To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10641
10640  |  10642
Subject: 
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:55:32 GMT
Viewed: 
230 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:

A suprisingly effective way to curtail population growth (at least in
iteroparous organisms) is to delay the age of first production.  It's
also a lot nicer than forced sterilization.

Which is what we've been seeing in most developed nations for the past forty
years. Everyone gets their chance at the genetic lottery, with lower odds.
My spin on a couple of other points:
-- Environmental impact is affected by consumption and technology as much as
population. Current developed living standards may not be sustainable for
500 million people, let alone seven billion.
-- The massive human biomass is immensely susceptible to rampant
viral/bacteriological attack, either self-inflicted (anthrax bombs) or
natural outbreaks (HIV, Ebola).

--DaveL



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
 
(...) A suprisingly effective way to curtail population growth (at least in iteroparous organisms) is to delay the age of first production. It's also a lot nicer than forced sterilization. -chris (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

29 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR