Dear John

 

You have to keep in mind the I=PAT equation. Even if we reduce global population down to one billion but resource use per capita increases ten fold on average, then we're worse off in sustainability terms.

 

You may not like the careful wording of the SPA policy (though it does need updating) but if you want to achieve anything politically, you can't express it in a way that instantly marginalises you with decision-makers. SPA has been operating for 24 years and I suppose you can say we've failed on a number of fronts in achieving our objectives, but we have been a voice of reason on this side of the debate for all that time and we are treated with respect by those people that matter. Every now and again you win someone over like Kelvin Thomson MP who moves our cause along much more than any of we mere mortals can.

 

I sometimes think of setting up Negative Population Growth Australia (or equivalent) to provide a more radical point of view so SPA looks as though it's the soul of moderation, but we already have a 'reduce population growth' clause in our aims and objectives.  Perhaps we need to advertise that more. But as I said, not much point of radical population reduction if there is a concomitant rise in resource use. It's ecological sustainability we're after, after all.

 

All the best,

 

Jenny Goldie

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: John Taves

To: Sheila Davis

Cc: aditmore@... ; greg@... ; mitch.transparentpictures@... ; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com ; Jenny.goldie@... ; mark@... ; gloomndoom@... ; madweld@... ; support.au@... ; dae.levine@... ; robert@... ; rboni@... ; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com ; OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com ; Why_breed@yahoogroups.com ; childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com ; conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com ; childfreetown@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:44 AM

Subject: Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge

See in red below.

jt

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Jenny Goldie <jenny.goldie@...> wrote:

Dear John

 

You have to keep in mind the I=PAT equation. Even if we reduce global population down to one billion but resource use per capita increases ten fold on average, then we're worse off in sustainability terms.

Your statement above is the same mistake that the SPA makes, and the same that I was trying to point out. The algorithm is NOT "we must get our numbers down to X". We do not need to figure out X. The algorithm that we must follow is: "We must get our numbers down to at least the point where we are no longer consuming the resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew." You've got to really think that sentence through. It is flawless, and when you really comprehend what it means, you'll see that the I=PAT equation isn't really necessary. Furthermore, when some scientist attempts to calculate some number, they are missing a few concepts. First, they aren't really comprehending that sentence and what it means for the economy and technology that will be used. We have no clue how efficient or what technologies would be used. In addition, there's no way to get to that number today, so by the time we are near it, we'll have new technologies that will dramatically alter that estimate. If the goal is to use the estimate to light a fire under the audience's butt to the seriousness of this, it totally backfires. Anyone can challenge these estimates. No two scientists will arrive at the same numbers. When the audience hears a lack of agreement, and can't comprehend the data that went into it to judge it for themselves, they will throw the whole topic out the window. In contrast, most people can judge the sentence above. No data, and thus no scientist's opinion, is required to conclude our numbers must come down.

 

You may not like the careful wording of the SPA policy (though it does need updating) but if you want to achieve anything politically, you can't express it in a way that instantly marginalises you with decision-makers. SPA has been operating for 24 years and I suppose you can say we've failed on a number of fronts in achieving our objectives, but we have been a voice of reason on this side of the debate for all that time and we are treated with respect by those people that matter. Every now and again you win someone over like Kelvin Thomson MP who moves our cause along much more than any of we mere mortals can.

I agree with what you are saying if the organization's goals are limited to making some policy changes. I am saying that The Population Problem will not be solved by this. The SPA must continue as they have been doing, and their wording is fine. If they took on the education role that must be done, they would lose their source of income and be unable to deliver that education. Furthermore, you can see from their writing that they ultimately don't understand the issues properly.

Generally speaking the SPA has a very similar outlook to what demographers are telling us. The problem is that demographers simply fail to comprehend a fundamental concept. If any group believes that having a lot of children is what their god wants, and that results in an average above two, and they successfully pass along that belief to the next generation to an average of more than two children, that belief will overpopulate the planet. When you comprehend what that means, several things become clear. One must prove that this belief cannot happen to have any reason to believe that current low fertility rates, that Australia for example are enjoying, will continue. It seems impossible to prove it cannot happen, thus demographers must find these groups and measure their growth. To do that, they cannot use their current techniques. Their current data sampling methods filter out beliefs that are passed from generation to generation. Even if there was some way for a scientist to discover a correlation that they were not looking for, this one would not pop out of the data because it was filtered out from the sampling.

If you accept that these beliefs can happen, and what better way to explain the fact that the Americans are not enjoying the same low fertility rate even after factoring out recent immigrants as several of the other developed countries, then you'll realize it can only be combated with knowledge (Americans tend to be more religious than other developed countries). The simple knowledge that it is wrong to average more than two is the only way to eliminate that belief. The logic continues. If no group can exist with the belief that it is OK to average more than two, then doesn't everyone have to know that averaging more than two is wrong? The SPA is in no position to provide this education. What the SPA and a collection of other similar organizations are doing is not sufficient to put an end to deaths due to over breeding. 

 

I sometimes think of setting up Negative Population Growth Australia (or equivalent) to provide a more radical point of view so SPA looks as though it's the soul of moderation, but we already have a 'reduce population growth' clause in our aims and objectives.  Perhaps we need to advertise that more. But as I said, not much point of radical population reduction if there is a concomitant rise in resource use. It's ecological sustainability we're after, after all.

An additional mistake that the SPA and basically all population experts make is with that PAT formula. I agree the concept is sound. I have no problem with the fact that if the population drops by 1/10th and per capita consumption increases by 10, we've made no progress towards sustainability. But why would you assume that that's the end of the population drop? If we can average 1.5 children, why can't we average that as long as it takes to get our numbers down to where we are not consuming resources faster than they renew?

I enjoyed reading your article. I thought it was excellent. However, throughout that article, and your subsequent emails, you have dodged a question. You have not answered how to get a birth rate that you are proposing we aim for.

Thanks,

jt

 

All the best,

 

Jenny Goldie

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: John Taves

To: Sheila Davis

Cc: aditmore@... ; greg@... ; mitch.transparentpictures@... ; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com ; Jenny.goldie@... ; mark@... ; gloomndoom@... ; madweld@... ; support.au@... ; dae.levine@... ; robert@... ; rboni@... ; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com ; OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com ; Why_breed@yahoogroups.com ; childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com ; conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com ; childfreetown@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:44 AM

Subject: Re: Response to Greenpeace on population/frosty wooldridge

I read the SPA's objectives. Just like all other population/environment organizations, they are not equipped to solve the problem. They do not have the objective that reads something like: "ensure that every Aussie, knows their moral responsibilities regarding how many children they can make". Without that objective, the other objectives are just pissing in the wind.

I skimmed http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/public/SPA_Population_Policy.pdf and found that it has the same disease that all population experts have. I don't mean to belittle the work. The people that wrote that put in countless hours and really thought it through. The problem is that they have simply failed to comprehend two simple facts that make the whole paper a big waste.

1) All of the items talking about sustainability, such as soil depletion, oil consumption, etc, can be boiled down to one simple sentence. We must reduce our numbers to the point where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than those resources renew. - The policy objective of the SPA "to determine what is an optimal population both nationally and internationally, that is, one that can be sustained in the long-term without degrading the natural resource base, noting that recent studies have shown that the Earth has already exceeded its regenerative capacity by 25 per cent, and" Is pointless. We don't need to determine this. Nobody can wave a wand and set our population number to what they determine. We know we must average less than 2 according that sentence above. Some future generation can debate whether their new lower population numbers are indeed being fed sustainably, they can report back to our long since deceased bodies what that population number happens to be at that time.

