Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Theophilus
I don't remember, I'd have to watch the video again.

Here's what I posted last march.

"His point was that population was going to rise and at best that growth could be reduced by 10-15%. He sounded like it was unavoidable."

"It didn't sound like he was advocating vaccines for a nefarious purpose, because you could get a lot more than a 10-15% reduction in growth if that was your aim."

"I'm sure if we watched the entire speech that his conclusion would be that the easiest part of the equation to change is the carbon footprint of the energy produced. "

33 posted on 01/19/2011 9:47:28 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: DannyTN
OK I can see that. He was mixing positive factors: vaccines & health care with negative factors like: family murdering to estimate a net future growth rate.

In that case he was being mistakenly optimistic because we are already way below replacement rate in most of the industrial world. The god of stuff is being enthusiastically worshiped everywhere!

37 posted on 01/19/2011 9:55:32 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson