Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

[Guest guest]

Why always the knee jerk reaction to reduce population ? REDUCE?? Why? We need

MORE people, not less. More people means more opportunities to hatch

visionaries, geniuses and " doers " that supply the breakthroughs... improve

quality of life and experiences.

3/4 plus of the planet is untouched...water world. If you consider the depth of

the ocean to at least 500 feet down, that is a tremendous volume available to

habitat that is unused. Meat eating isn't limited to beef or quadrupeds is

it? Do not " fins " count as well?

Lets explore ALL our resources before we cry population control. Yes, there are

many issues right now, but they are not from over population, but rather

shortage of creative and visionary people. Lets increase education, investment

mindset, and the like, not cut back on creating our greatest resource...The

limitless universe is out there for us to expand into... and we have the brain

matter, so lets use it.

:-(

Re: Population reduction

>

>

>>That " and will " worries me, . Just who are we going to starve out

>>so that rich Americans can have grass-fed beef? How do you see the

> >WAPification of the world progressing?

>

>

>I'd love the population to reduce, myself (and I think it would if

>all women could afford good birth control and knew how

>to use it and the church wasn't telling them not to use it -- Canada

>is already on a negative population curve, as is much of Europe).

I think it's a Good Thing, as long as it's voluntary, and relatively

even over the planet. But the wars of the next century are going to

have a lot to do with demographics, and I don't see any good way to

bring the whole-world population down without immigration control,

because otherwise the cultures that reduce their birthrate first will

be swamped by those who wait.

Even then, I think that the majority of the planet will still end up

being primarily cereal-burners.

>But I don't think you'd have to reduce the population to get

>good grass fed meat. I live in an area where a lot of people DO

>grow their own. There are HUGE areas of land that used to

>support millions of animals that are now empty. Or worse,

>are being *mowed* by petroleum based machines. It takes

>surprisingly little area to feed a cow, and per pound, 1/3 that

>much to grow an elk or goat. Most of those un-grazed areas

>now are fire hazards. Every suburban block disposes of huge

>amounts of shrubbery and lawn clippings to the compost truck

>... enough to feed a herd of goats. (I support two goats off my

>front lawn, and we still have to mow it sometimes, and I still

>have to compost a huge amount of stuff, which means I'm

>getting more goats one of these days).

No, you probably wouldn't have to reduce population. OTOH, you'd have

to have a HUGE adjustment in land use, zoning, and notions of private

property rights. Nothing pisses me off more than huge chunks of empty

land in suburbs or cities that aren't producing food because of laws.

I had mentioned my peeps to a friend, who said, " I'd love to keep

chickens, but the township won't let me. " Now, this woman doesn't

live in a toney place...it's kind of a white-trash dirt-road

subdivision in an exurb of Cleveland. I said, " If it was me, I'd keep

them inside and wait for the neighbors to complain. " (Yeah, not

ranged, but at least better treated than commercial.) I'm not so

doctrinaire as to say there should be NO restrictions...if it's

pretty likely that a property use will interfere with a neighbor's

property use, it might be more efficient to stop that than to run it

through the courts. But the occasional whiff of manure is not

" interference " .

So...what do you think somebody could support on 3 acres of pasture?

This isn't a hypothetical, though right now time is our limiting

factor (spouse-to-be-Sunday is working mandatory 7 shifts/wk and

being begged to take overtime, I have a big commute plus musical

stuff). How do you handle goats and your lawn...do you stake them?

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Soy: what food eats.

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

Bob-

>3/4 plus of the planet is untouched...water world. If you consider the

>depth of the ocean to at least 500 feet down, that is a tremendous volume

>available to habitat that is unused. Meat eating isn't limited to beef

>or quadrupeds is it? Do not " fins " count as well?

That water world is quite heavily touched, actually. You've not heard of

overfishing and the collapse of many fish populations? We're already

pressed right up against the total food production capacity of the earth,

and since a lot of that capacity is propped up with hydrocarbons, peak oil

is going to cause major food problems.

-

[Guest guest]

That water world is quite heavily touched, actually. You've not heard of

overfishing and the collapse of many fish populations? We're already

pressed right up against the total food production capacity of the earth,

and since a lot of that capacity is propped up with hydrocarbons, peak oil

is going to cause major food problems.

----------------------

,

World peak oil will probably usher in a serious population reduction. Being the

finite resource that most scientists believe it is, I am perplexed that

alternatives are not being developed ... like NOW. I don't think energy will

ever again be available like it is today, and unfortunately, we are encouraged

to consume more and more without regard.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>World peak oil will probably usher in a serious population

>reduction. Being the finite resource that most scientists believe it is,

>I am perplexed that alternatives are not being developed ... like NOW. I

>don't think energy will ever again be available like it is today, and

>unfortunately, we are encouraged to consume more and more without regard.

