Khmer Rouge,
You really are a nasty little old man arn't you. Never mind karma will see to it that you get what you give.

The Japanese whalers should not be permitted to whale in our waters, why don't we police our waters and since we, Australia don't agree to whaling, rid our waters of these illegal immigrants, who trespass into our waters.

If they were in international waters they and GP could do as they pleased. To address a previous post the difference between the menke whale and sheep, is that we have plenty of sheep, and very few whales.

As for the suggestion of sterilisation, the writer of the post should have been sterilised at birth, so as not to inflict more people who may be prone to the same paronoid illness that he himself suffers with, undiagnosed of course. He wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to see a specialist for treatment.

Col

It is the developed nations (over the last two centuries, since industrialization) who have created the greenhouse problem. Developing nations are only just beginning to contribute to it.

Forcing sterilization onto developing nations would be punishing them for our mistakes and greed. Their inate human urge to procreate would be stolen from them and all the while we would continue to plunder and pollute the planet with gay abandon. Hardly fair, to say the least.

Like so many of your ideas, Col, this latest one is simplistic and arrogant. And to think you criticize Greenpeace and others here on the basis of bullying, "delusions of grandeur" and "claiming the moral high ground".

I also think you need to reflect more closely on the basic principles of online etiquette.

Col,
"…I would have thought your thought processes sufficient to have interpreted my comment…"

Col, from my perspective I don't think I misrepresented the quote, even in context. Such a quotation goes much further than mere rhetoric and holds with it a seed of conviction that I find disturbing. I do not know you, of course, and could be doing you a great disservice however we can only react to what we read and that gives us little more than an insufficient glimpse at the writer. As issues are teased out, the opponents polarise and can find themselves pushing their ideas in areas that they, themselves, seem uncomfortable with.

Your post mentioned that you were aware of my writing, then you must also be aware that I am mostly critical of those that give little or no concession to others. That I agree with some of your observations does not mean that I cannot be highly critical of your complete refusal to recognise another's.

The medicinal and social improvements that, you exhort, are made to third world countries are, many times, far from humanitarian. Many of the drugs are those deemed inappropriate or suspect for first world countries and are dumped on the third world. The west needs dumping grounds.

On the 3rd of December 1984, the west came to Bhopal in India in a cloud of toxic gasses that killed thousands and is still killing people today. They do not receive the latest drugs, treatment or benefits so readily available to the west. Your philosophy of the west being the saviour of an embattled world would meet a lot of opposition in India, I would imagine.

The one thing that is difficult to measure is the effect that seemingly beneficial things have on the social fabric of a society that has not used it as part of their social cohesion. I don't know whether there are studies to that effect but common sense would tell me that any such study would be critical in some, if not many cases.
My allowable word count is exhausted…

Sorry, I asked to have my last post removed because it could have been misinterpreted.

I condem entirely the idea of sterilisation of developed nations as espoused by Col Rouge. I strongly recommend to Col that he say he was joking or something, because its a criminal suggestion. It is inhuman to even contemplate such a plan.

Shonga
other people making criticising of me as well as you piffling on like a bandicoot on steroids about big bad "Khmer Rouge" daring to declare the bleeding obvious.

Re sterlisation - I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago after the birth of my second daughter. In terms of your ongoing vilification of me I can only respond with
It should have been your father who should have been sterilised, at least 10 months before you were born.
As for fortitude, I endure you here, that must rate as worse than a dose of the clap or tapeworms (although I have experienced neither).

Bronwyn, short of discouraging people to reduce their rates of procreation what is your solution, have the populations of the “developed nations” culled?

Your recriminations to my factual observation suggest you are happier with your head in the sand rather than facing reality.

Craig Blanch “far from humanitarian.”
Like I said, tell that to those who no longer suffer from malaria, leprosy and the women who have been “reconstructed” after suffering fistula, to name but three (among thousands of) groups.

David Latimer “sterilisation of developed nations” I never suggested that at all.

Re ”because its a criminal suggestion. It is inhuman to even contemplate such a plan.”

Fact China had a population reduction program. criminal?.
Fact India has a bounty payment system for voluntary vasectomies. criminal?

As Ludwig observed “I (Ludwig) have been a Greenpeace supporter for umpteen years, but one of the biggest problems with them is their lack of effort or expression on population. This just does not sit at all well with their overall environmental ethic”

David, the reality is, the number of humans being born (or should I say “surviving” birth) is too high.
Developed nations, supplied the medical technologies which achieved this.
However, it is the underdeveloped nations who, clearly, have a “duty” to balance their populations by reducing their “breeding rates”.

Maybe confronting the Church of Rome about contraception might help.

“Under-developed nations” are the source of the population explosion. Your denial of that “reality” is astounding.

Isn’t it amazing how quickly the arguments of lefties like “Shonga”, David Latimer, Craig Blanch, “Tubley” et al, so quickly degenerate into “ad hominem” attacks when the indisputable logic of an argument defeats them?
They are too busy thinking about “what is politically correct” , to be able to think in a logical way.