Re: A Modest Proposal for "An Inconvenient Truth"

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:52:40 -0800, Will in New Haven wrote:

> I think the original proposal
> that started this thread, if it had been seriously made, would have
> shown the authors of <Fallen Angels> to be prescient. People overdoing
> things, stepping on other peoples rights, "in a good cause" are
> legitimate subjects of satire and even ridicule.

Is one to infer that you consider population law of any kind, shape or
form whatsoever, and in any context, to be unconscionable?

Or that you don't believe that overpopulation is present or even possible?

Or that you prefer the old-fa****oned way of dealing with overpopulation,
famine, epidemic and war domestic and foreign?

Or that you believe than any governmental attempt to deal with any serious
problem in any way inconveniencing you is "leftist" or "collectivist" or
"socialist" if not "communist"?

-- 

Overpopulation = energy crisis + nuclear-proliferation crisis
 + CO2- + water-va****- + thermal-emissions crises
 + global-warming crisis + pollution crisis + acid-rain crisis
 + deforestation crisis + deoceanification crisis
 + species-extinction crisis + emerging-virus crisis
 + labor-value crisis + . . . .