Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site smeagol.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle From: earle@smeagol.UUCP (Greg Earle) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Safety Message-ID: <627@smeagol.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 23:32:36 EST Article-I.D.: smeagol.627 Posted: Tue Mar 4 23:32:36 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 02:18:18 EST References: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].835728.860302.KFL> Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA Lines: 101 *** Warning! Massive flame approaching! Danger Will Robinson! *** In article <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].835728.860302.KFL>, Keith Lynch writes: > The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term. It makes > population sound like a bad thing. Do you live in a cave? It IS a bad thing - most (if not all) of the world's ecosystem problems can be directly traced to humankind multiplying like flies and devouring all available space!!!! Try coming to East L.A. sometime. I'll let you see the pregnant women pushing toddlers in strollers, while they hold pre-schoolers by the arms, with the older kids walking behind. Then tell me that 'population isn't a bad thing'. > Remember that if the population > were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would > never would have been born. Hindsight is always 20/20. Everybody at some time in their lives considers the fact that they 'might not have been born'. Well, we have, so what's the point in talking about it? If we hadn't been born, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. These things happen. And why would 'many people alive today ... would be dead'??? Huh? > Instead of imagining 'our little brown > brothers' or other third world peoples to be the subjects (victims) of > population reduction measures (i.e. final solution), try imagining > your parents, your wife or girlfriend, the people on the net, or > yourself, as being one of the 'reduced'. It puts things in a whole > new light, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. You don't need a 'final solution' NOW; you need to curtail the population STARTING now. You don't have to kill people that are already here! > The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much > higher population. MUCH higher. AGGGGGHHHH! Where's my Uzi? :@) You are at MIT, right? You get WGBH? Try watching it sometime. A few days ago there was a special program on endangered wildlife. It was 'hosted' by Mike Farrell and Loretta Swit (ex-MASH). The segments, as I recall, dealt with: Grizzly bears in the US Seals and Sealing Whales and Whaling Dolphins in the Japanese North Pacific Chimps in Africa Wolves in Canada Elephants and Rhinos in Africa and India and probably others I forgot. The main point in all of these was: (1) EVERYONE OF THESE SPECIES HAS ENCOUNTERED *MASSIVE* REDUCTIONS IN THEIR POPULATION, MAINLY *BECAUSE OF DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT BY ENCROACHMENT OF THE ENDLESS MASSES OF HUMANOIDS ON THIS PLANET*. (2) ALMOST ALL OTHER FACTORS IN REDUCING THE POPULATIONS OF THESE AND OTHER SPECIES IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HUMAN GREED. Grizzly bears have practically been eradicated from the Continental U.S., yet there is still a Hunting season in Montana! Against an endangered species! I shouldn't need to mention the clubbing of baby seals to make coats for Fucking Rich Moron women. Fishermen in Japan were slaughtering dolphins because they *thought* they were the cause of their low fishing yields! When it was really over-fishing! Wolves have nearly been eradicated in North America because 'we don't understand them'. Black Rhinos are nearly extinct because their tusks are used to make knife handles in North Yemen and Hong Kong! There are almost no Chimps/Gorillas left outside of Government allocated preserves in Africa. They were taking up room for people ... And the list goes on and on and on and on ... My idea of the main point in going into space is that an unintended offshoot will be to get all the *fucking people* off of the earth, so maybe the Planet and the animals (who beat us here by a LONG time) will have a slim chance of repairing all the damage that humans have caused to the ecosystem. > I believe, very strongly, in both quality of life and in quantity of > life. The more of both, the better. > ...Keith If you were talking about animals, I'd agree. Unfortunately, your whole article drips of Anthropocentrism, so I'll assume the implicit 'human life', and violently disagree with 'the more of both, the better'. It's about time that people realized that human beings are not the only things on this planet. To everyone else: sorry I posted this to net.space. I just couldn't help it. *** Massive flame off *** -- ::::::\::::::::: ::::' \: `:::: ::' /:\ `:: Anarchy, Peace, and Freedom :: / ::\ :: Devastate to Liberate :: /_____\ :: ::./:' :: `\..:: ::/:. :: .\::: :::::::::::::\:: Greg Earle sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP) JPL ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)