[careinke]

Monte,

Some friendly advice. You need to choose another pandemic besides the 1918 flu to make your point on nature providing population control. Although the 1918 flu demonstrated you can’t realistically hide from a pandemic, the flu was not deadly because people’s immune systems were low. As a matter of fact the 1918 flu was the most deadly on those with the strongest immune systems. The flu was just the trigger; it was actually the immune response that killed people. Most of the deaths were in the 18 to 50 year old range, the healthiest segment of the population.

Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')e laid down the ecological science behind why we need to have a paradigm shift in our thinking.

[MrBean]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', '
')
No, I'm not interested rereading what Bartlett says but what MQ thinks about what Bartlett says. What does it mean to choose for you and what is your choise? And what that choise means in practice.

Or do you bring up the right hand list just for entertainement value?

[MrBean]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')I never resort to ad hominems. You might want to look up the definition.

I find the merits quite enough to debate rather than resorting to "attacks against the man" to win any debate.

[VMarcHart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nd a lot of people don't do their homework. Think about that.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', '
')No, there is very important distinction between "not possible" and "extremely unlikely". I'm quite satisfied with one in a million chance,

[MrBean]

You should know - and you do if you've read Terry Pratchet - that anything with a one in a million chance means nearly sure as hell. Not of course two in a million, one in a two million etc., those chances are just impossible.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')e laid down the ecological science behind why we need to have a paradigm shift in our thinking.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', ' ') Nothing on what choosing to "become our own predator" would mean in practice and how you suggest to put that choise of intervention into practice - on a scale that would in fact drop our numbers to al level that you deem sustainble - the estimates of 2-3 billion you still haven't provided the sources for. I've done enough searching, if you really have answered these kinds of questions somewhere, then please provide a link.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nd a lot of people don't do their homework. Think about that.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', ' ')You ought to congratulate yourself, instead of alienating everybody.

[BigTex]

For those who are new to Monte's approach and outlook, he can be a little strident or even grouchy at times, but part of it is based upon having had the identical arguments for several years.

It's not necessary that you agree with him. He is here to make his case and share his thoughts.

However, I think that it's impossible to follow his arguments for any amount of time and not find your own thinking on these matters evolving a little (or a lot).

When I first began reading his posts they struck me as dreadfully bleak and depressing, but when you look at the issues from a more objective perspective, there is a certain inevitability to his logic that doesn't make it less chilling, but does make it clear that it's a set of concerns of which A LOT more people should be aware.

For example, "Overshoot" by William Catton is the definitive work on the topic of overshoot, carrying capacity and related topics. It was written in 1980. It's an outstanding book. You know how many Amazon reviews there are for it? About 12. They're all five stars, but still it's clear that VERY few people are aware of these issues.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'F')or those who are new to Monte's approach and outlook, he can be a little strident or even grouchy at times, but part of it is based upon having had the identical arguments for several years.

[MrBean]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Try the Population Reduction and Rebuttal Thread for one. MonteQuest on the Population Taboo for another.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')e laid down the ecological science behind why we need to have a paradigm shift in our thinking.

[BigTex]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')here appear to be a lot of people on these forums, and others, who kind of get the picture but can't quite make it all the way. They can't see that we may well need to jettison all that we think is good about modern civilization (whether it is objectively good or not), in order to attain a durable society. The idea of infinite economic growth seems to underlie the opinions of most, even if they deny infinite economic growth.

[AlterEgo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')he few I alienate is not worth worrying about. I get lots of pm's. Most of them are about admiring my patience with posters like yourself.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')Ever wonder why skepticism regarding human desire and a rejection of worldliness are underlying principles in so many world religions?

[AlterEgo]

Medical ethics is one topic that needs to be discussed on PO.com that hasn't already been discussed. It is an interesting blind spot that relates to population issues, and is as much of a forbidden topic as population control. Judging from my po.com search, it is an even bigger sacred cow than population control. Medical ethics is a one way street which has increasingly focused on deontological physician-patient relationships, with no-holds-barred to save an individual patient, regardless of cost to the greater society. Bioethics is a bit more utilitarian and systems-focused, accounting for the cost to the society of care and the issue of the greater good. The link below has some good definitions.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/gui/gui_001.html

My concern is that medical ethics is a sacred cow which impacts our survivability. I believe that this will be one of the last attitudes to change in the face of peak oil. There is a difference between caring and curing, and I see us heading to the wall at 80 mph attempting to cure. How do we stop all-out treatment of individuals who cannot be saved; how do we triage effectively? Will the lessened value of human life on an over-populated planet help in this cultural shift? Or should I just stop the mental masturbation and hope that a plague takes care of all of it?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AlterEgo', 'H')ow do we stop all-out treatment of individuals who cannot be saved;