2) If your descendants average more than two, they will overpopulate the planet. This fact of nature tells us two important things:
 a) It is immoral to do this.
 b) This concept must be known by everyone. Thus the 29 recommendations by the SPA to the government are all inadequate. Only 2 or 3 mentioned birth rates. (e.g. 22. ensure that sex education programs in Australia are adequately funded and that a wide variety of contraceptive measures are available and affordable to all who need them; 23. end pro-natalist policies including such initiatives as the baby bonus")

jt

JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
already well under way in this regard.  India is less developed and thus
has a higher per capita income.  But as I understand it, they are doing
much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests.  JT is right
that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty.  In other
words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
make public.
         A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
the civil war.  They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
-Alan

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

I have not proposed any specific advertising campaign. I suspect you've
imagined what the ads might be and I am guessing you're picturing some
sort
of thing where the ad says that making too many babies will kill children
and the audience will look around and not see any dead children and
conclude the message is bogus. I don't envision that sort of message.
Instead, I see it more educational where there are a series of ads that
explain different portions of the topic. There are different ad mediums
(paper, billboards, etc) and each will have a different style of
messaging.
I also expect that StopAtTwo will monitor the different school districts
to
see when they start teaching these concepts. See
http://stopattwo.org/curriculum.pdf for the basic outline of what should
be
taught. When the public school district starts teaching it, there's
probably no more need to keep sending the message to that area.

Regarding the sheer scale of this, I agree that this is huge. However, I
don't think that StopAtTwo will have to do all the advertising for the
whole world, and there will be plenty of news regarding this to generate
awareness. For example, let's imagine that say the USA is hit with the
ads
first and after several years the USA has started to see large numbers of
people comprehending this and politicians are starting to respond. At
some
point the USA gov. would restrict immigration based on the other
countries'
comprehension of these concepts, and that act in itself would help to
spread the message else where. This is just an example. My point is that
there will be many other ways that the message gets delivered. The civil
rights movement is a good example. The message "skin color must not be
used
to judge someone" was the intended goal of the movement. The news reports
of protests got the message across. The news "there were riots in Alabama
when black protested having to sit in the back of the bus" is not a
direct
statement of the message, but it had the desired effect.

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information about that.

I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But, that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering. So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should allow.

But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any number of scientists.

jt

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
already well under way in this regard.  India is less developed and thus
has a higher per capita income.  But as I understand it, they are doing
much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests.  JT is right
that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty.  In other
words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
make public.
       A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
the civil war.  They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
-Alan

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

I have not proposed any specific advertising campaign. I suspect you've
imagined what the ads might be and I am guessing you're picturing some
sort
of thing where the ad says that making too many babies will kill children
and the audience will look around and not see any dead children and
conclude the message is bogus. I don't envision that sort of message.
Instead, I see it more educational where there are a series of ads that
explain different portions of the topic. There are different ad mediums
(paper, billboards, etc) and each will have a different style of
messaging.
I also expect that StopAtTwo will monitor the different school districts
to
see when they start teaching these concepts. See
http://stopattwo.org/curriculum.pdf for the basic outline of what should
be
taught. When the public school district starts teaching it, there's
probably no more need to keep sending the message to that area.

Regarding the sheer scale of this, I agree that this is huge. However, I
don't think that StopAtTwo will have to do all the advertising for the
whole world, and there will be plenty of news regarding this to generate
awareness. For example, let's imagine that say the USA is hit with the
ads
first and after several years the USA has started to see large numbers of
people comprehending this and politicians are starting to respond. At
some
point the USA gov. would restrict immigration based on the other
countries'
comprehension of these concepts, and that act in itself would help to
spread the message else where. This is just an example. My point is that
there will be many other ways that the message gets delivered. The civil
rights movement is a good example. The message "skin color must not be
used
to judge someone" was the intended goal of the movement. The news reports
of protests got the message across. The news "there were riots in Alabama
when black protested having to sit in the back of the bus" is not a
direct
statement of the message, but it had the desired effect.

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

--

jt

John Taves

425 444 2368

StopAtTwo

 

I don't understand why you would say something like "so the sustainable population level is...." in response to an email that, I thought, made a damn good case that calculating, estimating, or talking about what a sustainable population level is, "is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues".

Oil is not essential for human survival, so your statement that some sustainable level is determined by the natural formation rate of oil doesn't make much sense. Oil is essential to provide for our current numbers. Do you understand the difference? Did you overlook that I attempted to make that concept clear in the following sentence? "we must get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew". Could it be worded better?

jt

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

Yes, "that economy and technology is heavily based on oil", so the sustainable population is the natural formation rate of oil times the per capita oil consumption at the desired lifestyle.  What geologists have some trouble estimating is the rate of natural oil formation.

-Alan

 

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:07:39 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:

Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information about that.

I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But, that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering. So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should allow.

But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any number of scientists.

jt

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
already well under way in this regard.  India is less developed and thus
has a higher per capita income.  But as I understand it, they are doing
much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests.  JT is right
that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty.  In other
words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
make public.
       A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
the civil war.  They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
-Alan

No, the Japan story is NOT ignorant reporting, it is BIASED reporting.
The reporters have heard the sustainable population arguement many times
and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it; and they
dont want to believe it because their brains have evolved for millenia
not to believe it, along sociobiological lines.
-Alan

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

4b. Re: [PublicPopForum] Japan�s_Population_t o_Shrink_Nearly_a_Thir
     Posted by: "John Taves" john.taves@... johntaves1
     Date: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:14 pm ((PST))

This is not biased reporting. This is ignorant reporting.

Demographers have done a dreadful job at explaining these things so that
reporters can state facts. Demographers are ignorant of several facts,
just
like the general population is ignorant of these issues.

It is a fact that *every country on this planet is overpopulated because
no
country can feed their current numbers without using resources faster
than
they renew*. For example, we cannot create food for 7 billion people each
day without burning oil faster than it is created by the planet. This is
a
cold hard fact. There is no possibility for bias here. We might be able
to
feed, say 1 billion people without consuming oil, but we do not know how
to
feed 7 billion without consuming oil and without consuming plenty of
other
resources faster than they renew too. You don't need to calculate the
number of people the planet can sustain, in order to recognize that we
are
overpopulated.

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

Hi Alan,

 

Permian deposits of coal/oil etc are around 200 million plus,  years old.

 

Oil has been produced from algal growth…………..but at huge expense.

 

Best regards,

 

Ralph

 

Whoops, sorry about that. You did provide more concrete numbers and you did put time into it. I failed to respond properly. I don't see how you shifted from "geologists don't know this" to "I say 5 million", but that doesn't matter. The point still stands that we are in no position to do anything with your estimate, and your estimate cannot convince others that the problem is real and certainly it does not help to convey urgency. You admit this yourself by saying it won't fly politically. My point is that people do not come away thinking .002 is absurd, but .1 makes sense. They stick your whole concept into the "he's a lunatic" bin. And this brings me right back to the point I did make in my bad response, which is that we are OK with the audience coming up with their own urgency factor, as long as they comprehend the concept I stated in bold.

jt

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM, John Taves <john.taves@...> wrote:

Maybe I have not been specific enough. I have no problem with this type of discussion if we are supplying answers or guidance to the Chinese government. They have the ability to act on this sort of thing. However, there is a caveat, which is that there's no point to any sustainable estimate if you don't put a time frame on it. The only thing we need to know is the rate of decline. We don't need the target population number. I proposed that a rate of decline could be determined by keeping the cost of oil from increasing. This proposal was mostly for fun, but it had a purpose too. The goal was to show others, that have some itch in their pants to do some difficult modeling and estimating, that instead of attempting to determine a sustainable number using today's technology, they could shift their thinking to look for measures that already have the time and target number baked in. Instead of trying to figure out a distance, and ignore the essential time component, they could figure out a velocity.

However, all of this is pointless because we do not live in China and we are not being called upon by that government to help them determine the child policy. For all of us that are in democracies, we have work to do before we need some rate of decline. We cannot expect that any estimate along these lines can be used to convince anyone of the need to decrease our numbers. If the audience is typical of most people, they will rely on how much expert consensus there is on the topic, and they will find none. A numeric estimate is actually damaging towards the the goal of convincing people that we must get our numbers down, because nobody will agree with those estimates.

