Message-ID: <36595C20.7903EFBE@netlink.com.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:59:12 +1100
From: rc&am <rcollins@netlink.com.au>
Reply-To: rcollins@netlink.com.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: culling and readings
References: <1.5.4.32.19981122132053.00660588@ican.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


fran^don wrote:

> At 07:51 PM 11/21/98 -0800, ttoal@jps.net wrote:
> >Angela quotes Ed Glaze as saying: "But we refuse to
> >recognize that humans are just another animal and the
> >same rules [thinning the herd when it exceeds carrying
> >capacity] should apply."
>
> "Thinning", could be achieved through "attrition".
>
> "Attrition", occurs when death rates exceed birth plus immigration rates
> over a period of time.

unlike, ted and now don, i quoted ed glaze's comments on 'thinning' in full.
here it is again for those who prefer to slide the exact meaning into the more
respectable reading of 'mortality rates exceeding birth rates':

"Humans have no problem thinning herds of game animals
or cattle when they exceed their carrying capacity. Humans
are also quick to eliminate any animal that poses a threat to
them, their property, their crops or cattle. Even a perceived
threat or a single instance is usually enough to cause a quick
retaliation often bordering on slaughter. But we refuse to
recognize that humans are just another animal and the
same rules should apply."

that is, thinning here is not simply an inter-generational issue, it explicitly
includes culling.  i am left wondering why it is that people who claim that they
do not agree with such practices are so determined not to see what is written
before them, preferring instead to slip the 'intent' onto different ground and
defending the author of the above comments by doing so.  read it again:
"bordering on slaughter" and the "same rules should apply".

i can only guess that - implicitly - they either agree with these comments or
think that it is more important to generate a 'united front' against the
unbeleivers...

angela