Hark!....do we hear the bleat of homo stupendus ignoramus withering in the frigid recesses?

...windbagging on and on is not confined to one side of the argument, imajulianutter.

Hey imajulianutter, thanks for your informed input.
'idiot savants' are famous for always getting it RIGHT, instantly and infallibly, and long before others do.

Hey Jon J, great post.
"...Why are you so upset that we can feed, house, clothe and educate billions of others of our kind -- the only kind, as far as we know, that can read, write, reason and create beauty?"

"Just why do you hate people?"
Actually, I think Julian Cribb recently put up an article outlining those very reasons (although 'hate' may be a little strong.)
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12495
Give a yell if you need any help with the big words.

What an odd question, Poirot.

>>Pericles, Why is it that it's always a choice between 'dying' and GM crops, pesticides, debt for small farmers, over-fertilisation and water depletion.<<

It is not "always" a choice between dying and GM crops. But given that there may at some point be the desperate need for such a choice, why would you deny the villagers the option?

Many GM crops are designed to need less pesticide, have higher yield using less fertilizer and are hardier, which renders the rest of your "choice" meaningless.

In any case, why would you actively agitate against the use of these crops, in areas where hunger is still a problem? I simply cannot get my head around the mindset that makes these pious judgments, thousands of miles away from in front of their plasma TV.

>>The landscape may be poisoned, eroded and degraded, the depleted water table may now not supply that single tap. Small farmers cannot access enough river water due to the multinational-owned sugar crop situated a little closer to one of India's thousands of dams<<

Do yourself a favour, and bring yourself up-to-date:

http://ddws.nic.in/

Life, for so very many, is a daily struggle to keep the family fed. Making life even more difficult for them, in the name of some white middle-class fashion statement, is cruel.

The authors critique of the human race actually supports the use of the terminology 'Homo sapiens' as it itself shows our ability think and understand the consequences of our actions (wisdom).

Name one species whose existence is not in some way detrimental to the environment.

Astounding bit of hissy-fitting by the author. 10 billion by 2100? No - nowhere near it. Global pop will drop approx 2050. Nothing to do with pop. Nothing to do even with consumers. Everything, the Greens and tree worshipers with capitalism. That's what they hate.

The tone of the article is absolute 'tanty'. Why? Surely the greens and their storm troopers have laid waste to enough desalination plants and protected enough ecosystems to preserve their kith and kin when the end of the world happens any minute now.