If the technologies were pursued, energy could become quite

abundant. Fusion and zero point energy are just a couple

possibilities. But nobody's wanted to kill the golden goose.

-

[Guest guest]

On Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:12:40 -0500 panamabob@... wrote>

From:

> Why always the knee jerk reaction to reduce population ? REDUCE?? Why? We need

> MORE people, not less. More people means more opportunities to hatch

> visionaries, geniuses and " doers " that supply the breakthroughs... improve

> quality of life and experiences.

>

> 3/4 plus of the planet is untouched...water world. If you consider the depth

of

> the ocean to at least 500 feet down, that is a tremendous volume available to

> habitat that is unused. Meat eating isn't limited to beef or quadrupeds is

> it? Do not " fins " count as well?

Abbey said that a man needed a good square mile of land around himself

(or was it 10 miles?). I think that's about right. I'll take mine on terra firma

thanks. And let the " doers " do their thing somewhere else... outer space would

be fine. My quality of life tends to be better with less " doing " and more

contemplation. Like on this cloud or that rock or that spider.

[Guest guest]

Actually overfishing is just in narrow zone... The majority of the ocean waters

are what you may call a desert... only in areas of nutrient upwellings or

coastal zones do you find fishing.

By utilizing deep ocean pumping up of nutrients that have been trapped for eons

you can create new upwellings, and thereby more " fish " ...and unlike articially

fed from fish farms, it is natural in the sense of being phytoplankton based on

up...

:-)

The pumping systems, like OTEC plants (Ocean thermal energy conversion) also

generate energy (elkectricity) from this cycling and fresh water from

condensation from atmosphere that collects on the cold deep pipes.

Water 1800 ft down and deeper has a pretty constant temp of below 40 degrees,

and surface waters around the tropical zones maintain 75-80 degrees year round.

A 40 degree Delta-T or water temp diferential allows a thermal cycle engine to

operate... the deep water at 40 degrees acts a condensing medium and the warm

water at 80 acts as the evaprroation medium.

As long as the Sun shines on the oceans warming them, and as long as deep water

DOESNT get Sun shine and warmth, this cycle can continue.

Again, by creating more upwellings of nutrient, more fish can be generated.

Like iirigating a desert region...with the water comes new plant life... :-)

Check out Palm Springs

Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

That water world is quite heavily touched, actually. You've not heard of

overfishing and the collapse of many fish populations? We're already

pressed right up against the total food production capacity of the earth,

and since a lot of that capacity is propped up with hydrocarbons, peak oil

is going to cause major food problems.

----------------------

,

World peak oil will probably usher in a serious population reduction. Being

the finite resource that most scientists believe it is, I am perplexed that

alternatives are not being developed ... like NOW. I don't think energy will

ever again be available like it is today, and unfortunately, we are encouraged

to consume more and more without regard.

Deanna

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

Amazinly this OTEC technology has been around for 100 years...and been done in

pilot and experimental plants in several locations incluidng Hawaii (check out

Hawaii dept of energy site)

The reason this hasnt cought on, simply, is that present population centers are

NOT in temperate zones...at least not any with " wealth " to invest in the

technology and placement.

Since this system doesnt work well in areas where surface ocean temps are NOT

warm, which is the temperate populated zones, or where cold deep water is

easily accesible (as opposed to long continental shelfs along most coast lines)

the OTEC plant has not been pursued.

However if we move NEW population centers into the coeans themsleves, well, that

changes everything.

:-)

[Guest guest]

At 4:07 PM +0000 3/18/05, wrote:

>Message: 18

> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:12:40 -0500

> From: <panamabob@...>

>Subject: Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

>

>Why always the knee jerk reaction to reduce population ? REDUCE??

>Why? We need MORE people, not less. More people means more

>opportunities to hatch visionaries, geniuses and " doers " that supply

>the breakthroughs... improve quality of life and experiences.

I'm with you there. But I believe in quality, not quantity. It's

not my job to say who is to breed and who not; that concept became

quite unpopular in the early 1940s, for some odd reason :-) But I

don't much like feeding children of parents who can't feed

themselves, let alone their children. This strikes me as going in the

wrong direction, and maybe some " tough love " is required . And the

food that the preggers parents and kids eat doesn't help either. Are

these kids going to create new worlds, or just suck cheese in front

of the tube?

