Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

02-05-2007, 09:50 PM

Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up enough
>>> then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few million. No
>>> food ==== no people.
>>
>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?
>>
>
> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide and
> euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>
> Are those options acceptable to you?

I was expecting attrition would take care of the problem, but whatever
works...

Really, are we better off because we have 6 billion people? I'm pretty
unhappy about traffic, and it's worse in other places. I don't want
every square inch of the earth covered with people and buildings, do
you? I see no alternative.

>> Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot better
>> off when we had far fewer people, maybe it could be that way again.
>
> Nice idea, but who would you kill?

Well, NOT the few hundred people I actually know. People who don't know
how to merge onto a freeway. People who stand in doorways wondering
where they should go. People who expect everybody else to support their
children. People who deliberately buy a lot of luxury goods and then
declare bankruptcy. People who drive obliviously because they're
talking on the phone. Lots of others...

>>>> Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still
>>>> inhabited
>>>> today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology,

> I've never been to Bangladesh,

It's situated perfectly for the disastrous floods that happen every few
years, resulting in drowning, famine, poverty and rock concerts for
Bangladesh relief. It's not like it's a surprise or anything, and
sensible people would have moved long ago.

> but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a
> wonderful place.

Sure it is (or was), but just how much should each of us contribute to
reconstructing it so the next incarnation of Katrina can wipe it out
again?

> A tragedy occurred there, but remember that nearly
> 300,000 people were killed in Asia as a result of the tsunami a couple
> of years ago. Katrina pales in comparison to that. Should we just
> extreminate everyone in SE Asia?

Not our problem.

> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them,
> refuse to offer aid when disaster strikes?

How about making the aid contingent on their doing something with it to
ensure they'll never need it again? I'd go along with that policy for
floods along the Mississippi River, too.

>>>>> Nah, too much trouble.
>>
>>
>>>> The real reason we arent stupid enough to cripple
>>>> economys for something that is clearly readily fixable.
>>>>
>>>> Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea levels.
>>
>> What's wrong with the Dutch?
>
> Nothing - what makes you think that statement suggests something is
> wrong with them?

He said "Even the Dutch," which would seem to imply that even a people
as <negative adjective> as the Dutch had figured out a solution to the
flooding problem.

> Perhaps the Netherlands shouldn't be populated either. Is that what you
> are suggesting? Should we nuke them?

Huh? They've solved their problem without our help or money (we don't
have to actually support them, do we?). Why should we nuke them?

>>> Change your handle to "ostrich".
>>
>> Hey, maybe the sky ISN'T falling...
>
> Maybe it's not, but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need" 6
> billion people.

Um, I suppose there's a connection there...

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-05-2007, 11:24 PM

The Real Bev wrote:
> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up
>>>> enough then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few
>>>> million. No food ==== no people.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?
>>>
>>
>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>
>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>
>
> I was expecting attrition would take care of the problem,

And I was hoping I'd win the lottery. The odds are similar.

> but whatever
> works...
>

The means justify the ends?

> Really, are we better off because we have 6 billion people?

No, but what's the solution? What number is acceptable? Should we get
the judges for American Idol to winnow the human population down to an
acceptable number?

And what is an acceptable number? 1 billion? 500 million?

Who's to say?

> I'm pretty
> unhappy about traffic,

Oh no.

and it's worse in other places. I don't want
> every square inch of the earth covered with people and buildings, do
> you?

Nope, but I live in an area where traffic is pretty much non-existent.
I've lived in places where it was a real problem, but it's quite an
eye-opener to hear people bitch about it here. You'd think the world
was coming to an end because during "rush hour" you sometimes don't make
it through an intersection until you've waited through an entire
light-cycle.

I see no alternative.

Open your eyes.

>
>>> Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot
>>> better off when we had far fewer people, maybe it could be that way
>>> again.
>>
>>
>> Nice idea, but who would you kill?
>
>
> Well, NOT the few hundred people I actually know. People who don't know
> how to merge onto a freeway. People who stand in doorways wondering
> where they should go. People who expect everybody else to support their
> children. People who deliberately buy a lot of luxury goods and then
> declare bankruptcy. People who drive obliviously because they're
> talking on the phone. Lots of others...

Well, all of those people have problems, but do they really deserve
execution?

