 sj |
||
|
||
world population day
|
|
|
Subject: world population day From: Cappuccino Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:49 AM A happy World Population Day to you all.... apparently six billion and another 200 million of us, every one unique. Just like folksingers..... *G* !!! - IanB |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Linda Kelly Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:50 AM no wonder I can never find a clean pair of socks. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:21 AM Why -- because others are borrowing them? A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Linda Kelly Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:31 AM Sometimes Amos I am too obtuse for my own good. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:37 AM Yeah Amos.....Icks meant that it's hard to find a matched AND clean pair, what with all of these folks losing them right and left! I wonder what the actual number of mismatched socks is? Then maybe we could assign them to the entire population on a rationing basis. First though I guess we need to find them all........no mean feet.....er, uh....feat. I don't wear socks myself so count me out. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Clinton Hammond Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:39 AM No thanks.. the world is populated more than enough now... This is kinda like celebrating anthrax day or something... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:12 PM Clinton: You're drinking from the wrong glass, mate. Ya need to turn that sour old antique in on one of the new models they make now -- they've added all kinds of neat features. For one thing, the newer models are half-full by default. The research department discovered that building them that way dramatically reduces the problem of vapours. Except in Spaw's case where the vapours got replaced by toxic emissions.... A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Clinton Hammond Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:19 PM Oh please... the human race is a scourge on this planet, little better than a virus... to say otherwise is to live with your head up yer butt and ignore the plain facts... |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:01 PM That would be from the point of view of which other organism? The human race has done all right in its own interests, net net. Of course that's just a meaningless aggregation of useless protoplasm if you're purpose-free, and hold no special brief for intelligent life accomplising anything. I suspect the species is working out a destiny, and all things considered doing a half-decent job. A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Cappuccino Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:36 PM Ever get the feeling you've started the wrong thread??? - ian B |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:04 PM the only sensible 'world population' is one that can achieve "Steady State" equilibrium...that is, where we can eat all the seafood we wish and chop down all the trees we need,and generate all the 'safe' energy we need without creating shortages...(and there is land available to REMAIN farms and not be turned into highways & strip malls)... we passed that size population 40-60 years ago. Conservation and plant research and clever uses of energy can help, but the fact remains that we breed faster than resources can be developed. The core issue is called 'carrying capacity'. If you want a clear example, look at the old Indian ruins in Mesa Verde Nationl Park....they had ladders they had to climb to get anywhere, a limited supply of water and only so many places they could build cliff dwellings...and there is overwhelming evidence that Nature gave them a climate change that made their setup impossible to maintain.
|
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Clinton Hammond Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:23 PM Thanks for making my point Bill... and in much nicer language, and with better examples... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: DougR Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:12 PM So your point is, BillD, people should start conserving sex? |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:35 PM well, *grin*...almost! al least certain products of sex... ...a few countries are close to a maintenance level of reproduction, but others see no way out of the trap where they NEED many sons & daughters to sustain the older folks Indeed, if all the world suddenly decided to agree with me and reduce population, it would be very hard economically and socially for a couple of generations while the various institutions adjusted to new models of doing things! (What? We don't NEED new housing starts? We can't build MORE Walmarts? We have to give MORE of our money to support old age pensions until things level out?) No wonder most people don't even want to THINK about the issue...it will mess with their sacred cows...but, their sacred cows will be out of grass one day. If we don't adjust the balance, Nature will eventually do it for us...and we may not like the process! |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: DougR Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:35 PM Interesting, Bill, but how do you propose to "reduce" the Population? |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:37 PM Round 'em up, roll 'em up, shout 'em up, shoot 'em up! 'Course setting the standards for the roundup-ees is tricky. Hmmmm... Maybe we need to rethink our system engineering, so that we can make a softer landing without resorting to fascism or worse..... A (Been a long day and still going on....can you tell>) |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: katlaughing Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:45 PM Thanks, BillD, for explaining it so well and Clinton for pointing it out. IanB, it's never a wrong thread, it's just the Mudcat getting into one of those discussions for which it is famous. Please don't feel badly; these things take on a life of their own. World leaders, such as the Pope, could go a long way in helping if they would lighten up on their stance on birth control, for starters. Don't 'spose that'll happen in 3rd world countries until pigs can fly, though. kat |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: GUEST,RichM Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:51 PM Nature has its own methods for culling overpopulation. Unfortunately, they aren't pleasant. ...And they aren't negotiable! Unless we as a species take some hard steps to balance our numbers, disease such as aids will do it for us. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:10 PM How do I propose?..It is one thing to propose a logical soultion, it is quite another to propose something that will 'get by'. Look at the objections to MUCH simpler problems. The easy (as in technically) way would be to implant contraceptive devices in girls, and only remove them by lottery..(or even MORE controversial, for those who pass an exam showing that they are qualified to be parents.) You can see how THAT would play out! Education and slowly altering attitudes about having too many kids is about all that is tolerated..(You saw what happened when India tried mandatory sterilization, and China tried economic and criminal penalties! Mass resistance and cheating!)..... I honestly don't know...I am not very optimistic, because even I would find it difficult to tell someone who sincerely wanted children, "no". People are willing to kill OTHER clans, races, nationalities and ethnic groups in order to perpetuate, feed and support their own group, but they aren't willing to use condoms or submit to vasectomies after 2 kids to keep their own countries stable. If it comes to serious overcrowding, hunger and survival, it will work just like it always has....the meanest, greediest, cleverest, most opportunistic type will take over...especially if they have ammunition and a plan. Me? I'm afraid I'll go in the first hours...I wouldn't want to live in the aftermath. