no wonder

[Guest guest]

No wonder the world seems crowded (to me). According to an article in

the Oct. 10 " New Yorker " magazine, " ...the population of the United

States increased by sixty-four percent between 1960 and 2004. "

When I was ten years old, there were fewer than half as many people around.

Makes me feel sad. Glad that I had a chance to live in the world a

bit before it got so crowded. But sad that we are so numerous now.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> When I was ten years old, there were fewer than half as many people around.

>

> Makes me feel sad. Glad that I had a chance to live in the world a

> bit before it got so crowded. But sad that we are so numerous now.

>

> Jane

Weird, you realize that it's all relative. For example NYC probably was

more heavily populated then than Seattle is now. Not all areas are that

heavily populated. For example Canada is a much larger place than the US

yet the population is far less. How sparely populated is Canada? Well if

you started at the Northern most spot of North Vancouver and walked due

north until you got to the North pole it is highly unlikely that you

would see another human being.

I really don't understand what is so sad about today's larger population.

Red

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

>I really don't understand what is so sad about today's larger population.

We (humans in general) make the world dirtier. It's unavoidably

obvious in the city. When I moved here in 1972, there was virtually

no litter. Now it's all over, even in residential neighborhoods. Used

to be one could drive around freely, park anywhere. Now the traffic

is clotted (even in residential neighborhoods) and parking is

extremely difficult in many parts of the city. It can take hours to

go distances that used to take 15 or 20 minutes.

Used to be you could drive (easily, low traffic) a short distance and

hike for three days without seeing another human. Now you battle

traffic for hours, feel lucky to find a parking place near a trail

head, and hike in a crowd.

Used to be dolphins thrived off the southern coast of the U.S. This

morning I heard a story about the die off of dolphins there, probably

due to the run-off of nasty chemicals from the watershed. More and

more humans using more and more chemicals (some of them " necessary "

to compensate for the larger numbers of humans and the effects

thereof) produce more and more poison in the environment.

Stores get bigger to accommodate the larger population. The larger

stores fill up with crowds.

Just a few too-of-the-head examples from my own life.

Jane

[Guest guest]

I'm from Orange County,California,and haven't been back since the mid 80s

afraid to. It would likely kill me with depression to see how they have torn

out all the Irvine farmland and groves, bulit houses and junk up the canyon

walls of Santa Ana Canyon and around Irvine Park,and run that damn freeway

through where I remember an old two lane road lined with old oaks and such.

Where will the hawks fly now,with the land full of people filling the sky

with pollution

Gail, Anja & Mullen,

my German Shepherd & Greyhound

Service Dogs

& Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

Live simply. Love generously.

Care deeply. Speak kindly.

Leave the rest to God.

-- Re: no wonder

Red wrote:

>I really don't understand what is so sad about today's larger population.

We (humans in general) make the world dirtier. It's unavoidably

obvious in the city. When I moved here in 1972, there was virtually

no litter. Now it's all over, even in residential neighborhoods. Used

to be one could drive around freely, park anywhere. Now the traffic

is clotted (even in residential neighborhoods) and parking is

extremely difficult in many parts of the city. It can take hours to

go distances that used to take 15 or 20 minutes.

Used to be you could drive (easily, low traffic) a short distance and

hike for three days without seeing another human. Now you battle

traffic for hours, feel lucky to find a parking place near a trail

head, and hike in a crowd.

Used to be dolphins thrived off the southern coast of the U.S. This

morning I heard a story about the die off of dolphins there, probably

due to the run-off of nasty chemicals from the watershed. More and

more humans using more and more chemicals (some of them " necessary "

to compensate for the larger numbers of humans and the effects

thereof) produce more and more poison in the environment.

Stores get bigger to accommodate the larger population. The larger

stores fill up with crowds.

Just a few too-of-the-head examples from my own life.

