| Author | Message | ||
    Norm |
Why are the Governments of the World afraid to address Overpopulation problem? | ||
Andrew C. Cossette |
Hello Norm, There are so many reasons for this that it would make a great conversation for this topic area. Does anyone have any comments on this? Regards, Andrew | ||
Mark Campbell |
The fingers of religious fear and obsession, thoughtless blind obedience to logic-less rules as statutes reach far into the minds and personal histories of most of all people who live now , or who have ever lived. It is such a hard thing to ignore, that when I meet someone who has no religious background , I have to consider that person to be fortunate. A view that I did'nt always have . | ||
Scott Baxter |
OVERPOPULATION-$$$$$$$$$$ Scott | ||
Savio |
Breeding is a natural urge, it is one of the nature calls. Humans follow the calls of nature. Did we succeed in anyway against the calls of nature? If we sit back and watch, nature will wave his mighty hands and regulate with wars, diseases .... hence no more overpopulation. Chinese proverb - "We are not to blame if the havoc is by nature, we just do not deserve to live if we create the havoc by ourselves" The prime havoc is we abused our earth! I agree to Scott, it is only Money ...Profit...$$$$$$ !!!! Our endless greed changed the face/environment of our mother earth.... act when it is not too late. Regards Savio | ||
Norm |
The sad part of it is that the responsible people suffer too. I sure wish some of us could leave this planet and start over somewhere else. | ||
Anthea Cossette |
If that was the case Norm, the "responsible" ones would surely not escape their kamma even then, instead it would be all the more worse for them. | ||
Savio |
Hi Norm I would think there is no escape, we will repeat our mistakes overthere. We are just too far from perfection. Even the Pleiadians are afraid of being located by some aggressive aliens. Those aliens is assumed to be highly advanced beings capable of time/galaxy travel, they should have much longer history than we do but is still dangerous hence far from perfection. And we are much worse.... Shall we try our best to fix our problems now? If we cannot succeed how about our next lives.... Regards Savio | ||
Norm |
I worded my last post wrong. I meant the people that are not causing the problems leave the Earth. The ones causing the problems can stay here. | ||
Andrew C. Cossette |
Hello, Personally, I think it is all about "growth." The entire planet and its infrastructure is based on this growth. If business doesn't 'grow' then it fails. If population growth stops, then business fails, and so on and so forth. There is a term for this called exponential growth which, when placed alongside overpopulation, is a scary thing indeed. I agree with Scott 100%. It involves money which, in turn, equals growth. More growth=more money=more growth... I must take this opportunity to release information on overpopulation since it is truly a strong message of the Plejarans and FIGU. After being deeply involved in the subject matter of overpopulation for many years, there is a video that people simply MUST see. No profit is made on this video whatsoever and the information is absolutely clear and concise. However, I must also say that the information contained in this video is for the thinking person and involves mathematics and equations. This is NOT a video that shows footage of people in cities and rambles on about how bad overpopulation is, but instead, it is a full blown mathematical example of what is truly happening in terms of the big picture. Dr. Albert A. Bartlett has truly done an amazing work here, and, as I said before, he receives NO money for the sale of his video. He is extremely passionate about this/his message, and once you see this video, everything will truly fall into place regarding overpopulation. I have spoken to these people personally, and received permission to post this data below. Here is the information: Arithmetic, Population, and Energy By Dr. Albert A. Bartlett You may write to this address with your payment and request it: University of Colorado ITS - Media Services Campus Box 379 Boulder, Colorado 80309 U.S.A. or, you may call directly to talk to them and ask you own questions at: U.S. Area Code: 303 Phone Number: 492-1857 NOTE: They accept VISA and MASTERCARD The video is 65 minutes long and costs US $35 dollars total. Shipping and Handling are included and there are no extra costs. VHS and PAL are available. Any form of payment is accepted as well. I strongly urge people all over the world who are involved in this Mission, or at the least, do really care about the Plejaran message (that overpopulation is one of the greatest threats to this planet) to order this video! It is simply amazing what Dr. Bartlett has discovered and his presentation is flawless and is delivered without 'hot air' and empty words. This is a "must see" for everyone. For the people out there who know that overpopulation is the 'real' problem on Earth, you will want to show this video to everyone you know simply because his factual proof cannot be argued, debated, or denied, i.e., it is all in the name of mathematics. NOTE: I do sincerely apologize for this kind of advertisement on this forum, due to the fact that, as a rule, we do not accept advertising posts. But, in the name of all humanity and overpopulation, I think I will make this one exception... *s* | ||
