On May 13, 12:02 am, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 12, 10:34 pm, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:
...

Yes, Stephen has the same ideas as me, about desalinization plants for
clean water for everyone. But I'm more cautious about giving 7 billion
people all clean water, free energy, etc .... because I know how
volatile people are.
Most people just can't be good.
They often get silly ideas.

So you'd rather have 7 billion people run out of food and water and
starve to death when the oil runs out (seewww.dieoff.orgfor more
information)? Which is worse? At least if we give out the technology
we have a CHOICE as to whether or not we nuke ourselves with it.
Wars are ALL fought by choice. Whereas if we keep going with this
unsustainable crap we'll CERTAINY deep six ourselves. Maybe not
extinction, but we'll definitely hit a big wall.

People _can_ be good, it's whether or not they _want_ to be good
that counts.

dieoff.org: Argues for the possibility of a "Malthusian catastrophe".
This theory goes that we've exceeded the Earth's "carrying capacity",
ie. the total supply capacity of the stockpile of natural, sustainable
(eg. renewable) resources, and this will lead to a population crash
(die off). Although the argument is very complex, the logic is very
simple: finite amounts of resources exist. Most likely our
civilization
will "crash" before we can irreversibly destroy the Earth's
biosphere.