🚀 go-pugleaf

Enough Already wrote:
 
> It should be clear that the root cause of traffic jams, water
> shortages and farmland\wilderness destruction is relentless population
> growth. In the long run we don't need more roads, houses, dams and
> power plants; we need more birth control and less immigration to stop
> the never-ending consumption that people mistake for "progress."

OK.  So how many immigrants does each of us native-born Americans get to
shoot?  The number here should be large enough to include shooting a
number sufficient to account for the excess births, which are a lot
harder to deal with.  The big problem, as you may have already guessed,
is deciding who is actually entitled to give birth... 

> Yes, we do need to rebuild our infrastructure where it's in disrepair,
> but let's not confuse that with a pyramid scheme of endless growth to
> feed an unnaturally large population...

Whatever.  It may, however, be noted that the freeways are wonderful as
long as you don't drive them during rush hour.  Are you sure you aren't
a mouthpiece for the stop-the-710 forces in South Pasadena? 
 
-- 
Cheers,
Bev
==================================================================
"America is at an awkward stage: it is too late to work within the
system, but it is too early to shoot the bastards."  -Claire Wolfe

The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<40D91CDD.ECA0CC34@myrealbox.com>...

> Enough Already wrote:
>  
> > It should be clear that the root cause of traffic jams, water
> > shortages and farmland\wilderness destruction is relentless population
> > growth. In the long run we don't need more roads, houses, dams and
> > power plants; we need more birth control and less immigration to stop
> > the never-ending consumption that people mistake for "progress."
> 
> OK.  So how many immigrants does each of us native-born Americans get to
> shoot?  The number here should be large enough to include shooting a
> number sufficient to account for the excess births, which are a lot
> harder to deal with.  The big problem, as you may have already guessed,
> is deciding who is actually entitled to give birth... 

I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
enough time.
 
> > Yes, we do need to rebuild our infrastructure where it's in disrepair,
> > but let's not confuse that with a pyramid scheme of endless growth to
> > feed an unnaturally large population...
> 
> Whatever.  It may, however, be noted that the freeways are wonderful as
> long as you don't drive them during rush hour.  Are you sure you aren't
> a mouthpiece for the stop-the-710 forces in South Pasadena?

It doesn't sound like you know what you really stand for. I don't live
in L.A. but I've seen enough of it and the Bay Area to know that
building more and more roads has not worked and never will. I hope
you're not claiming that building the 710 will fix the core problem?

But the folks at rebuildca.org don't care as long as jobs are created
in the construction sector. The trade relies far too much on
population growth and never questions the sanity of what feeds it. It
should become a maintenance or replacement (of worn out buildings)
industry, not a perpetual expansion business. Housing starts should be
de-listed as a leading economic indicator since they're really just
indicators of wilderness destruction, water depletion and sprawl.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:12 -0700, {STP} <stp@nospam.now> wrote:

>In article <a20f7b76.0406231804.4356f671@posting.google.com>,
> enough_already@lycos.com (Enough Already) wrote:
>
>> 
>> It doesn't sound like you know what you really stand for. I don't live
>> in L.A. but I've seen enough of it and the Bay Area to know that
>> building more and more roads has not worked and never will. 
>
>Really?
>
>Does that mean removing existing roads will work, 

No. It means that no matter how fast we build new ones, we cannot keep
up with the demand.

>or have we just 
>magically settled on exactly the right amount of roads right now?

In the time I've lived in the Santa Clara Valley, we've gone from no
freeways at all to hundreds of miles of them. Traffic is worse now
than it was when I was a kid here -- much worse. I think that's what
he's getting at, and frankly, I agree.

Al Moore

Enough Already wrote:
> 
> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<40D91CDD.ECA0CC34@myrealbox.com>...

> > OK.  So how many immigrants does each of us native-born Americans get to
> > shoot?  The number here should be large enough to include shooting a
> > number sufficient to account for the excess births, which are a lot
> > harder to deal with.  The big problem, as you may have already guessed,
> > is deciding who is actually entitled to give birth...
> 
> I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
> ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
> active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
> population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
> enough time.

