 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question on death control |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Joe User |
 Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:37:01 -0800, Bibliophilia wrote:
[quote:5a3e8489d2]Nature will handle this population thing for us. The next step will be
uncontrolled horrible plagues, brought about by too many people packed too
closely. AIDS was just a shot across the bow, gentlemen.
[/quote:5a3e8489d2]
In animals, population pressure leads to starvation, followed by
endemic diseases.
My understanding is that plague (a single widespread disease) doesn't
usually come about from overpopulation. The health of the animal
population goes down first from hunger, and then the normal
endemic diseases start killing off the hungry ones.
Of course, humans fight wars. So, I guess in humans, the sequence is war,
then famine, then disease.
I seems to me that pandemics are pretty much seperate from the
overpopulation issue. Pandemics seem to start in good times.
--
Those have a short Lent, who owe Money to
be paid at Easter.
-- Ben Franklin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john fernbach |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I think we could help nature along a bit by working to provide good
contraceptive technologies, legal abortion and greater legal and
economic rights for the women of the world who are in their
child-bearing years. I know this is not as dramatically interesting as
trying to arrange for hundreds of millions of people to die painfully
in a pandemic. But better contraception availability, better access to
abortion and better educational and legal opportunities for women have
the virtue of actually working.
Yeah - the religious "right to lifers" will complain, and do complain,
about the fight for reproductive rights and the empowerment of women.
But if environmentalists ever seriously suggest that the best way to
save the global environment is for billions of people to die in the
next Asian epidemic, damn near everyone is going to complain. If
greens tie our fortunes to the fortunes of the Asia flu, we're likely
to become about as popular as the flu.
David James Polewka seems to love the idea of mass death as the best
"solution" to human population growth and ecological crisis. And I have
to admit that when I was 15, I had similar ideas about the supposed
desirability of plagues, famines & death as pro-environment measures.
But I'm not 15 any more. And on political and propaganda grounds
alone, much less moral grounds, I think it's clear that this is a DUMB
and DESTRUCTIVE idea.
People who advocate mass death in the name of "green" politics are
likely to succeed only in making green politics hated. If they aren't
double agents who are secretly working for anti-environmental
corporations, they're fools.
There is one point on which David J. probably is rather sane. He
probably recognizes that human life is embedded in the life of the
larger global ecossytem, and that for people to have good environmental
values, we need to be thinking about not just our individual skins
alone, but the welfare of the entire world. World consciousness is
good, even if it's not likely to be too popular. But to take your
personal death wish and dress it up as ecological policy, and to then
publicly propose to take measures that will kill countless human beings
in the name of ecology, is not doing the green movement any favors.
With "friends" like you, we don't need many enemies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| // u l i e n |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132275093.881599.298790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[quote:46b27d3702]
Most people don't get vaccines unless forced to, so they must know more
than you.
[/quote:46b27d3702]
Most people have feet, so you must wet your bed.
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David James Polewka |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zerge" <zerge@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:3c5f4e6149]David James Polewka wrote:
If the people decide to institute death control by stopping
the suppression of influenza, who would be charged with murder?
The people.
[/quote:3c5f4e6149]
By whom?
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
========================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David James Polewka |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"coco" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote:
[quote:92256641f7]David James Polewka wrote:
If the people decide to institute death control by stopping
the suppression of influenza, who would be charged with murder?
Well, if a politican inpower does it, most likely nothing! If a
researcher does it, most likely the politicos will organize like Pol
Pot and eliminate the researchers!
[/quote:92256641f7]
I said "If the people decide". Can't you read?
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
========================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David James Polewka |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roy. Just Roy." <delduck3@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:e90bd12fcc]There is an old saying in economics - "One does not make a fortune
doing what's right".
[/quote:e90bd12fcc]
Also, "Doing the right thing is it's own reward!"
And "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
[quote:e90bd12fcc]Do you agree we should allow the world population to
increase to 9 or 10 billion? Do you think that's fair
to future generations?
Influenza attacks primarily the elderly, PAST the age of typical
reproduction.
