On 29/04/2008, at 12:55 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:29 PM Monday 4/28/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: > >> Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement >> requires >> some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication >> offensive. > > > And what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members > of the environmental movement that accomplishing their goals requires > some sort of eugenics, with statements like some of them have made > like "the carrying capacity of the Earth with people practicing a > sustainable lifestyle is at most something like half a billion > people." And not just because certainly I and everyone else who has > any sort of health problems or otherwise are not in perfect health > and physical shape will be among the 90%+ who will find themselves > considered part of the "surplus population" under such > circumstances . . .
Just 'cause people are saying the Earth is overpopulated does not mean that a sudden reduction in population is the desired solution. It's an observation that the more developed a country, the smaller the family size. So, get all the world developed, and the human population should drop below replacement rate and contract. Maybe some nations will have one child per adult legislation, but most places shouldn't need anything so draconian. Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
