home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!mendel.berkeley.edu!timi
- From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
- Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
- Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
- Date: 18 Nov 1992 01:34:34 GMT
- Organization: /etc/organization
- Lines: 26
- Message-ID: <1ec6jaINNs1t@agate.berkeley.edu>
- References: <1eboimINNoqu@agate.berkeley.edu> <1ebvluINNqf6@agate.berkeley.edu> <1ec11gINNqrr@agate.berkeley.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu
-
- I wrote:
- *>Still, not having heard how your idea of involuntary sterilization
- *>of humans fits into your plan for solving the problems of
- *>population growth, I cannot judge whether you premise is feasible.
-
- Steve Pope responds:
- >I am presuming that by sterilizing somewhere between
- >30% and 50% of the adult populace, population growth
- >would decline to zero, thus saving the earth from total
- >eco-destruction. I could be off base on this, but I
- >can't think of any alternatives.
-
- Even better, limiting families to only one or two children per couple
- would yield a *negative* growth rate. This could be accomplished through
- social or economic pressure and education (As is already the case in
- Japan and possibly Germany). Then nobody would have to play
- god with another's genetic inheritance.
-
- Other less permanent forms of birth control are also options which have
- not yet been fully explored. (No thanks to the Jerry Falwells of the world)
-
- Anyway, since this is getting so far off the original thread, I'll
- stop now.
-
- Regards,
- Tim Ikeda
-