-Caveat Lector-
----Original Message Follows----
From: Mike & Kathy Moxley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This earth could sustain 20 times the current population if managed
properly.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
SM:
Should we press those limits?
What makes you think that if we can't curb our population voluntarily now
that we could do it after a few more centuries' momentum of baby booming?
You seem to be saying that we should max out and push the evelope as far as
it will go. That IS flirting with our own doom and that is precisely my
point.
......................................................................
The problem is not overpopulation, it's greed, envy, poor management,
worldwide socialism, multi-national corporations, globalists, and corrupt
governments and people that is the problem.
......................................................................
SM:
There is not ONE problem. I get tired of hearing "THE problem is..."
Greed is a problem, yes. Perhaps we can do something about it.
Poor management is a problem, yes. Perhaps we can do something about that.
Multi-national corporations would not be a problem if we subjected them to
sane rules.
As far as globalism is concerned, it is the globalization of power, as it is
now wielded [in the hands of the few] that is the problem, not globalization
itself. Everything we do has an affect on things around us. If we are
going to abide by rules based on REALITY, we are going to have to admit that
having clean air laws in one place does little good if we do not have clean
air rules in all places. All of the things that we attempt to hold in check
with laws [violence, pollution, slavery] do not adhere to national
boundaries so we can do little to curb them by saying that such things are
up to the individual jurisdictions of power mongers. Freedom to be happy
and safe can be violated by freedoms of sovereignty. We must define what
kinds of freedom we will champion because the word "freedom" is too vague.
Am I a champion of freedom if I say that China or Nike should be "free" to
do whatever it likes to the lowly person or the lowly community, free to
dump its wastes in whatever low-income village it can find that is
defenseless? Fair trade, right?
As far as socialism is concerned [i.e. vs. capitalism], should everyone have
a say in how resources are used or should it be only up to those with enough
capital, and enough bloodthirstiness to amass such? Only those that hoard
[or those that repeat words that have not thought through thoroughly] seem
to be in favor of holding the earth in common.
......................................................................
But for discussion sake, let's say overpopulation is fact. The only humane
way to reduce the population in the numbers the psycho-pseudo-science
sociopath elitists are calling for is an all volunteer system.
One must of their own free will volunteer to be put to death.
......................................................................
SM:
So if one village decides to take far more than it can use, leaving another
village to die, the latter is overstepping its bounds to demand to use what
the other cannot?
......................................................................
No one can be forced to surrender their lives for population control.
However, it should be law that all Population Control Advocates MUST
volunteer to be put to death.
......................................................................
SM:
No need to be so dramatic. No one is saying put everyone to death. I, on
the other hand, AM for making having a lot of children a legal issue. Not
very Catholic of me, I'm sure.
On the other hand, a child born in the United States consumes as much as 800
times as much as a child born in some other parts of the world. I'll bet we
can make a big dent in the rapidity of resource diminishment by merely
stressing simplicity over novelty. The more hooked we are on the novel, the
more new and better and bigger things must be produced.
......................................................................
And they MUST die first. Then all others that would volunteer.
This would show leadership by example, and would also save the Population
Control Advocates from being the hypocrites that they would be if they
refused to volunteer. Anything else would be unfair.
......................................................................
SM:
So is it fair that those who choose to have many children or to use vast
amounts of resources should endanger the livelihood or everyone else? Is it
unfair to put a stop to unfairness?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
