Every species has natural enemies that keep its numbers in check
and keeps the species strong. When you suppress the natural enemies,
like we do with immunization, all that happens is that more of the lesser quality
offspring will survive, which causes a general weakening of the species.
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Matt Beasley wrote:

Every species has natural enemies that keep its numbers in check
and keeps the species strong. When you suppress the natural enemies,
like we do with immunization, all that happens is that more of the lesser quality
offspring will survive, which causes a general weakening of the species.

Nowadays the natural enemies of humans are primarily humans. So I take it that in addition to wanting humanity to shut down medicine, you also want us to shut down our police, our judicial system, our armies, etc. and just let the slaughter begin?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:20:22 PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Every species has natural enemies that keep its numbers in check
and keeps the species strong. When you suppress the natural enemies,
like we do with immunization, all that happens is that more of the lesser quality
offspring will survive, which causes a general weakening of the species.

Nowadays the natural enemies of humans are primarily humans. So I take it that in addition to wanting humanity to shut down medicine, you also want us to shut down our police, our judicial system, our armies, etc. and just let the slaughter begin?

I'd say that even more than medicine, it's things like fire, tools, weapons, agriculture, and technology that have caused a "general weakening of the species." If we ever want to be strong again we'll have to give all that stuff up and let natural
selection have at us.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Broger wrote:

I'd say that even more than medicine, it's things like fire, tools, weapons, agriculture, and technology
that have caused a "general weakening of the species." If we ever want to be strong again we'll have
to give all that stuff up and let natural selection have at us.

A point, a point, a palpable point! I look forward to seeing Matt's proposal for giving up all aspects of civilization and turning to gnawing on rats caught in the ruins.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/16/23 1:24 PM, Abner wrote:

Broger wrote:

I'd say that even more than medicine, it's things like fire, tools, weapons, agriculture, and technology
that have caused a "general weakening of the species." If we ever want to be strong again we'll have
to give all that stuff up and let natural selection have at us.

A point, a point, a palpable point! I look forward to seeing Matt's proposal for giving up all aspects of civilization and turning to gnawing on rats caught in the ruins.

Who could argue that the human species would be much stronger if its
global population dropped to a few thousands? Let us become extinct,
and our strength will be such that we will be undisputed masters of the universe!

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Every species has natural enemies that keep its numbers in check
and keeps the species strong. When you suppress the natural enemies,
like we do with immunization, all that happens is that more of the lesser quality
offspring will survive, which causes a general weakening of the species.

Nowadays the natural enemies of humans are primarily humans.

------------------
The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view? You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ... bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should
we just shut down all of medicine to appease your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 02:45:22 UTC+3, Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view? You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ... bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should

we just shut down all of medicine to appease your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

Yes, his idea is that worst enemy of our civilisation is medicine.
Medical aid should be made underground and criminal for to
save us. Kind of like drug trafficking is criminal in lot of jurisdictions.

It is unclear who he imagines of having power to implement
something even mildly into that direction and what he thinks
that would bring. If it is about all medicine or part of it or
maybe even sanitation should be damaged somehow ... does
not really matter.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 19:13:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by �� Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:

On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 02:45:22 UTC+3, Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view? You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ... bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses.

Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

Yes, his idea is that worst enemy of our civilisation is medicine.
Medical aid should be made underground and criminal for to
save us. Kind of like drug trafficking is criminal in lot of jurisdictions.

It is unclear who he imagines of having power to implement
something even mildly into that direction and what he thinks
that would bring. If it is about all medicine or part of it or
maybe even sanitation should be damaged somehow ... does
not really matter.

It's Beasley; there's no evidence that he thinks at all, or
is even capable of thinking.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 22:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as "artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola,
etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:59:31 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

On 4/16/23 1:24 PM, Abner wrote:

Broger wrote:

I'd say that even more than medicine, it's things like fire, tools, weapons, agriculture, and technology
that have caused a "general weakening of the species." If we ever want to be strong again we'll have
to give all that stuff up and let natural selection have at us.

A point, a point, a palpable point! I look forward to seeing Matt's proposal for giving up all aspects of civilization and turning to gnawing on rats caught in the ruins.

Who could argue that the human species would be much stronger if its
global population dropped to a few thousands? Let us become extinct,
and our strength will be such that we will be undisputed masters of the >universe!

You would make Swift proud.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 12:50:13 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:20:22?PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Every species has natural enemies that keep its numbers in check
and keeps the species strong. When you suppress the natural enemies,
like we do with immunization, all that happens is that more of the lesser quality
offspring will survive, which causes a general weakening of the species. >> Nowadays the natural enemies of humans are primarily humans. So I take it that in addition to wanting humanity to shut down medicine, you also want us to shut down our police, our judicial system, our armies, etc. and just let the slaughter begin?