For me it's not kneejerk, at least not in an ecological sense. More

people mean more people looking over my shoulder and sticking their

nose in my business. I like having some space. So maybe it's

different politics that jerks my knee. :-)

>3/4 plus of the planet is untouched...water world. If you consider

>the depth of the ocean to at least 500 feet down, that is a

>tremendous volume available to habitat that is unused. Meat eating

>isn't limited to beef or quadrupeds is it? Do not " fins " count as

>well?

If you can find the means (technically and politically) to farm it,

be my guest. But as correctly pointed out, the oceans as commons

are not exactly untouched, and we're not going to pull more fish out

without finding a way to grow more fish.

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Soy: what food eats.

[Guest guest]

>I think it's a Good Thing, as long as it's voluntary, and relatively

>even over the planet. But the wars of the next century are going to

>have a lot to do with demographics, and I don't see any good way to

>bring the whole-world population down without immigration control,

>because otherwise the cultures that reduce their birthrate first will

>be swamped by those who wait.

Maybe. The US is still on top militarily, and not because we

have the biggest army. Technology has a lot to do with it.

And you are right, the issue is mainly with 3rd world countries,

which is why the issue with immigration control. But some

countries have done well with it, via education and cheap

birth control. The US is far from being the " leader " in this

sense, because of religious interests in this country. It IS

a problem for the various religions, because whatever

religion produces the most kids, wins.

>Even then, I think that the majority of the planet will still end up

>being primarily cereal-burners.

I could argue that. I think that as petrol prices go up, it IS

possible that people will buy more " close to home " . At any

rate, per the original argument, it is more " NT " to eat " close to home " .

Preferably from your own garden even. Now, for SOME folks that

might mean cereals, but cereals in general are darn energy-draining.

(they needed slaves or farm animals in the old days, petrol now).

You can grow enough collards or potatoes to feed your household

with some weekend work, but to harvest and thresh enough wheat

would be a far bigger deal. Raising a cow or some ducks or a goat, OTOH,

is easier than raising your average house dog, which people do on a

regular basis. Calorie for calorie, meat is cheaper.

So, I'd argue, that if food production gets closer to home, it's more

likely to look like old-time Italy or France, which meant *meat animals*

and vegies. Cereals took over because of cheap petroleum, plus

food subsidies. Cereals aren't cheap at ALL if you have to do the

labor!

The equation gets worse if you count in water, which is scarce in lots

of places now. My goats don't need ANY water most of the time,

and maybe a gallon or two when the grass is dry. Grains, OTOH,

require major irrigation. Which is cheaper?

The folks who argue that cereals are cheap don't seem to have

ever tried to raise and harvest any. It IS true that they are cheap in

our rather skewed current environment, but THAT is based on large-scale

irrigation, cheap petrol, and farm subsidies. I tried growing all kinds of

food ... cereals, goats, chickens, ducks, potatoes, collards ... and so

far ducks are the winner for work in vs. harvest out, followed by goats.

And collards are best for vitamin content (they don't have many or any

calories, so I can't count them for that).

Of course, in other climates maybe cereals are easier. But they are also

really requiring a lot of the soil, whereas goats eat the shrubbery that

otherwise crowds out the trees (improving your fruit harvest). You can

also use goats to get rid of, say, kudzu, or keep the highways trimmed

(instead of driving petrol-fueled vehicles to trim shrubbery!).

>

>

>So...what do you think somebody could support on 3 acres of pasture?

>This isn't a hypothetical, though right now time is our limiting

>factor (spouse-to-be-Sunday is working mandatory 7 shifts/wk and

>being begged to take overtime, I have a big commute plus musical

>stuff). How do you handle goats and your lawn...do you stake them?

First, goats don't like lawn much. Mine eat the blackberries which

keep cropping up, keep the forest areas trimmed. But they do

trim the lawn too. I have stakes where there aren't trees ... someone

(my dd usually) puts them out in the am and they much til evening, unless

the weather is too wet. Ideally we'd put up fences, which is the plan,

and pasture them with ducks and geese. Ducks and geese are better

at trimming grass, esp. since they eat dandelions.

We have 15 chickens, 10 ducks, 2 goats, and use maybe 1 acre of our 5 acre

lot. It takes about 20 minutes a day, most days, to feed and water everyone.

Our meat chickens take 6 weeks to raise, about 15 minutes a day of care.

It's building the pens, getting a water supply, fences, set up that takes

the time. Mostly the animals care for themselves, and unlike cats and dogs,

they don't need human interaction particularly. We just have to make sure

they get fenced in at night so they don't get eaten.

