From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:52:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1859ulINNdh7@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@shadow.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

>In article <laa18gINNpi8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <182hevINN5sg@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

>>>First, I don't see why the people against overpopulation care.  I'm guessing that
>>>they are all from the U.S., which is barely affected by overpopulation, domestic
>>>or foreign.

>>believe that as a member of a society one has a certain obligation to
>>improving the well being of members of that society. I consider myself
>>to be a world citizen, and as such I believe I have an obligation to
>>try to improve the quality of life of all living creatures of this 
>>world that I'm a member of, if I can do so in some way.

>Isn't that sweet.  So, are you a member of peace corps?  Did you cry when
>communism fell?  Are you a member of the socialist party?  Are you really going
>all out to rectify social inequality around the world or do you just claim to
>care to give yourself warm fuzzies?

You don't have to agree with me, but I do believe what I said. No, I'm
not communist or a member of the peace corp. However I am trying to
do my share to imrpove things.

>>>Secondly, if you think foreign overpopulation is hurting the environment, that
>>>damage is nothing compared to the damage done by industrialized nations with 
>>>low population growth.  There are much more important things to bitch about that
>>>foreign overpopulation in an environmental light.

>>Yes, overpopulation is hurting our environment. I define overpopulation
>>as a population that is not sustatinable. I guess that means that we
>>are overpopulated too.

>You still don't answer my question.  If you really cared about the environment,
>you'd start with voting Bush out of office, and get someone who will hammer down
>on industrialized nations.  If you think we are overpopulated, you couldn't be
>more mistaken.  The U.S. has near 0% pop growth, and will always have a food
>surplus.  The U.S. will never go hungry.

I am voting for Clinton. As for the U.S. population, I don't think that
I am mistaken. There is more to overpopulation than simply the ability
to grow food.

>>>Third, you're probably going to get your wish, because aids will devistate the
>>>3rd world.
>>Not the way I'd like things to be, but I guess that if humanity can not
>>manages its own affairs, nature will do that for us.

>BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LOSS OF HUMANITY???  How can you live with the thought?  So
>it's a mortal sin for man to ignore the problems of his neighbors, but it is ok
>for "nature" to totally ream the majority of humankind.

I didn't say it was OK, I said that this is the way things are. Its
called reality. As for the loss of humanity, I don't know that it
is necessairly worse for the earth to have 2 billion people all of
which have high quality lives, as opposed to 12 billion most of
which have very low quality lives. In fact, not only would I consider
the first to be preferable, I think that in the long term it will allow
for more people to live their lives. (Based on the assumption that 
2 billion will not cause a collapse of the eco-system, and that 12+
billion probably will)

>>>Jon Newton

Eric