Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Climate Change fear: the new Religion
- Thread starter Icono
- Start date
Grapes of Wrath. How do you get to Oklahoma from CA ? Go to Bakeresfield, hang a left and follow the bologna wrappers.
bigun
Red Skull Member
bigun
Red Skull Member
Icono
I, Coño
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
- Member Number
- 858
- Messages
- 517
CarterKraft
Red Skull Member
Remember that time when "carbon capture" saved the planet and allowed celebrities to polute with out fear 
finance.yahoo.com
German Shell whistleblower says Chinese emission reduction oilfield was actually a chicken farm
Dozens of carbon reduction schemes in China are alleged to be fake, leaving Germany with a potential $5 billion fraud case.
bigun
Red Skull Member
Guy on a pod cast I heard said Gingus Khan made the most reduction in human carbon foot print in history!
Mr.Ratbastard
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2020
- Member Number
- 1688
- Messages
- 839
I have been thinking about selling carbon credits on Amazon to help out.
Icono
I, Coño
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
- Member Number
- 858
- Messages
- 517
1oddtech
Unknown member
billdacat
No road...no problem.
Grand kid starts preaching this zero-carbon bull shit to me... Wants to drive my gas guzzling Jeep.... I am half tempted to let him walk his ass home from ten miles out on BLM land for his zero emmision badge.
Grand kid is bitching that 86F is too hot to be outside. Preaches that HVAC is bad; causes global warming. He is getting this shit from his mother and grandmother. I think he gets a hard-on every time he sees a Cyber Truck. 13y/o's are really fucked up! 
Grand kid is bitching that 86F is too hot to be outside. Preaches that HVAC is bad; causes global warming. He is getting this shit from his mother and grandmother.
I think he gets a hard-on every time he sees a Cyber Truck. 13y/o's are really fucked up!
CarterKraft
Red Skull Member
I just mowed my fuckin side yard on September 18th, it should be brown as hell and dead
bigun
Red Skull Member
City fella problemI just mowed my fuckin side yard on September 18th, it should be brown as hell and dead
CarterKraft
Red Skull Member
Ransil
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2020
- Member Number
- 51
- Messages
- 511
Take away the phone / TV and turn the AC off in their room.Grand kid starts preaching this zero-carbon bull shit to me... Wants to drive my gas guzzling Jeep.... I am half tempted to let him walk his ass home from ten miles out on BLM land for his zero emmision badge.
Grand kid is bitching that 86F is too hot to be outside. Preaches that HVAC is bad; causes global warming. He is getting this shit from his mother and grandmother.
gladman
Aroused by Ta Ta's
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Member Number
- 2107
- Messages
- 1,018
the energy demands of crypto and ai are so vast (and 'newish') that the big data centers that seemed wildly overbuilt a few years ago are already strapped. Just cooling these places takes mind boggling amounts of energy and resources... so, any conservation convos kind of go out the window. I think the 'religion' part of the issue is two religions: 1 that is the breathless 'don't use that straw' (which I never used anyway) side and the 2nd which is the 'nuh uh' side that denies everything and just drags their feet on stuff.
I don't see any end to the 'controversy' part of it, so I have determined that we aren't going to fix anything with the 'half v half' climate we currently have. I think back in the 80's Richard Lamm was (I think that was his name) talking about how we needed to engineer a limit on ourselves... a population limit for the planet to keep things as good as we could for as long as we could. People destroyed him without hearing any of it... it was then that I realized the world won't be governed thoughtfully, it will always be an emotional shit show with the two widest bands driving it all.
I don't see any end to the 'controversy' part of it, so I have determined that we aren't going to fix anything with the 'half v half' climate we currently have. I think back in the 80's Richard Lamm was (I think that was his name) talking about how we needed to engineer a limit on ourselves... a population limit for the planet to keep things as good as we could for as long as we could. People destroyed him without hearing any of it... it was then that I realized the world won't be governed thoughtfully, it will always be an emotional shit show with the two widest bands driving it all.
bigun
Red Skull Member
gladman
Aroused by Ta Ta's
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Member Number
- 2107
- Messages
- 1,018
funny how he was ridiculed and run out of politics for an issue (letting people pick when they want to check out) that is now pretty much accepted.
Richard Lamm - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Most of Europe now lets folks decide and we have several states in the US that now have provisions for it.
I know for myself, I don't want to end up just being a piss and shit machine. I want to be productive or I don't have a need to hang out.