Jane

[Guest guest]

ROFL... Well what about all the skiiers in Squamish?(My uncle used to

live in North Van) Or if they decided to go through the Fraser Valley

plenty of people out this way. It really depends on the route(if your

hiking and not using roads/highways). Even taking Duffy Lake Road,

Highway 97a and 97B you still run into the odd person or drive past

a few houses (I will admit though Marble Cayon can be very quiet and

nobody really likes going through 97 in the winter). I have family in

central BC and Northern, while I live in Southern. I also have a fair

bit of family in the US and UK. Now if you were talking prarie

provinces or terratories then yes you could probably go a distance and

never see another human being (particularly if it's winter).

Most of the canadian population is around the US - Canada border.

Vancouver does have under a million people living in it yet is the 3rd

largest metro area in Canada. Vancouver region however has close to 3

million living in it. While I however don't know the current

population growth stats in the city I'm in on the outskirts of

Vancouver. My sons school has nearly 2,000 children attending it.

There are aproximately 7 schools in the area with roughly the same

population for grades 8-12. Canada's current population is apprently

aprox 32.4 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada)

In general at one point in north america's history the east coastal

areas were likely more populated. Immigration from Europe started on

the atlantic side and people gradually spread west.

What is sad about population increase is what is often causing it.

Same with world mortality rates. Human beings tend to commit alot of

atrocities to one another in the name of whatever cause du jour there

is. Also with increased populus becomes increased demand on world

resources. This has an environmental impact. Increased population

demands also have a societal impact just as population decrease or

stagnation does. But it is hard to somewhat keep a viable balance.

- Sue

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:32:27 -0800

redhottech@... wrote:

> Weird, you realize that it's all relative. For example NYC probably was

> more heavily populated then than Seattle is now. Not all areas are that

> heavily populated. For example Canada is a much larger place than the US

> yet the population is far less. How sparely populated is Canada? Well if

> you started at the Northern most spot of North Vancouver and walked due

> north until you got to the North pole it is highly unlikely that you

> would see another human being.

>

> I really don't understand what is so sad about today's larger population.

>

> Red

[Guest guest]

>

> > When I was ten years old, there were fewer than half as many

people around.

> >

> > Makes me feel sad. Glad that I had a chance to live in the world

a

> > bit before it got so crowded. But sad that we are so numerous now.

> >

> > Jane

>

>

> Weird, you realize that it's all relative. For example NYC probably

was

> more heavily populated then than Seattle is now. Not all areas are

that

> heavily populated. For example Canada is a much larger place than

the US

> yet the population is far less. How sparely populated is Canada?

Well if

> you started at the Northern most spot of North Vancouver and walked

due

> north until you got to the North pole it is highly unlikely that

you

> would see another human being.

>

> I really don't understand what is so sad about today's larger

population.

>

> Red

>

I don't either. More people than ever are getting to live and

that is good. Life is a wonderful privilege even though it sucks

sometimes

Jerry

[Guest guest]

> Used to be dolphins thrived off the southern coast of the U.S. This

> morning I heard a story about the die off of dolphins there, probably

> due to the run-off of nasty chemicals from the watershed. More and

> more humans using more and more chemicals (some of them " necessary "

> to compensate for the larger numbers of humans and the effects

> thereof) produce more and more poison in the environment.

I suspect that's due more to farmland than number of people. And I

suspect we do better on that today than we did 30 years ago (although

much worse then we did 300 years ago).

[Guest guest]

> I don't either. More people than ever are getting to live and

> that is good. Life is a wonderful privilege even though it sucks

> sometimes

Agreed. Soylent Green also comes to mind (not to mention the

Chineese 1 child policy, which results in some horrible atrocities

towards women and children).

[Guest guest]

celticess wrote:

> ROFL... Well what about all the skiiers in Squamish?(My uncle used to

> live in North Van) Or if they decided to go through the Fraser Valley

> plenty of people out this way. It really depends on the route(if your

> hiking and not using roads/highways). Even taking Duffy Lake Road,

> Highway 97a and 97B you still run into the odd person or drive past

> a few houses (I will admit though Marble Cayon can be very quiet and

> nobody really likes going through 97 in the winter).

But none of those places are in a straight line between North Van and

the North pole. There is only one direct route. It's over land and water

but not through any populated areas.