We also get 40+ lbs of berries a year, from what grows wild. I'm trying to

" tame "

the berry bushes so they are more harvestable. They produce a lot more, but

it's hard to get them all before they go bad. And we have more rhubarb than we

can ever use. The berries and rhubarb take care of themselves mostly, but

I need to allocate the time to harvest them.

I expect to fence in another acre, and have about 5-10 more goats, meat

goats, not fiber goats, which we'll probably rotate around to keep the

brush trimmed. The chickens keep the bugs down in the garden, and the

ducks kill the slugs. Both give eggs. With an incubator and a male goat,

I'd guess we could be close to self-sufficient, except that we can't

raise grains ... they don't grow well here AT ALL and are a pain to process.

So to raise our own foods, we'd have to use turnips, parsnips, carrots,

and potatoes for starches. Collards are really simple, it's just a matter

of keeping the slugs off, ditto for kale. Beans and pumpkins are a little

more work, but not much.

Anyway, I haven't worked out the exact math, since we mainly get one

beef a year for most of our meat, and I don't want to handle a steer (too

big). Economically, I think 1 500 lb steer is about 100 chickens, which I

could grow in 4 batches, in 4 months, in our little dog-kennel size 'covered'

coop. Each batch takes 1 month to raise. Ducks, I think, are even easier,

though I'm still experimenting with that.

As for would this require a paradigm shift ... heck yes! But then I don't

think the current system is sustainable. There HAS to be a paradigm shift.

Coming up with a Mc's Franchise Type Paradigm might make the

shift easier for the poor folks who suddenly get stuck in the middle of it.

Already the zoning laws are changing ... you can legally have laying chickens

in Seattle, just not roosters. In LA, my Mom tells me they have chickens all

over, though not legally (no one is enforcing the zoning laws ...). Actually

I had them when I was a kid, again not legally, but they aren't really

something you would notice unless you have a rooster.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Why always the knee jerk reaction to reduce population ? REDUCE?? Why? We need

MORE people, not less. More people means more opportunities to hatch

visionaries, geniuses and " doers " that supply the breakthroughs... improve

quality of life and experiences.

If you want those visionaries, just feed them wheat and casein at an early age.

More Aspies. And make a culture that nurtures them ... our current environment

is not particularly conducive to creative people, just conducive to people who

make money for coorporations, which may or not be good for " humans " as a whole.

>3/4 plus of the planet is untouched...water world. If you consider the depth of

the ocean to at least 500 feet down, that is a tremendous volume available to

habitat that is unused. Meat eating isn't limited to beef or quadrupeds is

it? Do not " fins " count as well?

Umm ... maybe. But the water world is stressed out too. Water species are dying

at an alarming rate.

>Lets explore ALL our resources before we cry population control. Yes, there are

many issues right now, but they are not from over population, but rather

shortage of creative and visionary people. Lets increase education, investment

mindset, and the like, not cut back on creating our greatest resource...The

limitless universe is out there for us to expand into... and we have the brain

matter, so lets use it.

Right, so use it! Humans are predators, and predators do best when there aren't

many of them. As population increases, stress on the environment increases in

many different ways. Species are dying out like crazy now. The fact we

overconsume makes the situation worse. Diamond's book talks about this in

great detail, well researched.

Anyway, I'm not lobbying for population reduction. I think the population WILL

reduce when women can decide how many children they want to raise. Right now

most women are " suckered in " by biology and society. In animal societies, if a

female has too many offspring, she abandons or eats them. In human society, a

woman who did that would be in jail for life, plus a human woman would simply

not do that unless she has mental issues. So she needs birth control, or at

least the ability to say " no " to her mate (which most women in most cultures

don't have).

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

In some other countries aren't guinea pigs raised as food? Care to raise

some guinea pigs experimentally as food livestock? I wonder how they

could be raised... guinea pig tractors?

Darrell

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>In some other countries aren't guinea pigs raised as food? Care to raise

>some guinea pigs experimentally as food livestock? I wonder how they

>could be raised... guinea pig tractors?

>

>Darrell

Yeah, they've been raised hundreds, if not thousands of years. Traditionally,

you let them run around your house eating leftovers. Until you get hungry ...

They've lived so long with humans that they've adapted to our diet

AND our germs, which is why they make such good lab test cases. If you

get a cold, likely your guinea pig will get it too!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Check out carefuly about open ocean FISHING stresses.. I think you will find

that away from coastal areas that the oceans are relative deserts. Again,

putting in upwelling centers to pull up nutrients that are stagnating creates

NEW sea life population centers, NEW life...not stressing out old.

