2009 Moop map

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:28 pm

The problem is, kishka, that high mortality leads to higher fertility. So what you have to do is raise the standard of living of the really poor, make sure that they have access to enough food--and yes, Iso--clean water, make sure that the girls and women get educations, and do the micro-loan thing, to the women, so that they have money to invest in their farms or businesses or whereever they see fit. (Apparently men buy fancy items and/or drugs. Within a given variable of human behavior.) Epidemics and famines just make the survivors breed much more, so they can be assured of at least one offspring will live to take care of them in old age.
I would love for us to reach a peak population of less than 9 million earlier than 2050.

adam link · Post by **adam link** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:32 pm

i think that mother earth shall shake off it's own fleas, without any assistance from any vets.

DragginLady · Post by **DragginLady** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:28 pm

In my opinion, the concept is really very simple. Radical self reliance.
It means bringing what you need, and taking care of yourself on the Playa.
It means carrying out your own f'ing trash and being grown-up about it.
We are lucky to have port-a-potties and ice.....

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:34 pm

i agree...100% we (root society) brought in what we needed, provided a gift to the playa, and took out all of our trash, and then some, and then some more.

i think rfid chips in all packaging may serve a kind of purpose after all.

lets chip the moop, then we will know who made it such.

heads will roll when i find out who the motherfucker with the mini dorito bags from friday night was.

there was like 12 of them all over the chill dome...

oneeyeddick · Post by **oneeyeddick** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:29 pm

pinemom wrote: LARGE majority of Ravers and Frat kids...they dont know the crying Indian commercial...it was before their time!

[youtube][/youtube]

Didn't that dude die in the last couple of years ?

I seem to remember he wasn't an Indian at all.....

Deb Prothero · Post by **Deb Prothero** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:16 pm

He lives on as Simon's avatar.

Deb Prothero · Post by **Deb Prothero** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:24 pm

Okay, so I did the Wikipedia thing. Iron Eyes Cody was an American actor who played Native Americans. His real names was Espera de Corti, an American of Italian descent. His folks owned a grocery store in Gueydan, Louisiana. He was born on April 3, 1904 and died on January 4, 1999.

yeah, that was a couple years ago, OED.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:34 pm

"People start pollution, people can stop it."

Wow, what cornball narrative structure and symbolism.

Deb Prothero · Post by **Deb Prothero** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:44 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:"People start pollution, people can stop it."

Wow, what cornball narrative structure and symbolism.

That tear really worked though. I remember it and I was pretty young.

Roberto Dobbisano · Post by **Roberto Dobbisano** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:46 pm

the only thing worse than jewish mother guilt is Native American Guilt (NAG).

yes, to this day i remember the first time i saw that commercial too....somewhere around 73' i would say.

we are after all, only on a short term lease here, most likely we will lose our security deposit for the way we have kept up the place.

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:01 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:The problem is, kishka, that high mortality leads to higher fertility. So what you have to do is raise the standard of living of the really poor, make sure that they have access to enough food--and yes, Iso--clean water, make sure that the girls and women get educations, and do the micro-loan thing, to the women, so that they have money to invest in their farms or businesses or whereever they see fit. (Apparently men buy fancy items and/or drugs. Within a given variable of human behavior.) Epidemics and famines just make the survivors breed much more, so they can be assured of at least one offspring will live to take care of them in old age.
I would love for us to reach a peak population of less than 9 million earlier than 2050.

I don't consider that a problem--sterilize them. Then do all of the rest of what you are talking about.

I also think that mandatory sterilization should be the first requirement for recieving welfare in this country as well. Doesn't have to be permanent--norplant works for 7 years. Nobody has any hope of bettering themselves when they continue to be baby factories. The cycle needs to be forcibly broken.

JK

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:18 pm

i don't know, JK ... you'd sterilize people in countries where people don't live long ... but what about extending life? how much money is spent on developing drugs and fighting disease to extend life in developed countries?

