Re: Overpopulation and Burma cyclone

On May 10, 4:22 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On May 10, 3:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > John M. wrote:
> > > On May 9, 11:48 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> Peter Franks wrote:
> > >>> Enough Already wrote:
> > >>>> Burma has close to 48 million people in an area slightly smaller
than
> > >>>> Texas (USA). As the population grows (mindlessly, like
everywhere),
> > >>>> more trees are lost. Mangroves used to form a coastal buffer
against
> > >>>> extreme storm surges, but 3/4ths of them have been cleared for
shrimp
> > >>>> and rice farming since the 1920s. See
> > >>>>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/09/asia/mangrove.php
> > >>>> This is similar to what happened with hurricane Katrina. Too many
> > >>>> barrier wetlands have been filled in for development (a.k.a.
> > >>>> population growth), making them unable to absorb storm surges as
they
> > >>>> naturally would. Florida also suffers from this condition. Record
> > >>>> storms reveal the idiocy of destroying nature in the name of
"economic
> > >>>> growth."
> > >>>> A parallel reason we're seeing larger death tolls is that more
people
> > >>>> are living in disaster-prone areas. Population growth creates a
> > >>>> vicious cycle of less buffer protection and more people at the
mercy
> > >>>> of the elements.
> > >>>> Until it becomes politically correct to promote birth control vs.
> > >>>> "meeting the needs of a growing population," mindless growth will
> > >>>> continue until the 11th hour. Actually, the 11th hour has long
been
> > >>>> upon us, but growthism wipes out all reason.
> > >>> It is better to have lived and died than to never have lived at
all.
> > >> That statement was not intended to convey a lack of responsibility
or
> > >> resource management.
>
> > > So what exactly did you intend with this statement?
>
> > That arbitrary birth control is a poor choice.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your qualifying adjective. Birth control is
> a necessary adjunct to death control.

Nothing you have to worry about, cornholer.

> Having got the latter working
> fairly well, it would be a shame to swamp all our efforts by trying to
> have more people on the planet than its resources can handle.

Who decides that, retard?
Socialist cornholers?

> Not to
> mention the fact that child mortality is greatest in countries with
> little or no family planning service available.

Poor countries, retard?

> What would you personally prefer if you had to start over. To live to
> one- or two- years old, then die from a combination of malnutrition
> and preventable childhood medical conditions, or to not be conceived
> in the first place?

Retarded question, j moron.