I think the planet, as a machine, probably functions better with like 3 billion people vs. 8 billion.... how to right size is never gonna get resolved without random action (volcano, meteor, etc) so, I don't over think it. I know the colorado of my youth (2.4 m) was much more preferable to me than today (5.5m)
Another interesting connection Lamm made was that immigration control was key to preserving the environment and that multiculturalism was effectively also bad for the environment... his arguments were clear and thoughtful, but, too much for people who are so governed by emotion and unwilling to take a minute to consider alternative avenues.
of course, he checked out at 86... so, maybe only partially doing his 'duty'
Ghetto Fab.
No idea what I'm doing
- Joined
- May 19, 2020
- Member Number
- 208
- Messages
- 668
I mean it seems pretty obvious if you have half a brain, that at some point there are just too many people. I saw this early on as a kid. I remember the example of the jar of fruit flies in science class. Eventually the population peaks out and then the flies start dieing(bell curve).
Eventually, if you save everybody and extend everyones lifetime and increase the rate of child birth, you won't have anywhere to stand or anything to eat.
Also interesting that from an environmentalist viewpoint, that any human is going to negatively impact an environment. So technically environmentalists should be pushing for the eradication of the human species.
Eventually, if you save everybody and extend everyones lifetime and increase the rate of child birth, you won't have anywhere to stand or anything to eat.
Also interesting that from an environmentalist viewpoint, that any human is going to negatively impact an environment. So technically environmentalists should be pushing for the eradication of the human species.
bigun
Red Skull Member
bigun
Red Skull Member
Lemmings (National Lampoon) - Wikipedia
National Lampoon: Lemmings, a spinoff of the humor magazine National Lampoon, was a 1973 stage show that helped launch the performing careers of John Belushi, Christopher Guest, and Chevy Chase.[1][2][3][4] The show was co-written and co-directed by a number of people, including Sean Kelly.
Lemmings opened at The Village Gate on January 25, 1973, and ran for 350 performances.
The songs from the show were subsequently issued as a record album. A video of one of the original performances, National Lampoon: Lemmings: Dead in Concert 1973, was eventually made available several decades later.
The show was revived in 2007–2008, and an attempted reboot was to be staged in March 2020.
Last edited:
bigun
Red Skull Member
The Population Bomb - Wikipedia
The Population Bomb is a 1968 book co-authored by former Stanford University professor Paul R. Ehrlich and former Stanford senior researcher in conservation biology Anne H. Ehrlich.[1][2] From the opening page, it predicted worldwide famines due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" existed in the mid-20th century baby boom years, but the book and its authors brought the idea to an even wider audience.[3][4][5]
The book has been criticized since its publication for an alarmist tone, and over the subsequent decades, for inaccurate assertions and failed predictions. For instance, regional famines have occurred since the publication of the book, but not world famines. The Ehrlichs themselves still stand by the book despite the flaws identified by its critics, with Paul stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future," despite having predicted catastrophic global famines that never came to pass. They believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."[1]
The Population Bomb was written at the suggestion of David Brower, the executive director of the environmentalist Sierra Club, and Ian Ballantine of Ballantine Books following various public appearances Ehrlich had made regarding population issues and their relation to the environment. Although the Ehrlichs collaborated on the book, the publisher insisted that a single author be credited, and also asked to change their preferred title: Population, Resources, and Environment.[1] The title Population Bomb was taken (with permission) from General William H. Draper, founder of the Population Crisis Committee and a widely spread pamphlet The Population Bomb is Everyone's Baby issued in 1954 by the Hugh Moore Fund.[6][7] The Ehrlichs regret the choice of title, which they admit was a perfect choice from a marketing perspective, but think that "it led Paul to be miscategorized as solely focused on human numbers, despite our interest in all the factors affecting the human trajectory."[1]Early editions of The Population Bomb began with the statement:
Much of the book is spent describing the state of the environment and the food security situation, which is described as increasingly dire. The Ehrlichs argue that as the existing population was not being fed adequately, and as it was growing rapidly, it was unreasonable to expect sufficient improvements in food production to feed everyone. They further argued that the growing population placed escalating strains on all aspects of the natural world. "What needs to be done?" they wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production."
