oldsalt

All the world's a lifeboat...

6 posts in this topic

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stor....htm#transcript

When I first read Atlas Shrugged, although the little voice in my head kept pronoucing "of course" to almost everything I read, I still had trouble wrapping my mind around a few things. One of the biggest problems I had was the concept that there were people who so hated life that they not only didn't want to live, but wanted everybody else dead as well. Also, I didn't think that people really talked the way Miss Rand depicted and thought that she had written the dialogue to emphasize the point she was making. I was very young.

In a talk he titled "Apocalypse Now" (which may be found at the above link), Melbourne neuroscientist Dr John Reid opined that the world had already passed its ability to sustain life because of depletion of resources and over-population, which is leading to climate change and the eventual death of the planet. I won't bother with the assertions he makes about these twin catastrophes, they are the usual claptrap, but rather offer his "solutions."

WARNING: PURE EVIL FOLLOWS

We in the affluent world will have to accept substantial reductions in our standard of living to allow space for the poor, mainly in Africa, to improve their nutrition and health status.

To achieve this, income and wealth distribution within our societies will have to become much more equal. The higher up the tree one is, the greater the sacrifice one will have to make.

Stringent measures will have to be put in place to reduce water consumption, particularly in countries like Australia where water is a scarce commodity. Using potable water to cool industrial processes and as wash-water will have to stop, and this includes air-conditioning equipment in large buildings, power station cooling towers, paper mills, dairying and agriculture, etc, etc. [...]

Contrary to a recent forecast that the world's fleet of fossil-fuel-burning motor vehicles will triple over the next 50 years, the fleet will have to be reduced to no more than about 10% of the present number.

Meat will be rationed to no more than, say, 200 grams per person per week.

Municipal authorities will provide allotments so that people can grow their own fruit and vegetables. We could turn some iconic sports arenas into vegie gardens.

And private property rights will be severely curtailed to prevent landowners from engaging in environmentally-damaging behaviours. And many, many more such infringements on what we now regard as our rights will have to be accepted.

[...]

The population of the world must be very quickly reduced to 5 billion (that is, if 6 billions equals 120% of capacity, the 5 billions equals 100%). And then, as the average level of affluence rises, fairly quickly reduced further to, say, 2 to 3 billion.

The urgent discussion then becomes, how do we achieve these targets? Leaving aside uncontrollable natural events, such as a collision with a large asteroid or comet, or the eruption of a super-volcano, there is only a limited number of ways population decrease can be achieved. These ways are all painful, and most are brutally painful in their effect.

Let us canvass them.

[...]

War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, can bring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scale of tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem of over-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill. Consequently, let us consider the alternative.

The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen. The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.

One small, but appropriate, token gesture would be to ban immediately all forms of assisted conception, including the use of donated sperm or ova. The fact that relatively affluent couples, or single women who cannot achieve pregnancy by good old-fashioned copulation, or even choose not to do so, can demand the use of expensive medical technology to satisfy their 'need' for parenthood is unacceptable in a hugely overpopulated world.

The next most human [sic] way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain harmones necessary for conception.

The world's most affluent populations should be targeted first. According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.

[...]

...[Dealing] with an ageing population beset by the consequences of over-eating the wrong food and under-exercising will be ... difficult. Societies will not be able to provide the healthcare services needed to keep large numbers of unhealthy old people alive.

A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths. Not every problem is solveable. [...]

The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.

The man makes me feel the need for a bath, and to clean my gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't bother with the obvious stuff, but this bit piqued my interest...

The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen. The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.
Apparently Mr. Reid didn't get the memo that the first world's population is already declining. The average number of children per household is under two in just about all of them. The very cultural malaise that his kind brought about has created a generation of DINKs who have no interest in making babies. He has nothing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't bother with the obvious stuff, but this bit piqued my interest...

Apparently Mr. Reid didn't get the memo that the first world's population is already declining. The average number of children per household is under two in just about all of them. The very cultural malaise that his kind brought about has created a generation of DINKs who have no interest in making babies. He has nothing to worry about.

Silly boy! Here you are going on about facts, as if such ever entered into the purview of this oatmeal for brains!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly boy! Here you are going on about facts, as if such ever entered into the purview of this oatmeal for brains!

Janet, all I could think of there was the Trix-Rabbit, and someone saying "Silly boy! Facts are for normal people(NOT Leftists)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites