Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members. It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:35:25 AM UTC, Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members. It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

let us know when you have a lion installed in your bedroom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
--
--
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 00:27:22 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 4:35:25 AM UTC, Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members. It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

let us know when you have a lion installed in your bedroom

Lions would be much too quick. I suggest tying him onto a nest of
fire ants.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:45:04 AM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself against its

natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself against its

natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it? ---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself against

its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (even though
increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad enough that
you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human competitors help
with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 20:00:04 UTC+2, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself against

its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!

You think that addict who considers the drug their best friend
will deliberately join recovery program? Even if forced into then
recovery program does not work with such addicts. It only works
with some of addicts who regret being drug addict.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other species, future generations, the environment and average quality of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself against

its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (even though

increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad enough that
you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human competitors help
with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.
-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position
(the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years),
or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself

against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (even

though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position
(the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years),
or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying childbearing
reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds that it
has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate change will
make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of improved
medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-consistent,
but it would do nothing for the population problem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components.
Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself

against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend, to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (even

though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position
(the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years),
or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying

childbearing reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality
rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds that it

has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate change will
make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of improved
medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-consistent,

but it would do nothing for the population problem.
-----------------
I don't support the Status Quo, but you do, so you should give up everything and kill yourself to help mitigate the overcrowding!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 21:35:09 -0800 (PST), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't support the Status Quo, but you do, so you should give up everything >and kill yourself to help mitigate the overcrowding!

You first.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 12:40:07 AM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components. Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself

against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (even

though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position (the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years),
or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying

childbearing reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality
rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds that

it has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate change
will make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of
improved medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-

consistent, but it would do nothing for the population problem.

-----------------

----------------

I don't support the Status Quo, but you do,

What makes you say that? Up above I gave you a list of things that need to change in the status quo in order to reduce population growth. It's just that your idee fixe that denying medical care to people will do the trick is nonsense.

so you should give up everything
and kill yourself to help mitigate the overcrowding!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components. Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself

against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (

even though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position (the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years), or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying

childbearing reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality
rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds that

it has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate change
will make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of
improved medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-

consistent, but it would do nothing for the population problem.

-----------------

----------------

I don't support the Status Quo, but you do,

What makes you say that? Up above I gave you a list of things that need to change in the status quo in order to reduce population growth. It's just that your idee fixe that denying medical care to people will do the trick is nonsense.

--------------------
Vaccines to prevent disease are NOT health care when they obviously
cause harm to other species populations, the health of the environment,
and future generations!

so you should give up everything
and kill yourself to help mitigate the overcrowding!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components. Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms itself

against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (

even though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position (the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years), or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying

childbearing reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality
rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds that

it has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate change
will make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of
improved medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-

consistent, but it would do nothing for the population problem.

-----------------

----------------

I don't support the Status Quo, but you do,

What makes you say that?

------------------------
You never talk about population control!
Silence is complicity!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:00:11 PM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components. Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms

itself against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (

even though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position
(the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years), or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying

childbearing reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality
rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds

that it has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate
change will make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of
improved medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-

consistent, but it would do nothing for the population problem.

-----------------

----------------

I don't support the Status Quo, but you do,

What makes you say that? Up above I gave you a list of things that need to change in the status quo in order to reduce population growth. It's just that your idee fixe that denying medical care to people will do the trick is nonsense.

--------------------
Vaccines to prevent disease are NOT health care when they obviously
cause harm to other species populations, the health of the environment,
and future generations!

For vaccines to be causing harm to other species, future generations and the environment, it would have to be the case that reductions in childhood mortality lead to increases in the birth rate. You've never provided any evidence that that is the case,
and indeed, there is plenty of evidence that decreases in childhood mortality lead to decreases in the birth rate.

so you should give up everything
and kill yourself to help mitigate the overcrowding!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

Matt Beasley wrote:

Biodiversity has both quality and quantity components. Natural enemies provide quality and quantity control.
We humans have disrupted the process by suppressing our natural
enemies to extend lifespans artificially, at the expense of other
species, future generations, the environment and average quality
of our members.

We humans do exactly what every other living species does - resist our natural enemies with every means at our disposal.

It isn't too much to ask the authorities to turn
the clock back on some immunization, in order to achieve population
control or reduction under more controlled conditions than would arise
under the normal political process of endless war punctuated with
sporadic ceasefires.

Eliminating vaccination programs will not reduce the population. When infant/childhood mortality rates go up, so do birth rates.

-----------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
-- One way to be weak, with respect to some particular virus, is to be unable to mount a quick immune response to it in the face of infection; another is to refuse to be vaccinated against it. No other species unilaterally disarms

itself against its natural enemies. What on earth makes you think humans would do it?

---------------------------
Why would an alcoholic or addict give up the drug, their best friend,
to join the recovery program? And yet, many do!
--

Some people fall prey to obviously flawed analogies, but many manage to see the flaws for themselves!

More importantly, your reasons for wanting to deny others the access to vaccines which you have yourself are inconsistent (as well as being poorly thought out). On the one hand you want to deny people vaccines in order to reduce population (

even though increasing childhood mortality increases birthrates, as a look at any country by country graph of childhood mortality and birthrate will show). But then you say that eliminating vaccines will allow viruses to weed out the "less fit." It's bad
enough that you seem to think the less fit include LGBT and those with mental illness, but if the whole point of reducing population is to make things better for the other species on the planet, how does increasing the average fitness of their human
competitors help with that goal? Every difficult, complex problem has a simple solution. One that won't work. And you've found it.

-------------------------
Would you like to offer us an analogy to support the default position
(the Status Quo, where we add one billion people every 10-12 years), or are you limited to only one-sided objections and criticism?
--
--

There are many ways to decrease population growth. Reducing childhood mortality reduces birth rates. Making sure women have control over their reproductive health reduces birth rates; reducing wealth inequality reduces birth rates; delaying

childbearing reduces birth rates and the rate of population growth. There are many options, none of them easy, but all of them both easier to implement and more likely to be effective than denying health care to people in order to increase the mortality
rate.

As for the status quo - the population growth rate has been declining since the 1960's. The UN currently predicts that world population will peak at just under 11 billion. There has been a fair amount of criticism of their model on the grounds

that it has ignored recently developing downward pressure on fertility. Models that take those pressures into account project a peak population of about 9.5 billion reached in the second half of the 21st century. That's a lot of people, and climate
change will make things even harder, but there's not the slightest evidence that trying to increase the mortality rate by denying people medical care would change that trajectory - indeed some of the downward pressure on fertility rates is the result of
improved medical care.

I assume that, to be consistent with your own position, you yourself have canceled your health insurance and sworn off medical care in order to allow your natural, microbiological enemies to do their worst. That would make your position self-

consistent, but it would do nothing for the population problem.

-----------------

----------------

I don't support the Status Quo, but you do,

What makes you say that?

------------------------
You never talk about population control!

Of course I talk about population control, within this thread I've given several examples of changes that need to be made to control population growth. And I support access to birth control with more than just words or electrons.

Silence is complicity!
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)