bigun
Red Skull Member
Possible solutions
[edit]Paul and Anne Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[9] They believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world, in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[10] The Ehrlichs float the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, they reject the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[11] They suggest a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. They suggest incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. They propose a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[12] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. The Ehrlichs suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
After explaining the domestic policies the US should pursue, they discuss foreign policy. They advocate a system of "triage," such as that suggested by William and Paul Paddock in Famine 1975!. Under this system countries would be divided into categories based on their abilities to feed themselves going forward. Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which were "so far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated. The Ehrlichs argued that this was the only realistic strategy in the long-term. Ehrlich applauds the Paddocks' "courage and foresight" in proposing such a solution.[13] The Ehrlichs further discusses the need to set up public education programs and agricultural development schemes in developing countries. They argue that the scheme would likely have to be implemented outside the framework of the United Nations due to the necessity selecting the targeted regions and countries, and suggests that within countries certain regions should be prioritized to the extent that cooperative separatist movements should be encouraged if they are an improvement over the existing authority. He mentions his support for government mandated sterilization of Indian males with three or more children.[14]
In the rest of the book the Ehrlichs discuss things which readers can do to help. This is focused primarily on changing public opinion to create pressure on politicians to enact the policies they suggest, which they believed were not politically possible in 1968. At the end of the book they discuss the possibility that his forecasts may be wrong, which they felt they must acknowledge as scientists. However, they believe that regardless of coming catastrophes, his prescriptions would only benefit humanity, and would be the right course of action in any case.[15]
The book sold over two million copies, raised the general awareness of population and environmental issues, and influenced 1960s and 1970s public policy.[1] For the 14 years prior the book's appearance, the world population had been growing at accelerating rates, but immediately after the book's publication, the world population growth rate coincidentally began a continuing downward trend, from its 1968 peak of 2.09% to 1.09% in 2018.[16]
Context
[edit]In 1948, two widely read books were published that would inspire a "neo-Malthusian" debate on population and the environment: Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s Road to Survival. These inspired works such as The Population Bomb is Everyone's Baby pamphlet by Hugh Everett Moore in 1954, as well as some of the original societies concerned with population and environmental matters.[3][7] In 1961 Marriner Eccles, former chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve System, did describe the explosive rate of growth of the world's population as the "most vitally important problem facing the world today," which may well prove to be "more explosive than the atomic or hydrogen bomb."[17] D.B. Luten has said that although the book is often seen as a seminal work in the field, The Population Bomb is actually best understood as "climaxing and in a sense terminating the debate of the 1950s and 1960s.”[18] Ehrlich has said that he traced his own Malthusian beliefs to a lecture he heard Vogt give when he was attending university in the early 1950s. For Ehrlich, these writers provided “a global framework for things he had observed as a young naturalist."[3]
bigun
Red Skull Member
Criticisms
[edit]Restatement of Malthusian theory
[edit]The Population Bomb has been characterized by critics as primarily a repetition of the Malthusian catastrophe argument that population growth will outpace agricultural growth unless controlled. Ehrlich observed that since about 1930 the population of the world had doubled within a single generation, from 2 billion to nearly 4 billion, and was on track to do so again. He assumed that available resources on the other hand, and in particular food, were nearly at their limits. Some critics compare Ehrlich unfavorably to Malthus, saying that although Thomas Malthus did not make a firm prediction of imminent catastrophe, Ehrlich warned of a potential massive disaster within the next decade or two. In addition, critics state that unlike Malthus, Ehrlich did not see any means of avoiding the disaster entirely (although some mitigation was possible), and proposed solutions that were much more radical than those discussed by Malthus, such as starving whole countries that refused to implement population control measures.[19]
Ehrlich was certainly not unique in his neo-Malthusian predictions, and there was a widespread belief in the 1960s and 70s that increasingly catastrophic famines were on their way.[20]
Predictions
[edit]The Ehrlichs made a number of specific predictions that did not come to pass, for which they have received criticism. They have acknowledged that some predictions were incorrect. However, they maintain that their general argument remains intact, that their predictions were merely illustrative, that their and others' warnings caused preventive action, or that many of their predictions may yet come true (see Ehrlich's response below). Still other commentators have criticized the Ehrlichs' perceived inability to acknowledge mistakes, evasiveness, and refusal to alter their arguments in the face of contrary evidence.[21] In 2015 Ehrlich told Retro Report, "I do not think my language was too apocalyptic in The Population Bomb. My language would be even more apocalyptic today."[22]
It is noteworthy that, in stark contrast with the predictions made by the Ehrlichs, today the world faces major public health problems worldwide as a result of excessive food intake resulting in the rapidly growing global pandemics of obesity and its clinical outcome, type 2 diabetes (T2D). The incidence of T2D continues to increase worldwide, and it is projected that there will be >590 million patients diagnosed with this condition by 2035: ~90% of patients are obese or overweight at T2D diagnosis.[23]
In The Population Bomb's opening lines the authors state that nothing can prevent famines in which hundreds of millions of people will die during the 1970s (amended to 1970s and 1980s in later editions), and that there would be "a substantial increase in the world death rate." Although many lives could be saved through dramatic action, it was already too late to prevent a substantial increase in the global death rate. However, in reality the global death rate has continued to decline substantially since then, from 13/1000 in 1965–74 to 10/1000 from 1985–1990. Meanwhile, the population of the world has more than doubled, while calories consumed/person have increased 24%. The UN does not keep official death-by-hunger statistics so it is hard to measure whether the "hundreds of millions of deaths" number is correct. Ehrlich himself suggested in 2009 that between 200-300 million had died of hunger since 1968. However, that is measured over 40 years rather than the ten to twenty foreseen in the book, so it can be seen as significantly fewer than predicted.[24]
Famine has not been eliminated, but its root cause has been political instability, not global food shortage.[25] The Indian economist and Nobel Memorial Prize winner, Amartya Sen, has argued that nations with democracy and a free press have virtually never suffered from extended famines.[26] And while a 2010 UN report stated that 925 million of the world's population of nearly seven billion people were in a constant state of hunger,[27] it also notes that the percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" has fallen by more than half, from 33 percent to about 16 percent, since the Ehrlichs published The Population Bomb.[28]
The Ehrlichs write: "I don't see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."[8] This view was widely held at the time, as another statement of his, later in the book: "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." In the book's 1971 edition, the latter prediction was removed, as the food situation in India suddenly improved (see Green Revolution in India).