Given enough time, and if world-wide, and....

It's not going to happen.
-- 
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

Enough Already wrote:
> 
> I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
> ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
> active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
> population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
> enough time.

For some reason, when one suggests this approach with white people no 
one bats an eye, but suggestion that population control might be a good 
idea for anyone else and you hear cries of "HITLER!  NAZI!"

Ironically, many of these same people seem to feel they are entitled to 
money from the government for being a baby machine.  It's their 
"reproductive rights," something I fail to find no matter how hard I 
squint at the Constitution.



John

-- 
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen.  --Beethoven

{STP} wrote:

> Does that mean removing existing roads will work, or have we just 
> magically settled on exactly the right amount of roads right now?
> 
> {STP}

Your village called.  They want their idiot back.



John

-- 
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen.  --Beethoven

Enough Already wrote:
> 
> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote: 
> > Enough Already wrote:
> >
> > > It should be clear that the root cause of traffic jams, water
> > > shortages and farmland\wilderness destruction is relentless population
> > > growth. In the long run we don't need more roads, houses, dams and
> > > power plants; we need more birth control and less immigration to stop
> > > the never-ending consumption that people mistake for "progress."
> >
> > OK.  So how many immigrants does each of us native-born Americans get to
> > shoot?  The number here should be large enough to include shooting a
> > number sufficient to account for the excess births, which are a lot
> > harder to deal with.  The big problem, as you may have already guessed,
> > is deciding who is actually entitled to give birth...
> 
> I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
> ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
> active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
> population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
> enough time.

And assuming no immigration, of course.  With effective birth control
you can drive the birth rate and hence the population to zero, but
unless you deal with immigration you've just changed the names on the
vehicle registrations.  
 
> > > Yes, we do need to rebuild our infrastructure where it's in disrepair,
> > > but let's not confuse that with a pyramid scheme of endless growth to
> > > feed an unnaturally large population...
> >
> > Whatever.  It may, however, be noted that the freeways are wonderful as
> > long as you don't drive them during rush hour.  Are you sure you aren't
> > a mouthpiece for the stop-the-710 forces in South Pasadena?
> 
> It doesn't sound like you know what you really stand for. I don't live
> in L.A. but I've seen enough of it and the Bay Area to know that
> building more and more roads has not worked and never will. I hope
> you're not claiming that building the 710 will fix the core problem?

I'm not interested in the core problem, if there indeed is one beyond
overpopulation.  I'm interested in being able to drive to my mom's house
11 miles away faster than I can ride it on a bicycle.  I think it would
be extraordinarily cool if there were a way to get from
Monrovia/Arcadia/Pasadena to Temple city/Alhambra/Monterey Park and
points south without going out to Azusa or into Los Angeles and without
having to drive over the increasingly "traffic-calmed" residential
arterials for which there is no alternative whatsoever.

> If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

Successful species are good at what they do, until they do it so well
they starve themselves to death or get exterminated by something else.  

-- 
Cheers,
Bev
---------------------------------------------------------
If I know that chaining yourself to a dead cow is stupid, 
how come Carly makes so much more money than I do?

{STP} wrote:
> In article <40DB6D6E.1060005@die.spammersearthlink.net>,
>  The Lindbergh Baby <johngrabowski1@die.spammersearthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>{STP} wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does that mean removing existing roads will work, or have we just 
>>>magically settled on exactly the right amount of roads right now?
>>>
>>>{STP}
>>
>>Your village called.  They want their idiot back.
> 
> 
> FOAD.
> 
> Either take on my challenge or admit you're full of shit.
> 
> {STP}

What "challenge"?  Your mental challenge?



John

-- 
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen.  --Beethoven

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:13:22 -0700, {STP} <stp@nospam.now> wrote:

>
>Build enough freeways to handle the traffic. Don't blame the freeways.