Roberto Dobbisano · Post by **Roberto Dobbisano** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:21 pm

I don't consider that a problem--sterilize them. Then do all of the rest of what you are talking about.

I also think that mandatory sterilization should be the first requirement for recieving welfare in this country as well. Doesn't have to be permanent--norplant works for 7 years. Nobody has any hope of bettering themselves when they continue to be baby factories. The cycle needs to be forcibly broken.

my my my, someone certainly has some issues with breeders, now doesn't he?

spoken like a true dink.

Roberto Dobbisano · Post by **Roberto Dobbisano** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:23 pm

you're lucky i just vaguely attacked your preferences...

your taste for sterilization leaves a HUGE distaste in my mouth.

need i remind you of how this has worked in the past? who chooses? who get chosen.

dont even go there john, it's very ugly and i will tell you in no uncertain terms to go fuck yourself.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:53 pm

I agree with the basic theme of Roberto's answer, although I'd rather the discussion were not quite so heated.
The idea of the developed world sterilizing the emerging one has too many echos of history--the power relationships: the elite over the masses, white over black, "normal" over "congenital idiots", educated over too poor to go to school. No one deserves that kind of power. And it's not a gift if you shove it down someone's throat. I do understand the frustration; I just cannot condone the method.

Roberto Dobbisano · Post by **Roberto Dobbisano** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:56 pm

east coast, remember?

i was being calm cool collective and cordial.

i only used the word "fuck" once.

and i only tweaked his jugular vein, i didn't rip it out.

all in all, fairly reserved.....

for an east coaster, that is.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:09 pm

ARe you sure it's not boy/girl?

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:19 pm

no, it's i got kids, and they are the best things i ever did.

no one has the right to force others to not reproduce if it their desire to do so.

its humanist vs eugenicist on this one...

that whole "Logic" disgusts me to my very core.

find some other way besides the same tired, offensive at best, murderous at worse ideas that have prompted atrocities in the past, and would inevitably do so in the future.

H.G.Crosby · Post by **H.G.Crosby** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:35 pm

simon, your socks are falling down....get some of these...

that's better.....now focus.

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:47 pm

Simon of the Playa wrote: no one has the right to force others to not reproduce if it their desire to do so.

No one should have the right to reproduce if they are not capable of properly supporting, raising and educating their off-spring.

JK

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:50 pm

Roberto Dobbisano wrote:you're lucky i just vaguely attacked your preferences...

your taste for sterilization leaves a HUGE distaste in my mouth.

need i remind you of how this has worked in the past? who chooses? who get chosen.

dont even go there john, it's very ugly and i will tell you in no uncertain terms to go fuck yourself.

Might I suggest an Altoid for that taste in your mouth?

Just because something was tried once and didn't work is no reason to believe that with the right criteria it couldn't ever work.

It's just like Leave No Trace, in that it shouldn't be something that is necessarily forced on someone, people need to respect the fact that the planet's resources are finite and can only support a certain number of people.

If we don't learn to control our population now, the selection criteria will be more ugly than any plan I could ever devise.

JK

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:02 am

how very practical of you.

words cannot describe the disappointment i have towards you and that particular opinion you prescribe to.

there....how's that Fishy?

Left Coast enough for ya?

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:26 am

jkisha wrote:
Simon of the Playa wrote: no one has the right to force others to not reproduce if it their desire to do so.

No one should have the right to reproduce if they are not capable of properly supporting, raising and educating their off-spring.

JK

...if Darwin was correct, it would appear there is an evolutionary advantage towards not properly supporting, raising, and educating one's offspring. Maybe it's time to stop talking and start fucking...just saying

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:43 am

it smacks of racism, elitism and all kinds of nasty nasties, and i for one want no part of the people who think that because of one criteria or another one will exist, while one will not.

i am all for options, based on the mother's wishes for herself and her child or her wish to not have the child.

it is her choice, not a bunch of old white men's.

it should also be noted that the hybridization process is crucial to the continuation and vigor of the species, so all of you eugenic/genetic fetishists can take some comfort in knowing that the mutt will always kick that purebred's ass.

how dare anyone suggest that we thin the herd by any means that are not naturally occurring, or as a result of our own doing, but we all live, or die, together.

i suppose Mr. Kisha that you could tell the good eggs from the bad ones, huh..

because they all look alike, you know.