Humans in many occasions ARE hunter/gatherers, picking the low hanging fruit so

to speak. Most current sea harvest are focusing on " found " resources, not

newly created.Assaulting the same fishing ground sover and over as well as

destroying coastal breeding and nursery areas aint a good way to go...again,

creating NEW fishing grounds by setting up ffloating islands would offset the

current issues.

We have the technology to create NEW springs of life in the oceans that can

support many times the current world population.

By the time we really occupy the whole of the planet, THEN perhaps we will have

overcome space venturing obstacles... something not realistic for now and

possibly not for the next 50 years. 3/4 of a planet untouched due to water

seems like a LOT to expand into. And if you consider the volume /depth of the

oceans, that is even MORE area to populate.

Will every one want to live sub water surface? Or even ON the water surface?

Probaly not...just as folks prefer mountainor prarie sites or even urban

locations. But presently Resident Sea, a floating condominium is sold out by

folks that want to live continuously mobile...changing from port to port around

the world as the seasons change.

Something to think about.

And now with the insights we have garnered about nutrition, we can look past the

quick fix against starvation and allowing other pursuits that grains provided

for the past several thousand years of our human history.

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> Yeah, they've been raised hundreds, if not thousands of

> years. Traditionally, you let them run around your house

> eating leftovers. Until you get hungry ...

So if there's any guinea pig left over, are you supposed to feed it to the

others?

> They've lived so long with humans that they've adapted to our

> diet AND our germs, which is why they make such good lab test

> cases. If you get a cold, likely your guinea pig will get it too!

Wouldn't it be more a matter of the germs adapting to them? That is, a virus

capable of infecting both guinea pigs and humans would reproduce faster than

one capable of infecting only one or the other. If anything, I'd expect

selective pressure in guinea pigs themselves to lean in the direction of

greater resistance to human diseases.

[Guest guest]

>Will every one want to live sub water surface? Or even ON the water surface?

Probaly not...just as folks prefer mountainor prarie sites or even urban

locations. But presently Resident Sea, a floating condominium is sold out by

folks that want to live continuously mobile...changing from port to port around

the world as the seasons change.

Actually MOST people want to live where there are few other people, which is

what suburban sprawl is all about. Folks move to some pristine wonderful place.

And as soon as there are enough folks, it isn't so wonderful. Does anyone REALLY

want to live in a small crowded Tokyo apartment? Folks like the sea because it

has this nice big VIEW and seems empty.

I love the country life, lots of elbow room, ability to still have a campfire.

Everyone could live like this, if we have some optimum number of people. Why

crowd the planet? I can't see ANY upside to crowding people as tight as they can

be. It's like crowding steer or pigs on a factory farm ... yeah you CAN do it,

but why? Well, for pigs and steer, it's for profit, but it's not real nice to

the pigs and steer!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>So if there's any guinea pig left over, are you supposed to feed it to the

>others?

I dunno, but I sure do that with the chooks.

>

>Wouldn't it be more a matter of the germs adapting to them? That is, a virus

>capable of infecting both guinea pigs and humans would reproduce faster than

>one capable of infecting only one or the other. If anything, I'd expect

>selective pressure in guinea pigs themselves to lean in the direction of

>greater resistance to human diseases.

Yeah, I think that is the case too. But a lot of the work that is done on

guinea pigs has to do with diet, and in that case it's a matter of them

being adapted to to our food. Ditto with rats. And it's not just food

and viruses/bacteria ... fleas and lice I think, can share both hosts.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

again, we have the entire universe to expand into...seems all kind of empty to

me, ,,, just requires a little smarts to figure out the challenges...we just

don't have enough of those smarties yet to meet the critical mass of brain power

to allow that to happen.

People ARE a social animal anyways, few really want to be all alone, or even

isolated .... perhaps they may dream of that but the actual reality would not be

fun. Really. Few can really manage it, being all alone.

As far as living in a Tokyo apartment...well, everyone has a choice. Even when

they claim they don't have a choice, they have choice. We ALL have been given

gifts that can allow us to accumulate wealth and use that wealth how we

choose...to get expanse of land, buy an island or to buy a NY city penthouse or

Paris flat.

Who with a couple of million dollars would be crazy enough to spend it for a

house in California, or a warehouse loft in any big city? :-)

With that kind of money they can buy a nice tract of land on tropical island

and set themselves up nicely with a self sufficient sustainable get-up... and

just live watching the daily sunrise and sunset and all the wonders of nature at

their leisure...measure the growth of a favorite tree by hugging it every day...

frolic with a pod of dolphins in temperate lagoon.... yet I see people opting

for continuation of what ever 'rat race " they have bought into...

