Received: from deimos.frii.com (deimos.frii.com [208.146.240.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id DAA08702 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 03:01:37 -0700 (MST) Received: from frii.com (ftc-0617.dialup.frii.com [216.17.135.17] (may be forged)) by deimos.frii.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA09194; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 03:01:31 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <364EA702.E71B0710@frii.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 03:03:47 -0700 From: Jim Talboy X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ttoal@jps.net CC: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK Subject: stringing along the debate to avoid challenges and wild MOTIVES in general References: <364E341F.9AAC56A0@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Ed Glaze has summarized some of his observations of PPN interactions, mainly > the ones he's had with list members, and posted them to KZPG. I don't know > about the Sierra and Audubon lists, I'm not a subscriber. If you don't like > his summary, you'll have to join those lists and discuss it there. Obviously, we'd appreciate if our challenges were replied too, on this list, and not somewhere else. Mr. Glaze is evading our challenges, however we've noted he's not wasting anytime moving on to distract us from the original indiscretions. He chose to respond, on other lists, by rewording and dismissing our "illogic" and "unreasonableness." See the below clip from that posting he made on ZPG, Audubon, and Sierra listservers. Note that in spite of his admonishments to not bother joining the discussion here, he's heroically continued to participate on the list by evading our challenges. This is a known tactic of the Front that has blown in here and has tried in vain to reformulate the "problem" of which Mr. Glaze contends we don't understand sufficiently to acknowledge the "severity of the solution." The following has been copied from that cross posting. I will deal with Mr. Toal's utopian inclinations toward a "better world" and eugenics directly after the following clip. >Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 13:20:13 -0600 >Reply-To: "Population Forum, Sierra Club" > >Sender: "Population Forum, Sierra Club" > >From: Ed Glaze III >Subject: Progressive Population Network listserv -- a review >X-To: Audubon Population , > KZPG Overpopulation News Network >X-cc: Ted Toal >To: CONS-SPST-POPULATION@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG > >Well I have been a subscriber to the PPN listserv for a week >and have really stirred them up. The funny thing is I didn't try >to, or even intend, to start such heated arguments. I won't call >them debates because the other list subscribers do not seem >to be very reasonable. > >Ted Toal is another pop activist who may be >familiar to some of you and he and I are both dealing with the >different (skewed) perceptions of the overpopulation problem >as perceived on PPN. Like Toto and Dorothy we are finding >ourselves in a strange place that is very hard to understand. > >Think twice before you join PPN and try to discuss seriously the >overpopulation issue. Sierra Club list subscribers will recognize >some the "illogic" that seems so prevalent on the PPN list. They >are very free with their interpretations of what you say and then >they attribute to you implications on non-mentioned issues that >often have nothing to do with population. Needless, to say they >do that rather than deal with any factual statements. > >Quoting from the PPN introduction to new subscribers: > > "The Progressive Population Network list is dedicated > to the development of alternative ways to think about > population processes, beyond the standard demographic, > microeconomic and neo-Malthusian perspectives, and > beyond the notion that population control is a panacea > for the world's problems." > >Below is a translation of that sentence for you using some of the >words from messages in the last few days: > >________ Ed Glaze > > >PPN does not talk about population processes, especially >anything to do with limits to growth, demographic trends, >and population control in any form. Such things imply racism, >violence against women, exploitation of the poor, imperialistic >interference, and there may be inappropriate MOTIVES driving >the decision making. > >Most of the environmental consequences of population are due to >political and economic policies, not to the number of people per se. >We are not interested in hearing the voices of rich white men, using >so-called scientific evidence and objectivity about the need to >reduce human population (read non-Caucasian population). The >facts are not enough to justify the MEANS suggested to accomplish >the GOALS, because we've seen this "rationality" cause far more >problems than previously existed. FACTS are not enduring and >they've been "cooked" before. > >Malthusianism and neo-Malthusianism offer an excessively simplistic >understanding of the complex relationship of resources and population, >which has proven to be a theoretical red herring. > >Yes, the world is overcrowded, but what are you suggesting be done? >Are we really that capable? It seems far too complicated, given the >multi-cultural world that lays beyond our control. I frankly don't believe >it's "our" place to make righteous demands given the extent of variation >in culture that "conflicts" with our own Western thinking. Does your >righteousness stem from a concern about immigration? Or is it from >a sense of helplessness? > > >> These are two of Mr. Toals postings regarding the whys and wherefores of > overpopulation, as an example of really wild, hidden MOTIVES. << > > The postings you referred to have nothing to do with overpopulation. They are > posting I made to paranet.ufo news group, regarding my interest in UFOs and > extraterrestrials. I have no idea why you feel the need to drag something like > that into a discussion like this. I can only assume that you hope that most > people on the list will be prejudiced