As of 2010, India had almost 1.2 billion people, having nearly tripled its population from around 400 million in 1960, with a total fertility rate in 2008 of 2.6.[29] While the absolute numbers of malnourished children in India is high,[30] the rates of malnutrition and poverty in India have declined from approximately 90% at the time of India's independence (1947), to less than 40% in 2010 (see Malnutrition in India). Ehrlich's prediction about famines did not come to pass, although food security is still an issue in India. However, most epidemiologists, public health physicians and demographers identify corruption as the chief cause of malnutrition, not "overpopulation".[30] As noted economist and philosopher Amartya Sen noted, India frequently had famines during British colonial rule. However, since India became a democracy, there have been no recorded famines.[31]
Journalist Dan Gardner has criticized Ehrlich both for his overconfident predictions and his refusal to acknowledge his errors. "In two lengthy interviews, Ehrlich admitted making not a single major error in the popular works he published in the late 1960s and early 1970s … the only flat-out mistake Ehrlich acknowledges is missing the destruction of the rain forests, which happens to be a point that supports and strengthens his world view—and is therefore, in cognitive dissonance terms, not a mistake at all. Beyond that, he was by his account, off a little here and there, but only because the information he got from others was wrong. Basically, he was right across the board."[32]
Jonathan Last called it "one of the most spectacularly foolish books ever published".[33]
bigun
Red Skull Member
Persistence of trends
[edit]Economist Julian Simon and medical statistician Hans Rosling pointed out that the failed prediction of 70s famines were based exclusively on the assumption that exponential population growth will continue indefinitely and no technological or social progress will be made.[34][35] In The Ultimate Resource Simon argued that resources, such as metals, which Ehrlichs extensively discuss in their books as examples of non-sustainable resources, are valued exclusively for the function they provide, and technological progress frequently replaces these: for example, copper was largely replaced by fiber optic in communications, and carbon fiber replaced a wide range of alloys and steel in construction (see Simon-Ehrlich wager and The Ultimate Resource).[36] Simon also argued that technological progress tends to happen in large steps rather than linear growth, as happened with the Green revolution.[37] Hans Rosling in his book Factfulness demonstrated that fertility rate has significantly decreased worldwide and, more importantly, high fertility is a natural response to high mortality in low-income countries and once they enter higher income group, fertility drops quickly (see Factfulness). According to environmentalist Stewart Brand, himself a student and friend of Ehrlich, the assumption made by the latter and by authors of The Limits to Growth has been "proven wrong since 1963" when the demographic trends worldwide have visibly changed.[38]
Showmanship
[edit]One frequent criticism of The Population Bomb is that it focused on spectacle and exaggeration at the expense of accuracy. Pierre Desrochers and Christine Hoffbauer remark that "at the time of writing The Population Bomb, Paul and Anne Ehrlich should have been more cautious and revised their tone and rhetoric, in light of the undeniable and already apparent errors and shortcomings of Osborn and Vogt’s analyses."[3] Charles Rubin has written that it was precisely because Ehrlich was largely unoriginal and wrote in a clear emotionally gripping style that it became so popular. He quotes a review from Natural History noting that Ehrlich does not try to "convince intellectually by mind dulling statistics," but rather roars "like an Old Testament Prophet."[39] Gardner says, "as much as the events and culture of the era, Paul Ehrlich's style explain the enormous audience he attracted." Indeed, an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson helped to propel the success of the book, as well as Ehrlich's celebrity.[40] Desrochers and Hoffbauer go on to conclude that it seems hard to deny that using an alarmist tone and emotional appeal were the main lessons that the present generation of environmentalists learned from Ehrlich's success.