With $700 a month income, you can qualify for a residency in many Latin American

countries and buy a nice spread, comfortable home, food producing set up....

$60,000 invested in real estate, yields 15% return per year, enough to provide

the income to qualify.

Everyone can get that much money in two years or less of working smart. Some

could do it in 3 mo using their heads a bit...yet how many actually do? Must be

that they are satisfied with what they have...

curious huh?

I personally tried the beach shack...and after three months, decided to move on.

Thoreau of Walden pond fame, gave it up too. If you can live all alone for

extended periods, I applaud you, you are among the minority... why not take

yourself out and do what you wish...life is too short not to.

I can give you a list of over 1000 folks that would LOVE to live

underwater...heck they have signed up to pay $1500 a night for the privilege and

on a waiting list.

All this is not about crowdingeveryone into a tight space...on the contrary, its

about getting the brain power to be able to EXPAND the living choices. To live

under water, or in Low Earth Orbit, or to populate a new world literally... or

perhaps even learn dimensional living through a side frequency...perhaps what

ghosts are doing...

More people means more people to come up with new and exciting alternatives...

at least that is what it means to me.

:-)

Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

>Will every one want to live sub water surface? Or even ON the water surface?

Probaly not...just as folks prefer mountainor prarie sites or even urban

locations. But presently Resident Sea, a floating condominium is sold out by

folks that want to live continuously mobile...changing from port to port around

the world as the seasons change.

Actually MOST people want to live where there are few other people, which is

what suburban sprawl is all about. Folks move to some pristine wonderful place.

And as soon as there are enough folks, it isn't so wonderful. Does anyone REALLY

want to live in a small crowded Tokyo apartment? Folks like the sea because it

has this nice big VIEW and seems empty.

I love the country life, lots of elbow room, ability to still have a campfire.

Everyone could live like this, if we have some optimum number of people. Why

crowd the planet? I can't see ANY upside to crowding people as tight as they can

be. It's like crowding steer or pigs on a factory farm ... yeah you CAN do it,

but why? Well, for pigs and steer, it's for profit, but it's not real nice to

the pigs and steer!

Heidi Jean

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

Instead of guinea pigs, why not paca's or neques, similar size and already in

use as food items in Latin America... promoted because they convert vegetation

to high quality meat, and they are small enough so that when harvested, theymake

enough for a small family without need to refrigerate the left overs. When you

butcher a pig, it usually is too large for easy meal for a family, which means

having to find some means, like salting, smoking or other means of preserving.

Another consideration are " tree chickens " or iguanas...lizards that can weigh in

at 20-30# and dress out again at a nice meal for a family, without left overs.

Several dozen can survive in a good size tree.

Imagine the experimentation using " high density " ranching of pacas and neques on

the ground, and in the in-between, rails, a kind of wild chicken and in the

trees above, iguanas. What a feast eh? And no open pasture like is required for

cows.

:-)

Lets not even get enough giant bullfrogs, bats, and giant spiders for extra

delicious meat sources... man, fruit eating bats are yummy yummy.

BBQ tarantulas can't be beat. And all are sustainable food sources!!

Shall we eat?

:-)

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> >Will every one want to live sub water surface? Or even ON

> the water surface? Probaly not...just as folks prefer

> mountainor prarie sites or even urban locations. But

> presently Resident Sea, a floating condominium is sold out by

> folks that want to live continuously mobile...changing from

> port to port around the world as the seasons change.

>

> Actually MOST people want to live where there are few other

> people, which is what suburban sprawl is all about.

Most people with children want to live where there are few other people.

Many (probably a significant majority of) single people and childless

couples prefer to live in the city. It's convenient, it's cheap (with some

notable exceptions), it's where most of the jobs are, the population is

large enough to support niche markets and businesses catering to a wide

range of tastes...and if you want a campfire, you can rent a car and go

camping.

> Does anyone REALLY

> want to live in a small crowded Tokyo apartment?

The answer to the question you actually asked is probably no. But if you

change " apartment " to " apartment building, " it actually sounds quite

appealing (but not as appealing as it might be if that awful orange hair dye

weren't in vogue among Japanese girls).

> I love the country life, lots of elbow room, ability to still

> have a campfire.

And other people like different things. Such is life.

> Everyone could live like this, if we have

> some optimum number of people. Why crowd the planet?

The world's population density, excluding Antarctica, is about 115 people

per square mile. Even if we assume that half of the land is totally

uninhabitable, this leaves about eleven acres per family of four. That's not

crowded. People choose to distribute unevenly because it's more efficient,

and because for many it's preferable in other ways.