I have read your response a few times and I can't tell what you strongly disagree with. Your concept did not provide anything more concrete than "we must get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew" You got more specific with what resources are essential, and thereby opened up lines of argument. "worthwhile"? Really? This isn't debatable? But you failed to put any numbers that might convey urgency. So, you moved from a statement that was not debatable to one that is debatable and gained nothing.

Right now, in the democracies, we have to convince a bunch of smart people that these concepts are sound. We need this coalition to help convince either demographers, or large philanthropies. We cannot do that with the sort of statement you made because smart people will have no problem finding holes in your assertions. The statement in bold above has no holes. Its only weakness is that it does nothing to directly convey the urgency. But that is one of its strengths. Any reasonably aware person will have no trouble seeing how important oil, coal, uranium are to our ability to produce and distribute food in the required quantities to feed the current 7 billion. They will imagine their own urgency factor, and right now it makes no difference if their urgency factor results in them concluding that we must have a .01 birth rate, a .1 birth rate or a birth rate of 1 or 1.9.

jt

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

Oil is essential to a WORTHWHILE existence, not to mere survival.  Plus several forms of contraception are themselves petroleum based, so oil is essential to a stable population.  So I maintain that unless technology moves beyond that, the sustainable population is based on the natural formation rate of petroleum, which is properly estimated by geologists, though they have yet to adequately produce such estimates.  I again comprehend perfectly, but this time I adamantly disagree.  

        Consistent with the precautionary principle,  The sustainable population estimate should be the MINIMUM, based on current or even some backslide in technology and on the DESIRED, consumerist lifestyle consumption rate, the amount we want to consume.  We can always revise the sustainable population upward AFTER, and IF, we have invented practical and plentiful alternative energy and meat sources.

        So here I disagree with you adamantly.  We should be producing hard estimates and VERY pessimistic ones.  Mine is 5 million, or about 0.08% of the current population.  Since it would be best if we got there within 100 years, the fertility rate goal should be around 0.002.  There are political reasons where such a high goal might be demoralizing, so in the interest of presenting people with baby steps, I often accept higher fertility rate goals, but the real one remains 0.002.  

        We also need to speed up the process by opposing things like mandatory seat belt use and motorcycle helmets.  Encouraging antichoice people to kill each other, like in the Iran-Iraq war or Poland's contribution to the Iraq occupation, helps too, unless rape becomes a big componant of war.

-Alan  

 

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:29:28 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:

I don't understand why you would say something like "so the sustainable population level is...." in response to an email that, I thought, made a damn good case that calculating, estimating, or talking about what a sustainable population level is, "is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues".

Oil is not essential for human survival, so your statement that some sustainable level is determined by the natural formation rate of oil doesn't make much sense. Oil is essential to provide for our current numbers. Do you understand the difference? Did you overlook that I attempted to make that concept clear in the following sentence? "we must get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew". Could it be worded better?

jt

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

Yes, "that economy and technology is heavily based on oil", so the sustainable population is the natural formation rate of oil times the per capita oil consumption at the desired lifestyle.  What geologists have some trouble estimating is the rate of natural oil formation.

-Alan

 

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:07:39 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:

Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information about that.

I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But, that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering. So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should allow.

But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any number of scientists.

jt

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
already well under way in this regard.  India is less developed and thus
has a higher per capita income.  But as I understand it, they are doing
much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests.  JT is right
that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty.  In other
words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
make public.
       A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
the civil war.  They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
-Alan

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!

--

jt

John Taves

425 444 2368

StopAtTwo

--

jt

John Taves

425 444 2368

StopAtTwo

 

Not discouraging Indian and Chinese female infanticide would help. If the ratio of males to females could be significantly increased in those countries then it would put downward pressure on their populations.

 

From: aditmore@... [mailto:aditmore@...]
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012 4:48 AM
To: john.taves@...
Cc: jenny.goldie@...; sheiladavis05@...; greg@...; mitch.transparentpictures@...; PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com; mark@...; gloomndoom@...; madweld@...; support.au@...; dae.levine@...; robert@...; rboni@...; overpopulation@yahoogroups.com; OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com; Why_breed@yahoogroups.com; childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com; conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com; childfreetown@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: stopattwo in one nation

 

Oil is essential to a WORTHWHILE existence, not to mere survival.  Plus several forms of contraception are themselves petroleum based, so oil is essential to a stable population.  So I maintain that unless technology moves beyond that, the sustainable population is based on the natural formation rate of petroleum, which is properly estimated by geologists, though they have yet to adequately produce such estimates.  I again comprehend perfectly, but this time I adamantly disagree.  

        Consistent with the precautionary principle,  The sustainable population estimate should be the MINIMUM, based on current or even some backslide in technology and on the DESIRED, consumerist lifestyle consumption rate, the amount we want to consume.  We can always revise the sustainable population upward AFTER, and IF, we have invented practical and plentiful alternative energy and meat sources.

        So here I disagree with you adamantly.  We should be producing hard estimates and VERY pessimistic ones.  Mine is 5 million, or about 0.08% of the current population.  Since it would be best if we got there within 100 years, the fertility rate goal should be around 0.002.  There are political reasons where such a high goal might be demoralizing, so in the interest of presenting people with baby steps, I often accept higher fertility rate goals, but the real one remains 0.002.  

        We also need to speed up the process by opposing things like mandatory seat belt use and motorcycle helmets.  Encouraging antichoice people to kill each other, like in the Iran-Iraq war or Poland's contribution to the Iraq occupation, helps too, unless rape becomes a big componant of war.

-Alan  

 

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:29:28 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:

I don't understand why you would say something like "so the sustainable population level is...." in response to an email that, I thought, made a damn good case that calculating, estimating, or talking about what a sustainable population level is, "is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues".

Oil is not essential for human survival, so your statement that some sustainable level is determined by the natural formation rate of oil doesn't make much sense. Oil is essential to provide for our current numbers. Do you understand the difference? Did you overlook that I attempted to make that concept clear in the following sentence? "we must get our numbers down to the point where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew". Could it be worded better?

jt

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:01 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

Yes, "that economy and technology is heavily based on oil", so the sustainable population is the natural formation rate of oil times the per capita oil consumption at the desired lifestyle.  What geologists have some trouble estimating is the rate of natural oil formation.

-Alan

 

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:07:39 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:

Thanks for the information about India. I am not neglecting to mention this. I am totally ignorant of it. I will see if I can find information about that.

I don't have a problem with hard numbers. I have a problem with the concept of calculating the number of people that can be sustained. What would you calculate? Would you calculate the number of people that could be sustained with today's economy and technology? Well that economy and technology is heavily based on oil, so that would be bogus. Would you use the technology/economy we had 500 years ago when we were much closer to not consuming the resources we needed to provide for the population of that time? There's nothing to calculate, just look up the population estimate. Duh. What you need to know is the technology/economy we will have when we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew. If you think you know that, or can estimate that, you are very confused.

Once there is a significant percent of the population that knows two things: 1) that we must get our numbers down to where we are no longer consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than they renew, and 2) they know that we must limit our offspring according to the needs of society, then there will be a debate about how fast to decrease our numbers. Which is to say that there will be a debate about what birth rate laws we need. That rate could be determined by figuring out some population level target at some date in the future and doing the math to determine the rate necessary to hit that target. But, that would be idiotic, because again, we don't know what technologies we will have and don't know what the economy will be capable of delivering. So, why not determine a birth rate instead?

One could argue that since oil will not dry up instantly, it will just get more and more expensive, that we could constantly adjust the birth rate to control the cost of oil. The theory being that as oil gets harder to find and pump out, the price will rise, but if we have reduced demand accordingly, but not making more humans, it could be kept stable. One could argue that at least that rate is the largest birth rate we should allow.

But debating what birth rate to target is like debating how we should arrange the traffic signals for when we have anti gravity boots. This is all a pointless, because until there is a significant percent of the population that knows those 2 concepts, there is not a goddamn thing that can be done to achieve any birth rate one might estimate.