Red

[Guest guest]

a C. MacNeil wrote:

Then there's the food situation. It's taken for granted it

> seems that food is available. Look at how many starving people there

> are now. Are we going to take care of each other better when there's

> even more people than there is now?

There is an over abundance of food in the world. The problem is

distribution. Are you aware that both the governments of Canada and the

USA are still paying farmers not to grow crops.

Red

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>I suspect that's due more to farmland than number of people. And I

>suspect we do better on that today than we did 30 years ago (although

>much worse then we did 300 years ago).

Not so. The kind of chemical-dependent farming and " factory farming "

of animals for food that are done these days produce far more (and

far more dangerous) pollution than farming used to. See, for example:

http://www.fishingnj.org/artdedzn.htm

Jane

[Guest guest]

> ROFL... Well what about all the skiiers in Squamish?(My uncle used to

> live in North Van) Or if they decided to go through the Fraser Valley

> plenty of people out this way. It really depends on the route(if your

> hiking and not using roads/highways). Even taking Duffy Lake Road,

> Highway 97a and 97B you still run into the odd person or drive past

> a few houses (I will admit though Marble Cayon can be very quiet and

> nobody really likes going through 97 in the winter). I have family in

> central BC and Northern, while I live in Southern. I also have a fair

> bit of family in the US and UK. Now if you were talking prarie

> provinces or terratories then yes you could probably go a distance and

> never see another human being (particularly if it's winter).

Personally I really like where I live. 2 hours from a major city

(Denver) with all the benefits of that (high quality hospitals, shops

that carry stuff I'm interested in, people who share my interests,

other autistics, etc). 1 hour from a mall (ick - I wouldn't want to

be this close to be honest) and other shopping (it's nice to not have

to drive 8 hours - like a previous place I lived - to buy an

appliance). 15 minutes from campsites in forest where I won't see

anyone for a week of camping. Grocery stores, church, and libraries

within 5 minutes by car and 10 minutes by bike. Add to that a

relatively good economy (low wages but even lower unemployment and

taxes) and a fairly tolerant people (leave me alone, I'll leave you

alone), and people can see why I like living here.

I used to, when I worked in town, take lunch in the mountains. That

was wonderful. I had a coworker who cross country skied in the

mountains over his lunch hour.

Of course this type of low density living is exactly why the US

pollutes as much air as it does - it involves lots of driving by

yourself. :/ Oh, the weather sucks too (50 MPH steady winds today;

A freak snowstorm deposited almost no snow, only lasted 15 minutes,

but caused conditions so bad that we closed two interstates AND many

of the back roads - something that takes extremely bad conditions out

here).

But it is very autistic friendly. The main thing I would change

would be to move a bunch more autistics here so I'd have some company.

> Most of the canadian population is around the US - Canada border.

> Vancouver does have under a million people living in it yet is the 3rd

> largest metro area in Canada. Vancouver region however has close to 3

> million living in it. While I however don't know the current

> population growth stats in the city I'm in on the outskirts of

> Vancouver. My sons school has nearly 2,000 children attending it.

> There are aproximately 7 schools in the area with roughly the same

> population for grades 8-12. Canada's current population is apprently

> aprox 32.4 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada)

I grew up in a town of 20,000 (and the next town with 5,000 or more

people in it was over 140 miles away) We had a school of 3,500. So

school size might not have much to do with population.

[Guest guest]

> Not so. The kind of chemical-dependent farming and " factory farming "

> of animals for food that are done these days produce far more (and

> far more dangerous) pollution than farming used to. See, for example:

>

> http://www.fishingnj.org/artdedzn.htm

Of course one might add that fertilizer use today is *DOWN* from what

it was 30 years ago (furtilizer was at all time usage highs in the

early 80s). That's the cause of much water pollution.

The problem is it is cumulative and takes years to have an effect.

And nothing really takes it OUT of the ocean.