> I can't

> see ANY upside to crowding people as tight as they can be.

I doubt that very much. It's one thing to say that you think it's not worth

it on the balance, but surely you can think of some benefits? Let's try it

backwards. Suppose that everyone were given his three-acre plot, and the

world's population were spread evenly across the habitable parts of Earth.

What drawbacks might this arrangement have?

> It's like crowding steer or pigs on a factory farm ... yeah

> you CAN do it, but why?

No it isn't. The average city dweller has a few hundred (or more) square

feet of private living space and can roam around as much as he likes.

[Guest guest]

Although it's nice and probably preferable to have lots of room for

ourselves, the reason we should at least try to compromise a bit and live a

little closer together is so wild animals can have the large open tracts of

land they need.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Message: 66548 From: panamabob@S... Received: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:20 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

>why not paca's or neques, similar size and already in

>use as food items in Latin America

A quick search on those two animals (pacas & neques) didn't turn up anything.

Do you know of an article or link with pics?

Darrell

[Guest guest]

>Thoreau of Walden pond fame, gave it up too. If you can live all alone for

extended periods, I applaud you, you are among the minority... why not take

yourself out and do what you wish...life is too short not to.

I don't live alone by any means. I live on a nice spread with my family, and

there are plenty of neighbors.

>

>

>More people means more people to come up with new and exciting alternatives...

at least that is what it means to me.

Well, that's one theory. I've lived in areas that got more and more crowded, and

after a certain point you just get more gangs, guns, and kids without a proper

education. Plus there is an epidemiological problem that happens with crowding

.... with animals and people, you get new germs. In the past that gave birth to

the black plague, and we're seeing new diseases now (avian flu etc.) popping up.

Nature's way of thinning out the herds. Just not a very NICE way.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I doubt that very much. It's one thing to say that you think it's not worth

>it on the balance, but surely you can think of some benefits? Let's try it

>backwards. Suppose that everyone were given his three-acre plot, and the

>world's population were spread evenly across the habitable parts of Earth.

>What drawbacks might this arrangement have?

For one thing, 3 acre plots wipe out the wildlife. It's not something

I want to debate ... there are lots of books on the subject, but basically

each human comes with a large " footprint " on the land, air, water, which

is far worse in the US because we consume so much. When there

were fewer people, the air, oceans, wildlife were healthy and robust.

Now they are all stressed, what were common species have to be

carefully managed so they don't go extinct, dioxins have made their

way to the Antarctic. Yeah, these problems are *manageable* but

they are all related to too many people. We could manage the problems

a lot easier if there were just fewer people.

However, I'm not proposing coercing folks into having fewer

kids. People DO tend to have fewer kids when they have choices ...

a lot of folks are remaining single by choice, and living in apartments

(as you say). In the past, a woman was " married off " at an early age

and expected to pop out kids til she died. Some women may still

want to do this, but most don't. So the population levels off in

developed countries, and will probably start dropping (and drop

fast if we have a good plague or war, which could well happen).

>

>No it isn't. The average city dweller has a few hundred (or more) square

>feet of private living space and can roam around as much as he likes.

Well that is true, and I did live in the city for a long time. I like that

I have the choice though, not too. My area of the country isn't all

that crowded, so I have the choice. In parts of the world where

it IS more crowded, there isn't much choice (unless you want

to move to South America). Also, the big " empty " areas sustain

the city areas. In Europe the cities are crowded, but surrounded

by fields and forest, which provide the air quality and food for

the city, which isn't a bad arrangement.

Anyway, folks DO move to the country a lot, and then " citify " it.

Not everyone: some, like you, prefer the city. But enough folks

move that the wilderness shrinks.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

But of course, mon ami

:-)

I am from panama and creating a sustainable community there, and indigenous

species are part of the mix for food...

here a web site in ase the below is cut by .

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Agoutidae..html

Family Agoutidae

(pacas)

a.. Information

b.. Pictures

c.. Specimens

d.. Classification

2005/03/19 01:10:25.073 US/Eastern

By Phil Myers

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Rodentia

Suborder: Hystricognathi

Family: Agoutidae

Members of this Family

There are 2 species of pacas, placed in a single genus. They can be found in the

tropical forests of Central and South America, from sea level up to about 3000m

elevation.

Pacas are very large, ranging up to around 12kg in males (females are somewhat

smaller). They have chunky bodies, short and stout legs (the hind limbs are

longer than the forelimbs), and a large, blunt head. Eyes are large and external

ears are small. Pacas are nearly tailless. The forefeet have 4 functional toes,

and the hindfeet 3 (digits 1 and 5 are present but reduced). Claws are thick and

hoof-like.

