For some reason he came out of my KF tonight.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Scotty, don't get too upset. This guy (or is it a woman?)
is not worth
responding to, although you are correct of course.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:12:45 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

What does this have to do with gas prices?

You posted something incredibly stupid and I simply
reciprocated.


Your posts are always incredibly stupid.

S

Ever see rush hour in a big city?


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
?? I drive a Jeep, and I have three other cars. I'm
willing to pay more or
pick smaller cars if that's what it takes. I don't often
agree with Bushco,
and even though he's just pandering, I agree that America
is addicted to oil
produced by countries who are hostile to us. We should let
them eat their
oil by reducing our dependency.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point
is
to force people to
change their driving and car purchase habits. That
would
do it, according to
economists.


Do you ride a bicycle everywhere? Do you own a car?

Why are liberals so selfish?

SV

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
?? I drive a Jeep, and I have three other cars. I'm willing to pay more or
pick smaller cars if that's what it takes. I don't often agree with
Bushco, and even though he's just pandering, I agree that America is
addicted to oil produced by countries who are hostile to us. We should let
them eat their oil by reducing our dependency.

What we don't buy, China will. The Arabs couldn't care less if we all buy
solar-powered electric cars.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Scotty, don't get too upset. This guy (or is it a woman?) is not worth
responding to, although you are correct of course.


Every now and then he actually posts something other than his typical
acerbic BS. I'll respond to those posts, if the subject is of interest.
Otherwise you're absolutely right--he's hardly worth the effort.

Max

Gas prices

Group: alt.sailing.asa Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 6:43pm From:
(Joe)

Joe,

Ethanol is a much better fuel for individual transportant and it is
renewable. Solar, wind or Nuke should probably be best for Centerized
Power and could make Electric or Hybrid (with Ethanol or Hydrogen or
even Compressed air) available for personel Transport.

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Gas prices

Group: alt.sailing.asa Date: Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 1:22pm From:
lid (Capt.*JG)

Nothing to do with trucks, freight, etc. They need to travel. The main
problem is that regular consumers need to be weaned off of large, gas
guzzling cars and Stupid Utility Vehicles. If gas prices rose to north
of $5/gal, the car companies would be forced to make cars more efficient
because no one would buy the gas pigs.
--
Jon,

In your home state of Calif., Ford & Benz were both selling zero
immersion electric (GEM & Think) vehicles and the State extended the
band and Ford quit and cancelled all leases. Jon, all the other trucks,
etc were still polluting AND will continue even at $10.00 Gal

By the way, I almost brought a GEM this week but you can't drive them,
in Washington, on any Roads that has a speed limit over 35MPH. OK for
the City but I could get to my friends' homes in the next Town over, for
our Thursday luncheon

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

"katy" wrote
I think large cities should be proactive on this issue and legislate
that unless there is a specific reason for driving a pick up truck
or SUV in the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that those vehicles
be disallowed (passing through on the xway not counting).

I agree 200%. IMO NO private autos should be allowed inside of major cities.
Moreover, anyone born in a major city, or who has live in one continiously for
more than two years, should never be allowed to leave, except to go to another
large city via public transportation such as rail. Such cities should be wholly
self supporting with no public funds from outside each city and each should
dispose of its own waste within city limits (no outside dumping).

"Mys Terry" wrote
In other words, you don't really understand the root of the problem. My
suggestion would lead to a better world for all. War and greed would be
unnecessary because there would be enough of everything to go around. Any
idea
what happens when you put 50 rats into a cage designed to properly hold and
support 10?

As a matter of fact, yes. HEW did basically that in an experiment conducted
outside Rockville, Md in the late 1960s. My neighbor was one of the scientists
on the project.

They sealed a hemongeous warehouse and released just enough rats to provide
genetic diversity, provided plenty of food and water, and watched what happened.
Early on, the rats formed up into "tribes", each claiming an area of the
building. If one rat wandered into another 'tribe's' territory, the owners would
make threats to chase him out and he inevatably left unharmed. But, as the
population grew the threats turned into actual attacks - at first minor but ever
more violent until tresspassers were being killed. This despite plentiful food
and water.

Like most animals, female rats will not accept males while nursing. This was
observed at first but about the same time attacks on tresspassers became deadly,
'gangs' of males began breaking into nest boxes and killing the young. Tom cats
were known to do this but it had never been seen in rats before. Then males
from the same "tribes" began banding into smaller "gangs" and attacking other
males of the same tribe.

Finally, over a period of a few months, the rats all quit breeding. No more
young were born and finally the last rat died of old age. Nobody was ever able
to guess why this happened.

Remember, it is dangerous to extend animal behavior to people.

Robert Brody will not have to pick anyone is this Texas proffessor is
right.

UT professor says death is imminent


By Jamie Mobley
The Gazette-Enterprise


Published April 2, 2006


AUSTIN - A University of Texas professor says the Earth would be
better off with
90 percent of the human population dead.


"Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine," Eric
Pianka cautioned
students and guests at St. Edward's University on Friday. Pianka's
words are
part of what he calls his "doomsday talk" - a 45-minute
presentation outlining
humanity's ecological misdeeds and Pianka's predictions about how
nature, or
perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of
civilization.


