no wonder

[Guest guest]

> 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.

Okay, now you got me curious. Just how do you mean that we " return to

nature " ? If you mean in the truest sense of the word (going back to

living in a " wild " state), now that just isn't going to happen, unless

we're talking post-world devastation, be it war, disease or some

natural disaster that effects the whole planet. Humans aren't going to

make a conscious decision to do that, not that it's impossible to live

that way. That would mean going back to hunting and collecting, and I

think the people of this world would find there's nothing left to hunt

or collect, especially in those parts that have sprawling suburbs and

no nature left to speak of. The wild places where things live and grow

are shrinking more and more everyday. Anyone who'd attempt farming

would be raided in no time as competition would be too fierce, at

least, that how'd I'd imagine it. (This state of affairs would be

" thrown " at us, and not something that we'd be used to, therefore it'd

be a much more desperate situation.)

We have all this technology right now, but it's the gadgets that excite

us (the spoiled ones), when it should be put to better use. (Don't you

just love the word " consumer " ? With a label like that, it pretty much

tells us what those who supply unnecessary goods think of us as they

count their booties.)

Over-population is most obvious in the poorer countries where people

have more children, whether because they need help on the family farm

or because they have no access to (or are forbidden) contraceptives.

Our technical advances could at least help out here more than it is, at

least where religion/laws aren't getting in the way.

What's the answer to this? Hell if I know. When the West looks to

helping out poorer countries, they have dollar signs in their eyes: no

altruism involved. They see more " consumers " when it's " consuming "

that makes for shallow, soul-less societies that can't pay attention to

any one thing longer than 10 seconds. Hard to solve world issues under

such circumstances.

[Guest guest]

> 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.

Actually, overpopulation will take care of itself one way or another.

We're not " away from nature " as it is. And plenty of other living

things do overpopulate.

Not that it will be pretty if we don't do anything about it

deliberately, but it doesn't take deliberate action or " returning to

nature " (whatever that means -- I'm not sure, given that humans seem

to be part of it) for nature to show us that it's boss.

[Guest guest]

a C. MacNeil wrote:

> Okay, now you got me curious. Just how do you mean that we " return to

> nature " ?

I was thinking more in the lines of allowing nature to take it's course.

Getting away from chemical dependent living. Currently the drug

companies are in a mad scramble to create more drugs to cure more

disease. This causes nature to bring on drug resistant strains and more

varieties of deadlier diseases. The cycle keeps speeding up.

> Anyone who'd attempt farming

> would be raided in no time as competition would be too fierce, at

> least, that how'd I'd imagine it.

I'm not clear what you mean here, are you saying that people would be

scrambling for food or raiding the farm to get rid of the competition.

Remember that currently there is an over supply of food, it's just not

being distributed where it's needed. The bigger problem though is not

the need to distribute food but to teach them how to farm for

themselves. This of course includes teaching them to be self sustaining

in all areas, not just food. Once a country become self sustaining then

it does not matter whether they earn a dollar a day or a dollar a year

just as long as everyone has the same dollar.

> When the West looks to

> helping out poorer countries, they have dollar signs in their eyes: no

> altruism involved. They see more " consumers " when it's " consuming "

> that makes for shallow, soul-less societies that can't pay attention to

> any one thing longer than 10 seconds. Hard to solve world issues under

> such circumstances.

>

I think you should change your statement from " The West " to " The US " .

Not all " Western " countries are as returns oriented as the US. The US

has no interest in solving world issues only world domination. The

biggest world issue IS domination.

Red

[Guest guest]

a C. MacNeil wrote:

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

> live under questionable regimes,

It's more the regimes than the drought.

> I'm sure it's a choice indeed.

It's always a choice.

> Being the birth place of human beings,

Africa?????? Where did you learn your history?

> 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.

I never knew that having kids was to continue your line. If that is your

reason for having kids then, no, you should definitely not have any.

Red

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

>...The bigger problem though is not

>the need to distribute food but to teach them how to farm for

>themselves. This of course includes teaching them to be self sustaining

>in all areas, not just food. Once a country become self sustaining then

>it does not matter whether they earn a dollar a day or a dollar a year

>just as long as everyone has the same dollar.

With " globalization, " their counties are flooded with our foodstuffs,

which means local farmers cannot sell their crops (to buy the

" inputs " they need to go on farming) and are forced to grow products

for export instead. Or else move to the city (live on the street or

in a slum) to find work.

