> I suggest that you ask your your Biology Professor and your Logic > Professor about Natural Selection. It goes on perpetually. That is the > finite life of life forms that I said was the one thing I *WAS* certain > about. The "coming cull" is said selection in future. Humans are a life > form and are not exempt.
Your bet of yesterday was this: > If you find any statement by me indicating certainty about anything > except the finite life span of life forms, I'll donate $500 to the > charity of your choice. The finite life span of life forms means that every human must die after max. 120 years -- this is trivial and has nothing to do with Natural Selection (which is the selective PREMATURE death and different degree of procreation of individuals). (And by "life forms" you didn't mean humanity as a whole, because not even you bet on total extermination of humanity.) So even if you now backpaddle from cull to Natural Selection, you lost that bet and have to pay $500 to charity. But today's assertion that cull means just Natural Selection doesn't make sense either. You mentioned earlier that many humans are already now, every year, dying of starvation, wars and disease. And above you say that Natural Selection "goes on perpetually." But then, "the coming cull" must be something different -- something that lies in the future. And your original formulation was: "I see little hope of a positive outcome until well after the coming cull." The word "after" means that the cull happens during a certain period of time. So it can't be Natural Selection, which "goes on perpetually." Also, you mentioned nukes: >>> But since overshoot has added stress to >>> the situation by diluting and diminishing resources of all kinds, I see >>> little hope of a positive outcome until well after the coming cull. If the >>> cull involves nukes, maybe centuries will be required to recover." Your explicit mention of nukes as a form of cull EXCLUDES your later cop-out that you were just talking of Natural Selection -- because nukes don't distinguish between those who are "fit" and those who aren't -- at least not among those hundreds of thousands that are killed immediately just because they happen to be too close to ground zero. It is quite cynical and inappropriate to suggest that the children burned in Hiroshima died because they were "unfit" in a Darwinian sense! Btw, nukes are another example of MAN-MADE -- as opposed to natural forces. If you say that the physical forces of nukes are natural forces too, then we are back to the example of you throwing me into a lions' cage and then saying it was the lions, not you, that killed me. The bottom line: ================ It is clear that "the coming cull" refers to an extraordinary event or series of events that kills large numbers of humans during a period of time, clearly distinguishing itself (both in extent of time and death rate) from "Natural Selection", which "goes on perpetually" and at rather low intensity. Such an event is commonly referred to as "doom". Therefore, my statement is correct that you expressed CERTAINTY that doom is coming, when you talked of "the coming cull". Is it so hard to stand by your words? Is it worth losing face for $500? If you changed your mind in the meantime, and now believe that there will be NO doom, then what is the point of demanding population reductions, even in countries with (native) reproduction rates as low as 1.0-1.5? Getting rid of unprofitable masses, perhaps? 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