>
>>>>> Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still
>>>>> inhabited
>>>>> today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology,
>
>
> > I've never been to Bangladesh,
>
> It's situated perfectly for the disastrous floods that happen every few
> years, resulting in drowning, famine, poverty and rock concerts for
> Bangladesh relief. It's not like it's a surprise or anything, and
> sensible people would have moved long ago.
>
>> but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a wonderful place.
>
>
> Sure it is (or was), but just how much should each of us contribute to
> reconstructing it so the next incarnation of Katrina can wipe it out again?

If it weren't for political corruption, there never would have been a
serious problem in the first place.

I'll agree that we should subsidize it through the federal gov't, but
I'm more than willing to subsidize it through my tourist dollars (but
NOT during Mardi Gras).

Katrina was never the problem. The problem was that the levees broke.
If you missed that fact, then there's no hope for your understanding of
the situation.

>
>> A tragedy occurred there, but remember that nearly 300,000 people were
>> killed in Asia as a result of the tsunami a couple of years ago.
>> Katrina pales in comparison to that. Should we just extreminate
>> everyone in SE Asia?
>
>
> Not our problem.

But there's a lot of people living there and you already proclaimed that
6 billion people in this world is a problem. Make up your mind. Should
we exterminate them pro-actively?

>
>> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them,
>> refuse to offer aid when disaster strikes?
>
>
> How about making the aid contingent on their doing something with it to
> ensure they'll never need it again?

It seems to me that stabilizing the earth's tectonic plates would be a
project that would bankrupt the economies of 100 earths.

> I'd go along with that policy for
> floods along the Mississippi River, too.
>

Okay - but be sure you build a port and an economy that replaces that of
the Mississipi Delta first.

>>>>>> Nah, too much trouble.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The real reason we arent stupid enough to cripple
>>>>> economys for something that is clearly readily fixable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea
>>>>> levels.
>>>
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the Dutch?
>>
>>
>> Nothing - what makes you think that statement suggests something is
>> wrong with them?
>
>
> He said "Even the Dutch," which would seem to imply that even a people
> as <negative adjective> as the Dutch had figured out a solution to the
> flooding problem.

You have snipped your own words. Why? It's too late in the evening for
me to research them and throw them back in our face.

>
>> Perhaps the Netherlands shouldn't be populated either. Is that what
>> you are suggesting? Should we nuke them?
>
>
> Huh? They've solved their problem without our help or money (we don't
> have to actually support them, do we?). Why should we nuke them?
>
>>>> Change your handle to "ostrich".
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, maybe the sky ISN'T falling...
>>
>>
>> Maybe it's not, but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need"
>> 6 billion people.
>
>
> Um, I suppose there's a connection there...
>

Oh - the sky is falling because they're are too many people (and to
quote Richard Pryor, "I have no place to ride my horsie").

So who do we exterminate?

Who do we kill?

02-05-2007, 11:44 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> The Real Bev wrote
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote
>>> The Real Bev wrote
>>>> Bill Baka wrote

>>>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very
>>>>> hard to produce food for even a few million. No food ==== no people.

>>>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?

>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.

>>> Are those options acceptable to you?

>> I was expecting attrition would take care of the problem,

> And I was hoping I'd win the lottery. The odds are similar.

Like hell they are.

We've handled MUCH bigger natural variations in climate in the past fine,
and that was before we had anything like the technology we have today.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that we've
seen just economic progress fix the problem with population numbers too.

>> but whatever works...

> The means justify the ends?

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

Obviously not.

>> Really, are we better off because we have 6 billion people?

> No, but what's the solution?

See if economic progress fixes the problem.

It if doesnt, they're welcome to die if they are stupid enough to keep
pumping out far more kids than they can ever hope to support.

> What number is acceptable?

No such animal. Depends entirely on what 'living' standards you want.

> Should we get the judges for American Idol to winnow the human population down to an acceptable
> number?

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

Obviously not.

> And what is an acceptable number? 1 billion? 500 million?

No such animal. Depends entirely on what 'living' standards you want.

> Who's to say?

No one needs to say, it will look after itself regardless.

>> I'm pretty unhappy about traffic,

> Oh no.

>> and it's worse in other places. I don't want every square inch of the earth covered with people
>> and buildings, do you?

> Nope, but I live in an area where traffic is pretty much non-existent.
> I've lived in places where it was a real problem, but it's quite an
> eye-opener to hear people bitch about it here. You'd think the world
> was coming to an end because during "rush hour" you sometimes don't
> make it through an intersection until you've waited through an entire light-cycle.