Jane

[Guest guest]

.....as someone who actually grew up in the kind of situation you advocate,I

can with confidence tell you are full of what is shovled out of stables. You

are advocating an insane life,that will cost the lives of millions of people

I've never seen such a Thantos personality in my life,and can't understand

why you are here,if you hate life so much. Go join some survivalist group

and leave us who try to solve our problems alone.

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

a C. MacNeil wrote:

> Okay, now you got me curious. Just how do you mean that we " return to

> nature " ?

I was thinking more in the lines of allowing nature to take it's course.

Getting away from chemical dependent living. Currently the drug

companies are in a mad scramble to create more drugs to cure more

disease. This causes nature to bring on drug resistant strains and more

varieties of deadlier diseases. The cycle keeps speeding up.

> Anyone who'd attempt farming

> would be raided in no time as competition would be too fierce, at

> least, that how'd I'd imagine it.

I'm not clear what you mean here, are you saying that people would be

scrambling for food or raiding the farm to get rid of the competition.

Remember that currently there is an over supply of food, it's just not

being distributed where it's needed. The bigger problem though is not

the need to distribute food but to teach them how to farm for

themselves. This of course includes teaching them to be self sustaining

in all areas, not just food. Once a country become self sustaining then

it does not matter whether they earn a dollar a day or a dollar a year

just as long as everyone has the same dollar.

> When the West looks to

> helping out poorer countries, they have dollar signs in their eyes: no

> altruism involved. They see more " consumers " when it's " consuming "

> that makes for shallow, soul-less societies that can't pay attention to

> any one thing longer than 10 seconds. Hard to solve world issues under

> such circumstances.

>

I think you should change your statement from " The West " to " The US " .

Not all " Western " countries are as returns oriented as the US. The US

has no interest in solving world issues only world domination. The

biggest world issue IS domination.

Red

[Guest guest]

> ....as someone who actually grew up in the kind of situation you

> advocate,I

> can with confidence tell you are full of what is shovled out of

> stables. You

> are advocating an insane life,that will cost the lives of millions

> of people

> I've never seen such a Thantos personality in my life,and can't

> understand

> why you are here,if you hate life so much. Go join some survivalist

> group

> and leave us who try to solve our problems alone.

PLEASE don't tell people to join the survivalist groups! Many tend

to come to Wyoming to live, and, frankly, most of us are sick of

them! We don't need any more extremists! (fortunately we just

ran the head of the " World Church of the Creator " which is definitely

anything but a church out of our state - he thought Wyoming would be

a good headquarters for a white supremacy group; ugh).

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

> > Being the birth place of human beings,

> Africa?????? Where did you learn your history?

Trust me, All the experts agree that humans originated in Africa,

and there were at least 2 major migrations from there. Where did

you think they originated?

> I never knew that having kids was to continue your line. If that

> is your reason for having kids then, no, you should definitely

> not have any.

That seems to be most people's reason for reproduction. Do you

have any kids, and if so, why did you have them? Just wondering.

Clay

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> PLEASE don't tell people to join the survivalist groups! Many tend

> to come to Wyoming to live, and, frankly, most of us are sick of

> them! We don't need any more extremists! (fortunately we just

> ran the head of the " World Church of the Creator " which is definitely

> anything but a church out of our state - he thought Wyoming would be

> a good headquarters for a white supremacy group; ugh).

There must be low or no state taxes there, huh? I thought

most of the supremacist types were going to Idaho?

Clay, who plans to eventually go to New Mexico to retire,

someplace where it doesn't snow or get below 50 degrees

[Guest guest]

> a C. MacNeil wrote:

>

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

> who

> > live under questionable regimes,

>

> It's more the regimes than the drought.

>

It HARDLY matters. Originally, I asked " when there are more people

than there is now, will we take better care of each other? " You seem

to think everyone should just take care of themselves (and I agree

where it's possible), even though circumstances can prevent this. In

many situations, the answers to people's problems are out of their

control. In an advanced civilization, you don't just leave certain

members out in the cold like that, otherwise you don't deserve to be

called " advanced " .

> > I'm sure it's a choice indeed.

>

> It's always a choice.

No, it's not.

>

> > Being the birth place of human beings,

>

> Africa?????? Where did you learn your history?

Ah, I think you should question where you learned yours. Realize that

the oldest human (or human ancestral) remains are found in AFRICA.

Lucy? Ever hear of her? (Obviously not) They found another that's

even older than her. Look it up.

>

> > 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.

>

> I never knew that having kids was to continue your line. If that is

> your

> reason for having kids then, no, you should definitely not have any.

>

I didn't say that was my reason for having kids, and no one tends to

consciously think that way. I don't have any kids, nor do I want any,

which is a common decision amongst those who are the youngest child in

a large family. I asked a question, and yes, having kids is about

continuing your line, and has been since the first amoeba split in two.