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:38 am

Because of the over-population of dogs and cats and the inherent problems this causes, in many larger cities in this country, it is illegal to own one without them being spayed or neutered.

All I'm saying is that we can't continue over-burdening the planet and many of the 'humanitarian' efforts to fix the problem are more bandaides, doing more to make 'humanitarians' feel good about 'helping' than they contribute to a real solution to the problem. Like it or not, one of the biggest problems we face is over-population, and it has to be addressed in any conversation that attempts to improve the human condition.

Our society makes life or death decisions all the time--presidents and dictators that send their people to war, health insurance companies that decide who gets what treatment, etc. It is not comfortable thinking and talking about these things, which is why the "death panel" tactics were so effective in scaring people about health care reform. But they need to be a part of the discussion, like it or not.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:05 am

I think I see a point two of you agree on:

if only naturally occurring methods of population control is acceptable, then, not sending food to people who can't grow their own, would, achieve said reductions?
Not sending or sharing medical supplies and technology, the same?
Energy?
Tools of war/defense?

this is a very hot button issue, as I see it.
Hard to discuss without striking personal nerves in many folks........

I think JK is looking at it purely from (as much as possible in humans) an objective POV.

Others, are being "humane".

not necessarily wrong on either side, just, very conflicted......

I'm not sure exactly where I stand, but, am learning and being provoked to think about a subject I rarely visit....

thanks to all for that.

thinking and addressing a problem is the first step to dealing with it.

IMHO.......

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:31 am

I don't know that my position is "humane." I prefer to think of it as realistic. Human is crying over all those Chinese parents who lost their "One Child" in the post-Tianiman Square crackdown. Realistic is being very cautious about the sort of backlash will smack you down after norplanting the world's poor.

Heck, it might even be wondering how much money is going to be spent to bring it about.

Fire_Moose · Post by **Fire_Moose** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:50 am

So in conclusion.....

Children are MOOP

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:54 am

jkisha wrote:Our society makes life or death decisions all the time--presidents and dictators that send their people to war, health insurance companies that decide who gets what treatment, etc. It is not comfortable thinking and talking about these things, which is why the "death panel" tactics were so effective in scaring people about health care reform. But they need to be a part of the discussion, like it or not.

not just our society. every society. in all of history.

this isn't just about the planet, but economics as well. the young have always supported the old and weak ... this is true whether you are talking of family or government, where the young work and pay taxes.

it's one reason why all those pension plans went under ... not enough people working to pay pensions to those who retired ... especially since they now live so much longer.

when social security was started, the worker/pensioner ratio was something like 5:1 ... now i think it's closer to 2:1 ... at some point the system breaks, and when it does, the problem will probably take care of itself.

but it's not PC to say so.....

as for people in poor countries ... they have as much right to life as you do, JK. you're playing god, here. you call it reason, but you're biased for your own, just like everyone else. if you forget economics and go back to saving the earth, your argument still doesn't work against the poor countries, because they would say that the US, with its comparatively small population, uses far more resources and creates far more crap than they do with their large population. how can you say that they are the problem?

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 am

Hey, I'm not saying kill them off. I'm saying stop the breeding. And I'm not saying that this needs to be done in only the poor countries. It has to be done right here at home.

Most people of means in this country have already realized this and have decided to have either no children or only one or two; while so many people that are in no position to have children are popping them out like the octo-mom.

Feed them, educate them, give them access to medical care, but unless and until they have the means to support the children they have, keep them norplanted.

Oh, and this isn't playing god. god is a big part of the problem--birth control is a sin. And you wonder why people are breeding like animals.

JK