Norm |
I hope more friends from the Figu Forum will join FAIR or a similar organization in your respective countries, to stop Immigration, which only adds to the Worlds Overpopulation problem! FAIR was founded in 1979 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton. Mr. [Dr.] Tanton [See his website, The Social Contract Press: http://tscpress.com] believed that the key to population control was ending immigration. He explained in the Detroit Free Press that unless America's borders are sealed, the country would be overrun with people "defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs." [And it is!!! States are fighting about garbage disposal, sewage treatment plants are overburdened, and programmers over 40 are flipping burgers.] Garrett Hardin, a biologist [Professor Emeritus] at the University of California [and author of The Tragedy of the Commons] and current board member emeritus of FAIR, has some ideas about population control as well. "Sending food to Ethiopia does more harm than good," he noted in a 1992 article. It will only "encourage population growth." [As indeed it has, leading to massive habitat destruction and loss of unique endangered wildlife, famine, disease, and war.] He went on to say that China's policy of coercive population control was not strict enough. [In fact, China's population continues to grow, in part because of lax enforcement of the one child per family policy, particularly in rural areas.Overpopulation makes it inevitable that poor children starve to death. To have an abortion is a fundamental, natural right of a woman, but it is denied by oppressive governments and religions throughout the world.] Mr. Hardin told the Wall Street Journal that "The quickest, easiest and most effective form of population control in the U.S. that I support wholeheartedly, is to end immigration." [Absolutely correct!] One wonders what other forms of population control he would support. [While I can't speak for Hardin, useful measures would include: deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens; tax incentives for smaller families; no welfare increases for additional children; health insurance coverage of birth control and abortion; and cash incentives for sterilization.] Like wealthy mediamogul Ted Turner, FAIR argues that the population explosion threatens the subsistence of all humans. [Quite obviously correct.] Mr. Turner gained notoriety recently when he promised to raise a billion dollars for the United Nations to pay for "population control" overseas. [Perhaps Ted Turner gained "notoriety" among ultra-religious reactionaries and Neoconservatives, but those of us concerned about overpopulation welcome his commitment.] Mr. Turner and FAIR's concern over population growth is nothing new. In the mid-18th century, clergyman Thomas Malthus predicted that the world's food supply would soon fail to keep pace with its rising population. And like Malthus, FAIR and Mr. Turner will be largely discredited. [Like most supporters of unlimited immigration and human population growth, Ansell lacks any understanding of or appreciation for the natural world and species other than man. The world's "supply" of other species has failed to keep pace with the exploding human population and is now crashing in the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs.] Dan Stein, current executive director of FAIR and lead spokesperson for the group, does not mince words either. Asked on a Detroit radio station on Feb. 2, 1996, whether he supports a U.S. population of 150 million, he responded, "That's a good long term target." I just joined!!! http://www.fairus.org/ | ||
Norm |
Boy, did I learn a lesson over the last two weeks. Anyone that tries to bring up the subject of overpopulation & immigration on most forums will be attacked mercilessly, by a lot of people. They just can't seem to handle the truth of these matters. I'm afraid all is lost when it comes to the human race! I can understand why Billy doesn't bother with anybody in the outside world! "The leadership are fooling themselves. Overpopulation is a very serious problem, and overimmigration is a big part of it. We must address both. We can't ignore either." -- David Brower, Outside Magazine, July 1998 "Short of nuclear war itself, population growth is the gravest issue the world faces. If we do not act, the problem will be solved by famine, riots, insurrection and war." - Robert McNamara, Former World Bank President | ||
Scott Baxter |
Norm You hit the nail right on the head, most people can not handle the TRUTH. Especially people who have lived in an area that has become very populated and yet they still deny or cant see what is really happening. Whats odd about it is that cities keep building more freeways, housing tracts etc., to handle the increasing population and yet they dont go to the root of the problem. A few months ago when the temperatures where high there was much news about brown outs for certain populated areas. More and more these type of things are occurring and yet the solution is to build more power plants to handle the increasing demands on the system. One thing that was interesting is that a lot of the dot.com companies in Silicon Valley were resorting to battery back up systems in case they did experience a power outage. If they would just carry this thinking a little farther and try and become more energy independent this might change the trend of things into a different direction. Also now Honda Motors has come out with a Hybrid car which is powered by gas and also electricity. This car is amazingly efficient approx 70 mpg, maybe the trend is starting to change back again, at least I hope so. Maybe in time we will get away from this GREED mentality and start to move forward in a better direction. Salome Scott | ||
