[MrBean]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

[Homesteader]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

Ok then, would you explain your reply to my statement?

[outcast]

It's easy to promote these ideas when your ass isn't on the line.

His ass is on the line.

I have posted that I would not seek extraneous measures to prolong my life. No life support, treatments for cancer, organ transplants, heart surgery, etc. DNR for heart attack, etc.

I stand corrected. Still, means more for the rest of us.

[MrBean]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

Ok then, would you explain your reply to my statement?

Sorry, no can do. If you want and need a plan, that is your problem. My planning days are over.

[Homesteader]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

Ok then, would you explain your reply to my statement?

Sorry, no can do. If you wan't and need a plan, that is your problem. My planning days are over.

Why can't you explain your statement? Why do you think I want or need a plan? Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan? What is your definition of sustainability?

[MonteQuest]

It's easy to promote these ideas when your ass isn't on the line.

But that is just the point; everyone's ass is one the line.

Those are just some of our options. We don't have many.

It seems that a a return to nature's way is best, don't you think?

She does what works.

[BigTex]

Ok, lay it on the table for us Monte. Specifically, what does get out of the way of diseases mean in your book?

It's a double bind. Once the problem comes into focus, you realize that you have several options, none of which are good:

1. you can keep trying to save everyone and aggravate the overpopulation problem, making the ultimate correction even uglier

2. you can start killing people, which obviously should be a non-starter for a civilized population

3. you can start letting people die when they could be saved, which is an agonizing thing to do

4. you can sterilize large populations, which is a hard thing to stomach

5. you can stick your head in the sand and try to forget what you have learned and let someone else worry about it

That's pretty much all of the options you have, because people are not going to stop reproducing voluntarily.

It's not the kind of problem that one likes to face. A large scale double bind scenario can blow out your whole fuse box if you're not careful.

[thuja]

Monte, myself and a few others hashed this out a year or two back over 90 or 100 pages. Thread name?

In my mind there really is no way a civilized society can quickly reduce population levels to pre-fossil fuel levels voluntarily. That would take a level of cruelty that is beyond imagining.

We won't be making socio-political decisions to cut off life supports to certain groups either.

The almighty dollar will be making decisions for us in the future. Those with the means will recieve the food, warmth, medicine and care they want. The poor will not.

We will not be legislating a fair and equitable Powerdown.

[MonteQuest]

Monte, myself and a few others hashed this out a year or two back over 90 or 100 pages. Thread name?

Population Reduction and Rebuttal Thread

In my mind there really is no way a civilized society can quickly reduce population levels to pre-fossil fuel levels voluntarily. That would take a level of cruelty that is beyond imagining.

Which is why there will be a die-off. The best we can accomplish is to start to reduce the population in hopes of preserving carrying capacity...not limiting the die-off.

What we need to preserve is the ability of our ecosystem to support us after the die-off, not the population in overshoot.

Does anyone really think that we won't burn everything that burns and kill everything that can be eaten?

We are going to resort to the "takeover" method.

Biofools is just the first salvo.

[thuja]

Monte, myself and a few others hashed this out a year or two back over 90 or 100 pages. Thread name?

Population Reduction and Rebuttal Thread

In my mind there really is no way a civilized society can quickly reduce population levels to pre-fossil fuel levels voluntarily. That would take a level of cruelty that is beyond imagining.

Which is why there will be a die-off. The best we can accomplish is to start to reduce the population in hopes of preserving carrying capacity...not limiting the die-off.

What we need to preserve is the ability of our ecosystem to support us after the die-off, not the population in overshoot.

Does anyone really think that we won't burn everything that burns and kill everything that can be eaten?

We are going to resort to the "takeover" method.

Biofools is just the first salvo.

Yup we will burn everything left and try every trick in the book to keep the game going. My hope is that geological and resource limits will cause the implosion to be relatively quick so that we don't have the ability to utterly decimate carrying capacity.

A slow crash may be even worse although that is my best guess for the First World. Fast crash for the Third World.

[Snik]

Ok, lay it on the table for us Monte. Specifically, what does get out of the way of diseases mean in your book?

Stop trying to save everyone.

Let our predators return, The biggest single factor in preventing sustained population growth has been infectious diseases. They were our human predator, and they helped to keep our population in check.

Disease can be looked upon as man’s keystone predator. “Keystone predator” is an ecological term used to describe the basic principle by which a predator may be a balancing force on an ecosystem. For this reason, special care must be taken with identified keystone predators to keep them from being hunted out of an ecosystem. Other than in some vials in a lab at the CDC, many of man’s keystone predators are extinct; others are of little consequence. Yes, we are no longer plagued with the evils of disease, but that was nature’s way of controlling our numbers and insuring a strong gene pool. Predators usually capture the old, crippled, sick, or very young animals. Very rarely are healthy adults caught and killed. In this way, only the strongest and healthiest animals are left to reproduce. Over long periods of time, predation actually improves the health of the prey population.

Just so I can be clear on this, I am guessing you are talking about things like Smallpox? That's the only one I can think of right off the top of my head that is actually "extinct"; the other ones that come to mind, like Polio, are largely under control, but not extinct.

I'm still curious about what other diseases we have wiped out, but I guess it's not that important.

What I was getting at in the question about specifics is how do you go about getting these "keystone" predators back into play, and what do you mean specifically by "stop trying to save everyone"? I think I know what you are inferring, but I don't want to jump to incorrect conclusions.

