Re: [SystemPolitics] Re: only two possibilities

Flower Child & Zephyr (
Sat, 21 Nov 1998 12:17:15 -0700

There's been some agreement on three pillars of sustainability
and collective survival:

1)  Maintenance of the natural systems base such as forests,
streams, air and soil, so they do not degrade to non-recoverable

2)  Reduced per-capita resource usage.  Reversing long-time
merchandising messages of increasing use, to messages of reducing
use can help.  Easily viewed meters or publicly compared usage
can give results.  Facilitating the sharing of resources by
householders can achieve dramatic reduction in their use and also
slow the filling of land dumps.  This can be done through
promotion of community structures such as microhouses, microhouse
cohousing with shared central facilities, and central facility
vehicular villages in rural and urban settings.  The use of
county-wide (or local telephone-area) computers to list and
search for home, farm & ranch and business used items, excess
inventory and trash can help a lot.  The same telephone listing
and searching service (with the databases shared to Internet
users as well) can easily provide resource-saving ride, job,
housing, lost & found and community general information sharing
at the same time.  Resources generally could move directly from
where they are not needed to where they are wanted, after
free-enterprise negotiation in terms of for sale, for exchange,
or for free, and excess handling or central warehousing and
transportation would not be needed.

3)  Control of population numbers.  This necessity would probably
include achieving negative population growth.  Rather than
outright coercive methods (which have been mentioned in this
forum) which give the individual no choice and will probably
encounter rally-around unified opposition, I think the method of
governmental offering of individual food, perhaps also medical
care, clothing and shelter, etc., even for a lifetime, should be
implemented which is in exchange for a voluntary sterilization.
This is where it would be in the interests of government to begin
to transfer some strong funding away from areas which were
classically for older notions of defense.  After the public
venting of criticism, you will see us line up for our pensions.
It is not the same as selling our souls to a dictatorship.  The
die-hards and exceptionally persistent individuals can make their
efforts to obtain their needs without having to end their genetic
lives, and undoubtedly they will.  I would not want to personally
or have my government confront such individuals with coercion,
for the energies involved are the most powerful we know.  While
some individuals will prefer to starve and die (or possibly
survive) as wild animals, most of us will come to enjoy being
kept as pets in a comfortable world where we have the freedom and
means to develop ourselves.  Daily we are making the transition
to acceptance of neutering our animal pets for their collective
benefit and avoidance of distasteful suffering and killing, and
we should look at that as a model for our own avoidance of the
same, and how we will come to accept it.  I believe we know that
these healthy and happy pets represent a very good outcome, given
the limitations which had been reached.  Meow?

I am not a trained scholar nor a professional type and I do thank
you all for the input I have had in this inquiry into the future
of mankind.

Thank you,  Charles Wilson            (Flower Child)

         see also alt.gathering.rainbow

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Eriksson <>
To: <>
Date: Saturday, November 21, 1998 8:41 AM
Subject: [SystemPolitics] Re: only two possibilities

From: "Kent Eriksson" <>

Dieoff wrote...
|Actually, the burden is on you to demonstrate that humans are
|from universal biophysical laws. Personal incredulity is not a
| scientific argument.
I admit I did not express myself clearly. Of course, humans
cannot be exempted from the laws of nature. But the crash-and-die
scenario is based on exponential population growth. Considering
the fact that this growth has been stopped in the industrialised
world, it appears reasonable to me to believe that it is possible
to stop the growth in the rest of the world, too.

|> Further, even if it does, we may be dealing with time-scales
that are incomprehensible.
|Incomprehensible to whom?
Unclear again. I mean that Cro-Magnon man has existed for 50 000
years. Written history is no more than a tenth of this. I do
consider timespans longer that say 100 years to be
"incomprehensible" to human individuals. Evolutionary timescales
are really incomprehensible. We cannot see how minute and for all
practical purposes undetectable differences in the genetic
make-ups of different clans can turn one into masters of the
world, while the other clan vanishes without a trace.

Of course, this is not impossible to simulate in a mathematical
model. So I have checked out the website No doubt the
described scenario is something that must be prevented. Am I to
understand that the alternative scenario is what you are
referring to when you say "managed like domestic pets". Where can
I find the alternative scenario? After all, I would rather be a
living pet than a starving and dying wild animal.

Finally, a mathematical model is just a model. It is an input for
decision-making. It must be weighed against other input. Of
course, the limitations of the world's resources are very real.
Unfortunately, the discussion tends to focus more on whether
different resources will suffice for 50 or 200 years, rather than
on efficient methods for actively controlling the use of the
limited resources.

/Kent Eriksson

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.