food for everyone, or at least share the resources that they need to provide it for themselves. Since we are capable of doing so, to do otherwise is inhumane.

Q: "People produce waste, how do you handle waste in a manner that generates renewable resources, quickly?"

A: We should not produce non-recycleable waste, it's not good for the planet. Ask the animals. Everything they use is restored to the planet to someday return again in the form of natural resources. They have been around for millions of years longer than us, and they were doing just fine until we came along.

Mabel, now that you have access to the Internet, you have a world of information to learn from, so please help save our planet by learning more. Here are just a few links to get started:

a good basic introductory lesson

s olar energy

wind energy

I urge anyone who feels this is a good solution to write letters to the government demanding them to enact legislation that will help make this a reality. There is an automatic mailer to Pres. Clinton on the Greenpeace site.

Al K. Loyd,

I don't know how to respond to someone like you. I have a feeling that these debates about population growth always bring out the worst of the Rush Limbaugh fan club. It scares me to think that there are still a lot of people who feel the way you do, and I fear for the future of Mankind.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

Sorry about that second link - it's a dud.

Try these:

natural energy solutions

solar energy

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

@

I think you're short a few recyclables in your bin. But what the hell it's a slow night, I'll play ball with you for a while.

My question to you was "Please list renewable energy resources that dont pollute." I thought you would understand and address this in context of the discussion....I guess not.

Your answer: SUN, WIND, WATER

@, if you limit your production of energy to sun, wind and water you greatly limit the areas where people can live. Can you imagine trying to use solar in the British Isles, or hydro electric in the desert? Wind power is unreliable anywhere because of normal fluctuations and the amount of wind you get. These all work great as supplemental energy, but at our present level of technology there is no way we could support the world based on these three sources.

My next question: "Can modern farms, continue to produce so much food using methods that dont pollute the environment?"

And your answer: Of course. Any machinery used to produce food can be powered by the types of energy I just listed.

Uhhh ok...but what about the pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers, not to mentions such patently bad ideas as "hog lagoons", that have to be used to produce such high level of yields?

I then asked: "If we dont produce as much food can we can we continue to support an increasing population?"

And your answer: We should always try to produce enough food for everyone, or at least share the resources that they need to provide it for themselves. Since we are capable of doing so, to do otherwise is inhumane.

uhhhh yup...care to elaborate?

My last question: "People produce waste, how do you handle waste in a manner that generates renewable resources, quickly?"

Your answer: We should not produce non-recyclable waste, it's not good for the planet. Ask the animals. Everything they use is restored to the planet to someday return again in the form of natural resources. They have been around for millions of years longer than us, and they were doing just fine until we came along.

Nice answer, very pc, but a tad DGI. What about poop (see hog lagoons above), auto exhaust, even cow farts... also the key word here is ....quickly. The faster a population grows the faster (pardon the expression), shit happens.

@ sharpen the tools in your shed, and give it another try.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), September 24, 1999.

I had a feeling I should have trusted my instincts about you. You are still the same psychopath I encountered the other night, just trying to pick another fight. You obviously didn't read any of the links I provided, and judging by how much you know about solar energy, my guess would be that you were just recently released from jail. On second thought, I heard they are allowing convicts to use the Internet in prison these days, so that explains a lot.

Solar and Wind energy can be used to generate electrical power, which can be transmitted across a thing called wire, to any location, or can be stored, in a thing called batteries.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN THE DIRECT SUN TO USE SOLAR POWER, YOU MEATHEAD!! You are obviously some kind of demented retard.

GAME OVER!!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 24, 1999.

Temper, temper @

I'm sure we can discuss this in calm tones.

You stated: Solar and Wind energy can be used to generate electrical power, which can be transmitted across a thing called wire, to any location, or can be stored, in a thing called batteries. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN THE DIRECT SUN TO USE SOLAR POWER, YOU MEATHEAD!! You are obviously some kind of demented retard.

I guess you're stating we don't have to worry if the power grid goes down? Do you really feel that solar power at our present technological level will take care of all the needs of the average American city?