[thuja]

Ok, lay it on the table for us Monte. Specifically, what does get out of the way of diseases mean in your book?

Stop trying to save everyone.

Let our predators return, The biggest single factor in preventing sustained population growth has been infectious diseases. They were our human predator, and they helped to keep our population in check.

Disease can be looked upon as man’s keystone predator. “Keystone predator” is an ecological term used to describe the basic principle by which a predator may be a balancing force on an ecosystem. For this reason, special care must be taken with identified keystone predators to keep them from being hunted out of an ecosystem. Other than in some vials in a lab at the CDC, many of man’s keystone predators are extinct; others are of little consequence. Yes, we are no longer plagued with the evils of disease, but that was nature’s way of controlling our numbers and insuring a strong gene pool. Predators usually capture the old, crippled, sick, or very young animals. Very rarely are healthy adults caught and killed. In this way, only the strongest and healthiest animals are left to reproduce. Over long periods of time, predation actually improves the health of the prey population.

Just so I can be clear on this, I am guessing you are talking about things like Smallpox? That's the only one I can think of right off the top of my head that is actually "extinct"; the other ones that come to mind, like Polio, are largely under control, but not extinct.

I'm still curious about what other diseases we have wiped out, but I guess it's not that important.

What I was getting at in the question about specifics is how do you go about getting these "keystone" predators back into play, and what do you mean specifically by "stop trying to save everyone"? I think I know what you are inferring, but I don't want to jump to incorrect conclusions.

Read the thread he posted- it says it all- pretty fascinating stuff actually...

[MrBean]

Why can't you explain your statement?

Good question. Lack of understanding?

Why do you think I want or need a plan?

Don't know if you do. Do you?

Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan?

I don't know if you did. What is your interest in plans?

What is your definition of sustainability?

I don't have one. Perhaps a dictionary or wikipedia could provide a definition?

[Homesteader]

Why can't you explain your statement?

Good question. Lack of understanding?

Why do you think I want or need a plan?

Don't know if you do. Do you?

Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan?

I don't know if you did. What is your interest in plans?

What is your definition of sustainability?

I don't have one. Perhaps a dictionary or wikipedia could provide a definition?

Is anyone surprised?

[MonteQuest]

What I was getting at in the question about specifics is how do you go about getting these "keystone" predators back into play, and what do you mean specifically by "stop trying to save everyone"? I think I know what you are inferring, but I don't want to jump to incorrect conclusions.

Read the many threads on it. I posted a link to the main one.

[MrBean]

Why can't you explain your statement?

Good question. Lack of understanding?

Why do you think I want or need a plan?

Don't know if you do. Do you?

Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan?

I don't know if you did. What is your interest in plans?

What is your definition of sustainability?

I don't have one. Perhaps a dictionary or wikipedia could provide a definition?

Is anyone surprised?

I don't know, why do you ask?

And why don't you ask any of my questions? Edit: meant to say answer.

[Homesteader]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

Ok then, would you explain your reply to my statement?

Sorry, no can do. If you wan't and need a plan, that is your problem. My planning days are over.

Why can't you explain your statement? Why do you think I want or need a plan? Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan? What is your definition of sustainability?

So again, Beanie old boy, how do you feel your strategy of pleading ignorance and asking the question back is working for you? Specifically.

[MrBean]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

Ok then, would you explain your reply to my statement?

Sorry, no can do. If you wan't and need a plan, that is your problem. My planning days are over.

Why can't you explain your statement? Why do you think I want or need a plan? Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan? What is your definition of sustainability?

So again, Beanie old boy, how do you feel your strategy of pleading ignorance and asking the question back is working for you? Specifically.

Differently with each case, can't say beforehand. With you we've created by our performance theater a master piece of absurd comedy, devoid of any meaning. You have my permission to sell it to Hollywood.

[Homesteader]

Hope is not a plan.

Exactly. Faith, hope and love, and greatest of them is love.

Do you mean that Faith, hope and love = a plan?

Does it sound like a plan? If not, then it isn't. You decide.

Ok then, would you explain your reply to my statement?

Sorry, no can do. If you wan't and need a plan, that is your problem. My planning days are over.

Why can't you explain your statement? Why do you think I want or need a plan? Why do you think I was asking you for help with a plan? What is your definition of sustainability?

So again, Beanie old boy, how do you feel your strategy of pleading ignorance and asking the question back is working for you? Specifically.

Differently with each case, can't say beforehand. With you we've created by our performance theater a master piece of absurd comedy, devoid of any meaning. You have my permission to sell it to Hollywood.

This space intentionally left blank ->

Homesteader leaves conversation to go rearrange the sock drawer.

[Snik]

What I was getting at in the question about specifics is how do you go about getting these "keystone" predators back into play, and what do you mean specifically by "stop trying to save everyone"? I think I know what you are inferring, but I don't want to jump to incorrect conclusions.

Read the many threads on it. I posted a link to the main one.

Found it, thanks. Would have been easier if you had just posted the link for the plan, a plan for after the crash I suppose. It won't ever happen before that's for sure.

The one thing that you keep saying is "get out of the way of disease", and that plan has nothing in it regarding that concept other than possibly the euthanasia part. I'm surprised there isn't a requirement for the cessation of vaccinations, and/or the re-releasing of the eradicated or largely controlled diseases back into the general population.