against anyone who expresses interest and > some degree of belief in these subjects. Not knowing the list members, I have > no idea how prejudiced they are in that respect, but I'll assume they will > ignore your attempt to bias them. > > Ted Toal In my opinion, Mr. Toal is interested in eugenics. He seems enamored with genetic engineering and its potential. Why he is making these assertions in regards to advanced technology, UFO's and the accompanying Aliens is only open to speculation. Of course eugenics are a major issue, and frankly not a new issue either. What he points out is that we have this technology to make it a "better world," and we should be "open minded" enough to discuss it. This is true, it needs to be discussed, however that he has failed to mention what MOTIVES he may have to cut back on the human population. What role Space Creatures may have in genetics engineering and eugenics is open for speculation. Quite frankly, in my own opinion I'd like to avoid discussing UFO's, MOTIVES are the issue in GENERAL. I am suggesting that MOTIVES, however wild they may appear to us, nevertheless may underlie casual politeness and claims of "rational" thinking, and the implications of these posts, by Mr. Toal, are therefore open to speculation. The below has been copied from his posting on alt.paranet. I would hasten to advise that personally I believe the UFO phenomena has psychological or spiritual implications and do not believe these implications are the issue. ********************************************************* ETs, Secrecy, and Highly Advanced Technology Author: Ted Toal Email: ttoal@jps.net Date: 1998/03/29 Forums: alt.paranet.ufo Message-ID: <351ED61F.C6F01A83@jps.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.25.57.133 My study of UFO phenomena over the last year and half has led me to these tentative conclusions: 1. There are other beings that enter our space fairly often. 2. There are apparently many different types or "species" of beings with many different agendas. 3. These beings may be extraterrestrials, but it might be much weirder than that. They might, in some or all cases, be from some other dimension. 4. These beings apparently have chosen to keep themselves more or less hidden from us. This is very odd and hard to explain, unless there is some unified plan and some enforcer of that plan. Even that seems unlikely. The apparent diversity of these beings would seem to argue that at least some of them would make contact with us. 5. The most important factor to consider when trying to understand these beings is the technological development factor. Extrapolating from the current rate of human technological growth, we can see that in a "mere" 10,000 years, human technology will be so advanced that life then will be utterly unrecognizable from the way it is now. Some of the possibilities and likelihoods to keep in mind are: a. We will attain full understanding of the genetic control of our own development, and will reach a point where we can control and manipulate our own genetics. This technology will then continue to grow until we can create virtually any kind of creature we want, with ease. This is within a couple hundred years from where we are now. b. We will reach a full understanding of how our brains work. We will be able to use genetic engineering to vastly enhance intelligence AND quite possibly the speed at which brains operate. c. Microminiaturization will reach the point where we can create brains out of silicon or something, perhaps quantum-optical brains. d. Also, microminiaturization will permit us to create incredible sensing technology, and incredible spacecraft of the smallest size. e. Merging of electronic technology (or its successor(s), whatever they may be) with biological technology will bring even more possibilities. We will be able to design organisms that live in space and sense a vast array of energy forms, e.g. the full spectrum of EM radiation. 6. Because we can easily see that our own technology is rapidly bringing us to an incredible place where the nature of lives changes completely, we can predict that beings far advanced from us will be utterly different than us. Sudden exposure to them, and revelation of their nature, would surely be a deep and thorough shock to most people. I believe this is the most likely explanation as to why they prefer not to make contact. 7. The frequent entry of bizarre spiritual elements into UFO encounters raises the possibility that many traditional religious beliefs in life after death, reincarnation, devils, angels, fairies, and so forth, may actually have a basis in fact; that the true nature of reality may be far wilder than non-religious people such as myself tend to believe. The nature of time itself may even be very different from our perception of it. 8. Because the field of ufology is like a hall of carnival mirrors crowded with objects, and the target we are trying to see clearly is a particular object visible only in a variety of distorted reflections, it is necessary to keep an open mind that is constantly sorting and assigning tentative odds to various possibilities, but keeping them fluid and always willing to move the odds of something up or down as new information becomes available. And it is best to let go of as many preconceptions one has about the nature of reality and be open - tentatively - to the wildest ideas. 9. The phenomena seems to point out that humans are small-bit players in the cosmic scheme of things, without much control over what happens, with short lives and meager brains and bodies. It can easily get one down, it has me. But the up side is the realization that we are alive, we are taking part in this strange experience called life, and if we are willing to accept our limitations and jump into the process of living life here on earth, we will find that we exist in a rich, wonder-filled universe, on a wonder-filled planet. We can discover how satisfying it is to simply be alive, and can feel grateful that we have the opportunity. -- *** Create HOPE for the future: work for a SMALLER HUMAN POPULATION ***