Calculating the target population level is not just a waste of time, it is proof the person doesn't comprehend the issues. That number won't shock anyone, because that number will not get any consensus from any number of scientists.

jt

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

JT below uses the USA as a theoratical example of a nation beginning a
population education process, but neglects to observe that India is
already well under way in this regard.  India is less developed and thus
has a higher per capita income.  But as I understand it, they are doing
much of what JT is suggesting now and could probably be fairly easily
convinced to make the fairly small adjustments JT suggests.  JT is right
that hard numbers are probably best saved for later, when we have better
scientific data on things like the natural formation rate of petroleum.
Though I think scientists are already making guesses that are accurate
enough that they know that the rate is very small and are afraid to say
for fear of shocking the planet more than lack of certainty.  In other
words, we already know enough to be pretty shure that the sustainable
population is far lower than any goal any serious leader is willing to
make public.
       A historical parallel is Sherman's 1861 casualty estimates for
the civil war.  They were actually low, but EVERYONE thought they were so
high that they dismissed him out of hand as a crank.
-Alan

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!

 

On Feb 2, 2012, aditmore@... wrote:

What example? I mean what do you expect this community to do or believe and how do you expect that to be known by others? For example, the Amish have a set of beliefs and live in communities that set that example. That example is not having much of an impact on other's behavior. How will your example community be different?

jt

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

Bias DOES tell us what to do and it is NOT education! And the HAVE already heard the proper arguements many times.  The proper thing to do is to establish independent communities that do not include the reporters and set an example there.  Examples cannot be ignored while academics can!

-Alan

For the environment and low school taxes due to low gay fertility.
http://tinyurl.com/townBC2 http://tinyurl.com/towncontraception http://tinyurl.com/opcensor
http://www.change.org/petitions/repeal-andor-ban-all-single-family-zoning-and-unit-density-limits
http://www.change.org/petitions/asheville-lgbt-rights-for-environment
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5999
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1400/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6100

 

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:23:58 -0800 John Taves <john.taves@...> writes:

This is like saying the car stopped running because it went over a bump, vs the car stopped running because the primary coil wire fell off. Both answers are correct, but only one tells you what to do to correct the problem. If you say the cause is bias, then what are we to do? If we recognize the cause is ignorance, we know what to do. Maybe we don't know the exact course of action, but education is the answer.

Reporters have not heard the proper argument. I will use another analogy. What they have heard are a bunch of measurements all pointing at the concept that if you square and sum the two short sides of a right triangle you get the square of the hypotenuse. Measurements are inaccurate and the resulting conclusion can be doubted. They have not heard the equivalent to proofs of phythagorean theorem. If you comprehend the proof, you will doubt your measurements. You won't doubt that a2+b2=c2.

We are overpopulated because we are consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than those resources renew.

As far as I can tell, this sentence is effectively the proof. It eliminates the problem of talking about population numbers and then having to talk about resources and do some comparison of the two. It eliminates the measurements that are controversial. If you don't know this, you will waste your time measuring things, and your conclusions will be debatable and just plain wrong. If you know this, you won't bother to measure.

jt

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: aditmore@...
To: jenny.goldie@...,sheiladavis05@...,
        greg@...,
        mitch.transparentpictures@...,
        PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com,mark@...,
        gloomndoom@...,madweld@...,
        support.au@...,dae.levine@...,
        robert@...,rboni@...,
        overpopulation@yahoogroups.com,
        OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com,
        Why_breed@yahoogroups.com,childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com,
        conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com,
        childfreetown@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:00:28 -0500
Subject: Bias, NOT ignorance

No, the Japan story is NOT ignorant reporting, it is BIASED reporting.
The reporters have heard the sustainable population arguement many times
and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it; and they
dont want to believe it because their brains have evolved for millenia
not to believe it, along sociobiological lines.
-Alan

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

4b. Re: [PublicPopForum] Japan�s_Population_t o_Shrink_Nearly_a_Thir
   Posted by: "John Taves" john.taves@... johntaves1
   Date: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:14 pm ((PST))

This is not biased reporting. This is ignorant reporting.

Demographers have done a dreadful job at explaining these things so that
reporters can state facts. Demographers are ignorant of several facts,
just
like the general population is ignorant of these issues.

It is a fact that *every country on this planet is overpopulated because
no
country can feed their current numbers without using resources faster
than
they renew*. For example, we cannot create food for 7 billion people each
day without burning oil faster than it is created by the planet. This is
a
cold hard fact. There is no possibility for bias here. We might be able
to
feed, say 1 billion people without consuming oil, but we do not know how
to
feed 7 billion without consuming oil and without consuming plenty of
other
resources faster than they renew too. You don't need to calculate the
number of people the planet can sustain, in order to recognize that we
are
overpopulated.
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f2993f45c8b513fccm08vuc

--

jt

John Taves

425 444 2368

StopAtTwo

 

--

jt

John Taves

425 444 2368

StopAtTwo

 

This is like saying the car stopped running because it went over a bump, vs the car stopped running because the primary coil wire fell off. Both answers are correct, but only one tells you what to do to correct the problem. If you say the cause is bias, then what are we to do? If we recognize the cause is ignorance, we know what to do. Maybe we don't know the exact course of action, but education is the answer.

Reporters have not heard the proper argument. I will use another analogy. What they have heard are a bunch of measurements all pointing at the concept that if you square and sum the two short sides of a right triangle you get the square of the hypotenuse. Measurements are inaccurate and the resulting conclusion can be doubted. They have not heard the equivalent to proofs of phythagorean theorem. If you comprehend the proof, you will doubt your measurements. You won't doubt that a2+b2=c2.

We are overpopulated because we are consuming resources, that are essential to providing for our numbers, faster than those resources renew.

As far as I can tell, this sentence is effectively the proof. It eliminates the problem of talking about population numbers and then having to talk about resources and do some comparison of the two. It eliminates the measurements that are controversial. If you don't know this, you will waste your time measuring things, and your conclusions will be debatable and just plain wrong. If you know this, you won't bother to measure.

jt

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM, <aditmore@...> wrote:

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: aditmore@...
To: jenny.goldie@...,sheiladavis05@...,
        greg@...,
        mitch.transparentpictures@...,
        PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com,mark@...,
        gloomndoom@...,madweld@...,
        support.au@...,dae.levine@...,
        robert@...,rboni@...,
        overpopulation@yahoogroups.com,
        OverpopulationAwareness@yahoogroups.com,
        Why_breed@yahoogroups.com,childfreesnip@yahoogroups.com,
        conscientiousnonprocreators@yahoogroups.com,
        childfreetown@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:00:28 -0500
Subject: Bias, NOT ignorance

No, the Japan story is NOT ignorant reporting, it is BIASED reporting.
The reporters have heard the sustainable population arguement many times
and they don't believe it because they don't want to believe it; and they
dont want to believe it because their brains have evolved for millenia
not to believe it, along sociobiological lines.
-Alan

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

4b. Re: [PublicPopForum] Japan�s_Population_t o_Shrink_Nearly_a_Thir
   Posted by: "John Taves" john.taves@... johntaves1
   Date: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:14 pm ((PST))

This is not biased reporting. This is ignorant reporting.

Demographers have done a dreadful job at explaining these things so that
reporters can state facts. Demographers are ignorant of several facts,
just
like the general population is ignorant of these issues.