I'd say that even more than medicine, it's things like fire, tools, weapons, agriculture, and technology that have caused a "general weakening of the species." If we ever want to be strong again we'll have to give all that stuff up and let natural

selection have at us.


That's a false equivalence. Human technology and culture are what
distinguish humans from non-humans. That humans developed technology
and culture to the degree they have is very much a matter of natural
selection.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mark Isaac wrote:

Who could argue that the human species would be much stronger if its
global population dropped to a few thousands? Let us become extinct,
and our strength will be such that we will be undisputed masters of the >universe!

Jillery wrote:

You would make Swift proud.

Apparently human population works on the same principles as homeopathy. Who knew?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run? I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as "artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola,

etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want! That's NOT hard to understand!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as
"artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola,
etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want! >That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for
your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as
"artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola,
etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want! >That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for
your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise.

-----------------------
Saying "You first, lead by example!" is mindless nonsense! Even if there are one million people who are calling for population control, and they all kill themselves,
to "Lead by example", it's still just a drop in the bucket, when we keep adding 80 million
per year like we've been doing since 1960! lol....Obviously!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously! >> >> So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as >> "artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola, >> etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want! >That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for
your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise.

-----------------------
Saying "You first, lead by example!" is mindless nonsense! Even if there are one million people who are calling for population control, and they all kill themselves,
to "Lead by example", it's still just a drop in the bucket, when we keep adding 80 million
per year like we've been doing since 1960! lol....Obviously!
--
--

Increasing childhood mortality by eliminating immunizations would just lead to an increase in birthrate; it would not control population growth; if anything it would make the problem worse. It's easy to see that just by comparing fertility rates in
countries with high versus low childhood mortality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 18 April 2023 at 02:35:24 UTC+3, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 6:55:23 PM UTC-4, Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously! >> >> So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as
"artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola, >> etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to >automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want!
That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise.

-----------------------
Saying "You first, lead by example!" is mindless nonsense! Even if there are
one million people who are calling for population control, and they all kill themselves,
to "Lead by example", it's still just a drop in the bucket, when we keep adding 80 million
per year like we've been doing since 1960! lol....Obviously!
--
--

Increasing childhood mortality by eliminating immunizations would just lead to an increase in birthrate; it would not control population growth; if anything it would make the problem worse. It's easy to see that just by comparing fertility rates in

countries with high versus low childhood mortality.

What is most annoying for me about idea of Beasley is that it would just take more resources for giving birth, raising and teaching kids. Lot of offspring would die young and so not to become productive ever. It would just take
time, resources and produce waste for those who are productive. We would
get population with stronger immunity system by paying with even more resources.

Problem however was not weak immunity system of population, but resources
used and waste created by its size. That problem we would actually make
worse.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:50:50 -0700 (PDT), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously!

So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as >> >> "artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola,
etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want! >> >That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for
your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise. >-----------------------

Saying "You first, lead by example!" is mindless nonsense!

"Strawman bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense.

Even if there are
one million people who are calling for population control, and they all kill themselves,
to "Lead by example", it's still just a drop in the bucket, when we keep adding 80 million
per year like we've been doing since 1960! lol....Obviously!

Your comments above have nothing to do with your objection to Abner's
post. Instead, your latest comments identify a need to reduce births,
which is an entirely different, and much more effective, solution to overpopulation than letting infectious diseases run amok.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously! >> >> >> So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as >> >> "artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola, >> >> etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want! >> >That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for
your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise. >-----------------------

Saying "You first, lead by example!" is mindless nonsense!

"Strawman bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense.

Even if there are
one million people who are calling for population control, and they all kill themselves,
to "Lead by example", it's still just a drop in the bucket, when we keep adding 80 million
per year like we've been doing since 1960! lol....Obviously!

Your comments above have nothing to do with your objection to Abner's
post. Instead, your latest comments identify a need to reduce births,
which is an entirely different, and much more effective, solution to overpopulation than letting infectious diseases run amok.

---------------------
A British perspective on population and biodiversity
by Philip Cafaro, April 18, 2023
[ . . . ]
For both amphibians and birds, the relationship between increased human population density and increased percentages of species declining is statistically significant. Chapter nine notes that this correlation between population density and recent
biodiversity loss has been found worldwide, in studies looking at measures of biodiversity intactness: “across the world as a whole, more people are correlated with more biodiversity loss.” Conservation biologists generally agree that preserving
habitat is the key to preserving biodiversity, leading to support for ecological restoration of former agricultural lands as a cornerstone of conservation efforts going forward. But as Beebe notes, in densely populated countries with increasing concerns
about food security, such agricultural deintensification in not likely to be widely adopted.

