On May 11, 6:01 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> John M. wrote:
> > On May 10, 11:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> John M. 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. 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. Not to
> >>> mention the fact that child mortality is greatest in countries with
> >>> little or no family planning service available.
> >>> 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?
> >> Far and away, the better choice is to live any amount of time in any
> >> condition than to never have been conceived in the first place.
>
> > So you prefer the "morning after " pill that causes spontaneous
> > abortion shortly after conception, rather than ***ual abstinence by
> > the parties concerned, do you?
>
> No, not any more than I prefer any other form of infanticide.
>
> >> Irrespective of that, we need to better manage and control our
resources
> >> in a cooperative way.
>
> > When the number of people on the planet rises to a point where every
> > inhabitant has just a square foot each (around 2350 C.E. at current
> > rates of increase) management and control could just become a little
> > compromised, couldn't they?
>
> Yes, more than likely. So what? I'm not advocating uncontrolled
growth.
According to your idea about any life is better than no life, a
fertile woman who fails to make any and every possible attempt to
become pregnant when ovulating is willfully acting against this
stricture. Setting the age of consent at a point two to four years
after a normal female begins to menstruate is also a willful act -
this time by legislators.
|
