[at-l] An Inconvenient Truth / a complete list/not!/So!!

[Jim Bullard]

AL Quida and Taliban suicide bombers?
Seriously though, you don't need people to die prematurely to achieve
population reduction over time any more than you need halt all
production to reduce pollution. We do need a willingness to confront
the problem, a willingness that is sorely lacking. A negative growth
birth rate would do the trick. The real problem is the economic model
we are pursuing. A model that relies on, even REQUIRES, continuous
growth. Maybe those with sufficient wealth will be able to fly off
through space at some point in the future after rendering Earth unfit
for further habitation but it's more likely that we will face the fate
of Easter Islanders who died out after cutting the last of the trees.
That's not a future I would wish upon those who come after me.

On 7/11/06, Bror8588 at aol.com <Bror8588 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2006-07-11 00:32:43 Eastern Daylight Time,
> dustpct at yahoo.com writes:
>
> How  about a massive reduction in the numbers of homo sapiens sapiens over
> the next  200 years?   I kind of like that, actually.   300,000  world human
> population, yeah, that's the ticket!
>
> Yeah, but who is going to volunteer?
-- 
Jim Bullard
http://www.jimbullard.org
http://hiking.jimbullard.org
http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/