Social and political coercion
[edit]On the political left the book received criticism that it was focusing on "the wrong problem", and that the real issue was one of distribution of resources rather than of overpopulation.[1] Marxists worried that Paul and Anne Ehrlich's work could be used to justify genocide and imperial control, as well as oppression of minorities and disadvantaged groups or even a return to eugenics.[41]
Eco-socialist Barry Commoner argued that the Ehrlichs were too focused on overpopulation as the source of environmental problems, and that their proposed solutions were politically unacceptable because of the coercion that they implied, and because the cost would fall disproportionately on the poor. He argued that technological, and above all social development would lead to a natural decrease in both population growth and environmental damage.[42][43] Commoner engaged in a fierce debate with Ehrlich at an environmental United Nations convention in Stockholm:
bigun
Red Skull Member
Ehrlich's response
[edit]In a 2004 Grist Magazine interview,[44] Ehrlich acknowledged some specific predictions he had made, in the years around the time The Population Bomb was published, that had not come to pass. However, as to a number of his fundamental ideas and assertions he maintained that facts and science proved them correct.
In answer to the question: "Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right?", Ehrlich responded:
In another retrospective article published in 2009, Ehrlich said, in response to criticism that many of his predictions had not come to pass:[1]
In a 2018 interview with The Guardian, Ehrlich, while still proud of The Population Bomb for starting a worldwide debate on the issues of population, acknowledged weaknesses of the book including not placing enough emphasis on climate change, overconsumption and inequality, and countering accusations of racism. He argues "too many rich people in the world is a major threat to the human future, and cultural and genetic diversity are great human resources." He advocated for an "unprecedented redistribution of wealth" in order to mitigate the problem of overconsumption of resources by the world's wealthy, but said "the rich who now run the global system — that hold the annual 'world destroyer' meetings in Davos — are unlikely to let it happen."[45]
bigun
Red Skull Member
Gladman and ghettofab what you arte esposing is Eugenics
www.britannica.com
Eugenics | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica
Eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British scientist Francis Galton. By World War I many scientists and political leaders supported eugenics, though it ultimately...
www.britannica.com
Ghetto Fab.
No idea what I'm doing
- Joined
- May 19, 2020
- Member Number
- 208
- Messages
- 668
Ok......
I'm just pointing out that environmentalism is fundamentaly flawed. Normally with concepts like this you have 3 alternatives, do nothing, do the extreme, or do something in between. Most people don't want to do nothing, nor do they want to end the human race, so they pick some gray line in the middle and call that good. The problem is that eventually you get groups that push that line one way or the other. We see that today with carbon neutral shit that didn't exist 20yrs ago. The EPA will never stop and will keep mandating more extreme measures until someone can quantify and have it agreed upon what is "good enough". I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime, but the futility will continue.
I'm just pointing out that environmentalism is fundamentaly flawed. Normally with concepts like this you have 3 alternatives, do nothing, do the extreme, or do something in between. Most people don't want to do nothing, nor do they want to end the human race, so they pick some gray line in the middle and call that good. The problem is that eventually you get groups that push that line one way or the other. We see that today with carbon neutral shit that didn't exist 20yrs ago. The EPA will never stop and will keep mandating more extreme measures until someone can quantify and have it agreed upon what is "good enough". I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime, but the futility will continue.
gladman
Aroused by Ta Ta's
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
- Member Number
- 2107
- Messages
- 1,018
in the extreme... I guess it coudl devolve in to that and that is where the fear factor would stoke up and, like Lamm, get dismissed.Gladman and ghettofab what you arte esposing is Eugenics
Eugenics | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica
Eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British scientist Francis Galton. By World War I many scientists and political leaders supported eugenics, though it ultimately...
If we could really have a conversation that didn't include 'purifying' or breeding or eugenics, but would also embrace how we get to a manageable number (minus 18%) if it meant that our species and our planet would 'thrive' (in quotes just because we'd have to set some qualifications for that) for longer and be able to pursue goals like perpetuating life forms from this planet to other parts of the galaxy....
We won't, I get it. We'll die in our own piss. But, I can at least wish we could get out of our own way to do something else.
bigun
Red Skull Member
I can't remember which play right said it, I have heard the recording. He said that every 5 years everyone should have to justify their continued exitance in the betterment of society! I don't know about you but that is not the world I want to live in! 