Save The Starving Children

Save The Starving Children

Yeah, I know -- almost everyone, from left-wing humanists to right-wing Christians, are united in their opinion that feeding the starving children is a vital cause to support. How can anyone be against saving the children? It is a self-evident "good" thing to do, they feel. "Oh, the children (sob, sniffle)." Only "bad" people question it. Well, count me as one of the "bad" people.

What is the effect of saving the starving children? Feeding starving children allows them to grow up and breed even more starving children. People in favor of that -- most people -- are incredibly stupid and shortsighted. They are just perpetuating misery from generation to generation.

Maybe it would be OK to feed the starving children, as long as they were spayed and neutered so that they could not pass along their failed religious and cultural ideologies that led to their starvation to a new generation of starving children. But both the left-wing humanists and right-wing Christians are not about to even suggest that solution, much less insist upon it. The pussy liberal lefties are against it because of being labeled racist and/or genocidal. The a-hole Christian right-wingers are against it because of their stupid (unworkable in real life), anti-life sexual and reproduction religious beliefs.

Why are there starving children? There are several causes, but the unquestioned major cause is overpopulation, which leads to per capital resource problems. In case you didn't know, growing food requires fertile soil. It requires clean, plentiful water. It requires a certain amount of those per person. And, a little extra is needed because of potential weather or problems that might perhaps affect crop yields. You have heard droughts, perhaps? Untimely excess rain? Floods...?

The only solution to "hunger" and other resource problems is population reduction, but most people, including religious and political leaders are not even interested in population stabilization.

Oh, you might say, what about bettering crop yields? You don't like "factory farms" and "chemical pollution", but what are the alternatives? Sorry to break the news, but there isn't enough good land and water to grow organic alfalfa sprouts and free-range chickens for everyone -- at affordable prices. But price, you might say, price is no object if we are to feed everyone. That just shows your total economic ignorance.

Billions of people have been added to the world's population in the twentieth century. In the last couple of decades, or less, the world population has increased from 6 billion to 6.5 billion. Do you know what 6 billion is? Probably not, so here it is: 6,000,000,000. Do you know what the difference between 6 billion and 6.5 billion is? Probably not, as you likely flunked basic arithmetic in your socialized (public) school system. So, here it is: the difference is 500,000,000. How big is that? The United States population is around 300,000,000 (maybe more if all the illegal aliens could be counted). Anyway, that means in the last twenty years or less, more people than in all the U.S. have been added to the world population.

And you want to feed the starving children? Are you fricking idiots?

“Whatever your cause, it is a lost cause without population control.”

No "Green" without Population Control. There's too Much Brown!

There's a lot of blather about ecology and how to become "greener".

Stupid questions such as "Where should the city, county, state, country, world start working toward becoming a "greener" community ... world?" are continually asked. "What environmental issues should be given priority?"

Few are willing address the root cause of environmental problems. Politically incorrect. And those that do are labeled as racist, ungodly, or just anti-humanity.

"Green" is an issue simply because, one, there is too much brown -- that is, too much human waste of all kinds. And, two, too much energy and resource use. And the cause of those problems is simply out-of-control population growth almost everywhere.

Until the issue of out-of-control population growth is addressed by stopping it -- "green"? Fuggedaboudit.

Everyone's brown has to go somewhere. Everyone has to use energy and resources. Even if you reduce the amounts per person, the inexorable population growth means more brown to deal with, and dwindling energy and resources per person.

"Greening" attempts without population REDUCTION are like tilting at windmills. To get "green" will require changing religious attitudes towards birth control, abortion, and infanticide. To get "green" will require changing business and government attitudes about "growth is good" boosterism. To get "green" will require immediate ceasing of subsidizing litters of human spawn, which means ceasing funding for public schools, aid for dependent children, tax breaks for children, and other direct and indirect subsidies for breeding. You get more of anything you support and subsidize, and that especially includes children.