[Guest guest]

Jane wrote:

> Not so. The kind of chemical-dependent farming and " factory farming "

> of animals for food that are done these days produce far more (and

> far more dangerous) pollution than farming used to. See, for example:

> http://www.fishingnj.org/artdedzn.htm

See also:

http://www.themeatrix.com

Clay

[Guest guest]

> http://www.themeatrix.com

I can't talk about how chickens or pigs are raised, since I've never

visited those types of operations. I also eat very little chicken

and pork so I'm less concerned about this.

I have visited cattle operations, and assure you that the animals do

see light, do get fresh air, and do touch the ground. The vast

majority of life for cattle is spent with plenty of wide open space.

In addition, they get medical care that wild animals rarely get.

I've seen feedlots and slaughterhouses as well, and certainly those

don't look as good for the animals as the ranches (I, for one, have

no problem with Temple's work to improve things there).

Oh, most ranches around here anyhow aren't " factory farms " . In fact,

I've never visited one in Wyoming that was not a family ranch, except

the movie star " ranches " near Hole (where they might not even

bother to raise animals). They all are owned by corporations, but

that is typically because the family receives tax benefits (the

average ranch is very large, so the land itself ends up being a

sizable asset). The family typically owns 100% of the corporation.

I'm sure there is a corporate cattle operation somewhere in the

state, I just don't know where (other then the feedlot in

Torrington). Even the cattle sale aution barns aren't corporate

owned - they are owned by the Wyoming Livestock Board, a State

government agency.

That all said, I do support the idea of people knowing where their

food comes from. Very few people today have even set foot on a farm

or ranch.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> > http://www.themeatrix.com

> I can't talk about how chickens or pigs are raised, since

> I've never visited those types of operations. I also eat

> very little chicken and pork so I'm less concerned about this.

I eat lots of chicken, some beef, but absolutely no pork. I

have seen several huge chicken operations, and can vouch

that these chickens have no room, are debeaked, are likely

given antibiotics and stuff. Pigs are probably also given

very little space to turn around. I've read that in the Car-

olinas, they have huge pig farms, with huge ponds full of pig

waste. Terrible stench, and the run-off causes fish-kills in

the rivers and on the coasts. Someone else, (Gail, I think,

has answered that the feed lots or whatever where cattle are

kept before being taken to the slaughter house are pretty mis-

erable places.

I can only hope that the bird flu doesn't take hold here.

Clay

> I have visited cattle operations, and assure you that the animals

> do see light, do get fresh air, and do touch the ground. The vast

> majority of life for cattle is spent with plenty of wide open space.

> In addition, they get medical care that wild animals rarely get.

> I've seen feedlots and slaughterhouses as well, and certainly those

> don't look as good for the animals as the ranches (I, for one, have

> no problem with Temple's work to improve things there).

>

> Oh, most ranches around here anyhow aren't " factory farms " . In fact,

> I've never visited one in Wyoming that was not a family ranch, except

> the movie star " ranches " near Hole (where they might not even

> bother to raise animals). They all are owned by corporations, but

> that is typically because the family receives tax benefits (the

> average ranch is very large, so the land itself ends up being a

> sizable asset). The family typically owns 100% of the corporation.

> I'm sure there is a corporate cattle operation somewhere in the

> state, I just don't know where (other then the feedlot in

> Torrington). Even the cattle sale aution barns aren't corporate

> owned - they are owned by the Wyoming Livestock Board, a State

> government agency.

>

> That all said, I do support the idea of people knowing where their

> food comes from. Very few people today have even set foot on a farm

> or ranch.

>

[Guest guest]

This replaces a post I deleted, so I could repost while deleting

one group.

My top choices of people we can live without...

1. Ribbon dancers. (who want Olympic medals?!!)

2. Hunters.

3. Cell Phone drivers.

4. Dead-beat daddies.

5. Whiners.

6. Farters.

7. The NBA

8. Pedophiles.

9. Drunk drivers.

10. " ----ists "

[Guest guest]

Jerry wrote:

> This replaces a post I deleted, so I could repost

> while deleting one group.

> My top choices of people we can live without...