Humans, having a conscious mind, convince themselves that they have

kids for other reasons, but in the end it's our DNA that tells us what

to do and it doesn't have to reside in or dictate to the consciousness

to get its work done.

> Red

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> There must be low or no state taxes there, huh? I thought

> most of the supremacist types were going to Idaho?

Yes, no state income tax and a fairly low property tax. Cars are

expensive to license here though.

We are fortunate that we aren't Montana or Idaho - they get even more

of this stuff than we get. But we get enough.

The thing is that I haven't seen very many prejudiced people here,

although I'm starting to see more of it towards hispanics. I've

never particularly understood racial prejudice though.

> Clay, who plans to eventually go to New Mexico to retire,

> someplace where it doesn't snow or get below 50 degrees

Well, there are cold parts of NM (mountains and such).

It was nearly 50 last night. Or rather nearly -40F windchil...

[Guest guest]

> I didn't say that was my reason for having kids, and no one tends to

> consciously think that way. I don't have any kids, nor do I want any,

> which is a common decision amongst those who are the youngest child in

> a large family. I asked a question, and yes, having kids is about

> continuing your line, and has been since the first amoeba split in

> two.

> Humans, having a conscious mind, convince themselves that they have

> kids for other reasons, but in the end it's our DNA that tells us what

> to do and it doesn't have to reside in or dictate to the consciousness

> to get its work done.

I think it is a bit more complex than " DNA made me do it " ... Not

that I want kids... (I also suspect that I'm not missing that chunk

of DNA that is designed to encourage reproduction!)

[Guest guest]

> a C. MacNeil wrote:

>

> > Okay, now you got me curious.  Just how do you mean that we " return

> to

> > nature " ? 

>

> I was thinking more in the lines of allowing nature to take it's

> course.

> Getting away from chemical dependent living. Currently the drug

> companies are in a mad scramble to create more drugs to cure more

> disease. This causes nature to bring on drug resistant strains and

> more

> varieties of deadlier diseases. The cycle keeps speeding up.

>

I do agree we need to stop depending so much on chemicals, but it

depends on what the chemicals are being used for. For many diseases,

drugs are the only solution. For bacteria, there IS overuse to the

point that we've created " superbugs " (via anti-biotics), and I'm sure

these " superbugs " will become bigger and bigger threats as time goes

by. Anti-bacterial soaps are extremely popular, and the good bacteria

that we rely on gets killed alongside the bad ones. One job I had made

us use anti-bacterial soap. The skin on my hands nearly came off from

having to use it so much. The good bacteria that protected my skin was

wiped out, leaving my skin vulnerable with open sores, peeling and

inflammation. And I agree that if there's a way to cure something

other than through drugs, to promote it, study it, practice it. But

many of the fatal or life inhibiting diseases can only be stopped via

1) preventative measures, or 2) drugs.

The pharmaceutical companies seem to have too much power though.

> > Anyone who'd attempt farming

> > would be raided in no time as competition would be too fierce, at

> > least, that how'd I'd imagine it.

>

> I'm not clear what you mean here, are you saying that people would be

> scrambling for food or raiding the farm to get rid of the competition.

> Remember that currently there is an over supply of food, it's just not

> being distributed where it's needed. The bigger problem though is not

> the need to distribute food but to teach them how to farm for

> themselves. This of course includes teaching them to be self

> sustaining

> in all areas, not just food. Once a country become self sustaining

> then

> it does not matter whether they earn a dollar a day or a dollar a year

> just as long as everyone has the same dollar.

>

If you'd read everything I wrote, you would realize that I was talking

about in a POST-devastation world. And you really should stop

believing that food and farming and all that goes with it is a

guarantee. At the present time, the US has stores that can last up to

two years (grains, corn, etc,.) One bad year won't hurt. Two-three

bad years (draught, or other reasons) and we're in trouble. To think

that food availability will always be there is to believe in Utopia.

And another thing, the crops that grow today, while they are growing

faster due to the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, they are LESS

nutritious, and with time this state of affairs will increase. And

who's to say what problems we will be facing with the modified food

industry. Because they would like you to just eat what they offer and

shut the hell up. No, you can't see the ingredients, because if you

did, you might not buy/eat it.

> >   When the West looks to

> > helping out poorer countries, they have dollar signs in their eyes:

> no

> > altruism involved.  They see more " consumers " when it's " consuming "

> > that makes for shallow, soul-less societies that can't pay

> attention to

> > any one thing longer than 10 seconds.  Hard to solve world issues

> under

> > such circumstances.