Right. And when we've paved everything in sight, and it's still
jammed, then what?
>
>Let's say you are building a house. You put in a furnace that is too 
>small for the cubic footage. So, you're cold. 
>
>Do you say, "I don't need a furnace. It doesn't keep me warm"?
>
>Or do you say, "I need a higher-capacity furnace"?

I live in California. I don't get cold unless I want to.

Al Moore

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:31:50 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>Enough Already wrote:
>> 
>> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote: 
>> > Enough Already wrote:
>> >
>> > > It should be clear that the root cause of traffic jams, water
>> > > shortages and farmland\wilderness destruction is relentless population
>> > > growth. In the long run we don't need more roads, houses, dams and
>> > > power plants; we need more birth control and less immigration to stop
>> > > the never-ending consumption that people mistake for "progress."
>> >
>> > OK.  So how many immigrants does each of us native-born Americans get to
>> > shoot?  The number here should be large enough to include shooting a
>> > number sufficient to account for the excess births, which are a lot
>> > harder to deal with.  The big problem, as you may have already guessed,
>> > is deciding who is actually entitled to give birth...
>> 
>> I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
>> ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
>> active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
>> population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
>> enough time.
>
>And assuming no immigration, of course.  With effective birth control
>you can drive the birth rate and hence the population to zero, but
>unless you deal with immigration you've just changed the names on the
>vehicle registrations.  

In fact, native Californians don't have enough kids to replace
themselves from one generation to the next. Were it not for
immigration, and US internal migration, the population of California
would be declining. That would be nice.

<snip>

Al Moore

The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<40DB9CA6.E1A1A7FC@myrealbox.com>...

> > > OK.  So how many immigrants does each of us native-born Americans get to
> > > shoot?  The number here should be large enough to include shooting a
> > > number sufficient to account for the excess births, which are a lot
> > > harder to deal with.  The big problem, as you may have already guessed,
> > > is deciding who is actually entitled to give birth...
> > 
> > I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
> > ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
> > active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
> > population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
> > enough time.
> 
> And assuming no immigration, of course.  With effective birth control
> you can drive the birth rate and hence the population to zero, but
> unless you deal with immigration you've just changed the names on the
> vehicle registrations.  

Yes, I forgot to mention immigration, but I associate less immigration
with fewer births worldwide. Birth control needs to be taken seriously
everywhere in the world.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

Alan Moore <alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<53hpd0lo6cmjobc51glpg408bnodbpkuti@4ax.com>...

> In fact, native Californians don't have enough kids to replace
> themselves from one generation to the next. Were it not for
> immigration, and US internal migration, the population of California
> would be declining. That would be nice.

If only it was that simple. According to various references there's
enough childbearing momentum to maintain steady U.S. growth even if
immigration is limited to replacement levels.

http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed5.html

Native Mormons in particular are showing little conscience about
overpopulation. They behave as if this is still a frontier with high
death rates. And many of our "natives" are recent immigrants who will
keep having larger families for cultural reasons. I don't want to see
white people trying to compete with their numbers to maintain racial
purity, etc.. We'd all end up losing because of the sum total.

The key is massive publicity on the population problem, directed at a
worldwide audience. No more excuses for worry of offending the
prolific or questioning religious values.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

The Lindbergh Baby <johngrabowski1@die.spammersearthlink.net> wrote in message news:<40DB6CCA.4000807@die.spammersearthlink.net>...

> Enough Already wrote:
> > 
> > I wish you wouldn't inject the word "shoot," since it enforces the
> > ignorant stereotype among growth-addicts that "zero growth" means
> > active removal of existing people. NPG.ORG suggests that a net
> > population _reduction_ can be achieved with only birth control, given
> > enough time.
> 
> For some reason, when one suggests this approach with white people no 
> one bats an eye, but suggestion that population control might be a good 
> idea for anyone else and you hear cries of "HITLER!  NAZI!"
> 
> Ironically, many of these same people seem to feel they are entitled to 
> money from the government for being a baby machine.  It's their 
> "reproductive rights," something I fail to find no matter how hard I 
> squint at the Constitution.

