On 30 Apr, 16:57, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> Doug wrote:
>> On 29 Apr, 09:23, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 28 Apr, 09:14, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> On 28 Apr, 08:12, Adrian
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>> Doug
riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>>>> were saying:>
>>>>>>>>> How do you suggest that is achieved when the population
>>>>>>>>> contiues to expand at an ever increasing rate?
>>>>>>>> I have already explained, the immediate solution is to reduce
>>>>>>>> consumption before the Earth's resources are totally exhausted
>>>>>>>> and a catastrophic reduction of human population becomes
>>>>>>>> inevitable
>
>>>>>>> In other words, we should fuck about at the edges, to avoid
>>>>>>> addressing the real cause of the problem? Umm, no.
>
>>>>>>> If we need to practically move back to the stone age to maintain
>>>>>>> stability at 7bn population, what do you think would be required
>>>>>>> to maintain stability at 10bn?
>
>>>>>>>> with all the suffering that it would entail.
>
>>>>>>> So we should all suffer, in order to avoid suffering?
>
>>>>>>> Of course, since the current medical systems just wouldn't be
>>>>>>> viable in your vision of "stability", there would be mass
>>>>>>> "suffering" anyway. And that's before you factor in the
>>>>>>> efficiency of modern agriculture (which also wouldn't be viable).
>
>>>>>>> Your "solution" would merely move the sustainable population
>>>>>>> figure a long way downwards.
>
>>>>>> So what is your solution then? Keep on consuming and polluting in
>>>>>> the hope that population might magically decrease all by itself?
>>>>>> Or do you have some draconian, eugenic solution of involuntary
>>>>>> euthanasia and we all know who were the advocates iof that don't
>>>>>> we.
>
>>>>> Why does depopulation have to involve mass involuntary euthanasia
>>>>> Doug? Why can't we simply stop interfering with nature?
>
>>>> Meaning? Is that your solution, some hypothetical future source of
>>>> mass depopulation?
>
>>> For someone who is ready to shout about anything and everything you
>>> really are dumb aren't you?
>
>>> Not interefering with nature in this instance means not keeping
>>> people alive who would otherwise die.
>
>> Die from what?
>
> Whatever it is they dying from, illness or accident.
>
>> Kept alive how?
>
> By medicines and life support machines.
>
>> So would you ban all medicines then and
>> watch millions suffer?
>
> Absolutely not, far from it.
>
> I would propose that the medical profession changed its approach from
> keeping people alive at any cost to keeping the sufferer comfortable until
> nature took its course.
>
What about relieving pain?
>
> Before you start throwing your usual wild accusations about; if this system
> had been in operation at the time I would probably have died in 1973, a
> month after my twenty-first birthday and (apart from the obvious paradox) I
> would have been quite happy about it.
>
You and others here might be happy to know that I too would have been
long dead, fortunately before I was old enough to obtain a driving
licence, but on the other hand so too might have been the driver who
ran over me, which poses another paradox.
