> 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?