Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:29 PM Monday 4/28/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > >> Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement requires >> some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication offensive. >> > > > And what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members > of the environmental movement that accomplishing their goals requires > some sort of eugenics, with statements like some of them have made > like "the carrying capacity of the Earth with people practicing a > sustainable lifestyle is at most something like half a billion > people." And not just because certainly I and everyone else who has > any sort of health problems or otherwise are not in perfect health > and physical shape will be among the 90%+ who will find themselves > considered part of the "surplus population" under such circumstances . . . > But then what *is* the sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth? And is uncontrolled breeding by human beings really feasible as a long-term policy? The fact that you don't like the implications does not, in itself, make their argument bad.
Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
