[GJM] "population reduction" -- or change of paradigm?

[marguerite hampton]

Hi Co-learners 



This message originally forwarded by Keith Lampe as part of

his: "Where is the best place to focus your energy/? dialogue-

generating series, is very thought-provoking. 



Thanks to both Keith and Mary-Sue for adding another dimension

to the discussion. 



marguerite aka eco 



From: Mary-Sue

Subject: Fwd: "population reduction" -- or change of paradigm?

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:47:05 -0500

 

F.Y.I.

 

Date: November 5, 2006 0:43:59 EST (CA)

To: letters at thecitizen.canwest.com

Subject: "population reduction" -- or change of paradigm?

 

 

Some people have been arguing in their letters to the

editor (e.g. C. Humphrey's "Fuel for Thought" on

November 4th) that because the high consumption of

fossil fuels threatens climate stability, "therefore"

we have to reduce the human population. To me, this is

a "non sequitur" in logic. The second does not

necessarily follow from the first; it is only made to

appear so because no other options are considered by

these letter-writers. And narrowing down the choice in

that way opens a big can of worms, such as the methods

to be employed for "reducing" the population. What's

your preference? Nuclear holocaust? Forced

sterlizations? Manufactured plagues to wipe out all

but a few (preferably some other ethnic group,

perhaps)?

 

But if other avenues of thinking are opened up, then

we should be able to see that humanity need not go

down that suicidal road.

 

What's needed instead is the long-awaited paradigm

shift away from the internal-combustion engine toward

alternative approaches to clean energy. But the

established business interests and cultural inertia

have put the brakes on this for at least half a

century. When I sent a letter to the editor a few

years ago about hydrogen power, the Citizen editor at

the time argued with me by telephone that he didn't

know the meaning of some of these terms. I was

disgusted that someone in a job which helps to shape

public opinion should be so proud of his ignorance and

refuse to look up the words, but I did comply with the

request to add some definitions. In the end a short

version of that letter did appear (Monday 21/10/2002)

under the general topic area of Kyoto, though it was

alongside a rant by someone in Calgary claiming that

Kyoto was fraudulent and a "monstrous crime" -- the

oilpatch's view of things.

 

For a clearly made case of technology suppression so

that we are forced to keep burning oil, one that

"stands up in court", go see the film "Who Killed the

Electric Car?" next time it comes to the Bytowne

Cinema.

 

As recounted in that lively and entertaining

documentary, both government and big carmakers worked

against all of our best interests in suppressing this

clean and efficient technology. (Even a car that --

unlike a hybrid -- taps into the grid supply can do so

in off-peak hours, and it's a lot easier to put

scrubbers into any fuel-using generator than it is to

control emissions properly from all those individual

cars.) The carmaker spent huge amounts of money to try

to convince people NOT to buy these vehicles. To top

it off, the Bush Administration and GM used a lawsuit

against California to get rid of its forward-looking

legislation that would have brought about the goal of

having 10% of cars to be zero-emission by now. Led by

such interests, Canada and the US still subsidize oil

and gas, and tolerate this kind of

counter-environmentalism. And though the big American

carmakers got their way, they have lost significant

market share to the more efficient foreign cars. It's

a case of shooting themselves in the foot.

 

It's time to end that self-destructive business

behaviour. And further, it's time -- long past time,

actually -- to take action against the thugs and

bullies who are still getting away with the crime of

making death threats against independent researchers,

inventors and back-yard tinkerers who are working to

perfect the non-combustion energy technologies of the

future. There are many documented cases of vandalism,

prototype destruction, threats, and actual attacks

occurring over several decades -- including some this

past year.

 

Just enter words like "suppression + clean energy +

death threat" into your search engine and see what

comes up. You can find the actual reports of

individuals close to a breakthrough, or actually

achieving a working prototype, who backed off and

destroyed their plans and took down websites when a

gun was poked into their faces and their families were

threatened with murder.

 

We might already be enjoying that cleaner future if

these crimes were being thoroughly reported and

justice implemented. It's even more important now to

muster the political will to have these crimes of

violence against scientists and against science, which

are also crimes against humanity at large, properly

investigated and prosecuted.

 

There are also ways to make fuel from waste using a

new branch of science called "hadronic chemistry"

which can tailor the fuel produced to have only

breathable gases as its emissions. Look up "magnegas"

in your search engine. Isn't it about time we had this

option available in Canada? It sounds like a possible

solution to the wastes from factory farming, as well

as to expand the supply of clean-burning fuels for

cooking and home heating.

 

What we need is a truly free market in which people

have the right to create and manufacture devices and

products with zero or safe emissions, and the public

has the right to choose freely to buy them and use

them without hindrance. Then our biological footprints

on the ecosystem would be a lot lighter, and we

wouldn't need to engage in these Malthusian musings

about the need for mass murders and probably genocides

in order to "save the planet".

 

Mary-Sue Haliburton

 

========================================================================

=================================================================