Though his statements are admittedly bold, he's not without abundant
advocates.
But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday
soothsayers is
this: Humanity's collapse is a notion he embraces.


Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet
he smiles
and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many

would
call morbid, Pianka's warnings are centered upon awareness rather
than fear.


"This is really an exciting time," he said Friday amid warnings of
apocalypse,
destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, "Death.
This is what
awaits us all. Death." Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese
Curse, "May
you live in interesting times," he wore, surprisingly, a smile.


So what's at the heart of Pianka's claim?


6.5 billion humans is too many.


In his estimation, "We've grown fat, apathetic and miserable,"
all the while
leaving the planet parched.


The solution?


A 90 percent reduction.


That's 5.8 billion lives - lives he says are turning the planet
into "fat, human
biomass." He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during
the last 25
years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall -
likely at the
hand of widespread disease.


"[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity," Pianka said.
"We're looking
forward to a huge collapse."


But don't tell local "citizen scientist" Forrest Mims to quietly
swallow
Pianka's call to awareness. Mims says it's an "abhorrent death
wish" and
contends he has "no choice but to take a stand."


Mims attended the educator's doomsday presentation at the Texas
Academy of
Science's annual meeting March 2-4. There, the organization honored
Pianka as
its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist - another issue Mims vocally
opposes.


"This guy is a loose cannon to believe that worldwide genocide is the
only
answer," said Mims, who filed two formal petitions with the academy
following
the meeting.


Joining the crusade, James Pitts, who recieved a Ph.D. in physics from
UT-Austin, became the second to publicly chastise Pianka when he filed
a
complaint Saturday with the UT board of regents. He insists a state
university
is no place to disseminate such views.



He writes:


"Pianka's message does not fall within the realm of his
professional competence
as a biologist, because it is a normative claim, not a descriptive one.

Pianka
is encouraged to use his ecological expertise to predict the likely
consequences
of certain technological and reproductive strategies, but to evaluate
some as
good, bad, or worthy of prevention by genocide is the realm of
philosophy or
political science, not science. His message falls no more within his
professional competence than it would for a physicist to teach religion

in class
or a musician to encourage racism."

But Pianka, a 38-year UT educator, maintains he's not campaigning for
genocide.
He likens mankind's story to an unbridled party on a luxury cruise
liner. The
fun's going strong on the upper deck, he says. But as crowds blindly
absorb the
festivities, many fail to notice the ship is sinking.


"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said,
describing the belief
system in which humans are the central element of the universe. "This
is that
common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for [human]
use."


To Pianka, a human life is no more valuable than any other - a
lizard, a bison,
a rhino. And as humans reproduce, the demand for resources like food,
water and
energy becomes more than the Earth can sustain, he says.


Ken Wilkins, a Baylor University biology professor and associate dean,
agrees
the inevitability of a crashing point is unarguable.


"The human population is growing," he said. "We will see a point
when we reach
the carrying capacity - there aren't enough resources."


But resources aren't the only threat, Pianka says. It's the Ebola
virus he deems
most capable of wide scale decimation.


"Humans are so dense (in population) that they constitute a perfect
substrate
for an epidemic," he says.


He contends Ebola is merely an evolutionary step away from escaping the

confines
of Africa. And should an outbreak occur, Pianka assuredly says humanity

will
quickly come to a "grinding halt."


The professor's not the only one who can articulate this concept.
Because Pianka
includes his doomsday material in his coursework, Ebola and its
potential play a
notable role in some students' studies. A syllabus for one course
reads:


"Although [Ebola Zaire] Kills 9 out of 10 people, outbreaks have so
far been
unable to become epidemics because they are currently spread only by
direct
physical contact with infected blood. However, a closely-related virus
that
kills monkeys, Ebola Reston, is airborne, and it is only a matter of
time until
Ebola Zaire evolves the capacity to be airborne."


It is here that some say Pianka ventures from provocative food for
thought to,
as Wilkins said, "very extreme material" that violate many
people's views -
including his own - about the treatment of human life. While many
praise
Pianka's boldness and scientific know-how, others say he crosses an
ethical line
in his treatment of Ebola's viability as a killer.


In an evaluation of Pianka's course - performed anonymously in
keeping with
university policy - one student offered:


"Though I agree that conservation biology is of utmost importance to
the world,
I do not think that preaching that 90 percent of the human population
should die
of Ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation
awareness."


Mims says he's seen countless doomsday predictions come and go. But
Pianka's is
different, Mims said. Pianka, he insists, exhibits genuine cause for
alarm.


Mims worries fertile young minds with a thirst for knowledge may
develop into
enthusiastic supporters of a deadly disease, advocating the fall of
humanity.


"He recommended airborne Ebola as an ideal killing virus," Mims
said. "He showed
slides of the Four Horsemen of the apocalypse and human skulls. He
joked about
requiring universal sterilization. It reminded me of a futuristic
science
fiction movie with a crazed scientist planning the death of
humanity."


