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.

"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.

"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.

"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.


I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo
famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going
to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los
Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
(1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which
the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
(1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to
some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because
of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million."
(1969)

"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

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.


I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

You are correct. All resources are infinite, and it doesn't matter how many
people tap these resources. This is physically impossible, but if you're
stupid enough (like you), anything's possible.

On Oct 19, 1:56 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BillP" wrote in message

news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

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.

I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

You are correct. All resources are infinite, and it doesn't matter how many
people tap these resources. This is physically impossible, but if you're
stupid enough (like you), anything's possible.

You are correct, there is no middle of the road or even common sense
to be had.. It's only doom and gloom, we are in for a global
freeze..ooooops, wrong election cycle... Sorry.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:41:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:05:56 -0000,
wrote:

On Oct 19, 1:56 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BillP" wrote in message

news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

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.

I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

You are correct. All resources are infinite, and it doesn't matter how many
people tap these resources. This is physically impossible, but if you're
stupid enough (like you), anything's possible.

You are correct, there is no middle of the road or even common sense
to be had.. It's only doom and gloom, we are in for a global
freeze..ooooops, wrong election cycle... Sorry.


I am not really a doom and gloomer but I will agree with those who say
we will run out of cheap water long before we run out of cheap oil.

It will mostly affect people who insist on pretty green lawns first.
Here in Florida there are already people who are finding there is so
much salt in their well water that it is killing their pretty
Floritam. Our wells are still considered "OK" where I am but the salt
can be 1 PPT in the winter. That means you get a gram of salt in a
liter of water if you don't run it through an RO.

Another good reason to start building some nuclear plants. Desalinization
may be in our future.

http://www.iepsac.org/papers/p09a03.htm

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:58:00 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:27:57 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Another good reason to start building some nuclear plants. Desalinization
may be in our future.

http://www.iepsac.org/papers/p09a03.htm


It is already happening in SW Florida. Cape Coral and Sanibel have big
RO plants but it is expensive water.

Are they using nuclear power?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

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.


I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

You are correct. All resources are infinite, and it doesn't matter how
many people tap these resources. This is physically impossible, but if
you're stupid enough (like you), anything's possible.


Where did I say all resources are finite?

"BillP" wrote in message
news:bAWRi.15739$fm1.5569@trnddc01...

"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
m...
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.


I wonder if Paul Ehrlich (the original Algore) is still with them.

Some of his "predictions"-

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo
famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are
going
to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los
Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
(1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which
the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
(1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to
some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42
because
of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million."
(1969)




I read between the lines. You made it easy.