The pelage of pacas is coarse and without underfur. Dorsally, pacas are brown,

with whitish spots arranged in longitudinal lines. Their bellies are whitish.

The skulls of pacas are unmistakeable. They are broad and massively constructed,

with short nasals and long, broad frontals. A sagittal crest may sometimes be

found over the posterior part of the braincase. A postorbital process is

present, but it seems to be located unusually far back over the orbit. The

zygomatic arches are enormously inflated, with jugal and maxillary forming a

large, rough-surfaced plate on the outside and a smooth, hollow chamber on the

inside. While large, the jugal does not contact the lacrimal. The infraorbital

foramen is reduced in size, although these animals are hystricomorphous. A

separate canal conducts nerves from the orbit to the rostrum. Pacas have small

auditory bullae and long and heavily-built paroccipital processes. Lower jaws

are hystricognathous, but the angular process is offset less than in many other

hystricognaths.

The cheekteeth of pacas are hypsodont. They are flatcrowned and have a complex

pattern of re-entrant folds. The first two molars have 1 labial and 3 lingual

folds, while the third molar has 3 labial and 1 lingual. These folds become

isolated to form enamel islands as the teeth wear. The dental formula is 1/1,

0/0, 1/1, 3/3 = 20.

Pacas are strictly terrestrial, preferring the wooded banks of streams and

ponds. They are good diggers, constructing burrows in banks, slopes, or among

tree roots or rocks. These have several entrances and are often plugged with

leaves. Pacas forage at night, feeding on foliage, roots, nuts, seeds, and

fruits. They are excellent swimmers, using water as a means of escaping

predators, but generally they do not dive or forage in the water. While

generally solitary, pacas do communicate by means of vocalizations, foot

thumping, and tooth grinding. It has been suggested that the hollow chambers

formed by the expanded zygomatic arches are resonating chambers to amplify

sounds. They also support cheek pouches, which may be used in food storage, but

this is not certain.

Throughout their range, pacas are much sought for their flesh, which is tender

and mild-flavored.

References and literature cited:

Re: Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

>why not paca's or neques, similar size and already in

>use as food items in Latin America

A quick search on those two animals (pacas & neques) didn't turn up anything.

Do you know of an article or link with pics?

Darrell

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

I don't think its " thinning out the herd " per se, rather thinning out the weak

to make a stronger herd.

So those that are smart enough, find ways to expand into the vacuum...i.e.

oceans, even other planets.

Yes, the earth can only support a finite amount of life... but what the point is

I don't know... what I do know is that when people want new opportunities , they

expand to new areas... Europeans felt " trapped' in the system they had back then

and expanded to the virgin Americas 9granted the indigenous people in " America "

already were populating... thank you very much... but once again the strong

dominate the weak...and thanks to technology (and introduction of diseases

unknown to the new world) wiped out or subjugated and took over resources.

I don't think that minimalizing the population is the answer... expanding into

new horizons, is the answer....at least to me.. and to do that we need more

" smart' people....

Gangs and such are not direct result from 'over crowding " Look at Japan years

ago, ,,well crowed by our standards yet nearly zero crime... it was the culture

, the education not crowding or lack of crowding.

Do we not have the resources to educate our world? Yes, we do now, thanks to

internet and mass production of books and other information spreading devices.

We just need to implement them MORE, get out heads around advancing education

around the world more and communication more.

The Earth is a banquet of opportunities, its just that so many don't realize

that yet and stay mentally trapped where they are and not help human kind reach

out to do what it can. Yes , if we wallow in ignorance and knee-jerk reactions

to challenges instead of rising up, we will never get anywhere and possibly

worse...destroy ourselves through miss management of our resources...THAT is

just stupid waste.

just opinion, but it makes sense to me

Re: [POLITICS]? Re: Population reduction

>Thoreau of Walden pond fame, gave it up too. If you can live all alone for

extended periods, I applaud you, you are among the minority... why not take

yourself out and do what you wish...life is too short not to.

I don't live alone by any means. I live on a nice spread with my family, and

there are plenty of neighbors.

>

>

>More people means more people to come up with new and exciting

alternatives... at least that is what it means to me.

Well, that's one theory. I've lived in areas that got more and more crowded,

and after a certain point you just get more gangs, guns, and kids without a

proper education. Plus there is an epidemiological problem that happens with

crowding ... with animals and people, you get new germs. In the past that gave

birth to the black plague, and we're seeing new diseases now (avian flu etc.)

popping up. Nature's way of thinning out the herds. Just not a very NICE way.

>

Heidi Jean

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>