But as confident as Mims is in his assessment, he faces one unarguable
fact:
Most of Pianka's former students are bursting with praise. Their
in-class
evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like "the most incredible
class I
ever had" and "Pianka is a GOD!"


Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran
University
student who attended the Academy of Science lecture. Brenna McConnell,
a biology
senior, said she and others in the audience "had not thought
seriously about
overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting."
But though
McConnell arrived at the event with little to say on the issue, she
returned to
Seguin with a whole new outlook.


An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what's
become a new
conviction:


"[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!" she wrote. "I mean,
he's basically
advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current
population. And
at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right."


Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she's
decided
Ebola isn't the answer, she's still considering other deadly
viruses that might
take its place in the equation.


"Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it's the easiest
answer to
this problem of overpopulation," she said.


Though listeners like McConnell may walk away with a deadly message,
Pianka
maintains this is inconsistent with his lecture. One UT official said
Pianka is
likely well within his rights as a tenured educator.


The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure - a
set of
guidelines recognized nationwide - guarantees college professors vast
classroom
liberties. But Neal Armstrong, vice provost for faculty affairs at UT,
said even
this freedom is not without limits.


"Faculty members have the right of free speech like anyone else,"
he said. "In
the classroom, they're free to express their views. There is the
expectation,
though, that in public - especially when speaking on controversial
topics - they
must make every effort to be clear that they are not speaking on behalf

of the
university."


Students should be able to discern on their own the validity of views
like
Pianka's, Armstrong said. But if allegations of Pianka actively
advocating human
death were to be confirmed, he said "there might be some discussion
about the
appropriateness of that subject."


"I would hope that's not what's intended," he said. "I
don't think that's
appropriate for the classroom, but that's my personal statement."


Robert K. Jansen, chair of the section of integrated biology under
which Pianka
is classified, said his understanding of the doomsday material left no
cause for
concern.


"It's important for students to get all opinions, and they have to
do that on a
daily basis," he said. To hold a classroom's attention, Jansen says
educators
must often "speak their mind" in a fashion bold enough to garner a
bit of shock.


The Texas Academy of Science uses a similar approach in defending its
decision
to honor Pianka with the Distinguished Scientist award. Though TAS
offered no
direct comment to the Gazette-Enterprise, an email sent from TAS
President David
Marsh to Mims in response to Mims first letter of protest reads:


"We select the DTS speaker based on his/her academic credentials and
contributions to science. We do not mandate the subject he/she decides
to
address, nor will we ever. I would suggest that one of the purposes of
any such
presentation is to stimulate discussion - which indeed it did."


In his petitions, Mims inquires about the group's stance on
Pianka's talk,
asking if the recent honor should be interpreted as an endorsement by
TAS. Marsh
responded firmly, saying the award does not represent any formal
backing of
Pianka's ideas.


But despite the academy's flat denial of any wrongdoing, Mims
maintains his
stance. He said thus far, he's seen no response to the second
petition.


"I completely agree with one assertion made several times by Dr.
Pianka: 'The
public is not ready to hear that he hopes 90 percent of them will be
exterminated by disease,'" Mims said.


McConnell said the TAS audience, unlike Mims, was in awe of Pianka's
words. They
offered a standing ovation, and enthusiastically applauded Pianka's
position,
Mims said.


"There was a good deal of shock and just plain astonishment at what
he had to
say," the student said. "Not many folk come out and talk about the
end of the
human population in as candid of a manner as he did. Dr. Pianka
received a
standing ovation at the end of his talk, if that says anything. What he

had to
say was radical, no question about it, but that is not to say that at
least some
of what he had to say is not true."


Though Pianka turned down requests for a sit-down interview, he
maintains he is
not advocating human death.


Does he believe nature will bring about this promised devastation? Or
is
humanity's own dissemination of a deadly virus the only answer? And
more
importantly, is this the motive behind his talks?


Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, "Good terrorists
would be
taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they
could let
loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people."


As of press time, Pitts - who sent his appeal via email Saturday -
had received
no response from the university, but he says, "It's too early for
any responses
to have been made." Meanwhile, Pianka urges humanity to heed his call
to be
prepared, saying "we're going to be hunters and gatherers again
real soon."


"This is gonna happen in your lifetime," he told his St. Edward's
audience. "Do
you wanna go there? We've already gone there. We waited too long."


· Read more about Pianka by visiting his lab page at
uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/
· Read more about Forrest Mims at


www.forrestmims.org or visit the Citizen Scientist at
http://www.sas.org/tcs/index.html


Reply

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote
I think large cities should be proactive on this issue
and legislate
that unless there is a specific reason for driving a
pick up truck
or SUV in the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that
those vehicles
be disallowed (passing through on the xway not
counting).

I agree 200%. IMO NO private autos should be allowed
inside of major cities.
Moreover, anyone born in a major city, or who has live in
one continiously for
more than two years, should never be allowed to leave,
except to go to another
large city via public transportation such as rail. Such
cities should be wholly
self supporting with no public funds from outside each
city and each should
dispose of its own waste within city limits (no outside
dumping).


Wouldn't it be easier to just nuke all the big cities?