Norm |
Scott, The only reason they are making more fuel efficient cars is because we are running out of gas and oil. Eventually they will make a car that can run on one gallon of gas for a whole week, then they will raise the price of gas to $20 dollars a gallon. They are going to preserve this system as long as they possibly can. | ||
Savio |
Hello With reference to FIGU Bulletin No.4 regarding a Yanomani woman killing her new born baby who has genital defects. Quote: "Commentary: The above mentioned behavior is concurrent with the evolutionary level of this tribe and is absolutely appropriate, for only in this manner can the survival of the entire tribe be assured in the harsh realities of the life-threatening conditions in the jungle. Such acts are therefore considered neutral-positive, as acts of reason....". The above comment leads to a question - Whether the killing of babies and compulsory abortion as a control measure against Overpopulation(the biggest problem of mankind)can be considered netural-positive as well? As we consider that it is a degeneration to ask for the blood of a criminal, how can we understand that the killing of babies is an act of netural-positive? Any comments? Regards Savio | ||
Scott B. |
Hello Savio I think your answer can be found in Billy's statement: "the survival of the entire tribe". We are not threatened when a criminal is left in prison for a life term, but if he is executed then it is a pre-meditated act of murder which is not logical or neutral. I think that is where the difference lies. Salome Scott | ||
Savio |
Hi Scott Thanks for your response  But my concern is that "Overpopulation" is the real threatening fact that concerns the survival of the whole mankind. Would this be a justified excuse for killing millions of new born babies for the sake of population control? (In fact this is really what some developing countries are doing nowadays) I find it is difficult to accept the killing of millions of babies as neutral-positive. More comments please Regards Savio | ||
Michael Horn |
It seems to me that the people of the so-called modern world have the options of birth control, abstinence, pre-birth ultrasound scans, etc. that a more primitive people have no awareness or possession of. So it may be consistent with their level of evolution and for the "the survival of the entire tribe" to deal with these conditions after the fact. Also, it is my understanding that the Plejarans condone abortion by natural methods prior to the 21st day. Michael | ||
Scott B. |
Hi Michael I understand your ideas about up to the 21st day regarding abortion, due to the spirit, but I have never heard of this in regards to the Plejarans stating they condone this? Do you remember where you heard it or read it? Thanks Scott | ||
Michael Horn |
Hi Scott, I recall reading in the copy of the Contact Notes that I read many years ago, that, when Billy asked Semjase if the Plejarans allowed abortion, BIlly was told that they used "planty substances" up until the cut off date. Perhaps this was either an inaccurate or unauthorized translation, or a memory failure on my part, otherwise it's the information I recall. Michael | ||
Anthea |
Hi All, I agree with Scott's comment: "We are not threatened when a criminal is left in prison for a life term, but if he is executed then it is a pre-meditated act of murder which is not logical or neutral". As far as I understand, the executed person is denied the right to fully recognize his mistakes and learn from them - thus his evolution is affected. With regard to abortion: Savio quoted from FIGU Bulletin no. 4,"...Such acts are therefore considered neutral-positive, as acts of reason..." This statement could easily be applied not only to the mentioned tribe's situation but to the world at large, in it's current condition. In my opinion, it is an act of love towards the fellowman. The Earth is only capable of supporting 529 million human beings - today the world population is in excess of 7 billion! (See http://www.overpop.org) By no means do I wish to advocate the idea that abortion is the most effective, or only, means to combat Earth's population problem. There is true wisdom in the proverb "Prevention is better than cure". Kind Regards, Anthea | ||
Norm |
Savio,
Can you please list the countries that are doing this other than China? | ||
Savio |
Hi All My quote from the FIGU Bulletin No.4 was complied and commented on by Christian Frehner, Switzerland, NOT Billy. I fully agree that death penalty is not logical. I also agree that preventive measures and abortion within 21 days is a logical approach to fight overpopulation. However, it would be very dangerous to say - it is an act of love for the fellowman to approve the killing of new born babies in fighting overpopulation. Who has the power to make decision that who must die? Why not old age people, the sick, cripple, blind? Perhaps one step further, why not eliminating the whole developing country? We are then licensed to Kill! All in the form of love for the followman..... and eventually we would come to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler was right! Aninals do eat their youngs on some occasions, but some of them do offer themselves to the predators for the survival of their youngs. Are we not more than animals? More comments please. PS Hi Norm, I rather not list out those names, yet they can easily be found on the websites of UN, human right, right to be born ... etc. | ||