It is a fact that *every country on this planet is overpopulated because
no
country can feed their current numbers without using resources faster
than
they renew*. For example, we cannot create food for 7 billion people each
day without burning oil faster than it is created by the planet. This is
a
cold hard fact. There is no possibility for bias here. We might be able
to
feed, say 1 billion people without consuming oil, but we do not know how
to
feed 7 billion without consuming oil and without consuming plenty of
other
resources faster than they renew too. You don't need to calculate the
number of people the planet can sustain, in order to recognize that we
are
overpopulated.
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f2993f45c8b513fccm08vuc

--

jt

John Taves

425 444 2368

StopAtTwo

 

I just saw a TV peice about kindey chain donation here:
http://www.kidneyregistry.org/about_us.php?cookie=1
But was reminded that I have never been willing to donate a kiney or even
blood for frear that it might go to a pronatialist or antichoice person
and thus destroy the earth.  Thus I feel that what we overpopulation
activists need is our own, exclusive bloodbanks and kiney registries, in
addition to our own towns.  So what do you think?
   I do notice that the political barrier has already been breeched
because a nation is a political entity and this kiney registy is
"national";  Thus we would not be the ones setting an initial precident
for politically specific blood or kidneys.
-Alan

http://tinyurl.com/townBC2 http://tinyurl.com/towncontraception
http://tinyurl.com/opcensor
http://www.change.org/petitions/repeal-andor-ban-all-single-family-zoning
-and-unit-density-limits
http://www.change.org/petitions/asheville-lgbt-rights-for-environment
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=599
9

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

http://tools.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/autonomy/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/10/31/why-innovatio
n-wont-defuse-the-population-bomb/
____________________________________________________________
Groupon™ Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f529865ec6463af36m08vuc

I agree wholeheartedly.  But we must keep in mind that opposing IVF involves
a truly fundamental political realignment against prochoice femminists and
groups like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood?  Is the overpopulation movement
strong enough to stand on it's own without being part of this coalition?????  Is
ther a potential coalition with anti-immigration groups????
       I think the answer is yes, we can survive without these coalitions, but
ONLY if we are willing to migrate like the Mormons to concentrated,
overpopulation movement towns, where overpopulation activists can elect our own
mayors.
-Alan

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Why breed? IVF facepalm
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:34:22 -0000

On another group, someone and his wife have had some very negative things happen
in regard to their current attempts to "have a family" (argh!) via in vitro
fertilization.

It's the procedure known in the 1970s as a "test tube baby" which seemed almost
science fictionish. Now, it's a common although very expensive procedure to
create babies for those who could not otherwise have them. It's a several part
procedure, involving a couple of invasive surgeries, egg harvesting, then
fertilizing them and freezing them. The first two pose risks of injury or death
to the would-be mother that she wouldn't have otherwise.

Unused embryos are discarded. All too often the woman gets pregnant with a large
number of foetuses. "Selective abortions" are usually performed. The alternative
is "octomom". This is at best morally questionable for anyone who is
anti-abortion.

But, in their haste to have a baby... errr... a family, they often don't pay
attention to any of this. Then, are upset when they find out that there are
embryos out there frozen. "Custody" of these becomes an issue in divorce cases,
as does the question of support in a few cases.

The problem at hand is when some of the realities of the procedure came up.
Then, more and more of them came up. It seems that they initially thought this
would be a "new term for artificial insemination". WRONG!

This can produce HUGE numbers of babies! And, then the "it's a life" thing comes
up after it's too late. If things aren't labeled correctly, someone can end up
with someone else's baby, or a baby that is the biological child of one parent
but not the other. It causes all manner of problems. Of course, the
possibilities for using it for eugenics abound.

There's the old "woman's right to start a family" argument. R-I-G-H-T. If she no
longer has a husband to help support her. If said husband is in the process of
divorcing her? If the procedure itself causes strain on the marriage and causes
a divorce. These children then are weapons to use in court.

It would seem to me that the sensible thing to do is to prohibit this monstrous
procedure for as long as there are unwanted babies and children around. Perhaps
until humans are an endangered species. This is the ultimate in making a
"designer baby".

How is this pro-life? How is it pro-choice (when your ex can force you to
support these potential children?) How is this pro-ANYTHING?

The nonsense of the whole routine is bothering me. Why, when the whole human
overpopulation is where it is, when the future of humanity itself is very much
in question, when the ecology of the planet is in question threatening the whole
biosphere, it seems completely immoral to use this procedure!

Why? Because we can????

Your healthcare dollars at work,
Beth



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

VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction

Yahoo! Groups Links




____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fab215e2456f1008408st01vuc

Melinda Gates wants family planning back on the global agenda

Can Melinda Gates do for family planning what Al Gore did for climate change? Gates has decided to make birth control her signature issue. “My goal is to get this back on the global agenda,” she tells Newsweek. As co-chair of the richest foundation in the world, she might actually be able to do it.

... ...

more at:

http://grist.org/population/melinda-gates-wants-family-planning-back-on-the-global-agenda/

There you can watch a video (26 minutes) where Melinda explains her agenda.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com
To: PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com
Date: 23 Apr 2012 16:48:17 -0000
Subject: [PublicPopForum] Digest Number 3207
Message-ID: <1335199697.927.33465.m3@yahoogroups.com>

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Petition
     From: Robert Boni


Message
________________________________________________________________________
1. Petition
     Posted by: "Robert Boni" rboni@... bonirobert
     Date: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:41 am ((PDT))

/Sustainable Population Australia

/20-04-2012

/Sustainable Population Australia is conducting a petition to be
presented to the House of Representatives. The goal is to collect one
hundred thousand signatures of people who agree with the need for
parliament to take action on population.

http://www.population.org.au/petition
/

more petitions here:
http://www.change.org/petitions#search/overpopulation
http://www.change.org/petitions#search/population
http://www.change.org/petitions#search/contraception
http://www.change.org/petitions#search/contraceptive
http://www.change.org/petitions#search/abortion
Messages in this topic (1)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links



------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
5 Diet Pills that Work
2012's Top 5 Weight Loss Pills. Updated Consumer Ratings. Free Report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fd7a6c4ebd346f8bm08vuc

About | Donate      April 25, 2012

Dear Friends, You may have seen in recent news that some cities have been giving away the new and improved FC2 Female Condom® in an effort to raise awareness about the product, which gives women more control in protecting themselves from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. New research is now showing that these female condom distribution programs are a successful AND cost-effective means of preventing new cases of HIV. Even more excitingly, manufacturer The Female Health Company has just announced that it will be beefing up its facilities for increased production in order to meet the high demand for FC2 expected in the near future. In the excerpt below, NWHN Program Coordinator Keely Monroe delves deeper into the facts on FC2 and its future potential. Click here to read the entire article, fresh from the current issue of The Women’s Health Activist. Put a Ring on It! Cities around the country are making sure that more women stay healthy and sexy by telling them to “put a ring on it”! What type of ring, you may ask? We aren’t talking about the kind of ring Beyoncé warned men about in her song “Put a Ring on It;” we’re talking about the new and improved female condom.   Female condoms are currently the only self-initiated barrier method option women have for preventing unwanted pregnancies and transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV — which makes them a critically important prevention tool for women.   Advocates have always known that female condoms have the potential to play an important role in promoting positive sexual health and preventing HIV and other STIs. But, they also know a lot of work was needed to overcome the original female condom’s bad reputation.   So, when the FC2 was released in the U.S., advocates grabbed the opportunity to gain new momentum in promoting the female condom. With funding from city and state health departments and from private philanthropic sources, five cities with high HIV/AIDS prevalence have launched creative and fun public education campaigns, drawing on lessons learned in other countries, to engage communities and increase both awareness and use. These cities are Chicago, Houston, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington DC. Campaigns are also scheduled for Atlanta and Baton Rouge.   Although the female condom may not have superstar rank among contraceptive methods yet, with innovative and engaging campaigns taking place around the country, it seems inevitable that female condoms will eventually reach the famed status they deserve! If you're not already getting The Women's Health Activist, click here to find out how you can receive a one-year subscription by becoming a member of the National Women's Health Network.  Thank you, Cindy Pearson Executive Director P.S. Be sure to "Like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to keep up with the latest women's health news.

National Women's Health Network PH: 202.682.2640 | FAX: 202.682.2648 | For health information: 202.682.2646 1413 K Street, NW, 4th floor, Washington DC 20005 www.nwhn.org You are subscribed to this list as aditmore@.... You can unsubscribe here.

 

Kudos and ditto Beth!
-Alan

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

Innovation will have to be more radical - bigger jumps will be required
to keep the current rate of population growth.

On one hand, as there are more people, there are more people who are more
talented than average, who would be capable of discovering these
innovations.

