Oranges used to be grown as far North as North Carolina.There are some
Palm Trees in Ireland.Palm Trees are being planted on the Mississippi
Gulf Coast.There used to be Palm Trees there before, years ago.
Maybe I will plant a Palm Tree in doggy's front yard.Tomorrow morning I
am going to Hutto's yard and garden center on Ellis Ave for grass seed.I
will ask them about Palm Trees.I Likes Palm Trees.
cuhulin

On 05/25/2010 03:22 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 25, 1:54 pm, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:22:04 -0700, Bill
wrote:





On 05/25/2010 03:56 AM, SPierce wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
(snipped)
You know it and I know it, but it will probably never happen. Average
people will just try to block any progress in this genetic engineering
experiment (voluntary of course).
big sigh
Bill Baka

# Waste of effort anyway. The Africans are multiplying like the plague
through white people feeding them and treating their diseases.

Yeah, tell me about it. We have been sending food for those starving
children for about 40 years now and they grow up and make still more
starving children. Some of the adults who once were starving children
just grow up to be militants toting AK-47's and grenade launchers. If we
didn't have so many bleeding hearts in this country nature could just
take it's course.
It is a lose, lose, lose even worse situation.
Sorry about the 'Reality', but that is what it is.
Bill Baka

On the mark. The North American midwest, and the US as a whole for
that matter is the ONE and ONLY means of keeping alive a World
population that could not support half of current numbers without US
agricultural production.

Many believe that the drought/dustbowl of the 30s was some kind of a
500 year even in which almost no rainfall occured. Actually most
areas recieved 50% of normal rainfall. Plenty of rainfall to support
prairy grasses, but not corn or wheat. Such sever droughts are NOT
500 year events, but occur regularly every several decades.

A drop of as little as 25% in US food production in one year would
have devasting effects in many regions, and should the drought
continue for 3-5 years as was the case in the 30s, we would see
anarchy in many areas.

CURRENT World populations simply cannot be supported indefinetly, much
less continued growth.

It;s a ticking timebomb.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bingo, and the big aquifers - like the Ogalalla under the southern
Great Plains - have been drained almost dry too. We really need to
reel back our numbers, nationally by at least half, and worldwide by
an order of magnitude.

Well, as I said 6.5 billion as too much already. We need to shrink the
population down to maybe 2 billion to live comfortably and only 1
billion to leave in relative luxury.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:08:25 -0700, Bill Baka
wrote:

On 05/25/2010 03:22 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 25, 1:54 pm, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:22:04 -0700, Bill
wrote:





On 05/25/2010 03:56 AM, SPierce wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
(snipped)
You know it and I know it, but it will probably never happen. Average
people will just try to block any progress in this genetic engineering
experiment (voluntary of course).
big sigh
Bill Baka

# Waste of effort anyway. The Africans are multiplying like the plague
through white people feeding them and treating their diseases.

Yeah, tell me about it. We have been sending food for those starving
children for about 40 years now and they grow up and make still more
starving children. Some of the adults who once were starving children
just grow up to be militants toting AK-47's and grenade launchers. If we
didn't have so many bleeding hearts in this country nature could just
take it's course.
It is a lose, lose, lose even worse situation.
Sorry about the 'Reality', but that is what it is.
Bill Baka

On the mark. The North American midwest, and the US as a whole for
that matter is the ONE and ONLY means of keeping alive a World
population that could not support half of current numbers without US
agricultural production.

Many believe that the drought/dustbowl of the 30s was some kind of a
500 year even in which almost no rainfall occured. Actually most
areas recieved 50% of normal rainfall. Plenty of rainfall to support
prairy grasses, but not corn or wheat. Such sever droughts are NOT
500 year events, but occur regularly every several decades.

A drop of as little as 25% in US food production in one year would
have devasting effects in many regions, and should the drought
continue for 3-5 years as was the case in the 30s, we would see
anarchy in many areas.

CURRENT World populations simply cannot be supported indefinetly, much
less continued growth.

It;s a ticking timebomb.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bingo, and the big aquifers - like the Ogalalla under the southern
Great Plains - have been drained almost dry too. We really need to
reel back our numbers, nationally by at least half, and worldwide by
an order of magnitude.