>> I see no alternative.

> Open your eyes.

Go and **** yourself.

>>>> Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot better off when we had far
>>>> fewer people, maybe it could be that way again.

>>> Nice idea, but who would you kill?

>> Well, NOT the few hundred people I actually know. People who don't
>> know how to merge onto a freeway. People who stand in doorways
>> wondering where they should go. People who expect everybody else to support their children.
>> People who deliberately buy a lot of luxury goods and then declare bankruptcy. People who drive
>> obliviously because they're talking on the phone. Lots of others...

> Well, all of those people have problems, but do they really deserve execution?

You certainly do.

>>>>>> Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still inhabited
>>>>>> today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology,

>> > I've never been to Bangladesh,

>> It's situated perfectly for the disastrous floods that happen every
>> few years, resulting in drowning, famine, poverty and rock concerts
>> for Bangladesh relief. It's not like it's a surprise or anything,
>> and sensible people would have moved long ago.

>>> but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a wonderful place.

>> Sure it is (or was), but just how much should each of us contribute to reconstructing it so the
>> next incarnation of Katrina can wipe it out again?

> If it weren't for political corruption, there never would have been a serious problem in the first
> place.

Wrong, as always. Pity about the cost of preventing it
from happening and who was expected to pay for that.

They were always welcome to pay for that themselves, and chose not to do that.

> I'll agree that we should subsidize it through the federal gov't, but I'm more than willing to
> subsidize it through my tourist dollars

Wouldnt get even close to raising enough money to prevent that from happening.

> (but NOT during Mardi Gras).

> Katrina was never the problem. The problem was that the levees broke.

The problem was that they werent prepared to pay to ensure that they didnt.

> If you missed that fact, then there's no hope for your understanding of the situation.

You in spades.

>>> A tragedy occurred there, but remember that nearly 300,000 people were killed in Asia as a
>>> result of the tsunami a couple of years ago. Katrina pales in comparison to that. Should we
>>> just extreminate everyone in SE Asia?

>> Not our problem.

> But there's a lot of people living there and you already proclaimed that 6 billion people in this
> world is a problem.

No she didnt. She just asked if we really need 6B people.

> Make up your mind.

Not even possible in your case, ear to ear dog **** cant do that.

> Should we exterminate them pro-actively?

Nope, just fools like you.

>>> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them, refuse to offer aid when
>>> disaster strikes?

>> How about making the aid contingent on their doing something with it to ensure they'll never need
>> it again?

> It seems to me that stabilizing the earth's tectonic plates would be a project that would bankrupt
> the economies of 100 earths.

That wasnt the sort of disaster being discussed.

>> I'd go along with that policy for floods along the Mississippi River, too.

> Okay - but be sure you build a port and an economy that replaces that of the Mississipi Delta
> first.

No thanks, that is their problem.

>>>>>>> Nah, too much trouble.

>>>>>> The real reason we arent stupid enough to cripple
>>>>>> economys for something that is clearly readily fixable.

>>>>>> Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea levels.

>>>> What's wrong with the Dutch?

>>> Nothing - what makes you think that statement suggests something is wrong with them?

>> He said "Even the Dutch," which would seem to imply that even a people as <negative adjective> as
>> the Dutch had figured out a solution to the flooding problem.

> You have snipped your own words.

Corse never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

> Why?

Ask yourself.

> It's too late in the evening for me to research them and throw them back in our face.

Your problem.

>>> Perhaps the Netherlands shouldn't be populated either. Is that what you are suggesting? Should
>>> we nuke them?

>> Huh? They've solved their problem without our help or money (we don't have to actually support
>> them, do we?). Why should we nuke them?

>>>>> Change your handle to "ostrich".

>>>> Hey, maybe the sky ISN'T falling...

>>> Maybe it's not, but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need" 6 billion people.

>> Um, I suppose there's a connection there...

> Oh - the sky is falling because they're are too many people

Nope.

> (and to quote Richard Pryor, "I have no place to ride my horsie").

Pathetic, really.

> So who do we exterminate?

Fools like you.

> Who do we kill?

Fools like you.

02-06-2007, 04:34 AM

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:50:41 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>People who don't know how to merge onto a freeway.

Hee hee. My pet peeve. "Hey *******, why do you think that it's called
an ACCELERATION LANE!"