On the other hand, as strapped as we are and will soon be for basic
resources, many or most of those extremely intelligent individuals will
not be educated, and rather than making the discovery, they will be
struggling with the rest of the population to maintain their day-to-day
lives.

There is a limit to technology. As (I think Heinlein said), at the
current (in the 1960s) growth rate, in a few hundred years the mass of
human beings would exceed the mass of the planet, which is impossible
without an innovation to colonize outer space.

Technology will not save us. It can put the collapse off. However, when
the collapse happens, the higher the technology, the more people will be
around, and the more high-tech things won't be shut down for any
survivors - who probably won't be able to shut down and get rid of the
nuclear waste, bio-contaminants, effects of global warming, and on and
on.

Colonizing outer space will become less and less possible the more people
who are struggling just to stay alive, rather than research, develop,
build, and commit resources to other things. I think it's too late even
if we start right now... Science fiction will not save us.

What could save us might have been to cut population growth drastically.
I say "might have been" because I believe that it would have had to have
been implemented when the earth's population was under 5 billion -
roughly 30 years ago. Possibly earlier.

Beth

--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
>
>
>
> http://tools.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/autonomy/
>
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/10/31/why-innovatio
> n-wont-defuse-the-population-bomb/
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fdebbfa46f8d34fm08vuc

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 05:31:34 -0000
Subject: Re: Why breed? IVF facepalm
Message-ID: <jofjrm+q7n9@egroups.com>

There are too many women - including feminists - who believe that
"choice" means a woman's fundamental right to give birth to children.

The fact is that we don't NEED all of these children, and this uber-high
and growing population is going to be the destruction - and death - of
everything and everyone. You only have "rights" until they impinge upon
more fundamental rights of other or more people. That's what this "right
to give birth" is - it impinges upon other's rights, leaving alone for
the moment of who pays for their upkeep?

Oddly, I think on this, we could become "strange bedfellows" with the
anti-choice, anti-abortion groups, for the mere reason that IVF destroys
numerous foetuses, which are not implanted or implanted and later
"thinned".

Recently, I've read that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) increases the risk
of birth defects.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/04/20/birth-defects-more-common-in-ivf
-babies-study-finds/   I wonder if we could get an odd ally in groups
such as the March of Dimes who fight birth defects?

Of course, it costs more money to provide for someone with a serious
birth defect than it costs for anyone else - in terms of money or
resources.

Beth

--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "aditmore@..." <aditmore@...> wrote:
>
>    I agree wholeheartedly.  But we must keep in mind that opposing IVF
involves a truly fundamental political realignment against prochoice
femminists and groups like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood?  Is the
overpopulation movement strong enough to stand on it's own without being
part of this coalition?????  Is ther a potential coalition with
anti-immigration groups????
>       I think the answer is yes, we can survive without these
coalitions, but ONLY if we are willing to migrate like the Mormons to
concentrated, overpopulation movement towns, where overpopulation
activists can elect our own mayors.
> -Alan
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
> To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Why breed? IVF facepalm
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:34:22 -0000
>
> On another group, someone and his wife have had some very negative
things happen in regard to their current attempts to "have a family"
(argh!) via in vitro fertilization.
>
> It's the procedure known in the 1970s as a "test tube baby" which
seemed almost science fictionish. Now, it's a common although very
expensive procedure to create babies for those who could not otherwise
have them. It's a several part procedure, involving a couple of invasive
surgeries, egg harvesting, then fertilizing them and freezing them. The
first two pose risks of injury or death to the would-be mother that she
wouldn't have otherwise.
>
> Unused embryos are discarded. All too often the woman gets pregnant
with a large number of foetuses. "Selective abortions" are usually
performed. The alternative is "octomom". This is at best morally
questionable for anyone who is anti-abortion.
>
> But, in their haste to have a baby... errr... a family, they often
don't pay attention to any of this. Then, are upset when they find out
that there are embryos out there frozen. "Custody" of these becomes an
issue in divorce cases, as does the question of support in a few cases.
>
> The problem at hand is when some of the realities of the procedure came
up. Then, more and more of them came up. It seems that they initially
thought this would be a "new term for artificial insemination". WRONG!
>
> This can produce HUGE numbers of babies! And, then the "it's a life"
thing comes up after it's too late. If things aren't labeled correctly,
someone can end up with someone else's baby, or a baby that is the
biological child of one parent but not the other. It causes all manner of
problems. Of course, the possibilities for using it for eugenics abound.
>
> There's the old "woman's right to start a family" argument. R-I-G-H-T.
If she no longer has a husband to help support her. If said husband is in
the process of divorcing her? If the procedure itself causes strain on
the marriage and causes a divorce. These children then are weapons to use
in court.
>
> It would seem to me that the sensible thing to do is to prohibit this
monstrous procedure for as long as there are unwanted babies and children
around. Perhaps until humans are an endangered species. This is the
ultimate in making a "designer baby".
>
> How is this pro-life? How is it pro-choice (when your ex can force you
to support these potential children?) How is this pro-ANYTHING?
>
> The nonsense of the whole routine is bothering me. Why, when the whole
human overpopulation is where it is, when the future of humanity itself
is very much in question, when the ecology of the planet is in question
threatening the whole biosphere, it seems completely immoral to use this
procedure!
>
> Why? Because we can????
>
> Your healthcare dollars at work,
> Beth
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
> The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fab215e26bf0100a16est05vuc
>




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

VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction

Yahoo! Groups Links



Credit Company Breach
LifeLock Ultimate™protects your identity from the effects of data breach.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fdebbf93e889d348m08vuc

Forget Newton and Galileo.
Here are the real laws of nature:

1.Law of Mechanical Repair - After your hands become coated with grease, your
nose will begin to itch and you'll have to pee.

2. Law of Gravity - Any tool, nut, bolt, screw, when dropped, will roll to the
least accessible corner.

3. Law of Probability- The probability of being watched is directly proportional
to the stupidity of your act.

4. Law of Random Numbers - If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy
signal and someone always answers.

6. Supermarket Law - As soon as you get in the smallest line, the cashier will
have to call for help.

6. Variation Law - If you change lines (or traffic lanes), the one you were in
will always move faster than the one you are in now.

7.Law of the Bath - When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone
rings.

8. Law of Close Encounters - The probability of meeting someone you know
increases dramatically when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with.

9. Law of the Result - When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't
work, it will.

10. Law of Biomechanics - The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to
the reach.

11.. Law of the Theater & Hockey Arena - At any event, the people whose seats
are furthest from the aisle, always arrive last. They are the ones who will
leave their seats several times to go for food, beer, or the toilet and who
leave early before the end of the performance or the game is over. The folks in
the aisle seats come early, never move once, have long gangly legs or big
bellies and stay to the bitter end of the performance. The aisle people also are
very surly folk.

12. The Coffee Law - As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss
will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.

13. Murphy's Law of Lockers - If there are only 2 people in a locker room, they
will have adjacent lockers.

14. Law of Physical Surfaces - The chances of an open-faced jelly sandwich
landing face down on a floor, are directly correlated to the newness and cost of
the carpet or rug.

15. Law of Logical Argument- Anything is possible if you don't know what you are
talking about.

16. Brown's Law of Physical Appearance - If the clothes fit, they're ugly.

17. Oliver's Law of Public Speaking - A closed mouth gathers no feet.

18. Wilson's Law of Commercial Marketing Strategy -As soon as you find a product
that you really like, they will stop making it.

19. Doctors' Law- If you don't feel well, make an appointment to go to the
doctor, by the time you get there you'll feel better.. But don't make an
appointment, and you'll stay sick. This has been proven over and over with
taking children to the pediatrician.

=================

Well, those are a few light reasons why not to procreate. That is, to avoid all
those laws and situations for our potential descendants.

On the opposite, there must be some strong and convincing reasons why to
procreate.

