> >
> > What I find ironic is that we have 2 different segments of science both working toward a similar goal: preservation of humanity, yet one's accomplishments makes more work for the other. Lemme 'splain... Everything in nature has a system of balance; animal populations are kept in check by natural predators. Save for one another, the only predators humans have is disease. However, medical science works dilligently to cure every disease we have, leaving us with no natural predators, thus allowing us to cheat nature and grow out of balance.
> > If medical scientists, and now geneticists, were to stop working, those groups who are trying to solve problems of overcrowding would no longer have that problem to solve.
> > There was a thread a couple weeks ago where someone mentioned the "survival of the fittest" natural law, and how with science we're allowing every member of humanity to survive and not merely the fittest. If this continues, and science is curing diseases and imperfections on a genetic level, doesn't this just make matters worse?
> > I'm not saying that we should encourage disease to run rampant, or even that a line should be drawn selecting which diseases to cure and which to leave alone, but it just seems to be contrary to the planetary balance.
> >
> > Tra "a beanstalk to the moon??? -wouldn't rotation and an eliptical orbit make that sort of "tether" a little difficult?" nio
>
> Man has a few predators that you didn't mention. Mainly himself. I don't think of war, murder, abortion, capital punishment, genocide, suicide. etc as good ways to control population.
> Howard

Yah huh. First paragraph, third sentence begins with, "Save for one another,..."
Don't forget those wonderful cannibals.
As far as a *good* way to control population, I think the most acceptable means would be less creation of life, rather than an increase of killing that which is already living.

Tra "that last part almost rhymed" nio