by Sasha 16 Replies latest jw friends
Sasha:
If the bees ever disappear, man will die in 4 years.
Einstein never said anything of the sort.
And even if he had, he would have been wrong. We'll survive just fine without bees.
And in any case, there doesn't seem to be any real danger of bees disappearing.
A E was not an environmental biologist. he was a theoretical physist. Im still tired of people quoting him as though he were an expert in every field of life and science.
bee equals men see spared
bee equals men see spared
"The creatures that run this planet want the global population reduced to 500 million." - jaguarbass
"Can you provide any quotes or references to substantiate this statement?" - cognizant dissident
I believe he is making a reference to Al Gore, and those who hold similar beliefs to him. Back in the 90's Gore had written a book called 'Earth in the Balance", in which he expressed some rather radical ideas; calling for a 'Global Marshall Plan" to reduce world population by enacting laws to lower birth rates, and/or give government aid/debt relief to third world countries, but ONLY if they complied with certain restrictions on their reproduction rate. He calls this "population stabilization".
In the new foreword to the second edition of Earth in the Balance (the first was issued in 1992), Gore states: "None of our measures will fully succeed unless we achieve population stabilization—one of the most important environmental challenges of all. An overcrowded world is inevitably a polluted one. Since I wrote this book, the earth's population has increased by500 million people; 800 million people go hungry each day; 2 billion live without electricity; 2 billion don't have access to sanitary facilities; 1.3 billion are without clean water; and 1 billion live on less than one dollar a day."
I think however, that the poster may be mistaken about the number 500 million, due to the above quote taken from the foreward of Gore's book. I was able to find some quotes of Gore saying that the world's population "needs to be reduced by 2 billion", but I was unable after a quick search to find WHEN he'd said this, which makes a difference. Assuming circa the year 2000, that would mean Gore actually is advocating an 'ideal' world population level of of about 4 billion. Depending on how far out on the lunatic fringe you're willing to venture for information (and whether you're on the left or right), there are even some who say Gore purposely voted against measures like funding AIDS relief, in the hope that nature would accomplish this naturally.
Snopes.com has a good article on it, reaching the conclusion that it's undetermined if AE ever said that. No direct quote from articles can be found. It's at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/einstein/bees.asp
Well, the earth is a finite space with finite resources, so population control does make sense to me. 500 million just seemed like an unrealistic number to me since we are already at approximately 7 billion. (Also, last time I checked, Gore didn't run the world) lol.
I think the principle of population control is sound. Maintaining current population could be as simple as each couple limiting their reproduction to two children maximum therefore replacing themselves but not expanding the population. However, in countries that are already overpopulated, such as China, the one child rule makes sense. The real problem is enforcing such a policy without incurring human rights abuses. China provides monetary incentives to couples to have one child, but their are also punitive measures taken to those who violate the policy as well as pressure to abort additonal children. China also does not have a good record of upholding human rights or of full disclosure. I don't know what the answer is although, education and full access to birth control in 3rd world countries is a good start and certainly can do no harm.
Large families were the norm in Western society also before the 60's and unlimited access to birthcontrol in the hands of women. Then the birth rate naturally fell to less than 2 children per family. It is not unrealistic to think that women in poor countries, if educated, and given choices, and access to reliable birth control, would also choose to limit their families to a size that does not keep them chained to a never-ending cycle of childbirth and poverty. Changing the cultural attitudes that motivate people to have large families is the most difficult part, I believe.
Cog