Well, as I said 6.5 billion as too much already. We need to shrink the
population down to maybe 2 billion to live comfortably and only 1
billion to leave in relative luxury.

Advances in science and technology have allow for what for all entents
and purposes is a population that simply cannot be sustained over the
long term. Mother Nature holds the ultimate trump card.

Unfortunetely for many, your numbers may be quite accurate.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams

On May 26, 7:13*am, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:08:25 -0700, Bill Baka
wrote:





On 05/25/2010 03:22 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 25, 1:54 pm, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:22:04 -0700, Bill
wrote:

On 05/25/2010 03:56 AM, SPierce wrote:
"Bill * *wrote in message
...
(snipped)
You know it and I know it, but it will probably never happen. Average
people will just try to block any progress in this genetic engineering
experiment (voluntary of course).
big sigh
Bill Baka

# Waste of effort anyway. *The Africans are multiplying like the plague
through white people feeding them and treating their diseases.

Yeah, tell me about it. We have been sending food for those starving
children for about 40 years now and they grow up and make still more
starving children. Some of the adults who once were starving children
just grow up to be militants toting AK-47's and grenade launchers. If we
didn't have so many bleeding hearts in this country nature could just
take it's course.
It is a lose, lose, lose even worse situation.
Sorry about the 'Reality', but that is what it is.
Bill Baka

On the mark. *The North American midwest, and the US as a whole for
that matter is the ONE and ONLY means of keeping alive a World
population that could not support half of current numbers without US
agricultural production.

Many believe that the drought/dustbowl of the 30s was some kind of a
500 year even in which almost no rainfall occured. *Actually most
areas recieved 50% of normal rainfall. *Plenty of rainfall to support
prairy grasses, but not corn or wheat. *Such sever droughts are NOT
500 year events, but occur *regularly every several decades.

A drop of as little as 25% in US food production in one year would
have devasting effects in many regions, and should the drought
continue for 3-5 years as was the case in the 30s, we would see
anarchy in many areas.

CURRENT World populations simply cannot be supported indefinetly, much
less continued growth.

It;s a ticking timebomb.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. *This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bingo, and the big aquifers - like the Ogalalla under the southern
Great Plains - have been drained almost dry too. *We really need to
reel back our numbers, nationally by at least half, and worldwide by
an order of magnitude.

Well, as I said 6.5 billion as too much already. We need to shrink the
population down to maybe 2 billion to live comfortably and only 1
billion to leave in relative luxury.

Advances in science and technology have allow for what for all entents
and purposes is a population that simply cannot be sustained over the
long term. *Mother Nature holds the ultimate trump card.

Unfortunetely for many, your numbers may be quite accurate.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. *This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

I think an order of magnitude drop - well under a billion - is
probably more like it. What other large, gluttonous mammal numbers
anywhere near what we humans do?

We could do this in three generations if every couple just had one
child born and then grow to maturity.

(sigh)

On May 19, 12:15*pm, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
dave wrote:
[...]

Amassing wealth beyond your needs is immoral

As a poor person financially who totally opposes what the billionaire
media and corporations are doing to our world and who has sacrificed a
great deal for taking that stand, I certainly can't be accused of being
a shill for them.

But doesn't your moral statement above require a commissar or committee
to decide what my -- and my family's -- "needs" are?

I do not wish to live under such rulers, who would be no better than the
current oligarchs.

And, in fact, it is quite natural for superior men and women to create
and amass more than they can currently use. This is the basis for
leisure time, and without leisure time, and the freedom it brings from
Man's constant scrambling for the necessities, there would be no
philosophy -- or art -- or science.

and Unamerican.
[...]

What a bizarre claim. Washington and Madison and Jefferson wouldn't, I
think, have concurred.

However, we may have some points of agreement.

People can make all the money they want, as long as they pay their fair
share of taxes. *The wealthy pay way less, as a percentage of their
income, as any other demographic. *Going after the Swiss banks is a good
start.

http://tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/7082.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With you, Dave.

