To Frank, your comment “sex is fun = overpopulation” is IMO rubbish.
Many indigenous cultures have very long histories of steady state ecologically balanced populations, using lots of specific herbs as contraceptives and abortofactants. Sex was still a lot of fun, but babies weren’t popping out like we “civilised” tend to do.

Also we have a history of elites and religious leaders encouraging population growth for the sake of their power&control games, especially the growth of industrialism and consumerism. Of course, the GDP (general dumb puplic) are either ignorant and/or in denial about this, locked down behind the golden curtain of consumerism and high energy through put. Tell them constantly through the education and media that this is the way humans are supposed to live, and like fish in water that are last to see the water, the GDP will be the last to recognise that the dominant culture we’re force fed 24/7 is pathologically, suicidally insane.

I believe “Overshoot” by William Catton should be required reading in every high school and university. It could be intergrated into all education via Permaculture training.

At the least read through and understand the definitions page at http://www.greatchange.org/footnotes-overshoot.html

Sure is an “exciting time” to be alive, eh?

Regards
Ted Howard
Nelson, NZ

Thanks for your confirmation. By the way, I saw ‘Avatar’ today too. My mouth is still hanging open. It blew my doors off.

Michael Irving

Of course this plays into the whole “may as well buy a Hummer and burn that petrol to bring the collapse faster” meme flogged here. If we let the corporations have their way we’ll be building naval bases in the Arctic, just in time to have to move them uphill. Too bad the natives will all be living in inland cinderblock ‘homes’ already, and we’ll just have to steal their new homes as well.

Saw ‘Avatar’ two hours ago, and still looking for my bow and arrows. How can I survive The Correction if I have no weapons?

Thanks for your response. I have only time for a quick note. I’ll try to do better later.
You are right to point out that the volume is so high for rhetorical purposes. You are also correct about lobbies because through them corporations are already exerting overwhelming power. All that aside, however, this ruling (and this is only my understanding of it, could be wrong) does several things. First it grants the same free speech rights to corporations that are afforded the citizens in the First Amendment to our Constitution. Second, in granting those rights it essential grants them also citizenship equal to that of any human citizen and a citizen cannot be barred from saying anything (short of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater) and money talks. Therefore, corporations cannot be prevented from spending as much money as they wish on any political campaign. Over here elections, at every level, are more and more controlled by how much money is dumped into television adds. This ruling allows for corporations to dump huge sums of money in order to control the debate. It also allows them to threaten to withhold campaign money from candidates or sitting elected officials if they do not toe the corporate line. In other words the Court may have just given the country to the corporations like 1930’s Italy. Finally, since many corporations that operate in the US are foreign owned, it allows (for example China) unfriendly governments to control the government of the US.

I hope this does it justice.

Michael Irving

Sex is fun—that is the reason for human overpopulation.This is just one more example of the rule that all technology is self defeating.

In this case technology is used to keep all the fun sex babies alive,
who were born by accident.

That’s all there is to it.Remember that the simplest explanation is usually
the correct one.

Frank Mezek

Thanks for clarifying your position. I thought for a moment you were serious and I reacted to it. Now I see that you were just having fun at our expense. Yup, you pulled my chain.

I liked your presentation. It was well done, especially how you pretend not to be, what did you call it, a bleeding heart anthropocentric “Amy Goodman” type liberal. And the challenge to give you an example of one thing humanity has done other than be consumers was great. I’ll rise to that bait. There is a guy I’ve heard of who has been involved in numerous conservation projects in South Africa, donates generously to various animal charities and is rumored to be purchasing a game farm in Southern Africa with a goal of wildlife rehabilitation. I think the guy is a genial person too, happy to meet people on the street where he treats them with dignity and respect. I’ve heard he’s a loving family man, too. I personally think he works way too hard denying his bleeding heart liberal tendencies. I think that’s six things and some of them are multiples. And that’s only one person.

As for my extinction parade comment, I apologize for that. It was way over the top. Remember though, it was your game to try to crank somebody up, and you did.

Tomorrow you can go back to donating to animal causes and so will I. You can go back to enjoying the people you meet and so will I. You’ll probably have a conservation project to work on like the forest and wilderness protection issues I’m involved in. You can go back to working to buy a place for protecting animals and I’ll keep doing that here on my place.

One thing you probably won’t have to do tomorrow is wake up in a country where the Supreme Court just made corporations citizens and gave them more rights than us humans, which is part of the reason I was so freaking angry this morning. It is not the liberals you should be afraid of. They are not the power hungry elites.

Also, because I am a bleeding heart liberal I’ll keep trying to get food to hungry people. It is not because I don’t think we should be talking about over population, in fact I think it is the root issue of the earth’s problems. I think hungry people should be feed because it is not their fault. Nobody chooses to be hungry. To refuse them food, or just turn away, is to refuse them dignity and respect.

You have to refuse to accept the false dogma. It is not true that because some humans are evil then all humans are evil.

Michael Irving

‘economic growth or a habitable planet’

choose one, you cannot have both

on ya bike!

Most technological/medical advances have not been used to over breed, they have been used to save/help/extend lives of people that nature would have thrown away. The more developed an area is the less the human population reproduces.

To Craig
While I agree with much of what you wrote. The idea of Earth just washing its hands of humankind is no different than the idea of humans destroying the planet. You are just shifting the mechanism from humans to earth, which IMO is a logical error that functions in the exact way as the opposing argument (easing of stress on our conscience). Just my 2cents.

Andrew