I await your answer...eagerly.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), September 24, 1999.

@@@@ sure sounds a lot like INVAR

-- (just@observing.now), September 24, 1999.

@,

You stated: If you apply those types of densities to the rest of the planet's inhabitable surface, you will see there is room for at least 200 times our current population, or over 1 trillion. 200 TIMES the current population! This is not even considering that with advances in technology we will be able to create much more inhabitable space ABOVE the surface in skyscrapers, floating cities, etc.

Great plan. Then we could genetically engineer people to be half as tall. We could fit twice as many, in the same building size. Then we could stick tubes in everybody, for food intake and excrement output. If no one has to move about, I'm sure we could at least quadruple the population again. What does that bring us up to? 8 trillion? Still too small a number. Must have more space. Ahh yes! We haven't yet exploited all the vastness of the earth's many underground caverns! There's the ticket! 3 foot tall, intubated, blind cave people! Should be able to cram another trillion in. Not good enough! Must make it to at least ten trillion! Where, where, where? The SKY!!! Of course! More genetic engineering, is what we need! People born with large gas bladders filled with helium, so they can float in the upper atmosphere. My heavens! We might be able to hit 30 trillion!!!

I think I figured it out, @. You're a looney.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 24, 1999.

Go fuck yourself Boko. Negative thinking never accomplishes anything, but if you prefer to kill off 2/3 of the population, PLEASE do us a favor and start with your sick disgusting self, RIGHT NOW. Asshole!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 24, 1999.

@,

I take that back, you're not a looney. You're 12. Possibly a 14 year old, with retarded development, but most probably 12.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 24, 1999.

OK, people -
Count to ten. Deep breath. Deep breath. Deep breath.

Smile : )

-- mil (millenium@yahoo.com), September 24, 1999.

Regarding population and pollution control, there is one thing I'd like to point out:

One average American takes more out of this planet than approximately nine-hundred average Africans.

-- Dale (chijua@austnet.com), September 24, 1999.

Hi Al K, How I told you to get in touch with me won't work as my email on here requires a password. I had to do that to avoid flames and threats and sermons by the virtuous crowd. Also, I got tired of getting millions of ads. I only have a few minutes to post as I'm leaving in an hour to go to the anuual book sale, sponsored by Planned Parenthood (gasp) in Des Moines, IA. I'll be back Monday and then I'll contact you on this thread. I think I have a way for you to contact me through Old Git who has my real email address.

House Sitter was sick last weekend and couldn't come over, but she sent her best to you and Chris.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), September 24, 1999.

Al K, A, Gilda, Bokonon:

You each have sidestepped the real issue. Dwindling resources, pollution and quality of life questions are but syptoms of the greater issue...the regulation of population. And not one of you has volunteered to take the giant step of deciding who is best suited to regulate population growth. Any volunteers? Maybe each one of you should be interviewed as a candidate for the office of "Czar of World Population Control". Here goes:

A, -- As per my previous post, you seem to be unqualified to fill the post due to a) your intolerance of Christians, and b) your inability to master the art of debate...when presented with a reasoned argument, you generally stoop to personal attack and profanity-laced diatribes. Not at all of what we would expect from a world leader.

A,-- Don't call us; we'll call you! NEXT CANDIDATE PLEASE!!

Bokonon, -- Your 2nd post reveals that you have cultivated a wry sense of humor... an admirable and necessary trait to have in order to adequately fulfill your duties as population Czar. Unfortunately, like A, you dismiss dissenters with reasoning like this...(As far as I'm concerned, everyone can take their acussations of "fascist/socialist", and shove them where the sun don't shine.) We just can't afford that kind of attitude in someone who carries such a great and heavy responsibility...now can we?

Bokonon, -- My secretary will show you to the door! NEXT CANDIDATE PLEASE!!

Al K & gilda, -- Your resume states that the both of you graduated with honors from the Margaret Sanger School of Eugenics. Despite the fact that you positively debate the issues without descending into mudslinging, this world cannot afford the likes of another visionary like Sanger, whose beliefs influenced Hitler, Himmler, and their Nazi friends. Therefore...your candidacy will not be considered.