> >

>

> I think you should change your statement from " The West " to " The US " .

> Not all " Western " countries are as returns oriented as the US. The US

> has no interest in solving world issues only world domination. The

> biggest world issue IS domination.

>

> Red

>

I live in Canada and I'm perfectly aware of the US and how they

dominate. But I also know that world history teaches us that

someone's always got the most power. The power really lies in American

business, which is not necessarily representative of Americans as a

whole. Ordinary Americans have problems with the rich companies that

monopolize their lives as well. This is about is division between rich

and poor, as it's always been throughout history. ( " Rich get richer,

poor get poorer " scenario.) Furthermore, I did not want to point

fingers at any one country, because that seems too easy a thing to do

(scapegoat). Believe it or not, the majority of Americans are good

people with good intentions, even if sometimes they seem unworldly,

insular and naive. The rich businesses that control everything are

taking advantage of the freedoms afforded them. Governments are losing

more power to them everyday because they have all the money and use it

effectively when it comes to getting governments to do things their

way. Yes, governments should have more spine, but it appears that this

isn't going to happen anytime soon.

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> > I didn't say that was my reason for having kids, and no one tends to

> > consciously think that way.  I don't have any kids, nor do I want

> any,

> > which is a common decision amongst those who are the youngest child

> in

> > a large family.  I asked a question, and yes, having kids is about

> > continuing your line, and has been since the first amoeba split in 

> > two.

> >   Humans, having a conscious mind, convince themselves that they

> have

> > kids for other reasons, but in the end it's our DNA that tells us

> what

> > to do and it doesn't have to reside in or dictate to the

> consciousness

> > to get its work done.

>

> I think it is a bit more complex than " DNA made me do it " ...  Not 

> that I want kids...  (I also suspect that I'm not missing that chunk 

> of DNA that is designed to encourage reproduction!)

>

I recommend the book " Dark Nature " by Lyall . Besides being a

great read, it helps explain how DNA (the " selfish gene " ) works.

I could say I'm missing that " chunk of DNA " as well. But not really,

it's just not as insistent, I guess you could say...the thing I

mentioned about the youngest children in a large family being the least

likely to have kids...their older siblings have kids before them, which

means the DNA of these younger siblings is already out there, and often

before they are adults capable of reproduction. All DNA wants from us

is reproduction. We may appear as one single organism, but that's not

the case at all. The human body is a multitude of living organisms all

working together in one package. So it might appear like a conscious

decision not to have kids (and our conscious minds can create many

reasons why not), DNA has a lot to do with it. It works " behind the

scenes " .

Many people have problems with the idea of DNA telling them what to do,

that it means they don't have " free will " . Yes, they do have free

will, but there's no reason to be afraid of admitting to the effects of

DNA on the population as a whole. If it wasn't for DNA we wouldn't be

here nor would we have evolved into creatures that have " free will " .

The only way to get a " hold " of something is to understand it. Denying

DNA it's role isn't going to change anything about how it works. Mind

you, understanding it might not change a thing either when it comes to

something this powerful. But I don't see DNA as a scapegoat or a

monster. It gave me life, and that's enough for me.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> The only way to get a " hold " of something is to understand it. Denying

> DNA it's role isn't going to change anything about how it works. Mind

> you, understanding it might not change a thing either when it comes to

> something this powerful. But I don't see DNA as a scapegoat or a

> monster. It gave me life, and that's enough for me.

I don't deny that DNA influences our lives.

I do deny that DNA controls our decision to reproduce, and also deny

that " continuing the line " is the only reason anyone " really "

reproduces.

[Guest guest]

> .....sorry! I really wasn't trying to plug survivalists! God,I

> would never

> do that! I had never realised what it all was until OKC

> happened,and all the

> coverage of that and Waco,and it blew me apart-I have PTSD because

> of that

> and the abuse that was a result of it,and have incredible hair

> triggers all

> over the place. That is why I can't stand red's attitude....it is

> too much

> like that " survival of the fittest " mindset, " throw out the

> weak,they aren't

> worth saving' and all that other crap.

Don't worry, I was half-joking. I didn't think you were plugging

survivalists at all!

That said, I think Red is trying to piss people off yet again.

That's why I've been ignoring him. I suspect most people here

disagree with what Red has stated, and that Red knows it.

[Guest guest]

> This is horrific, and I wish Parrish would say something....

