[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "gepr" == gepr  <gepr at tempusdictum.com> writes:

gepr> When/if we come up with reasonable mechanisms for population
gepr> control, then you have an argument.  (or, I should say, you
gepr> change the argument from the malthusian resources to _which_
gepr> method for population control...  guns and inter-individual
gepr> selection is just as effective as anything you might propose).

My understanding is that population growth tends to slow down and stop
when expectations of survival improve (e.g., see Europe and North
America).  That is, people who expect their offspring to live
full(-ish) lives have fewer children.  So, a solution to global
population growth is to work to eliminate childhood diseases,
starvation, and the like.  As I understand it, population growth is
slowing in places like China.

Violent population attenuation is likely to be chaotic and
unpredictable.  It creates wasteful conflict and destruction which
reduces carrying capacity.  So, yeah, "just as effective" in the end,
but much less pleasant and less desirable from a personal
value-judgement perspective.

gepr> As I said in another post, it's not actually using the gun that
gepr> discourages bad behavior.  It's _carrying_ the gun.  It's
gepr> setting expectations in others' minds.  _That's_ the point.

gepr> Animals know this instinctively.  E.g. that's why cats turn
gepr> sideways and fluff up their fur when they get mad.

I don't think guns analogize to animals.  Afterall, guns are the
"equalizing" weapons of the weak.  You don't have to be physically
dominant to use a gun.  One of the effects of carrying the gun or
displaying the gun (perhaps only immediately prior to use) is to make
yourself an unacceptable threat to others and thus an immediate target
for counter force (possibly from out of sight, behind a tree).
Survival between gun-toters becomes somewhat random.  The meek,
non-gun-toter tends to be the one to survive because no one _needs_ to
shoot them.  So maybe Jesus was right on that one.

gepr> Ack!  Nothing frightens me _more_ than a "Universal Declaration
gepr> of Human Rights".  

Why?  It seems pretty innocuous to me, particularly since it is mostly
universally ignored.  Given that, I can't tell what would make it
frightening.  As a statement of how I'd like to be treated, it isn't
so bad.  See:

  <http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html>

-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com