Yes, the Hispanic baby machine in particular is running at full tilt
and demanding to be serviced by all who came before. I'm tired of
seeing its effects on the land, but I'm not racist for saying that.
They just happen to be the group causing the most overpopulation now.

There was an article by professor Samuel P. Huntington about the lack
of cultural assimilation among Hispanics ("The Hispanic Challenge").
It offended many people but critics had little to say about the
overpopulation being forced on us by Mexico. They want the racial
angle to forever obscure the mathematics of people, land, water,
energy and shrinking wilderness.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:12 -0700, {STP} <stp@nospam.now> wrote:

>In article <a20f7b76.0406231804.4356f671@posting.google.com>,
> enough_already@lycos.com (Enough Already) wrote:
>
>> 
>> It doesn't sound like you know what you really stand for. I don't
live
>> in L.A. but I've seen enough of it and the Bay Area to know that
>> building more and more roads has not worked and never will. 
>
>Really?
>
>Does that mean removing existing roads will work, or have we just 
>magically settled on exactly the right amount of roads right now?

You'll notice I never mentioned "removing existing roads," though that
would be nice in some areas if the population ever decreases. People
who use your brand of argument almost never talk about overpopulation
itself because they lack an environmental aesthetic. Unless I read you
wrong, you are stuck on the idea that growth must be accommodated at
any cost.

I want people to question the entire concept of endless economic
growth and stop acting like "job creation" and so-called "wealth
generation" are sacred mandates (see
http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm). There were millions fewer
jobs when there were millions fewer people to fill them. Most net job
creation is nothing more than population absorption.

Population growth is feeding off itself with no ultimate gain in our
quality of life, but people have come to see it as a necessity because
they've known nothing else for centuries. I am asking that we rise
above that shallow level and look at what growth is really doing to
the land. Here's a good place to start:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/Human_Dimensions/Population/

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

On 27 Jun 2004 04:08:09 -0700, enough_already@lycos.com (Enough
Already) wrote:

>Alan Moore <alan.s.moore@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<53hpd0lo6cmjobc51glpg408bnodbpkuti@4ax.com>...
>
>> In fact, native Californians don't have enough kids to replace
>> themselves from one generation to the next. Were it not for
>> immigration, and US internal migration, the population of California
>> would be declining. That would be nice.
>
>If only it was that simple. According to various references there's
>enough childbearing momentum to maintain steady U.S. growth even if
>immigration is limited to replacement levels.
>
>http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed5.html

Yes. Not everyone is as practical as we are out here. And, of course,
there may be places that are not so severely overpopulated.
>
>Native Mormons in particular are showing little conscience about
>overpopulation. They behave as if this is still a frontier with high
>death rates. And many of our "natives" are recent immigrants who will
>keep having larger families for cultural reasons. I don't want to see
>white people trying to compete with their numbers to maintain racial
>purity, etc.. We'd all end up losing because of the sum total.

"Racial Purity?"  This is California. The first place in the US where
interracial marriage was legal. Not that its prohibition here or
elsewhere ever made much difference in the "race" of children being
born...
>
>The key is massive publicity on the population problem, directed at a
>worldwide audience. No more excuses for worry of offending the
>prolific or questioning religious values.

It would help, of course, if we didn't make foreign aid dependant on a
rejection of practical measures for birth control...

Al Moore

{STP} wrote:
> 
> Either take on my challenge or admit you're full of shit.
> 
> {STP}

	I admit it, you're full of shit.

Enough Already wrote:
> Yes, I forgot to mention immigration, but I associate less immigration
> with fewer births worldwide. Birth control needs to be taken seriously
> everywhere in the world.
> 
> E.A.
> 
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

If you believe that Man is a plague, please start by killing yourself.

Enough Already wrote:
> The key is massive publicity on the population problem, directed at a
> worldwide audience. No more excuses for worry of offending the
> prolific or questioning religious values.

No, the key is massive public debunking of the "population problem".
Start by reading "The Ultimate Resource 2" by Julian Simon.