> 1. Ribbon dancers. (who want Olympic medals?!!)

> 2. Hunters.

> 3. Cell Phone drivers.

> 4. Dead-beat daddies.

> 5. Whiners.

> 6. Farters.

> 7. The NBA

> 8. Pedophiles.

> 9. Drunk drivers.

> 10. " ----ists "

Well, as long as we're not actually planning to gas them

or something, I could do without the NHL and the NFL, and

whatever the acronym is for the Soccer League. In my town,

we had to build them their own soccer stadium, with state,

county, and city help, for a *privately owned* team!

This on top of the same sort of deal for the Rochester

Redwings (Triple A baseball), new stadium, which had huge

cost over-runs. Why can't the team owners build their Own

damned stadiums?

Clay

PS. I don't believe that you don't ever fart. ;-)

You must mean those who don't seem to mind doing it

in public?

[Guest guest]

a C. MacNeil wrote:

> Are you aware that that isn't the question I asked?

> Are we going to take care of each other better when

>>there's

>> > even more people than there is now?

If it's not about enough food, why should there be a difference if there

are more people. There would then also be more people to take care of

others. That being said, We should not have to take care of people. Most

of those being taken care of could look after themselves if they chose

to. In the rest of the animal world that is how overpopulation is kept

in check.

Red

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I have visited cattle operations, and assure you that the animals do

> see light, do get fresh air, and do touch the ground.

> That all said, I do support the idea of people knowing where their

> food comes from. Very few people today have even set foot on a farm

> or ranch.

There are many family farms and organic farms where the animals are

treated properly. Farms where fertilizer is used in an ethical manner or

where it's all organic. There are other so called factory farms where

animals are raised in unhealthy and inhumane conditions. Factory farms

are there to make money so even there for the most part animals will be

treated humanely. They have a very strong incentive to do this. Animals

raised in overly crowded and unhealthy conditions don't produce good

financial returns.

Instead of avoiding meat because some is produced under these conditions

we can follow the example of coffee drinkers.

Many people consider coffee plantation workers exploited. Instead of

avoiding coffee they buy coffee that is sold as ethical coffee meaning

the workers are not exploited. By knowing where our food comes from we

can do the same. The best assurance is to buy from small family farms or

purchase organic, in the case of chickens and eggs, " free range " . In

this way we are assured of healthy wholesome food.

Yes, I eat beef, pork and chicken. Yes, I grew up on a small family

farm. Our animals did not live in crowded conditions. In the summer they

were outside. In the winter they were inside where it was warm.

One further comment on pigs. While they do like routing around in mud

they are very clean animals. They keep most of their pen clean and

always use the same small area for defecating and urinating, thereby

keeping the rest of the area clean.

Red

[Guest guest]

> The care of the disabled is necessary,for there are many great

> minds that

> are hampered by the constraints put on by the frail body. But also

> sometimes

> it is the the very disability that frees up the talent that would

> otherwise

> gone unnoticed in a perfect body.

I doubt you mean to imply that someone without a great mind doesn't

need life, although your comments could be read that way.

It's okay to offer no special skills or talents to the world - that

life is still valued.

[Guest guest]

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ....no,what I meant was that if care were not given to all,we would all be

> the poorer for the loss of all those people,and all their special qualities.

> I was addressing him in practical terms. Of course all life has infinite

> value! Just because someone is not able to speak,or walk,etc, does not mean

> that they are to be allowed to die....that way lies Hitler's genocide and

> Master Race plans. I fought with everything I could to help save Terri

> Schiavo's life earlier this year. Euthanasia, Gen testing before birth to

> screen out 'undesirable factors',and all that is murder. Period.

Ok so let's put this in perspective. This whole discussion started with

how sad it is that there are so many people on this earth. All I was

pointing out is why there are so many. What I have been saying is that

it is only our intervention with nature that has the world

overpopulated. If we returned to nature the overpopulation would take

care of it's self like it does in the rest of the animal and plant kingdom.

From another post

> Are you a Practicing Darwinist

No I am not. Far from it. Not even in the same ball park.