Adam |
Hi Savio and All Bulletin #4 makes it clear, concerning the Yanomami and few indigenous tribes, that the information in "A Crusade Against Overpopulation" does not apply to them. "The measures pertaining to the halting of births, as Billy delineated and FIGU now disseminates, are outlined in the FIGU pamphlet A Crusade Against Overpopulation. However, the measures do not apply to a few indigenous tribes, for they have always abided by their own established practices and conditions for birth control." I agree that their measures are consistent with their level of evolution and jungle life. Its relative. I think for us it would be negative not neutral-positive. I think population control, something along the lines of what Billy proposes, is appropriate for the modern world. Its a crime that population control is not implemented in our modern society by governments. Regards, Adam | ||
Scott B. |
Hello I have wondered, is it "normal" for overpopulation at our level of Evolution? In the FIGU booklet "Attacking Questions from Japan" on page 16 there is reference to the KINTEN and NIPER races in which 4000 of them were bought back from the planet KUDRA to settle in the LASAN system of planets. The sentence that made me think about this reads: "As normally occurs, the population increased, and in the course of thousands and millions of years, the peoples became considerably more populous and eventually occupied five planets in the Lasan alliance of planets". Could it be that based on our current awareness and level of knowledge we dont know enough about the laws of nature and Creation and therefore, are unable to curb this growth in a more balanced way? Any comments? | ||
Savio |
Hello I think it is quite "normal" for overpopulation to take place before some counter measures are carried out. This is because humans are born with the desire to procreate. As Scott posted, it really happened everywhere. Now lets see what Billy mentioned in the "Torture and the Death Penalty" booklet page 22... "The only law permitting the killing of another person is the law of self-defense, but only if such killing happens out of a pure act of self-defense...." I think Billy means one can kill only if human life is in immediate danger but not in remote danger nor so-call/forecasted/calculated remote danger. No matter how we look at it, the case of the Yanomani woman and/or developing countries, the killing of new born babies is "killing in degeneration". There is no immediate life danger to anyone concerned.... in longer term... may be.. I agree with Christian, Michael and Adam that "The above mentioned behavior is concurrent with the evolutionary level of this tribe". They perform the killing purely out of material consideration - a bloody murder to put away something that is not valuable in their eyes, this is understandable for people with no spiritual sense/ignorant to behave like this, but it would be misleading to classified as "absolutely appropriate...neutral-positive..act of reason.." Any comments? Savio | ||
Anthea |
Hi Savio , I think that a differentiation should be made between "killing new born babies", ie. babies born in the normal way with labour pains after full term or nearly full term, and "abortion", ie. stopping the development of an embryo while it is still inside the mother's womb. Naturally, killing a "newborn baby", according to these definitions, is then termed "murder". And so I agree with Adam's comments re. the information in the FIGU Bulletin #4 about the few indigenous tribes, where killing a "newborn" that is not suited to the tribes' existence is a neutral-positive act and not a degenerate one, as would be the case in our "civilized" society. Again - my comments are just my personal viewpoint and should not be construed as "abortion or killing new born babies" as the answer to stemming population growth. Kind Regards, Anthea | ||
Norm |
Savio, How about a Link? | ||
Ardie Fox |
Hi All, I forget exactly where in the FIGU literature I read this, but I remember the Plejarans stating that, on their planet, abortion was allowed only until the 21st day of gestation and after that it was considered murder. I would imagine though that, if the woman's life was in danger because of her pregnancy, there might be some exceptions. Salome, Ardie | ||
Savio |