"The burden of proof � or at least the burden of justification � should
therefore rest primarily on those who choose to have children, not on those who
choose to be childless. The choice to have children calls for more careful
justification and thought than the choice not to have children ... "
     Quote from: "Think Before You Breed" By CHRISTINE OVERALL


Cheers

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: "aditmore@..." <aditmore@...>
To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Why breed? Re: Take control of your sexual health - put a ring on 
it!
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:35:22 GMT

That is an impossible pipedream because conservative rural areas are absolutely
doomed and the best we can possibly do is permanently evacuate women from
antichoice states like Oklahoma.  We cannot possibly save Oklahoma no matter how
much it may need saving, any more than we can save Afghanistan.  We can only
make the best places even better by further advancing contraception in those
places, mostly cities, where it is already most advanced.
   Also, there is nothing stopping the city of Santa Cruz CA from providing free
contraception to Oklahoman women in Oklahoma.  And it is more likely than
expecting the state of Oklahoma, or the feds, to provide free contraception to
Oklahoman women in Oklahoma.
-Alan

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Why breed? Re: Take control of your sexual health - put a ring on it!
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 06:06:31 -0000

The DC law making it legal for a pharmacy to sell women birth control pills
without a doctor's prescription is a good step. There have been many articles
written that say that there is no justification for a woman to have to have an
(expensive and invasive) medical examination to get the pill. Many doctors even
say that without that requirement, they would not have women come in every year
for their pap test and pelvic examinations. Birth control should not be held as
hostage for that.

The other thing is that pharmacies can refuse to fill any prescription that
violates their own moral/ethical code. A pro-pregnancy pharmacist might not fill
a "morning after pill" prescription, or even a birth control pill prescription.
Walmart will not fill emergency contraception prescriptions, even after a rape,
and in many small towns or even larger ones, people without good transportation
have to "take their chances" on getting pregnant. IMnsHO, a pharmacy or
pharmacist which will not fill a valid prescription should have their license
revoked. Better to have it as "over the counter" medicine, and it should be as
easy to purchase as cough syrup.

Municipal contraception initiatives are great as far as they go, but everyone
does not live in a city. There are small villages, small unincorporated
communities, and people who do not live in any community. Contraception is
needed in rural areas too! The way populations can and do increase, even if
there were no births in cities for 50 years, without contraception in the
country, we would still have our population increasing.

It needs to be nationwide. And, it needs to go into the culture as a
"responsible" thing to do - not "morally questionable" as many would have us
believe.

Beth

--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
>
> FINALLY!!!! a national campaign to promote MUNICIPAL contraception.  Now
> you just need to focus on more small cities like Berkeley CA, Santa Cruz
> CA, Provincetown MA, Santa Fe NM, Reno NV, and Asheville NC.  Go
> especially for university towns with a high percentage of college
> students and professors.  MY life and future depends on it and I'm a male
> hermit; though what makes me a hermit is the refusal of others to support
> municipal environmental contraception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> -Alan Ditmore
>
> Please read these petitions advocating municipal environmental
> contraception funding, which is increasingly politically realistic due
> to The Big Sort in more and more towns, and helps women's rights, quality
> of life, and school taxes as well as being at
> least 5 times more cost-effective than any other environmental effort.
> http://tinyurl.com/townBC2
> http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12874
> http://tinyurl.com/towncontraception
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/condoms/condoms.shtml
> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000980387141
> http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=599
> 9
> http://tinyurl.com/opcensor
> http://www.change.org/petitions/asheville-lgbt-rights-for-environment
> http://www.change.org/petitions/view/transfer_all_environmental_funds_to_
> contraception
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/transfer-all-environmental-funds-to-cont
> raception-especially-municipal/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
> http://www.thebigsort.com/maps.php
>
> The prochoice and contraception movements are placing too high a priority
> on defensive actions in the red states when we should be going on the
> offensive, the side of "change", in the blue states, and cities. The
> worst places
> will get even worse no matter what we do, but the unrealized political
> potential, the low hanging fruit, is in making the best places even
> better. This opportunity is being caused by The Big Sort.  Mayors are not
> answerable to rural voters, unlike governors and presidents.
> http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArtic
> le&id=27823&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
> http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArtic
> le&id=27825&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
> http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArtic
> le&id=32477&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
> http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12891
> https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=
> 12828
> http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/end_abonly
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5041388
> We americans love cars more than babies, Very soon we will have to
> choose, and we will choose cars.
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) "Cindy Pearson, National Women's
> Health Network" <alerts@...> writes:
>
> About | Donate
>
> April 25, 2012
> Dear Friends,
>
> You may have seen in recent news that some cities have been giving away
> the new and improved FC2 Female Condom� in an effort to raise awareness
> about the product, which gives women more control in protecting
> themselves from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. New
> research is now showing that these female condom distribution programs
> are a successful AND cost-effective means of preventing new cases of HIV.
> Even more excitingly, manufacturer The Female Health Company has just
> announced that it will be beefing up its facilities for increased
> production in order to meet the high demand for FC2 expected in the near
> future.
>
> In the excerpt below, NWHN Program Coordinator Keely Monroe delves deeper
> into the facts on FC2 and its future potential. Click here to read the
> entire article, fresh from the current issue of The Women's Health
> Activist.
>
>
> Put a Ring on It!
>
> Cities around the country are making sure that more women stay healthy
> and sexy by telling them to "put a ring on it"! What type of ring, you
> may ask? We aren't talking about the kind of ring Beyonc� warned men
> about in her song "Put a Ring on It;" we're talking about the new and
> improved female condom.
>
> Female condoms are currently the only self-initiated barrier method
> option women have for preventing unwanted pregnancies and transmission of
> sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV � which makes
them
> a critically important prevention tool for women.
>
> Advocates have always known that female condoms have the potential to
> play an important role in promoting positive sexual health and preventing
> HIV and other STIs. But, they also know a lot of work was needed to
> overcome the original female condom's bad reputation.
>
> So, when the FC2 was released in the U.S., advocates grabbed the
> opportunity to gain new momentum in promoting the female condom. With
> funding from city and state health departments and from private
> philanthropic sources, five cities with high HIV/AIDS prevalence have
> launched creative and fun public education campaigns, drawing on lessons
> learned in other countries, to engage communities and increase both
> awareness and use. These cities are Chicago, Houston, New York City, San
> Francisco, and Washington DC. Campaigns are also scheduled for Atlanta
> and Baton Rouge.
>
> Although the female condom may not have superstar rank among
> contraceptive methods yet, with innovative and engaging campaigns taking
> place around the country, it seems inevitable that female condoms will
> eventually reach the famed status they deserve!
>
>
>
>
>
> If you're not already getting The Women's Health Activist, click here to
> find out how you can receive a one-year subscription by becoming a member
> of the National Women's Health Network.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Cindy Pearson
> Executive Director
> P.S. Be sure to "Like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to keep up
> with the latest women's health news.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> National Women's Health Network
> PH: 202.682.2640 | FAX: 202.682.2648 | For health information:
> 202.682.2646
> 1413 K Street, NW, 4th floor, Washington DC 20005
> www.nwhn.org
> You are subscribed to this list as aditmore@... You can unsubscribe
> here.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
> The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fdcd96b12aa0c09cm08vuc
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




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

VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction

Yahoo! Groups Links



____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/500c2e699e39b2e693ab5st51vuc

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 04:21:20 -0000
Subject: Why breed? Re: Take control of your sexual health - put a ring
on it!
Message-ID: <jul7s0+hov7@egroups.com>

I have long-since escaped Oklahoma, to a couple of states further north.
And, to a much more isolated area. There were too many people there!

The birth rate in this village of 128 people is that there have been 3
infants born in the last year and a half. The women of child-bearing age
generally use contraception, and encourage others to do so.

In Oklahoma, "rescuing" the women from such an anti-choice state would
not be the answer. These very poor women, often on alcohol-ridden
reservations, insist that they have the RIGHT to have a lot of babies!
And, it's the women who lead the charge against choice, and work very
hard to make sure that every girl of breeding age gets her baby. Some of
the men feel likewise, and a large number of them JUST DON'T CARE about
the children they're fathering. Or, they actively want to be fathers,
feed the girl/woman a line of BS, then never marry her or pay. Or, do so
sporadically.

