KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") (03/02/86)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
There is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of just about
anything ... A more reasonable definition of safe level ... is whatever
it takes to offset reproduction. When young people are killed off before
they can reproduce, in such numbers that the ones that remain can't
reproduce fast enough to make up for the ones that died, then we have a
truly fatal dose of whatever it is. Anything less than that is just a
painful way to slow down the population explosion. ...
I agree that the idea that anything that can be dangerous should be
eliminated is an unreasonable position, but I think your position is
just as unreasonable in the other direction.
By your standard, if introducing a substance into the environment
would cause 50% of the population before they reach 20 and 90% of the
population before they reach 30 to die horribly and painfully of
cancer, it should still be permissible because it would still be
possible to breed fast enough to outrace this scourge.
By your standard, the dark ages were perfectly acceptable. Despite
the terrible diseases and the raw sewage in the streets and the stink
and the mindless superstitions and the pitiful life expectancy and the
enormous infant mortality rate, the population did expand except
during a few particularly horrible decades in the 14th century.
The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term. It makes
population sound like a bad thing. Remember that if the pouplation
were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would
never would have been born. 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?
The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much
higher population. MUCH higher. And every person a billionaire, by
todays standards.
As for safety, the only rational approach is to weigh costs against
benefits. Ideally this weighing should be done by the individual
concerned in each case. The Challenger astronauts knew what sort of a
chance they were taking. My attitude towards the Challenger disaster
would be very different if the astronauts were not volunteers.
Most people seem to be willing to take considerable chances for
small gains. Consider the number of people who still smoke, or who
drive without seatbelts. This is an enormous risk to gain ratio.
I consider myself a fairly cautious person. I don't smoke, drink,
or take drugs (not even aspirin (or tylenol!)). I don't stay around
people who are smoking, even if it means I lose my job. I drive a car
as seldom and as slowly as possible, and always wear a seatbelt. I
eat little meat and eggs, and no pork. I don't have sex with
strangers. I test the battery in my smoke detector every two weeks.
But I do not hesitate to use a microwave oven, use small radioactive
pellets in experiments at work, spend hours every day in front of a
video terminal, or ride airplanes.
(And it does seem to work. I have not been sick in fifteen years,
not even a cold or flu.)
I believe, very strongly, in both quality of life and in quantity of
life. The more of both, the better.
...Keithearle@smeagol.UUCP (Greg Earle) (03/05/86)
*** 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)
chuck@dartvax.UUCP (Chuck Simmons) (03/06/86)
> The term 'population explosion' is a pernicious term. It makes > population sound like a bad thing. The consensus in the economic and historical communities seems to be that too much population is indeed a bad thing. The word "explosion" in the phrase "population explosion" implies that there is too much population. > Remember that if the pouplation > were to be less, many people alive today either would be dead or would > never would have been born. So what? Those people that were alive would probably be better off. If I had never been born I certainly wouldn't be able to regret it. > 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? I have no objections to population reduction measures in this country. In China, small families are encouraged by giving couples with a single child a tax break. If they have more than one child, the tax break goes away. If vasectomies were cheap and easy to come by, I'd go out and get one tomorrow. Population reduction measures do not need to be very drastic. Most of the countries in the norther hemisphere have population growth rates close to zero percent. The population reduction measures that take place in these countries are an increased standard of living and education. > The main point in going into space is to be able to support a much > higher population. MUCH higher. And every person a billionaire, by > todays standards. Where do you get such a ridiculous idea? The reasons we are going out into space are to increase our supply of raw materials, satisfy our sense of adventure, increase our knowledge of the universe, and possibly to make various manufacturing processes less expensive. If you let the population grow too fast, there is no way every person will be a billionaire by today's standards. I do not like living in a world with 5 billion or so people. The competition for food, clean water, a place to live, and a job are way too high. Or maybe you don't care that large portions of the world population don't have these four items that you and I take so much for granted. > I consider myself a fairly cautious person. I don't smoke, drink, > or take drugs (not even aspirin (or tylenol!)). I don't stay around > people who are smoking, even if it means I lose my job. I drive a car > as seldom and as slowly as possible, and always wear a seatbelt. I > eat little meat and eggs, and no pork. I don't have sex with > strangers. I test the battery in my smoke detector every two weeks. Sounds like loads of fun... > ...Keith Chuck Simmons chuck@dartvax
MCGRATH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Jim McGrath") (03/11/86)
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Greg Earle)
Fishermen in Japan were slaughtering dolphins because they
*thought* they were the cause of their low fishing yields!
Actually, I was under the impression that the most efficient net
designs had the side effect of catching dolphins as well as the target
fish (such as tuna). Thus the problem was an economic and
technological, not an educational, one.
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.
While I agree with your general point about population pressures, I
have to disagree with your prejudice against the human race. Humans
are part of the ecosystem, which means that they cannot "damage" it any
more than other species. They can harm other species, sometimes
ultimately harming themselves, but species competition is the way of
life. Humans can be stupid when they are destructive, but I don't
feel they are somehow fundamentally immoral when competing with other
species.
Jim
-------