Hi All Thanks for contributed to the controversial act of the Yanomani woman . As there is no conclusive common understanding reached, I would like to summarize our discussions as follows: (please correct me if I am wrong) Common understanding: 1. The act of the Yanomani woman is consistent with her evolution level. 2. Other than self-defense it is a murder act to kill. 3. Abortion within 21 day as an overpopulation control is agreeable since spirit/human is not involved. Different understanding: 1. The act of the Yanomani woman is absolutely appropriate, neutral-positive, acts of reason. Others take different point of view and considered the act is a kind of murder/degeneration. ---------------------------- Now I try to put myself in the position that of Christian Frehner and try my logical reasoning to apply the word "absolutely appropriate¡K." into the case hoping that we can achieve a common understanding to the question, correct me if I am wrong: At the evolution level of the Yanomani woman , she knew nothing about the value of Human, nothing about spiritual evolution, nothing about the definition of killing in degeneration, no medical support, nature gave her the harshest environment, her only concern was material resource and survival. Her best choice and only choice was to kill the baby hence it is considered "absolutely appropriate" at her situation. Further, because she tried her best effort in making an appropriate act under her level of evolution, "neutral positive" can be applied to her act. "Acts of reason" of course can be applied to her because she picked the only choice available her. Further, I think these killing happened "naturally" during the course of evolution of humans through out the whole universe, I think I would have killed the baby too if I were the Yanomani woman at her evolution level and environment. Hence the case can be considered as Naturally - Anti-Nature, the same case as we look at Homosexuality. It naturally happened during the course of evolution although it is an act of murder that against natural law. We however, at our current evolution level, should not willfully go against the natural law and repeat what the Yanomani woman did. How about this new approach? Your kind comments please Regards, Savio | ||
Savio |
Hi Norm Forgive me I cannot recall which newspaper or magazine that I got the information. It was just a few weeks ago regarding an annual report on the situation/progress of Global birth-control. Perhaps the report was produced by a world class condom manufacturer I am not sure. Anyway, I'll try to locate the relative information on the web, those who know the concerned link please also give Norm a hand. Regards Savio | ||
Ardie Fox |
Hi Savio, To be more clear on my last posting, I should have excluded the Yanomani and similar tribes of that evolutionary level. It would not be murder in their case as I understand it. I believe that most animals would also kill deformed offspring or abandon them to die. It would be natural and appropriate in their case also. Salome, Ardie | ||
Andrew C. Cossette |
Hello Savio, You had mentioned earlier (Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 03:00 am) that there are "some" animals who would give themselves (their lives) up to predators to save their young. This is illogical. With self-preservation being the number one law of nature, can you mention what animals you were referring to? I once witnessed a cougar run away from a predator to save her own life and therefore sacrificing her 4-5 newborns. The logic here is that she can have more babies to promote her species, but if she dies she cannot. This logic applies to overpopulation as well. Nature, at the moment, via disease e.g., is killing off certain countries and entire populations to stop the overburdening to the rest of the planet. The people(s) living against nature (and her laws) are being destroyed, as can easily be seen in Africa with AIDS, for example. Many of the comments I am reading here seem to be illustrations of false humanitarianism similar to the common practice of 'feeding the needy in Africa'. This, again, is illogical. The killing of 'one' to save the 'whole' is common, and can be witnessed throughout history. The same logic applies to the Yanomani woman. Therefore, what animals were you thinking of in free-nature that would sacrifice themselves for their young? (This of course doesn't mean the act of 'fighting' to defend their offspring, but of sheer sacrifice.) Regards, Andrew Cossette | ||
Norm |
Andrew, Part of Bill Gates new $21 billion dollar charity is to try to cure AIDS. I feel there are other diseases and medical research that are sorely underfunded and could use that money, other than a disease that is mainly caused by irresponsibility! | ||
Andrew C. Cossette |
Hello Norm, Thanks for the comment, but what's your point? Regards, Andrew | ||
Rick Nelson |
Hello, I don't quite see how a newborn with deformed genitalia jeopardizes the survival of his or her mother, much less an entire tribe. Perhaps the Yanomani kill their deformed newborns for superstitious, rather than logical/survival reasons. Or perhaps they know that nature's law of survival demands a strong gene pool, and eradicating deformity of any kind is the only way this is guaranteed. It is difficult to know their reasoning without walking a few miles in their shoes. Peace, Rick Nelson | ||
Savio |