Fundamentalist Churches and Catholic Churches have speakers talking about
how all these "non-Christian women" are out there "murdering their
babies", and from the sound of it, ALL women who are not members of these
churches are just itching to have abortions. Abortion is the last gasp
when all other steps at contraception have failed.

I got out of there partly because I couldn't find anybody there who was
worth talking to.

Beth

--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "aditmore@..." <aditmore@...> wrote:
>
> That is an impossible pipedream because conservative rural areas are
absolutely doomed and the best we can possibly do is permanently evacuate
women from antichoice states like Oklahoma.  We cannot possibly save
Oklahoma no matter how much it may need saving, any more than we can save
Afghanistan.  We can only make the best places even better by further
advancing contraception in those places, mostly cities, where it is
already most advanced.
>   Also, there is nothing stopping the city of Santa Cruz CA from
providing free contraception to Oklahoman women in Oklahoma.  And it is
more likely than expecting the state of Oklahoma, or the feds, to provide
free contraception to Oklahoman women in Oklahoma.
> -Alan
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
> To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Why breed? Re: Take control of your sexual health - put a ring
on it!
> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 06:06:31 -0000
>
> The DC law making it legal for a pharmacy to sell women birth control
pills without a doctor's prescription is a good step. There have been
many articles written that say that there is no justification for a woman
to have to have an (expensive and invasive) medical examination to get
the pill. Many doctors even say that without that requirement, they would
not have women come in every year for their pap test and pelvic
examinations. Birth control should not be held as hostage for that.
>
> The other thing is that pharmacies can refuse to fill any prescription
that violates their own moral/ethical code. A pro-pregnancy pharmacist
might not fill a "morning after pill" prescription, or even a birth
control pill prescription. Walmart will not fill emergency contraception
prescriptions, even after a rape, and in many small towns or even larger
ones, people without good transportation have to "take their chances" on
getting pregnant. IMnsHO, a pharmacy or pharmacist which will not fill a
valid prescription should have their license revoked. Better to have it
as "over the counter" medicine, and it should be as easy to purchase as
cough syrup.
>
> Municipal contraception initiatives are great as far as they go, but
everyone does not live in a city. There are small villages, small
unincorporated communities, and people who do not live in any community.
Contraception is needed in rural areas too! The way populations can and
do increase, even if there were no births in cities for 50 years, without
contraception in the country, we would still have our population
increasing.
>
> It needs to be nationwide. And, it needs to go into the culture as a
"responsible" thing to do - not "morally questionable" as many would have
us believe.
>
> Beth
>
> --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@ wrote:
> >
> > FINALLY!!!! a national campaign to promote MUNICIPAL contraception.
Now
> > you just need to focus on more small cities like Berkeley CA, Santa
Cruz
> > CA, Provincetown MA, Santa Fe NM, Reno NV, and Asheville NC.  Go
> > especially for university towns with a high percentage of college
> > students and professors.  MY life and future depends on it and I'm a
male
> > hermit; though what makes me a hermit is the refusal of others to
support
> > municipal environmental contraception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > -Alan Ditmore
> >
> > Please read these petitions advocating municipal environmental
> > contraception funding, which is increasingly politically realistic
due
> > to The Big Sort in more and more towns, and helps women's rights,
quality
> > of life, and school taxes as well as being at
> > least 5 times more cost-effective than any other environmental
effort.
> > http://tinyurl.com/townBC2
> > http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12874
> > http://tinyurl.com/towncontraception
> > http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/condoms/condoms.shtml
> > http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000980387141
> >
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=599
> > 9
> > http://tinyurl.com/opcensor
> > http://www.change.org/petitions/asheville-lgbt-rights-for-environment
> >
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/transfer_all_environmental_funds_to_
> > contraception
> >
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/transfer-all-environmental-funds-to-cont
> > raception-especially-municipal/
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
> > http://www.thebigsort.com/maps.php
> >
> > The prochoice and contraception movements are placing too high a
priority
> > on defensive actions in the red states when we should be going on the
> > offensive, the side of "change", in the blue states, and cities. The
> > worst places
> > will get even worse no matter what we do, but the unrealized
political
> > potential, the low hanging fruit, is in making the best places even
> > better. This opportunity is being caused by The Big Sort.  Mayors are
not
> > answerable to rural voters, unlike governors and presidents.
> >
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArtic
> > le&id=27823&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
> >
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArtic
> > le&id=27825&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
> >
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArtic
> > le&id=32477&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
> > http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=12891
> >
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=
> > 12828
> > http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/end_abonly
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5041388
> > We americans love cars more than babies, Very soon we will have to
> > choose, and we will choose cars.
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) "Cindy Pearson, National
Women's
> > Health Network" <alerts@> writes:
> >
> > About | Donate
> >
> > April 25, 2012
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > You may have seen in recent news that some cities have been giving
away
> > the new and improved FC2 Female Condom� in an effort to raise
awareness
> > about the product, which gives women more control in protecting
> > themselves from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. New
> > research is now showing that these female condom distribution
programs
> > are a successful AND cost-effective means of preventing new cases of
HIV.
> > Even more excitingly, manufacturer The Female Health Company has just
> > announced that it will be beefing up its facilities for increased
> > production in order to meet the high demand for FC2 expected in the
near
> > future.
> >
> > In the excerpt below, NWHN Program Coordinator Keely Monroe delves
deeper
> > into the facts on FC2 and its future potential. Click here to read
the
> > entire article, fresh from the current issue of The Women's Health
> > Activist.
> >
> >
> > Put a Ring on It!
> >
> > Cities around the country are making sure that more women stay
healthy
> > and sexy by telling them to "put a ring on it"! What type of ring,
you
> > may ask? We aren't talking about the kind of ring Beyonc�
warned men
> > about in her song "Put a Ring on It;" we're talking about the new and
> > improved female condom.
> >
> > Female condoms are currently the only self-initiated barrier method
> > option women have for preventing unwanted pregnancies and
transmission of
> > sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV � which
makes them
> > a critically important prevention tool for women.
> >
> > Advocates have always known that female condoms have the potential to
> > play an important role in promoting positive sexual health and
preventing
> > HIV and other STIs. But, they also know a lot of work was needed to
> > overcome the original female condom's bad reputation.
> >
> > So, when the FC2 was released in the U.S., advocates grabbed the
> > opportunity to gain new momentum in promoting the female condom. With
> > funding from city and state health departments and from private
> > philanthropic sources, five cities with high HIV/AIDS prevalence have
> > launched creative and fun public education campaigns, drawing on
lessons
> > learned in other countries, to engage communities and increase both
> > awareness and use. These cities are Chicago, Houston, New York City,
San
> > Francisco, and Washington DC. Campaigns are also scheduled for
Atlanta
> > and Baton Rouge.
> >
> > Although the female condom may not have superstar rank among
> > contraceptive methods yet, with innovative and engaging campaigns
taking
> > place around the country, it seems inevitable that female condoms
will
> > eventually reach the famed status they deserve!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you're not already getting The Women's Health Activist, click here
to
> > find out how you can receive a one-year subscription by becoming a
member
> > of the National Women's Health Network.
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >
> > Cindy Pearson
> > Executive Director
> > P.S. Be sure to "Like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to
keep up
> > with the latest women's health news.
> >

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > National Women's Health Network
> > PH: 202.682.2640 | FAX: 202.682.2648 | For health information:
> > 202.682.2646
> > 1413 K Street, NW, 4th floor, Washington DC 20005
> > www.nwhn.org
> > You are subscribed to this list as aditmore@ You can unsubscribe
> > here.
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
> > The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
> > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4fdcd96b12aa0c09cm08vuc
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Woman is 53 But Looks 25
> Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/500c2c4425a0e2c430929st51vuc
>




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

VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction

Yahoo! Groups Links



Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5037c476d25b14476481cst02vuc