2

3/24/2006 5:14:11 PM

Quote :

"There are other viable solutions, but I don't think that the "free" world would find them acceptable."

That's precisely why they aren't viable, don't you see.

Shooting and starving everybody isn't a viable option. It would solve its problem while causing many more.

3/25/2006 12:36:27 AM

Particularly the whole "shooting back" scenario would be popular in the United States.

3/25/2006 1:04:42 AM

3's a crowd. 6 billion's an epidemic.

3/25/2006 1:23:30 AM

yep. stop selling volvos...that'll do the trick.

3/25/2006 6:12:11 PM

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558130691/002-6617667-2722440?v=glance&n=283155

Those with science backgrounds that value statistically valid research should read this book. I believe it is an honest evaluation of our past screw-ups and the feasable solutions to them.

A warning, people who believe that journalism graduates and philosophers are the experts in environmentalism will likely be very offended as this book especially criticises such figures.

3/27/2006 1:47:12 PM

Quote :

"That's precisely why they aren't viable, don't you see."

But it is viable, even with a democratic government. All we need to do is continue to ignore these sorts of gross human rights abuses such as mass famine, large epidemics, forced abortions, and criminalization of large families... like what we do now. If we ignore them, and the EU continues to ignore them as they do now, then we can keep human population in check.

Distasteful and inhumane, yes. I don't advocate this approach, but as I said, it is an option.

3/27/2006 3:41:35 PM

^^
Well, Avery is one of the promoters of the 'DDT will save millions!' myth so I would read the book with a grain of salt.

3/27/2006 4:08:51 PM

Wait, if that was a myth, then I fell for it. How is it NOT the case that DDT can save millions?

Does DDT not kill Mosquitoes?
Do Mosquitoes not carry malaria?
Does malaria not kill millions every year or so?

[Edited on March 27, 2006 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/27/2006 4:10:00 PM

The myth goes like this: the radical environmentalists have banned DDT. Malaria kills millions. DDT is an effective anti-malaria agent. Therefore radical environmentalists are responsible for the deaths of millions.

However, DDT was never banned. It's use as an agricultural pesticide was in some cases but as an anti-malaria agent it wasn't. Then there's that thing called natural selection. Widespread use of DDT in agriculture also leads to mosquitos developing resistance to the chemical and diminishing its effectiveness to fight malaria. So this is the pro-DDT myth, more of a cludgel to score partison points than a realistic policy to reduce malaria.

3/27/2006 4:47:13 PM

This guy seems to think DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. In fact, it was the reverse of what you said, he says it was banned with exceptions made for agricultural purposes.
http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

The link I just provided argues at length that DDT would one-day become useless because insects develop immunities, not that it was never banned. That said, such arguments are very good reasons to restrict wide-spread spraying of forrests and non-human enhabitted regions. But spraying human enhabited locations, such as inside homes and businesses, would not impact the insect world very much because the vast majority of mosquitos will live through life and die without ever coming in contact with DDT (their primary food source is animals, not people).

So, of all the elements of nature pushing mosquitos to evolve, DDT would be tiny. Either way, banning DDT "except in emergencies" is the wrong move when all you really need to do is regulate its use.

But since you say it isn't banned, where can I buy some? My friends are worried about west-nile virus getting into their camper.

3/27/2006 9:32:18 PM

Quote :

" Not necessarily. North Korea managed to shrink their population from about 22 million to 20 million (about 10%) during the latter half of the 1990s. A combination of purges, gulags, and mass starvation can also achieve the same goal at a rapid rate. To a lesser extreme, China has done a suprisingly good job at curbing their population growth through tight family planning, financial penalties, and the occasional human rights violation. There are other viable solutions, but I don't think that the "free" world would find them acceptable. "

Refraining from reproducing is one of the most responsible and honorable actions you can take. It should be encouraged, even in top-heavy populations like Europe and Japan. With the money you save from raising a child you should have enough to support yourself well into old age.

3/27/2006 9:58:01 PM

Well, I should have wrote "DDT is not banned in areas where malaria is endemic (such as the tropics)".
Malaria was eradicated in the US before the '72 ban and as the website you link to make notes of:

Quote :

" It was not banned in the United States, that hotbed of "environmental hysteria", until 1972, and even then there were exemptions for health emergencies and some agricultural uses. "

So if you contact the appropriate regulatory agency about your problem with West Nile you may be able to get some DDT.

3/28/2006 12:20:44 AM

^ Sweet, I'm gonna get me some DDT.

^^ Hey, nutjob, we need a next generation for, I don't know, continued existance.

Regardless of whether or not immigration is a good idea, reproducing the old fashioned way is undeniably a benefit to society. Here in the United States, I suspect 3 children per household would be close to optimal.

[Edited on March 28, 2006 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/28/2006 1:14:32 AM

i don't think the existance of humans is in any sort of trouble with 7 billion people on the earth.

3/28/2006 1:25:22 AM

overpopulation is never going to be something that causes the extinction of humans. it will just cause a depletion of earth's resources, and therefore a decline in quality of life across the board.

3/28/2006 1:45:35 AM

my post was in response to lonesnarks assertion that if people had less than two kids the population wouldn't be able to survive.

3/28/2006 1:58:04 AM

i know. i was just adding that for the thread's sake since you made me think of it.

3/28/2006 2:17:14 AM