Hi Andrew It's nice to hear from you again It was on the Discovery Channel regarding a mother swine, the predator was a leopard and later came another one. On awareness of the approaching of the leopard, it left the little ones in their hiding place and went the other direction and purposely attracted the attention of the leopard to come for it. To me, this is a kind of suicide. In that case, the mother swine was lucky, it was badly hurt and the leopard gave up on her determination while other leopard just watched without action. As a frequent Discovery Channel watcher, I observed it is quite common for this similar animal behavior to take place, e.g. mother zebra to lioness, mother bird to snake etc. I admit the above cases may not be a direct/sheer sacrifice, yet it tells the fact that not all animals run for their own survival, self-preservation being the number one law of nature do have exceptions especially in front of love. That explained why Billy did not quit his mission after so many time of assassinations - there is love, a much high value to achieve than preserving his own life. And, there are countless examples of these kind of elevated heroism in human history; it then proved that human are more than animals. I doubt what is happening among animal kingdom may not 100% suit human race. It is because animals behave according to their instincts and humans behave according to their instinct, knowledge, logic, reasoning and wisdom. And, I observe " sacrifice of 'one' to save the 'whole' is common, and can be witnessed throughout history not "the killing of 'one' to save the 'whole' is common". Self sacrifice not self preservation is selected mostly happen among human especially among highly evolved human like the case of Billy, Jmmanuel, parents, fire-fighters and the rest. One headache for me is that I cannot find the answer to the dangerous question - Who/how to decide who must die? On what base and value? Killing of one deprives the "right of living" from human; rather, self-sacrifice has no such problems and does not involve other human rights. I agree, we must not fall into "false humanitarianism" that is logical, as recently posted, I also agree with the logic behind the Yanomani woman; but the question of - "Nowadays, whether it is logical/natural to kill newborn babies(healthy or not healthy) in fighting overpopulation" remains open. My answer is NO, because it against the definition set by Billy regarding killing of human. Can you share with us your point of view against this issue? Regards Savio | ||
Savio |
Hi Ardie Yes, you expressed yourself very clearly and I understand. I think what the Yanomani woman did is logical at her evolution level and situation only not present time. In fact, our discussion so far is mainly on the question that whether we should act like the Yanomani woman - killing newborn babies (healthy or not) in fighting overpopulation. My answer is no, what is your point of view? Regards Savio | ||
Jean Pierre Lagasse |
Hi all, How deformed newborns are treated seems to be a matter of genetics, & whether these genetics are propagated into the future race, and how much resources (& capability) any particular society has for dealing with such deformities. How criminals are treated, includes an entirely different set of questions (in addition to future genetics) & deals with "life (& spirit) lessons" / experiences...? (environment also?) Kind regards, JPLagasse | ||
Norm |
Andrew, My point is, that someone as smart as Bill Gates can't see the big picture! | ||
Anthea |
Hi Norm, Yes, a good example that intellect does not necessarily equal wisdom. Kind Regards, Anthea | ||
Ardie Fox |
Hi Savio, I think what the Yanomani woman did was appropriate for them even at the present time, but there will come a time in the future when they will evolve to the point where it wouldn't be appropriate at all. For most of the world though, I definitely do not think that newborns should be killed for any reason. If they can not live without life support systems, then I think it would be best to let them die. The same goes for abortions after the 21rst day. Except for a very few exceptions, I don't think abortion is appropriate. If the woman is in danger of loosing her own life because pregnancy is endangering her health or, if through tests, it is determined that the fetus has serious defects and probably won't survive, then I think abortion at anytime would probably be OK. There definitely has to be measures taken to limit population without resorting to killing. Maybe incentives for small families and/or penalties for larger families. Strong, reasonable steps need to be taken by governments to educate people about overpopulation and to enforce ways to reduce it's growth. Salome, Ardie | ||
Rick Nelson |
Hello, There is a serious flaw in the concept of the self-sacrifice of a mother animal in order to save her young. If the mother sacrifices herself to the predator, she is dead and the young have no mother. In most instances this means the young also die as there is no one to feed, care and protect them. Also, if the predator kills the mother, what is to stop it from then finding and killing the young? Self-sacrifice is a no-win situation, and I seriously doubt that any animal could override its' instinct for survival. Fighting to defend or protect its' young is also instinctive and an entirely different matter. This would explain the actions of the swine versus the leopards. Not all fights result in death even among apparently overmatched opponents. But if death appears imminent, the tactic is to flee. Peace, Rick Nelson | ||
Savio |
Hi Ardie I agree with you 99% especially your recommendation regarding overpopulation control. Just about the abortion of the fetus with serious defects after 21 days and when the mother is not in life danger. While a human life and spirit is involved here, can we consider something like - "let the nature run its course" ? That is to allow the baby to be born and let the nature does the rest. By so doing, there will be no problem to the "right to be born", there is no early termination of human life and/or spiritual evolution. The baby would have a chance to live his/her life to the full extend even though it is only a few hours or a few days(as planned at the beyond?). Your comment please. Savio | ||
