Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

I couldn't disagree with you more. We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural. However, not everything we do is to our own benefit nor is it always to the benefit of other species. But, we cannot destroy nature--that is absurd. We are subservient to nature and to the planet, not the other way around.

But we can destroy nature. We have the power to destroy the environment for almost every creature on the planet, including us. In fact, we may even have the power to blow the whole planet to smithereens. That's my point. Why do we have this power? All other life forms play a constructive role in sustaining the planet, but we don't. Our role appears to be destructive.

How do termites, for instance, help to sustain the planet, Mark? Roaches? I could go on, but you get the point.

You say "We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural". I disagree. It doesn't necessarily follow.

How do you figure, that: "it doesn't follow..." -- Unless you are willing to toss out the idea of evolution completely, then we are natural to the planet.

Nature never grants one species the intelligence to destroy all other species. Nature has given all other species the intelligence to survive within their own environment, nothing more.

Why has nature given us alone the intelligence to do this?

It doesn't seem natural to me.

If we venture away from this planet without bringing enough of it (food, water, air) with us, we perish very quickly. Without air alone from this planet we will be dead within minutes; without water from this planet we'll be dead in days or weeks; without food, dead in weeks or months...at the most.

That would rather seem a very good example of our dependence upon this planet, our subservience to it, and its ability to destroy us in short order.

[Mark Stapleton]

[QUOTE=Mark Stapleton;41149How do termites, for instance, help to sustain the planet, Mark? Roaches? I could go on, but you get the point.

No I don't get your point.

Termites and roaches play a role within their ecosystems. Thus they help sustain the planet.

[Mark Stapleton]

[How do you figure, that: "it doesn't follow..." -- Unless you are willing to toss out the idea of evolution completely, then we are natural to the planet.

I said it doesn't necessarily follow. Nice omission.

I think we are an amalgum of an indigenous species and an alien one. I think alien genes are in us.

Mankind's rapid dominance of the planet doesn't seem logical or normal. Just my opinion.

[Mark Stapleton]

[If we venture away from this planet without bringing enough of it (food, water, air) with us, we perish very quickly. Without air alone from this planet we will be dead within minutes; without water from this planet we'll be dead in days or weeks; without food, dead in weeks or months...at the most.

That would rather seem a very good example of our dependence upon this planet, our subservience to it, and its ability to destroy us in short order.

Yes we survive within the carbon cycle of Earth, as I said earlier.

Thanks for the bulletin.

[Greg Burnham]

How do termites, for instance, help to sustain the planet, Mark? Roaches? I could go on, but you get the point.

No I don't get your point.

Termites and roaches play a role within their ecosystems. Thus they help sustain the planet.

What role do they play, Mark? Termites destroy trees. Humans destroy trees, too. Roaches scavenge the food of other species. Humans rarely, if ever, do that.

It could be argued that the alleged increase of C02 attributed to humans into the atmosphere BENEFITS nearly all forms of life, particularly CARBON BASED life, such as trees and other forms of vegetation. Thus, we too help sustain the FOOD SUPPLY of the planet. Unless, of course, you don't believe that we contribute to C02 in the atmosphere in a significant way. (BTW: I don't think we do either.) But, most people think that humans contribute too much C02 into the atmosphere. If you think we do, tell me how this is negative for PLANT life?

[Greg Burnham]

[How do you figure, that: "it doesn't follow..." -- Unless you are willing to toss out the idea of evolution completely, then we are natural to the planet.

I said it doesn't necessarily follow. Nice omission.

I think we are an amalgum of an indigenous species and an alien one. I think alien genes are in us.

Mankind's rapid dominance of the planet doesn't seem logical or normal. Just my opinion.

My apologies. I didn't intentionally misquote you. So, it necessarily follows that IF WE EVOLVED from the planet (even with alien cross-breeding), then we are natural to it, no?

The universe obviously allowed us to become natives of this place, right? I was BORN here! I don't feel the need to justify my existence here, nor do I feel the need to make excuses for our learning curve in discovering how to survive here.

I just think that accepted paradigms that were first introduced in an age predating modern science need to be re-evaluated and rejected if they fail to solve problems. Malthusianism FAILS.

[Gary Severson]

I don't think I want to go there again Greg but here's my 2 cents. This from the journal NEW SCIENTIST



This expression is often attributed to Charles Darwin and, although it appears in the fifth edition of his Origin of Species, 1869, it is there attributed to Herbert Spencer:

"The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the survival of the fittest is more accurate..."

Spencer had published The principles of biology in 1864. In that he referred to 'survival of the fittest' twice:

"This survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest."
"This survival of the fittest... is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'."

By 'fittest', of course, Spencer and Darwin didn't have in mind the commonly used meaning of the word now, i.e. the most highly trained and physically energetic. The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

[Greg Burnham]

The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

I agree, but I would further add that the "fittest" animals are those that are the most likely to survive long (and well) enough to procreate and to procreate multiple times, thus extending their genetic lines into the future for generations. Those with the "weakest" genetic traits survive the shortest amount of time and/or do not survive well enough to procreate and/or are unable to provide for the survival of their offspring if they do.

[Gary Severson]

The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

I agree, but I would further add that the "fittest" animals are those that are the most likely to survive long (and well) enough to procreate and to procreate multiple times, thus extending their genetic lines into the future for generations. Those with the "weakest" genetic traits survive the shortest amount of time and/or do not survive well enough to procreate and/or are unable to provide for the survival of their offspring if they do.

I've heard it said that humans are an exception to "survival of the fittest" since civilization & its economic structures cancels many positive potential circumstances. IOW offspring are born into human structures they have no control over like poverty so even though they may have survivability it is neutralized by extreme negative factors.

[Mark Stapleton]

What role do they play, Mark? Termites destroy trees. Humans destroy trees, too. Roaches scavenge the food of other species. Humans rarely, if ever, do that.

Termites play an important ecological role by recycling dead plant matter, especially in the rainforest environment.

You seem to be arguing from an entirely human growth perspective. You're almost fanatical about that.

Carpeting the planet with human beings will decimate other species and eventually lead to our own demise. There won't be any food for a start.