population first
I need more tea before I do the rest
I was serious, but not serious. It isn't email. I was utterly deadpan. But
it is you who filled in the methodology.
I merely set the targets you see. It is up to managers to decide how to meet
them
Not serious in that I wasn't suggesting a cull. I suspect that the combined
lunatics of the world will take care of the reduction by random cull
Serious in that a massive reduction were one able to effect it without
suffering - cloning the planet ninefold would be the easiest - would be
beneficial
As you say, we are where we are; and as a voter I might come out of
retirement for a party that pays attention to overpopulation
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>;
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: connection
> Well, yeah, Lawrence, maybe the numbers do say that there are 90% too
many,
> but the fact that is is that it is the existent situation, I don't think
the
> reduction of the human population by 90% would be, um, all that pleasant,
> particularly for those not in the 'saved' 10%. Question is: how to address
> this? For poets, how to find a language that somehow draws back together
> what is falling apart? I can't pretend to have the answers, just an
> awareness of something going Terribly Wrong.
>
> There is a Buddhist tradition about this century being the Age of
> Destruction in which the human race will be vastly reduced in numbers. Not
a
> pleasant thought that.
|