> I am not going to dissect a fanatical religious rant. The caption above and below the video says: "Please ignore the St.Brigitta text and scripture ..... Ignore the Jesus stuff everyone! ..." The _content_ is NOT religious -- not the Bertrand Russell quotes and not the part about Kissinger, Rockefeller foundation etc. -- these are matters of fact, which can also be found on Wikipedia.
> If that is your cup of tea, then I cannot communicate with you. I'm an atheist. > Even if I DID as you > request, you would verbally find a way to deny every point. If you make a convincing case, I won't deny it. > You believe that human nature can be significantly different from what it is. I don't believe. I think -- as an engineer, I KNOW -- that modern man can do better than cave man. The problem is that the predators in charge are stuck in cave-man thinking, and that they only think of their own interests at the expense of society. Would you agree to start population reduction at the large predators? ;-) > What I CAN do is quote from African and other developing country leaders > (excerpted from my 10 pg paper of 2000). This was webcast to several > continents and has been on the internet for a decade. There have been > zero rebuttals to date. Please be my guest! :-) > > http://www.peakoilandhumanity.com/kurtz_folder/feedback_disequilibrium.htm A rebuttal is easy: In the abstract, you announce: > Evidence is given debunking the claim that the rich attempt to coerce > poor nations to reduce fertility. But actually, you don't debunk this claim -- rather, you confirm it: Your "evidence" comes in the section "Prospects": > A typical response to the introduction of the overpopulation factor is > that the rich should reduce their consumption and waste production > instead of chiding the poor people of the planet. This demonstrates > a lack of knowledge that the poor have been clamoring for our aid in > population matters, and that they have banded together to help themselves. However, if you take a closer look, it is NOT the poor populations who are clamoring for their own reduction, but it is the rich "elite" of puppet regimes --usually installed by the former imperial powers-- that does so. The same "elite" that is squandering the resources of their own people and selling them out to the rich "investors" in the West (not only oil and metals -- they're even selling hundreds of tons of FOOD to the West at bargain prices while their own people are starving). So, again we see the scheme of rich guys with large eco-footprints telling the poor with small eco-footprints how and whether to live! Then you go on confirming my case by explicitly mentioning the billionaires: > Udall's essay calls for the establishment of "a direct-to-the-people > non-profit organization financed by a consortium of billionaires." > It would be primarily locally staffed, and deliver women to women > reproductive health services to the poorest nations of the world. The > Ted Turner, Bill Gates, George Soros, Rockefeller, Packard, and many > other foundations have recognized the importance of this issue. That was the point of my video link: Billionaires reducing the poor with the pretext of protecting the environment that they destroy themselves. If these billionaires would really care for the environment, they wouldn't lead such wasteful personal lifestyles, and they would spend billions for the development of environmental technologies and the spread of green tech to the developing countries. Instead, they invest in pollution, Big Pharma etc. Also, it's quite suitable that you mention Al Gore: > In a letter to me dated October 3, 1996, U.S. Vice-President Al Gore > stated: "I consider the dramatic growth in the world's population to be > the greatest challenge currently facing the environment... During the 8 years of Al Gore's office term as VP, America's GHG emissions increased more than ever before in history! And today, this "friend of the environment" is jetting around the planet by airplane to tell everyone to pollute less -- not to mention his own wasteful lifestyle! How absurd can it get? --- > /"China is caught in a vicious cycle of swelling population and diminishing > resources...Economic growth is the goal of China's industrial policy. > However rapid population growth allays the economic growth that occurs."/ > (Zhirong, 1994) Actually, China is a good example for my point that the different personal eco-footprint is much more important than the population growth issue. Hundreds of millions of people in China are now switching from bicycles to cars, and increasing their eco-footprint towards that of Westerners. THIS is what's ruining the environment in China (along with the sweatshops just so Harry can get a cheapo keyboard) -- not the small population growth. > So, Chris, you can look for blame wherever you like. The facts speak for > themselves. People are NOT equal. Yep, that's my point: Some have a much bigger eco-footprint than others, and these have the gall to tell the others they're too many. > People will on average do worse in every way the more of us there are. No doubt about that. But that's not an issue in the West any more (fertility rate is already below 2.1) -- and in developing countries, the increase in individual eco-footprint is a much bigger problem. However, the rich guys don't stop this -- on the contrary, they foster this increase, because they make money with it (selling cars etc.). The same goes for migration (which also increases the individual eco- footprints, not numbers). It all goes to prove that they don't give a damn about the environment -- that's just their pretext to reduce the masses they deem useless for their profits. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