[/quote:e90bd12fcc]
It attacks primarily the very young and the very old. Except
in cases like the 1918 Spanish flu.
[quote:e90bd12fcc]How will denying the old medicine stop the increase in
population?
[/quote:e90bd12fcc]
Death rate is one variable. Birth rate is another. Can't
you solve an equation in two variables?
[quote:e90bd12fcc]Only mandated sterilization and child limits will truly
stop population growth - and even China couldn't
successfully enforce that.
[/quote:e90bd12fcc]
No, we need less government, because when people
get too much power, it makes them do things they
wouldn't normally do, resulting in extremely negative
consequences.
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
========================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David James Polewka |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:38c381a083]I think we could help nature along a bit by working to provide good
contraceptive technologies, legal abortion and greater legal and
economic rights for the women of the world who are in their
child-bearing years. I know this is not as dramatically interesting as
trying to arrange for hundreds of millions of people to die painfully
in a pandemic.
[/quote:38c381a083]
When you're elderly, suffering in infirmity, with no easy way out,
you'll change your tune.
[quote:38c381a083]But better contraception availability, better access to
abortion and better educational and legal opportunities for women have
the virtue of actually working.
[/quote:38c381a083]
Nuclear weapons are only barely under control right now. Do you
think the projected increase to 9 or 10 billion will put any more
pressure on people to actually use the nukes along the way?
[quote:38c381a083]Yeah - the religious "right to lifers" will complain, and do complain,
about the fight for reproductive rights and the empowerment of women.
But if environmentalists ever seriously suggest that the best way to
save the global environment is for billions of people to die in the
next Asian epidemic, damn near everyone is going to complain. If
greens tie our fortunes to the fortunes of the Asia flu, we're likely
to become about as popular as the flu.
David James Polewka seems to love the idea of mass death as the best
"solution" to human population growth and ecological crisis. And I have
to admit that when I was 15, I had similar ideas about the supposed
desirability of plagues, famines & death as pro-environment measures.
But I'm not 15 any more. And on political and propaganda grounds
alone, much less moral grounds, I think it's clear that this is a DUMB
and DESTRUCTIVE idea.
People who advocate mass death in the name of "green" politics are
likely to succeed only in making green politics hated. If they aren't
double agents who are secretly working for anti-environmental
corporations, they're fools.
There is one point on which David J. probably is rather sane. He
probably recognizes that human life is embedded in the life of the
larger global ecossytem, and that for people to have good environmental
values, we need to be thinking about not just our individual skins
alone, but the welfare of the entire world. World consciousness is
good, even if it's not likely to be too popular. But to take your
personal death wish and dress it up as ecological policy, and to then
publicly propose to take measures that will kill countless human beings
in the name of ecology, is not doing the green movement any favors.
With "friends" like you, we don't need many enemies.
[/quote:38c381a083]
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
========================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David James Polewka |
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> wrote:
[quote:fcca975dba]imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) wrote:
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
The question is mute, because in a free society, government cannot stop
the manufacture of a commodity that is in demand, and that
manufacturers may make a profit from. For support, I refer you to
http://www.dea.gov - you can slow their distribution, but drugs will
find a way to those that will pay for them.
Now, if you are REALLY serious in decreasing the life span, cut
Medicaid and Medicare. Both programs cost the taxpayer billions, and
extend life prolonging medical treatment to the elderly. Abolition of
these plans would force the elderly to afford their own medications at
open market prices, or die.
Do you agree we should allow the world population to
increase to 9 or 10 billion? Do you think that's fair
to future generations?
As opposed to what, machine-gunning the "excess"? Malthus
was wrong.
[/quote:fcca975dba]
No,...stopping the suppression of influenza (for starters).
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
========================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:42 am |
|
|
|
|
David James Polewka wrote:
[quote:3245c9ee3c]"coco" <aozotorp@aol.com> wrote:
David James Polewka wrote:
If the people decide to institute death control by stopping
the suppression of influenza, who would be charged with murder?
