You are taking my comments _way_ too seriously Dave, relax.

"david.bircumshaw" wrote:
>
> josephine
>
> the globe's resources are quite sufficient to sustain the current and future
> expected human population, the problem is in how these resources are managed
> and how human society operates. Something that was as present when the human
> population was at 75% and less of its present figure. Recall Plato realising
> how the Greeks were denuding their mountainsides? Think of the early
> societies of North West India, and how they created human (not just 'man')
> made deserts.

>
> As for:
>
> >We have
> > removed most of natures checks against mankind's
> > overpopulation by not sending our surplus males to die in
> > hand to hand warfare and by so called 'improvements' in
> > medicine.
>
> I am speechless. If any such scenario as you do envisage did happen be
> assured that probability would ensure it wouldn't be just those you feel
> self-indulgently able to 'grin' about would be included. It would be blind,
> random and stripped of any justice.

Exactly, natures' way, and the best.

Josie
>
> David Bircumshaw
>
> Leicester, England
>
> Home Page
>
> A Chide's Alphabet
>
> Painting Without Numbers
>
> www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Printmaker" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 11:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Moral (in)visibility
>
> > Alison Croggon wrote:
> > >
> > > Whew, Josephine, are you really trying to line up with the Moral
> > > Majority...
> >
> > Not at all. My observation is that nearly every 'problem' we
> > have could be solved by reducing the world's population. I'm
> > thinking about things like environmental sustainability and
> > competition for limited resources.
> >
> > The aids reference was to do with ecosystems. Generally if a
> > population of a species becomes too large, nature adjusts by
> > a plague or other natural mechanism to bring things back
> > into balance. In man's case this includes war. We have
> > removed most of natures checks against mankind's
> > overpopulation by not sending our surplus males to die in
> > hand to hand warfare and by so called 'improvements' in
> > medicine. Aids is the latest equivalent of the black death,
> > I wasnt making a moral judgement about sexual preferences.
> >
> > And I'm not proposing we go out and kill people David,
> > (though I have a personal wishlist of who would be in the
> > 75% *grin*). The Chinese tried to reduce their population by
> > restricting birth control to one shild per family. THey are
> > on the right track. THey just have to accept that 51% of
> > babies are female...
> >
> > No, its a nice thought, but the mechanics of how to reduce
> > by 75% is beyond me.
> >
> > I dont know otiose? ANd doesn't decimate mean to reduce by
> > 10% only - I see this misused a lot.
> >
> > Not meaning to offend here, just trying to be brief - I'm
> > very busy for the next few days and havent got the time to
> > say what I really want to say the way I would like to say
> > it. SOrry for the misunderstanding.
> >
> > I'll shut up and get back to my task for a while
> > Josie
> >