On May 13, 2:31 am, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:

On 12 May 2007 23:33:12 -0700, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.orgformore
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.

Hi     :)

Have you read this one ........

http://www.metatech.org/contact_extraterrestrials_intervention.html

Quote :

"Ecosystem exhaustion mechanisms have exceeded irreversible limits.
The scarcity of resources and their unfair distribution - resources
which entry price will rise day after day - will bring about
fratricide fights at a large scale, but also at the very heart of your
cities and countrysides.
Hatred grows bigger but so does love. That is what keeps you confident
in your ability to find solutions. But the critical mass is
insufficient and a sabotage work is cleverly being carried out.
Human behaviours, formed from past habits and trainings, have such an
inertia that this perspective leads you to a dead end. You entrust
these problems to representatives, whose conscience of common
well-being slowly fades away in front of corporatist interests."

And that's what I was saying, that resources _are_ being
exhausted fast and will lead to the collapse of the present
civilization.

Unlike whoever the quote was addressed to, I would not
entrust the problem to representatives, or the government,
since it is painfully obvious that they do not give a darn
at all.

So how does this mean one should _not_ disclose the
technology and instead _let_ the crash/dieoff/etc.
happen?