> 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.
That is pure opinion; just like religious dogmas saying they "KNOW" the
TRUTH and the GOOD! ;-)
Cave men and modern man are genomically 99.9+% the same. Hierarchy is
wired. Breeding is selective. Leadership is the result of both nature
and nurture (as is all behavior.)
The problem is that the predators in charge
are stuck in cave-man thinking,
Do you believe in unfettered free will? I believe we are ALL stuck in
cave man behavior, but along the Bell Curve of ability, height, sight,
ferocity, gentleness, artistic ability, athletic ability, spacial
ability, math ability, etc.
and that they only think of their own
interests at the expense of society.
People cooperate because it has been (& continues to be) advantageous to
their adaptive fitness. (sustenance, breeding, longevity, etc.) Those
'bums' who became war lords, lords of the manor, landlords, church
leaders (claimed pipeline to some lord) were suited to take advantage of
situations presented to them. There were ( and are) many who would take
their places if they died, got thrown out, etc. Those vacuums are always
filled.
Altruism is the exception that proves the rule. And it works best when
people aren't circling the wagons against aggressors or very tough
circumstances. Ones tribe/clan/village and state are valued for good
reason: one lives there!
Would you agree to start population
reduction at the large predators?;-)
In my sci-fi dream, all would be sterile at birth with breeding
rights/capability switched on when earned via cooperation, education,
and constructive behavior. (organic farming, waste minimization, etc).
But that is not the human (natural) way to do things. Best outcomes on
average are often trumped by the selfish gene. (and I am not judging
that, just stating it)
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":
Gee, no other human (thousands read it) interpreted my words that way?
Wonder why you think you are right and everyone else is wrong!
> 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.
So, you are claiming that Mandela, Nyerere, and a bunch more who are &
were loved my their people are all shams? Quite a revisionist history,
Chris!
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!
Indeed there are & have been corrupt leaders in many countries. But the
majority of nations in the partnerships and South Commission were NOT
seen that way according to my experience. It is easy to pronounce
conspiracy theories ("scheme of rich guys") but those thieves cut each
others throats too if they think they can gain personally. That is the
warlord way!
Then you go on_confirming my case_ by explicitly mentioning the billionaires:
Horsepucky. Those folks see war and environmental security risks to
Western Civilization. They do not need more money; in fact they give
away more money each day than you or I will make in our lifetimes. It is
normal to want your progeny to see wildlife, breath clean air, have
healthy food, etc. It is normal to want art, music, architecture, etc of
ones heritage to survive. If you don't, you are on a tail of the Bell Curve.
> 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.
You think what is underlined above is bad? Don't like women helping
women? I can find (but I won't unless to win a charitable bet) a dozen
different local NGO women leaders who say they WANT the above.
That was the point of my video link: Billionaires reducing the poor
with the pretext of protecting the environment that they destroy themselves.
The poor women are now often forced to have kids by husbands or rapists.
Where have you had your head to have missed that? I suppose you think
the rich are fathering all their kids using them as sex slaves ;-)
If these billionaires would really care for the environment, they wouldn't
lead such wasteful personal lifestyles,
Chris, the primary reason most people don't consume like a billionaire
(or even a multimillionaire) is that THEY CAN'T! What happens when a
poor person wins a big lottery? They increase their spending, of course.
(I'm talking the vast majority)
and they would spend billions for
the development of environmental technologies and the spread of green tech
to the developing countries.
Some of those foundations are doing just that. But I'll only do the
research if it is to win a charitable bet to donate to Int'l Planned
Parenthood.
Instead, they invest in pollution, Big Pharma
etc.
The foundations? I don't think so.
Also, it's quite suitable that you mention Al Gore:
I posted a recent piece about Gore (the hotairbag one) He is not my hero at
all. I have the letter in case he gets elected...I'll go to the media with it
to hold his feet to the fire!
> 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?
You know what a non-sequitur is, Chris. I fully agree re his lifestyle
and the growth in US pollution. (I think China will lead the world there
soon, though) What does that have to do with his (& my, & US Naval War
College, & Isaac Asimiv & Homer-Dixon, & Bill Rees & the majority of
Nobel winners in Sciences statements about the pop level of
homo-superstitious? If the chart of human pop was labeled Buffalo, Elk,
Cows, Bears, Gorillas, etc, every biologist I know of would label it
"plague phase"
We're going down the hard way, Chris. And I'll bet on it.
Steve
---
> /"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.
Your valuations (judgments) are your subjective right. I say voluntary
simplicity is & will never be more than a tiny % of the Bell Curve. If
you disagree, lets do a long bet. If you win, your favorite charity gets
the money.
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
That is partially true. But desertification from industrial agriculture
thee (to feed 1.4B or whatever it is now) is worse, as the feedback will
kill more, faster. (starvation)
(along with the sweatshops
just so Harry can get a cheapo keyboard) -- not the small population growth.
"small"?? Huge level is what counts, not growth rate. The whole planet
had fewer people 200 yrs ago. I'm against taking advantage of people as
much as you are. The fewer workers there are, the higher value is their
labor, ceteris paribus.
> 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.
Another non-sequitur. My "equal" meant equal abilities and
opportunities. You are only talking behavior.
> 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) --
The US has the fastest growing pop of all industrialized nation
(immigration & around replacement fertility avg)
and in developing countries,
the increase in individual eco-footprint is a much bigger problem.
Gee, if they didn't want to offload human calories on non-human, I guess
things would be different. ;-) And if they didn't want mobility,
sanitation, education, connectivity... Must be something wrong with
them, eh?
However, the rich guys don't stop this -- on the contrary, they foster
this increase,
Yeah, the rich guys are responsible for the desires of the billions in
Asia...pretty funny.
because they make money with it (selling cars etc.).
Yup. That's the human way. INvoluntary simplicity is the rule.
The same goes for migration (which also increases the individual eco-
footprints, not numbers).
I partly agree here. Capital wants an oversupply of labor and expanding
mkts to sell into. But closed borders would (and has every time)
inhibited avg fertility as the escape hatches (safety valve) wouldn't
exist when things got tough. (oppty theory of fertility, Abernethy)
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.
proof...in your mind...
I believe dozens of billionaires do care about the environment.
I think we should wait another year before revisiting this topic on this
list. I'm still awaiting you as a guest in Maine!
Steve
Chris
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