Given the evident importance of population matters to biodiversity conservation, one would expect more attention to this matter. On the positive side, chapter eight notes that polls regularly show that the general public understands the importance of
reducing human numbers for biodiversity conservation, and that naturalists and conservation biologists have increased their population advocacy in recent years. On the negative side, environmental organizations generally ignore the issue. Worst of all,
the wealthy foundations that many of these organizations have come to depend on punish those which address it.

The timid silence of most environmental NGOs arguably amounts to a dereliction of duty, given the impacts of increasing human numbers on their stated objectives. Beebe levels similar criticisms at mainstream politicians: the platform of the UK’s Green
Party “seems designed to minimize offence rather than to propose action,” while other major parties remain silent about population. Into this breach step the economists, who are uniquely unsuited to advise on population matters, given their obsession
with economic growth and their demotion of other species to mere “natural resources,” to be used or exterminated whenever this is convenient for people. “It is pertinent to ask why economics is so highly rated in the corridors of power,” Beebe
writes. And again: “the demotion of economics as a major driving force in the political arena might well be the best of news for the future of Planet Earth.”

In a final chapter titled “Conservation in a Crowded Country,” Beebe wades into controversial questions regarding population policies at home and around the world. He notes that widespread worries about low birthrates and stable or declining
populations have led many countries to introduce policies to increase fertility rates in recent years. Yet few of these countries have biodiversity intactness index scores that merit such policies, and many have such large populations that their real
worry probably should be whether they will be able to feed them in a warming world. Focusing on the UK, Beebe quotes one study that estimated it could only sustainably feed a population of 20 million people, far below the current 67 million or the 78
million projected by UN demographers for 2100. He goes on to discuss tax and incentive policies to lower UK fertility rates, and gingerly broaches the topic of limiting immigration, the leading driver of continued population growth in the UK, as it is
throughout the developed world.

As throughout the book, Beebe’s policy discussion here is reasonable and non-dogmatic, while not avoiding the hard issues. As he concludes:

"Without bringing human numbers into mainstream thinking in the context of wildlife and human futures, significant changes for the better look almost impossible. For far too long discussion about overpopulation in developed countries including the UK has
been taboo in polite society. This needs to change. A humane population-reduction policy would not have a rapid beneficial effect but is vital for any chance of proper recovery for Britain’s outstanding wildlife heritage in the longer term. To this end,
it will be necessary to replace blinkered economic arguments that have consistently ignored the real biological world in which human society functions."

https://overpopulation-project.com/a-british-perspective-on-population-and-biodiversity/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:40:23 -0700 (PDT), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

jillery wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Abner wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

The communicable diseases have been suppressed, so we've been over-populated
since 1970, as the biologists and ecologists demonstrated! Of course there will be
more stressors when a population is way too numerous, obviously! >> >> >> >> So the Black Plague, Ebola, etc. should not be treated by medicine in your view?

-----------
No, that's just you trying to play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey", like you did in Kindergarten!
I've said many times I think we should stop making flu, MMR, and Covid shots, to shorten
the average life span by a few years. Extending life spans artificially is a selfish decision
at the expense of others, which is well-documented by the reports coming in from all over
the world, but most people don't read, so they keep thinking that "Anything goes,
Numbers don't matter, and there's No limits!"

You believe we should just let all communicable diseases run rampant? But those are not the only weaknesses ...
bad eyesight, bad hearing etc. are also weaknesses. Should we just shut down all of medicine to appease
your ideological belief that medicine is bad for humanity in the long run?

I don't understand how you say treating flu, MMR, and Covid qualify as
"artificially extending lifespans", but treating Black Plague, Ebola, >> >> >> etc. is not. All are communicable diseases dependent on dense
populations. What basis do you use to choose "artificial" from
"natural"?

------------------------
When you go too far out on a limb, you need to back up!
How far you back up is a separate issue. We went too far out on
a limb with drug prohibition; that doesn't mean we have to
automatically legalize every drug! You can draw the line where you want!
That's NOT hard to understand!

"Ebola bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense. You have zero basis for
your original objection to Abner's criticism. Quelle surprise.

-----------------------
Saying "You first, lead by example!" is mindless nonsense!

"Strawman bad, Covid good" is mindless nonsense.

Even if there are
one million people who are calling for population control, and they all kill themselves,
to "Lead by example", it's still just a drop in the bucket, when we keep adding 80 million
per year like we've been doing since 1960! lol....Obviously!

Your comments above have nothing to do with your objection to Abner's
post. Instead, your latest comments identify a need to reduce births,
which is an entirely different, and much more effective, solution to
overpopulation than letting infectious diseases run amok. >---------------------

A British perspective on population and biodiversity
by Philip Cafaro, April 18, 2023
[ . . . ]

<snip multi-posted spam which says nothing about birth control OR
letting infectious diseases run amok>


--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)