Ardie Fox |
Hi Savio, You are probably correct. It would be prematurely ending that spirit's experience during that lifetime, no matter how short it may be. Aborting a defective fetus would probably be no better than performing Euthanasia on an elderly person who can not take care of themselves anymore because of dementia or other serious, terminal health problems. I was just trying to think of instances where abortion would be called for. Can you think of any other circumstances? | ||
Lonnie Morton |
Hello all, One sad reality as far as an immediate solution to the overpopulation problem, is the fact that a possible Third World War combined with the catastrophes that are coming soon, could substancially reduce the worlds population. From a neutral perspective, it seems that this would do more for mans future in the long run than a 'band-aid' like fix of the economy, or installing a president that is environmentally conscience, and more inclined to letting people know the truth. Sure, the recomendations for population control, as well responsibility in marriage and family are essential. But what about the world situation right now? Many of us don't see the real picture, or what's going on behind the scenes. Is this the inevitably eventuality? Could be! And, if this doesn't wake people up, I don't know what will! I think there must be some very special people who are behind this,(possibly the NWO)and perhaps taking the lead. I dare not say more. Winston Chuchill himself once made this observation and said the very same thing after World War Two. Interesting! They probably have a long history of involvement. Personally, I would rather see more of a growing awareness as to why we are here, and what our true purpose in life is. How about a movie made by volunteers, free to the public, highlighting the truth of Billy's contacts, and the real solution to our problems? But, you would have to pay for your own 'pop'corn. Salome, Lonnie | ||
Savio |
Hi Ardie Delighted to know that we look the same way against the issue As for abortion after 21 days, whenever the mother is in life danger, I think it is always logical to remove the fetus from the womb (in one piece not cut into pieces hence not a direct killing). The logic is this : 1. the mother's life is saved and she may bear more children later. 2. if not so doing, both mother and fetus will die. 3. whether or not the fetus will live after leaving the womb depends on the maturity, it is in the hand of nature. Of course, being human, we have another choice : Many mothers refuse to take any medication so that their babies can servive, they die after giving birth to their children. And they are termed "Great" and is not rare in human history. Both choices are logical, there is no right or wrong. Regards Savio | ||
Savio |
Hi Lonnie I have a copy of "The challenge of overpopulation" by FIGU in hand, I fully agree with the content and its recommendations regarding population control. I agree that global awareness on the issue is of vital importance; perhaps Internet is the most effective way at present time. The only problem is how to ask/invite/alert people to visit those websites. Regards Savio | ||
Savio |
Hi Norm Regarding the information you requested, there are some related reports at http://www.overpopulation.com/ However, what they are saying is that overpopulation is not a problem; just the opposite of what is in http://www.overpopulation.org/. Your have to judge by your own logic Regards Savio | ||
Richard Lunter |
Hello All, If we do some scale of worlds (peoples) problems, I think that overpopulation is on the first place. I thing that for example unemployment mainly is, because overpopulation is. One medicine (only one?!) for overpopulation is birth control on whole Earth and start this birth control at the same time on whole Earth. I have interest about film: Arithmetic, Population, and Energy, written up. What is pictured in the film what can realy happend if number of population go up and up .... ?? The price of food go up, price of water go up, ... ? What prognosis is pictured in film? Who see this film, can tell us please? Thanks Kind regards Richard | ||
Anthea |
Hi Richard, The movie you are speaking about is "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" by Dr Albert A. Bartlett. I don't recall if this particular video has been mentioned in a previous discussion, but it is a real eye opener, by a well respected mathematician. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the dilemma that Overpopulation presents. Kind Regards, Anthea | ||
Savio |
Hello If you do not have the video "Arithmetic, Population and Engergy" in hand, perhaps you may like to visit the following website to catch some related information by Dr. Albert A. Bartlett: NPG Academia Series: Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis by Dr. Albert Bartlett http://www.npg.org/reports/bartlett_index.htm Happy surfing Savio | ||
Rick Nelson |
Hello Anthea, Yes, Andrew Cossette wrote at length about this video in his July 25, 2000 posting under "Archives For 'The Future and Overpopulation?'" Andrew's posting is easily found by doing a keyword search under "Bartlett." Peace, Rick Nelson |