A person's basic commodity needs are good quality food, clothing of
appropriate warmth and somewhat better than decent shelter.
Everything else is a luxury to some extent. Nothing against luxury -
I love it...but it is pretty tough to argue that a person making over
100,000k per annum in 2010 is not living *substantially* beyond his
needs, unless he's supportng a family of 20. Should it all be taken
away? Of course not - if he earned it. But, when a person has
amassed, say, $10,000,000 and continues to suck up the wealth, it's
pretty hard to find an excuse for that when it could be helping
desperate but hard-working people have the basic needs of life. Not
luxury - just basic needs.

Bruce

bpnjensen wrote:
But, when a person has
amassed, say, $10,000,000 and continues to suck up the wealth, it's
pretty hard to find an excuse for that when it could be helping
desperate but hard-working people have the basic needs of life. Not
luxury - just basic needs.
[...]


But it is _exactly_ that kind of "redistribution" that causes the
proliferation and out-of-control reproduction of the problem-makers.
Absent such support, they'd have far less ability to increase their
biomass. If such aid were linked to a foolproof means of ensuring
that their gene-patterns would not reproduce, it would be a
different story.

And re millionaires:

It's the $10- or $20-million guys who have the best potential of
mounting a serious challenge to the billionaire oligarchs. That's
why those oligarchs _love_ "soak the rich" tax policies and promote
them in their media. It keeps their potential competition down.

Putin had a better way of dealing with oligarchs. Jail them for
their financial crimes and seize their ill-gotten fortunes, while
leaving the productive and inventive wealthy alone to benefit the
Nation.


With all good wishes,



Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On May 26, 7:57*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
But, when a person has
amassed, say, $10,000,000 and continues to suck up the wealth, it's
pretty hard to find an excuse for that when it could be helping
desperate but hard-working people have the basic needs of life. *Not
luxury - just basic needs.

[...]

But it is _exactly_ that kind of "redistribution" that causes the
proliferation and out-of-control reproduction of the problem-makers.
Absent such support, they'd have far less ability to increase their
biomass. If such aid were linked to a foolproof means of ensuring
that their gene-patterns would not reproduce, it would be a
different story.

And re millionaires:

It's the $10- or $20-million guys who have the best potential of
mounting a serious challenge to the billionaire oligarchs. That's
why those oligarchs _love_ "soak the rich" tax policies and promote
them in their media. It keeps their potential competition down.

Putin had a better way of dealing with oligarchs. Jail them for
their financial crimes and seize their ill-gotten fortunes, while
leaving the productive and inventive wealthy alone to benefit the
Nation.

With all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

WRT the last item - THAT is pretty tough to argue with!

If they (''They'') get rid of billions of people, (That Will NEVER
HAPPEN! BELIEVE YOU ME!) there will be a lot of highly ****ed off
people, alive or dead.
cuhulin

On 05/26/2010 07:13 AM, F. Prefect wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:08:25 -0700, Bill
wrote:

On 05/25/2010 03:22 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 25, 1:54 pm, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:22:04 -0700, Bill
wrote:





On 05/25/2010 03:56 AM, SPierce wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
(snipped)
You know it and I know it, but it will probably never happen. Average
people will just try to block any progress in this genetic engineering
experiment (voluntary of course).
big sigh
Bill Baka

# Waste of effort anyway. The Africans are multiplying like the plague
through white people feeding them and treating their diseases.

Yeah, tell me about it. We have been sending food for those starving
children for about 40 years now and they grow up and make still more
starving children. Some of the adults who once were starving children
just grow up to be militants toting AK-47's and grenade launchers. If we
didn't have so many bleeding hearts in this country nature could just
take it's course.
It is a lose, lose, lose even worse situation.
Sorry about the 'Reality', but that is what it is.
Bill Baka

On the mark. The North American midwest, and the US as a whole for
that matter is the ONE and ONLY means of keeping alive a World
population that could not support half of current numbers without US
agricultural production.

Many believe that the drought/dustbowl of the 30s was some kind of a
500 year even in which almost no rainfall occured. Actually most
areas recieved 50% of normal rainfall. Plenty of rainfall to support
prairy grasses, but not corn or wheat. Such sever droughts are NOT
500 year events, but occur regularly every several decades.

A drop of as little as 25% in US food production in one year would
have devasting effects in many regions, and should the drought
continue for 3-5 years as was the case in the 30s, we would see
anarchy in many areas.