Do you have any answers to the overpopulation or is there no such thing

in your mind.

Red

[Guest guest]

Isn't that more in line with Singers group than a darwinist or maybe it's

one in the same? *shrug*

- Sue

Re: no wonder

> Are you a Practicing Darwinist? If so,then I take it that you do

> not approve

> of care for the disabled? Those who need help just to stay alive?

> Betterwrite on your drivers license that you are an organ doner

> then-that will

> neatly take care of any unwanted medical assistance to keep you

> alive if you

> are ever in an accident.

>

> The care of the disabled is necessary,for there are many great

> minds that

> are hampered by the constraints put on by the frail body. But also

> sometimesit is the the very disability that frees up the talent

> that would otherwise

> gone unnoticed in a perfect body.

>

>

> Gail, Anja & Mullen,

> my German Shepherd & Greyhound

> Service Dogs

> & Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

> DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

> .,,.`.,,.

> Live simply. Love generously.

> Care deeply. Speak kindly.

> Leave the rest to God.

[Guest guest]

There is no " population explosion " ,we have plenty for everyone,the problem

exists in the greed of those who artificially control prices of things.

Gail, Anja & Mullen,

my German Shepherd & Greyhound

Service Dogs

& Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

Live simply. Love generously.

Care deeply. Speak kindly.

Leave the rest to God.

-- Re: no wonder

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ....no,what I meant was that if care were not given to all,we would all

be

> the poorer for the loss of all those people,and all their special

qualities.

> I was addressing him in practical terms. Of course all life has infinite

> value! Just because someone is not able to speak,or walk,etc, does not

mean

> that they are to be allowed to die....that way lies Hitler's genocide and

> Master Race plans. I fought with everything I could to help save Terri

> Schiavo's life earlier this year. Euthanasia, Gen testing before birth to

> screen out 'undesirable factors',and all that is murder. Period.

Ok so let's put this in perspective. This whole discussion started with

how sad it is that there are so many people on this earth. All I was

pointing out is why there are so many. What I have been saying is that

it is only our intervention with nature that has the world

overpopulated. If we returned to nature the overpopulation would take

care of it's self like it does in the rest of the animal and plant kingdom.

From another post

> Are you a Practicing Darwinist

No I am not. Far from it. Not even in the same ball park.

Do you have any answers to the overpopulation or is there no such thing

in your mind.

Red

[Guest guest]

> That being said, We should not have to take care of people. Most

> of those being taken care of could look after themselves if they chose

> to.

Ah, yes, the people of the poor draught-ridden countries in Africa who

live under questionable regimes, they should just take care of

themselves. I'm sure it's a choice indeed. It'll get worse in more

than just Africa though. One of the main reasons people can't grow

food in parts of Africa is because the soil can't sustain anything.

Being the birth place of human beings, it's been over-farmed and can't

produce anything. One answer is to keep taking jungle, and the earth

can only take so much more of that - overpopulated or not, we all need

oxygen to live. (Not to mention that I for one would think this world

would be a horrible place if it was just us and our chosen pets.) It's

our duty to take care of the planet and we are failing horribly. It's

all about the " now " . I always wondered what is the point of having

kids to continue your line if you leave nothing but a big mess behind

for them.

America's soils are not immune to draught and over-farming. Unlike

Europe, we don't have a limestone base, which keeps the soil healthier.

The effects of pollution are already being felt and is changing the

weather. Dry areas are becoming more dry, wet areas more wet, etc,.

This pollution is not merely caused by overpopulation but also by

decadence - we are a wasteful and ungrateful society, especially here

in the " spoiled " West.

You're right, I agree, nature will take it's course. But it'll take

care of us long before the food runs out in the form of disease or war

(humankind is " nature " and war is one way nature gets us to kill each

other off). All we can do I guess is hope that it doesn't effect our

particular lives, correct?

We all feel pretty hopeless when it comes to changing how things are

done. Money is the end-all-be-all. Ordinary folks have no power to

improve things. This explains why humor instead of action is often

employed when the heavy topics come up.