[ RadSafe ] Re: Reasoning the Unreasonables (frm:Chernobyl's Reduced Impact)

[howard long]

I predict that in 2100 AD there will be > 20 B people on earth 
with cleaner air, more energy (largely nuclear) and better, 
more natural forestry management 
(which I have done on my few acres of indigenous oak forest). 
 
Like Edward Teller, I am an optomist, 
so have incentive to make things better, 
unlike Green pessimists Jim and Dimiter, below.
 
Best Wishes, Howard Long  

Dimiter Popoff <didi at tgi-sci.com> wrote:
No doubt the planet is overpopulated. Reduction of the population is one of the
possible outcomes of this - which will lead to lowering the pressure for
ingenuity and thus slow down progress and eventually lead to decline of
the human civilization.
The only other possible outcome I can think of is colonization of new worlds...
The sooner we learn how to do it, the better (too bad there are no
more Americas on Earth to be discovered :). And soon may mean
really soon, how long will it take us to learn how to affect our bodies at
a DNA level and prolong lifespan dramatically.
Thus everything which is in the way of progress is an enemy of our race,
most of the "everything" being humans....

Dimiter

(who forgot for a while that he is not Hari Seldon and wrote the above ...:-)


------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------


> -------Original Message-------
> From: James Salsman 
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Reasoning the Unreasonables (frm:Chernobyl's Reduced Impact)
> Sent: Sep 16 '05 02:26
> 
> Howard Long, M.D., wrote:
> 
> > I, too admire the diving accomplishments of Costeau.
> > Nevertheless, when I saw him affirm "The only way to restore nature is to
> > get rid of 300,000 human beings a day" (or words very close), it conflicted
> > with my main goal in life, and perhaps yours.
> >
> > You will agree that statement is Green extremism?
> 
> Not if the negative population growth is almost entirely
> driven by reductions in the birth rate from access to birth
> control and economic incentives limiting family size. That
> has been the status quo in Europe, the U.S., Japan, and
> China for a while now, so I don't see how it can be
> considered extreme.
> 
> The more M.D.s we have so fanatical about hormesis that they
> ignore the effects of chemical toxicant accumulation -- and
> refuse to quantify the exposure levels that they find
> acceptable -- the sooner we can get the birth rate down due
> to increases in miscarriage.
> 
> Sincerely,
> James
>