"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:54:02 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 15, 7:44?am, wrote:

So then you must agree it is OK to alter the course of nature in
order
to serve the growing human population?- Hide quoted text -


Careful, that statement is getting pretty close to recognizing the
possibility that a growing human population *could* "alter the course
of nature".


Then slowing down the rate of growth may be a cost effective way of
dealing
with the problem, as opposed to making Al Gore more wealthy?


It would be impossible for it NOT to help, but it's a touchy subject.
Zero
population growth? Watch the reactions to that in subsequent messages.


The emphasis was on cost effective means of dealing with a problem, as
opposed to sending money to Al Gore.

'Zero population gowth' is your term, not mine. I'm not trying to
engender
any reaction to that in any messages. But, it looks like you are.

It's a theory, and the name of an organization which, for many years, has
tried to push an agenda of not having more than 2 kids, so a couple only
replaces itself without adding population. Naturally, there are people who
think its inevitable that suggestions will become laws, and such people
refuse to think about controlling population growth.

That is amazing, our so called "leaders" can't acknowledge more people is
more influence in the environment. Anyone take a look at Africa's birth
rate, scary indeed.