CURRENT World populations simply cannot be supported indefinetly, much
less continued growth.

It;s a ticking timebomb.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bingo, and the big aquifers - like the Ogalalla under the southern
Great Plains - have been drained almost dry too. We really need to
reel back our numbers, nationally by at least half, and worldwide by
an order of magnitude.

Well, as I said 6.5 billion as too much already. We need to shrink the
population down to maybe 2 billion to live comfortably and only 1
billion to leave in relative luxury.

Advances in science and technology have allow for what for all entents
and purposes is a population that simply cannot be sustained over the
long term. Mother Nature holds the ultimate trump card.

Unfortunetely for many, your numbers may be quite accurate.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams

This is one time I wish I was wrong but the math doesn't lie. People
keep thinking technology will allow unlimited population growth but it
can't happen. Even the oceans are just about fished out but people just
see the pretty blue water and don't think about what is happening below
the surface.
Reality is a bitch, but we can't alter the fact that we will wipe out
the planet.
Bill Baka

On 05/26/2010 07:33 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 26, 7:13 am, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:08:25 -0700, Bill
wrote:





On 05/25/2010 03:22 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On May 25, 1:54 pm, (F. Prefect) wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:22:04 -0700, Bill
wrote:

On 05/25/2010 03:56 AM, SPierce wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
...
(snipped)
You know it and I know it, but it will probably never happen. Average
people will just try to block any progress in this genetic engineering
experiment (voluntary of course).
big sigh
Bill Baka

# Waste of effort anyway. The Africans are multiplying like the plague
through white people feeding them and treating their diseases.

Yeah, tell me about it. We have been sending food for those starving
children for about 40 years now and they grow up and make still more
starving children. Some of the adults who once were starving children
just grow up to be militants toting AK-47's and grenade launchers. If we
didn't have so many bleeding hearts in this country nature could just
take it's course.
It is a lose, lose, lose even worse situation.
Sorry about the 'Reality', but that is what it is.
Bill Baka

On the mark. The North American midwest, and the US as a whole for
that matter is the ONE and ONLY means of keeping alive a World
population that could not support half of current numbers without US
agricultural production.

Many believe that the drought/dustbowl of the 30s was some kind of a
500 year even in which almost no rainfall occured. Actually most
areas recieved 50% of normal rainfall. Plenty of rainfall to support
prairy grasses, but not corn or wheat. Such sever droughts are NOT
500 year events, but occur regularly every several decades.

A drop of as little as 25% in US food production in one year would
have devasting effects in many regions, and should the drought
continue for 3-5 years as was the case in the 30s, we would see
anarchy in many areas.

CURRENT World populations simply cannot be supported indefinetly, much
less continued growth.

It;s a ticking timebomb.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bingo, and the big aquifers - like the Ogalalla under the southern
Great Plains - have been drained almost dry too. We really need to
reel back our numbers, nationally by at least half, and worldwide by
an order of magnitude.

Well, as I said 6.5 billion as too much already. We need to shrink the
population down to maybe 2 billion to live comfortably and only 1
billion to leave in relative luxury.

Advances in science and technology have allow for what for all entents
and purposes is a population that simply cannot be sustained over the
long term. Mother Nature holds the ultimate trump card.

Unfortunetely for many, your numbers may be quite accurate.

F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams- Hide quoted text -

I think an order of magnitude drop - well under a billion - is
probably more like it. What other large, gluttonous mammal numbers
anywhere near what we humans do?

None. And none have the power to recklessly destroy the planet, but we
sure can thanks to 'technology'.

We could do this in three generations if every couple just had one
child born and then grow to maturity.

Never gonna happen. Catholics, or Christians seem to think they are
ordained to have as many kids as they can. We might get up to the 8
billion mark before we have a catastrophic event, like a super volcano
putting us in the permanent winter for 3 years or so. It has happened
before and many people just starved to death. Yellowstone is a prime
candidate as it is known to be a super volcano. If it erupts It would
not only take out a few stated but the ash in the stratosphere would
give us a 3 or 4 year winter.
Human nature is "Me, Me, and Me", so get ready.
Bill Baka

(sigh)