I agree it's horrific, but in this particular case, I haven't spoken

up because, IMO, there is a difference between having obnoxious

opinions and being an obnoxious person. The latter is not

acceptable. The former grates on one's nerves, to be sure, but the

proper way to eliminate obnoxious opinions is to refute them with

facts and logic, as you (plural) have been doing. Squelching

obnoxious opinions simply vindicates the person expressing them and

makes them stronger.

--Parrish

[Guest guest]

a wrote:

>For those of us (I think especially women) who have decided not to have

>kids, there's always this " voice " that tries to get you to change your

>mind.

Either that is too " blanket " a statement or I am " deaf " to that

" voice. " Never heard it.

Jane

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

>With " globalization, " their counties are flooded with our foodstuffs,

>which means local farmers cannot sell their crops ....

Today, coincidentally, I came across this site

http://www.silentkillerfilm.org/problems_solutions.html

It gives very short descriptions of various problems that contribute

to hunger in the world.

Jane

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> That said, I think Red is trying to piss people off yet again.

> That's why I've been ignoring him. I suspect most people here

> disagree with what Red has stated, and that Red knows it.

You have it all wrong. I am not trying to piss anyone off. All I am

stating is a stark reality. I am not a survivalist, far, far from it.

All I am really getting at is that it is because human nature is to

fight to preserve life and therefore upsetting nature that is the reason

for the large population we have in the world.

Red

[Guest guest]

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> it is too much

> like that " survival of the fittest " mindset, " throw out the weak,they aren't

> worth saving' and all that other crap. There is no love,no charity,no

> compassion,no caring for others,but only love of self in the survivalist

> mindset,

You are missing one very important point. I don't advocate any of what

you are accusing me of. Not in the least. I am only stating the obvious

regarding nature's way of controlling overpopulation. Human nature is to

fight nature in this. Humans appear to be winning except that when you

look at things like the feared coming of super viruses, aids and all the

other new and frightening diseases I'm not so sure.

Red

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> Trust me, All the experts agree that humans originated in Africa,

> and there were at least 2 major migrations from there. Where did

> you think they originated?

That is definitely not true. Many experts claim India is the birthplace.

> That seems to be most people's reason for reproduction. Do you

> have any kids, and if so, why did you have them?

Yes. I have 2 children and 5 grand children. Why? well mainly because my

wife got pregnant. It definitely had nothing to do with carrying on my

lineage. We had sex, she got pregnant, no other motives involved.

Red

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

> You are missing one very important point. I don't advocate any of

> what you are accusing me of. Not in the least. I am only stating

> the obvious regarding nature's way of controlling overpopulation.

> Human nature is to fight nature in this. Humans appear to be win-

> ning except that when you look at things like the feared coming

> of super viruses, aids and all the other new and frightening dis-

> eases I'm not so sure.

Okay, that's true. Gaia (Mother Earth, nature), has her ways of

controlling overpopulation. Wars, drought, AIDS, ebola, hurricanes,

earthquakes, all the terrible diseases seem to be getting into full

swing, now that we're over 6 billion. We keep polluting the air

and water, and the glaciers keep melting, and huge numbers of people

live near the coastlines. I think there are big changes ahead.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

> With " globalization, " their counties are flooded with our foodstuffs,

> which means local farmers cannot sell their crops (to buy the

> " inputs " they need to go on farming) and are forced to grow products

> for export instead. Or else move to the city (live on the street or

> in a slum) to find work.

>

I don't get the logic here. With globalization there should be more

market, more food should be getting to where it's needed. What do you

mean " their counties are flooded with our foodstuffs " . What are their

counties? who is our? Who are the local farmers and where did their

market go. What are these inputs they can not buy and if they need them

to go on farming how does growing for export change the need for these

inputs.

I grew up on a farm and we never used inputs yet we were able to

continue farming. I have never heard of inputs, are they like seeds?

Red

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

>I grew up on a farm and we never used inputs yet we were able to

>continue farming. I have never heard of inputs, are they like seeds?

A lot has changed in the world of farming. Most of it in the

" developed " world has been taken over by " agribusiness, " and the big

chemical companies have gotten into it in a big way. One result is

the flooding of " developing " world markets by U.S. agriproducts, to

the ruin of the local economies in the " developing " countries. If you

really want to know about it, you'll have to do some reading.

http://search.corpwatch.org/search?q=Monsanto & is=corpwatch.org & x=0 & y=0

one farmer takes on Monsanto: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

globalization and poverty

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/shiva202.htm

http://www.urban75.com/Action/genetix15.html

That's just the first few " hits " from one Googling (of Monsanto

poverty). Other search terms woudl turn up other facets of the issue.

Don't have time for it now.

Jane