The only way to make a city, state, or country "green" is to make it child UNFRIENDLY. Deal with it!

You don't want to do what is necessary? Fine. Then forget "green". You can't have it both ways. Grow up and deal with it.

Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause without population control.

Self-Replicating Robots Announced on Earth Day 2009

On Earth Day, 2009, scientists announce self-replicating robots. These self-replicating robots have the capability of taking materials from their environments and efficiently incorporating those materials into their structures. In addition to using the environmental materials for their own maintenance, they are even able to use the environmental elements to create even more of themselves.

They are, in fact, so efficient at using environmental materials to increase their numbers that they, in every case, use up all the materials in their environments, at which time they cease to be able to replicate.

This is due to a serious robotic programming "issue", and the scientists have not yet determined a method of programming the robots to exercise what would be called, in human terms, "self-control". They would like the programming to incorporate a feedback loop so that the robots would reduce their rate of replication so that the resources available to them would continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, given the difficulties of programming such an effective "self-control" algorithm, no schedule for completion has yet been announced.

Scientist have given these self-replicating robots several names, depending on the model, including Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, Muslims, Hindus...

How the Human Race Went Extinct 200,000 Years Ago.

About 200,040 years ago, humans came to the conclusion that it was heartless, irresponsible, and politically incorrect to tolerate the following social evils:
1) Allowing the deformed ("differently abled"), sickly ("chemically, allergenic... sensitive") and stupid ("mentally challenged"), to die at birth or shortly thereafter.
2) Allowing those unable or unwilling (by reason of their attitude, health, or age) to hunt or gather, to die.

They decided that all human life was valuable, regardless of circumstances. They decided that all possible resources should be devoted to sustaining the lives of those that had theretofore been allowed to naturally die. This led to increasing time being spent on caring for the increasing population of those unable to care for themselves. Increasing resources were spent on those unable to care for themselves.

Yet, those unable or unwilling to care for themselves also bred, in addition to the able and willing people, increasing the numbers of those unable or unwilling to care for themselves.

So, fewer people were available to gather (increasing numbers having become engaged in "care"), and what was gathered had to be divided amongst more people. Fewer people were available to hunt (increasing numbers having become engaged in "care"), and what was killed in the hunt had to be divided amongst more people.

The people began to starve, and yet they continued breeding a larger but even more unviable population. After all, "growth is good", "compassion is good", "oh, the children, sob, sniffle", "everyone deserves food, fur, and pharmaceuticals". After two generations (forty years), the human race then went extinct 200,000 years ago.

Digital TV Broadcast Power Increase Necessary for Analog-to-Digital Conversion

I have no cable TV reception. No satellite dish TV reception. Just "rabbit ears" antenna TV reception. I have used "rabbit ears" antenna for TV reception for years.

Even though I live in a metro area where one would think there should be good reception, I have noticed a continuous decline in reception quality over the years.

I suspect two causes of that declining reception quality. Perhaps...

1) Increasing building density interferes with signals, or

2) More likely, given my paranoid mind: Since more and more people have switched to cable and satellite, the broadcasters have just decided: "What the hey, we may as well cut our broadcast power. Who cares about antenna receiving people, anyway -- THEY DO NOT SHOW UP IN OUR RATINGS STATISICS."

I have already installed an analog-to-digital converter box, and when the picture is good, it is very, very good. But that is rare. Reception requires positional adjustment of the rabbit ears for each station. And even the positional adjustment required for each station varies from day to day and hour to hour. Reception drops in and out constantly on some stations, and even on the best receiving stations occasionally. BTW, I have also tried installing an in-line amplifier. I have tried installing amplified rabbit ears. Those do nothing. Such amplifiers require good signals to amplify.

While analog reception quality was often not the best, you could usually get SOMETHING. Now, with digital, it is all or nothing. And frequently nothing.

The only solution lies with the FCC and broadcasters: The FCC needs to require the broadcasters to increase broadcast signal power.