Al K & gilda, -- Uh, when you leave...please close the door behind you. Thanks! NEXT CANDIDATE PLEASE! Oh!...no more candidates today? Great! Call Kofi Annan at the U.N. and tell him we're still having difficulty filling this position. And by the way...GET ME SOME MORE COFFEE!!

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), September 24, 1999.

How do you have 2.1 children??? Is that like 2 kids and a leg off another???

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), September 24, 1999.

Perhaps if we looked at the "other end" of the life-cycle we might find a solution.

I, for one, don't want to live as long as my parents have if it means (1) a reduced quality of life; (2) bankruptcy for the expense; (3) burdening my children with costs of support. I am a "boomer." I think older people of courage should take the bull by the horns and interject some sanity into medicine and the hysteria leading to saving lives at all costs. Instead of screaming "me, me, me," "greedy geezers" should remove the guilt from their children's shoulders and say "no more." Society, as public policy, should not have to go to extraordinary lengths and costs to prolong the average life span into its nineties. We have become a culture terrified of death. Boomers need to summon the courage to take responsible actions to say "no, I will not act as my parent's generation. I will change this."

I have started by putting clauses in my will to let me go without extraordinary medical efforts, if I am incapacitated to make that decision myself. I also hope that I will have the courage to say an appropriate "no" to well-meaning physicians who attempt to go to extraordinary lengths to prop me up, pump me up and sew me up as I age. I hope to die with dignity and peace and perspective.

-- anon (anon@anon.com), September 24, 1999.

TM,

Applause! Applause! I see you have mastered the fine art of disinformation! #14 on the list of the rules of disinformation, I believe. Excellent work!

Can you direct me to the point where I claimed to have THE answers, to the problem? My memory seems to be failing me here. I can only remember highlighting that there is a problem to be considered. Perhaps you, being the good Christian that you are, will help out a poor wayfaring stranger, and point him the way?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but saying that anyone who cared to call me a "fascist/socialist" could kiss my shiney hiney, was not an insult, but an act of defiance. Now, calling @ a looney? THAT was an insult. Take the time to read posts more carefully, and you might stand a chance of being able to score a point or two.

For the record, I propose nothing more draconian than a shift in attitude. A shift in attitude that can only happen if you "go forth and mutiply" zealots and the "No! No! No! It's genocide" PCers would kindly get the hell out of the way.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 25, 1999.

Bokonon, great posts, as usual (see, I've already forgiven you for drinking Nescafe)

@@@@, You have spouted so much strange stuff, that I don't even know where to begin; besides, others have mostly pointed you in the right direction. But when you say, "Al K. Loyd,

I don't know how to respond to someone like you. I have a feeling that these debates about population growth always bring out the worst of the Rush Limbaugh fan club. It scares me to think that there are still a lot of people who feel the way you do, and I fear for the future of Mankind.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 23, 1999.

I think you are caught up in some kind of space/time discontinuum, or something. I've been called a "bleeding-heart liberal, a pinko, a goddamed environmentalist, and an alternative energy researcher", but a "Rush Limbaugh fan". Hellooooooooooooooooo?

I guess all I can say about you, @@@@@, is "you don't know where it's @"

Gilda, I await your instrucions re trading e addies through Old Git, if it's ok with Old Git. Sorry Sitter's sick; give her my best. Also her sister, please.

TM, you say,

Al K & gilda, -- Your resume states that the both of you graduated with honors from the Margaret Sanger School of Eugenics. Despite the fact that you positively debate the issues without descending into mudslinging, this world cannot afford the likes of another visionary like Sanger, whose beliefs influenced Hitler, Himmler, and their Nazi friends. Therefore...your candidacy will not be considered.

You are totally clueless. NO ONE has suggested using Eugenics. That's not even relevant to this conversation. Neither are you.

Furthermore, I have no interest in being "Czar of World Population Control". Anyone who would be interested is most likely not qualified for the job. Get a job.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 27, 1999.