Dear admin,

It's time to close this thread. The current "debate" between mil-observer and daggett is bringing this e-forum onlineopinion.com.au into disrepute.

mil-observer,

I only 'stand corrected' for having hastily (but, I believe, understandably) assumed that you were a Marxist cornucopian.

Only when you show that my arguments are 'flawed', my logic 'weak-minded' and 'inconsistent' and my expression 'hypocritical' will I stand corrected for that.

---

The fact that you failed to list any of the "other hundreds of genocidal maniacs who are members of the Club of Rome" apart from Henry Kissinger causes me to be suspicious of your claim.

mil-observer wrote, "you don't seem to realize that NSSM 200 determined strategic policy for that administration too".

I think you need to provide some substantiation for how "NSSM 200" is driving the Bush administration's policy goals, presumably, of depopulating the third world. It seems to me that if that was the Bush administration's goal, it has been spectacularly unsuccessful.

---

mil-observer wrote, "you don't respond to so many of my points (try the genocidal Club of Rome's depopulation target of 2 billion, ..."

How about citing the Club of Rome's documents that you say call for the depopulation?

mil-observer wrote earlier, "That's around 4.5 billion to somehow die and not reproduce."

Of course, if you have your way, then in around 30 years time, when the global population will have reached around 9 billion, you will be able to, instead, write:

"That's around 7 billion to somehow die and not reproduce."

However, anyone who understands the physical limits of the planet will understand one way or another nature will cull our numbers if we fail to stabilise our population ourselves.

If Ehrlich and the Club of Rome had been listened to in the 1970's, the global population would today be 4 billion at most.

I certainly hope that the short term carrying capacity of the earth proves to be at least 6.5 billion so that a terrible and catastrophic natural culling can be avoided before human population is able to decline naturally.

However, holding the Club of Rome morally culpable for what must inevitably happen, one way or another, is shooting the messenger.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

mil-observer continued, "... or my easy-peezy destruction of de Carbonnel's pseudo-science, ..."

If your choice of debating techniques is to proclaim that you have won the argument, then I can't stop you, however, I think that others will be able to see that you have not.

All you have done is made a vague assertion that increased agricultural productivity in parts of the globe would sufficiently offset huge reductions in agricultural productivity elsewhere, but failed to quantify that claim, when I challenged you to do so.

mil-observer continued, "... or the entire genocidal faith system sponsored by feudal-minded snobs like himself and princes Charles and Philip)."

This is no argument. It is just a personal attack (whether justified or not) upon two individuals who favour population stability.

---

mil-observer wrote, "my examples of batting averages and Bollywood careers that can be superimposed along the common X axis for 'time', ..."

Well do it then, if it is so easy as you say. Produce such a graph which shows and let's see the correlation.

In any case, if there should prove to be a correlation, isn't it it more likely that a third factor, that is, India's growing economic prosperity (of course, only for some at the expense of its environment and the poor) may be a cause of an increase in both, rather than one being the cause of the other?

mil-observer wrote, "... just as easily as your simplistic presumption about fossil fuel consumption causing or enabling population growth."

You have implied that the cause of this is the superiority of the human species, presumably including intelligence, from that point in time onwards, in comparison to the human species in earlier times.

(tobecontinued)

No, I don't fail against any sophists, regardless of whether you contrive some half-baked imaginary "tests" in that dungeon reserved for depopulation strategy.

Yes, the messenger has a message of genocide. So folks: pass me the ammunition as I target such messengers.

"If Ehrlich and the Club of Rome had been listened to in the 1970's, the global population would today be 4 billion at most."

Yeah, rubbish again. They have already been listened too, including by and for Kissinger via NSSM 200 and - lo and behold - we got a completely opposite result! Clever...it's what happens when people are forced into wretched conditions with only hopes for a gamble through higher rates of childbirth.

And "no argument" if referring to feudal snobs princes Charles and Philip, who advocate "depopulation" (daggett's euphemism "population stability")? Well, the issue is about people, and the the toxic resentment - indeed spite - felt by the privileged mediocre and in-bred towards most of the planet's generally more capable and dynamic persons. Therefore, it's quite a "personal" issue too, unless we deny our very humanity.

Every excuse to try denying development to countries like India. It's actually sick, and apparently resentful at the rise and challenge posed by those long neglected and oppressed. The political system aimed at, and most compatible with, such misanthropic bile is fascism, and on a global scale. The Malthusians feel that their time has come now that the financial system's disintegrating into ongoing catastrophic effects, with no leading states courageous to declare its bankruptcy and build afresh.

Just reassure us daggett that you have no children now or, at least, plan none for the future. Youth suicide's already a sickeningly large enough problem without any more direct help from yourself and the whole crew of Malthusian imperial-degenerates.

Your great cause is an intrinsic failure, whatever its ultimate effect, and your life is wasted in a swamp of anti-human, elitist (whether aspirational or nostalgio-feudal) urges toward some desperate longing for significance, but only at great cost to a still vulnerable majority.

mil-observer

This looks like a case of "if you can't win the argument your opponent is making, put crazy words in his mouth and then argue against the crazy words."

What if population stabilisation for Australia only means net zero immigration and dumping the baby bonus? Reducing immigration might even decrease teenage suicide because economic conditions would be better for more teenagers.

Oh come now, Philip Tang. At least they're talking to each other.

And the entertainment value compensates for the inanity, for those of us who look in on these admittedly odd conversations from time to time.

Mil-observer continues to surprise and delight with his idiosyncratic takes on humanity, while dear old James is gearing up for an election campaign based on Malthus and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

As Spock said - fascinating.