Well, if a politican inpower does it, most likely nothing! If a
researcher does it, most likely the politicos will organize like Pol
Pot and eliminate the researchers!
I said "If the people decide". Can't you read?
[/quote:3245c9ee3c]
Yes and I can watch C-Span and Congress and realize they think they are
Gods once annointed by election and are seldomly thrown out of the jobs
= Therefoe the common sheeple do not decide as you say!
[quote:3245c9ee3c]
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================[/quote:3245c9ee3c] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:59 am |
|
|
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 16:51:33 -0800, "Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:6cacb99e25]Most people don't get vaccines unless forced to, so they must know more
than you.
[/quote:6cacb99e25]
Most people who get vaccines are young children, so yes, they are
"forced" to. Thanks for giving us a demonstration of your stupidity.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:18 am |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:32:31 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com>
wrote:
[quote:63cef53e1e]imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) wrote:
Do you agree we should allow the world population to
increase to 9 or 10 billion? Do you think that's fair
to future generations?
As opposed to what, machine-gunning the "excess"? Malthus
was wrong.
[/quote:63cef53e1e]
I lived in Tokyo for three years. It was quite pleasant, though a
little crowded on the morning commute. If the whole world were to
acquire the same population density as Tokyo (supported by hydroponics
powered by orbiting solar collectors, say), the total population would
be in the trillions. I don't think there is much doubt that there
will be some kind of technological singularity long before the earth
reaches its carrying capacity.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
royls@telus.net wrote:
[quote:cf3e6864a0]I don't think there is much doubt that there
will be some kind of technological singularity long before the earth
reaches its carrying capacity.
[/quote:cf3e6864a0]
Not to mention that it is by no means certain that population will
continue to grow indefinately, as this means that each woman, on
average, needs to have more than two children, which they tend not to
when living in more developed social conditions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Annan |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quirk wrote:
[quote:3fd7d7761b]royls@telus.net wrote:
I don't think there is much doubt that there
will be some kind of technological singularity long before the earth
reaches its carrying capacity.
Not to mention that it is by no means certain that population will
continue to grow indefinately, as this means that each woman, on
average, needs to have more than two children, which they tend not to
when living in more developed social conditions.
[/quote:3fd7d7761b]
Just as a point of information, the birth rate in japan is currently
about 1.2 children per woman. Yes, 1.2, not 2.2.
James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roy. Just Roy. |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:e6ef417b23]Most people who get vaccines are young
children, so yes, they are
"forced" to.
[/quote:e6ef417b23]
Depends on the vaccine supply and disease. In the case of influenza,
with conditions of limited stock, the elderly are placed higher on the
priority list. Why? Because influenza is irritating for the young, but
deadly for the old.
[quote:e6ef417b23]Thanks for giving us a demonstration of your
stupidity.
[/quote:e6ef417b23]
Roy's Postulate - On Usenet, those that CLAIM intelligence most often
are the ones who do not USE it.
/Roy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill |
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
x-no-archive: yes
David James Polewka wrote:
[quote:3315cecc4b]Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> wrote:
imbibe@mindspring.com (David Polewka) wrote:
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
The question is mute, because in a free society, government cannot stop
the manufacture of a commodity that is in demand, and that
manufacturers may make a profit from. For support, I refer you to
http://www.dea.gov - you can slow their distribution, but drugs will
find a way to those that will pay for them.
Now, if you are REALLY serious in decreasing the life span, cut
Medicaid and Medicare. Both programs cost the taxpayer billions, and
extend life prolonging medical treatment to the elderly. Abolition of
these plans would force the elderly to afford their own medications at
open market prices, or die.
Do you agree we should allow the world population to
increase to 9 or 10 billion? Do you think that's fair
to future generations?
As opposed to what, machine-gunning the "excess"? Malthus
was wrong.
No,...stopping the suppression of influenza (for starters).
[/quote:3315cecc4b]
Same thing.
You first.
[quote:3315cecc4b]
=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================
--[/quote:3315cecc4b]
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:45 pm
|
|