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:25 PM I think that Rich's point was better taken 50 years ago than now.....I used to believe it myself. Zero (or negative) population growth has been a subject of books and debated for the past 50 years and the "Nature will do it" argument always made great sense to me. In recent years our technology has begun to made such great strides and inroads in the medical field that sustaining life at any age and through many previous "killer" diseases and ailments has become commonplace........and we're getting "better" at it all the time. I know as I my curreent "life" is the result of some of those advances. This doesn't eliminate war of course, as a means of nature's control. It is still a major factor. On the whole however, Mother Nature has a lot harder time of it then she used to! What I think and believe at this point is that it will take a conscious and consentrated effort to overcome the "sacred cows" pointed out above and this will NOT happen until the situation is beyond critical. People of my generation (as a group) are not too concerned because it won't affect their life much. Perhaps it may not even affect the Gen X'ers, but I doubt it. Sometime very soon in the grand scheme, nature will be doing what she can and the people are going to have to make the conscious effort because they will see and feel everyday the drastic changes in their lives.............or Mother Nature will have another way and that is by starting over. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 01 - 10:50 PM Well, guys, the square footage. total water and other crucial elements in this country alone are enough to support twice the population we now support, at a rough guess, feed them, keep them warm, shelter them and bathe them and clothe them. But we'd have to learn to do with significantly less cavalier waste in our systems, and we'd have to get a lot smarter about steering Nature gently, rather than bludgeoning her into temporary submission as has been our wont. We are not just users of home turf, the way elephants and beavers tend to be. We design, and we can do so well or nay. If we got a wee bit smarter about it we could have all the goddamn energy we needed to reclaim deserts and make them bloom, probably just with the gray water from Chicago alone! The flaw is in our methods of building walls -- the ones we use to play NIMBY and "I'm all right Jack" behind. But if we do not change those habits a bit faster than we have been, the worst case scenario will approach faster than the alternatives, and significant growing pains will ensue for the species. A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 01 - 11:23 PM perhaps, Amos, but I sure would hate to live in this place if we get twice the population BEFORE we figger out how to feed 'em and get 'em enough kilowatts to run their computers....and I'm not sure I'd like to be the one who trys to explain that there ain't ROOM at the beach, or in Yellowstone Park...or that they can't drive cars 2 days a well because there is no room on the highway and in the parking lots. Figuring out the theoretical maximum carrying capacity is an interesting exercise, but it is like kids trying to guess how loud they can get in the back seat before Dad reaches back and smacks 'em! Years ago, Wally Hickle was Secretary of the Interior, and he was asked something about population and crowding...and he said something like..."well, I just flew back to Washington from Alaska...and there is PLENTY of land...I could look out of the airplane window ans SEE the empty space!" .....*sigh*...and that's aboutas far as many people are willing to go in their depth of analysis. Lord preserve us from Wally Hickles in charge of the future! |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 01 - 12:57 AM Excuse me guys, but the increase in population of humans on this planet as tragedy-in-the-making is, to my mind, an excessively gloomy and itself unnatural interpretation of events. I am all for going green, getting smart about the uses of ebergy, being a bit kinder and gentler to the other critters now that we have dominated the whole ball. I am all for upbraiding my fellow man to do a better job of being one of Gaia's brain cells. But let me point out that our own natures have come throug in some wonderful ways and that we already support much higher densities of population than we would be able to with just the rest of nature to go on. Where does the idea come from, though, that the ecology of understanding which we have contributed to this planet is "unnatural?", or that our channeling of "natural" forces, such as gravity and chemical attributes, is somehow in itself a wrong path? The problems we face have uniformly come about, as I look at it, from insufficient understanding, not from too much. We don't need to abandon our hard-earned skills, and we don't need to throw away babies. I submoit for reflection that are talents for housing and water systems are as much a product of our God-given natures as a spider's web on a dewy morning, no less. What we need is deeper insight into the interlocking systems among which we are at play. Regards, Amos |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 12 Jul 01 - 01:35 AM I read somewhere that the 20 richest men in the world, have more money than the poorest 20 countries. "Why do the babies starve, there's enough food to feed the world" Tracey Chapman "While american business men snap up Van Goghs, for the price of a hospital wing" Del Amitri |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 12 Jul 01 - 12:53 PM " But let me point out that our own natures have come throug in some wonderful ways.... " Amos...this is about the first time I can remember disagreeing with you in some basic attitude & approach. yep, we ARE an amazing and inventive bunch, and we have solved problems and pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps in medicine, physics, agronomy, genetics and many other fields that have both lengthened and enhanced our lives, and I do NOT consider gloom and pessimism to be my favorite recreation, but we never HAD 6 billion people before...and so far, we have not had to deal with 8 billion or 12 billion. What will it be like when there are 79 trillion? ...Oh, that's silly, huh?...maybe 22 trillion? No?..well, when DO we stop...and how? We sure DO need to continue to study all the "interlocking systems" and the forces and solutions, but some things will bite you hard if you guess wrong about how careless to be about them. I could go on, but I will just note the old joke of the optimist who fell off the observation deck of the Empire State Building...as he passed the 74th floor, he was heard to shout.."well, so far, so good!" |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: katlaughing Date: 12 Jul 01 - 05:44 PM I posted this to the global warming thread, but it also seems very relevant for this one. Please click here for a new report on humankind and the environment. It looks to be a very important article. kat |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Grab Date: 12 Jul 01 - 06:46 PM According to the BBC, around the world Italy, South Korea, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States all have birth rates below 2.1 per family, the number required for a stable population. Italy is the most surprising, since it's a nominally Catholic country. Since the major consumers of food and industrial output are all on that list, hopefully our impact on the world will decrease proportionately. Interestingly, Asian immigrants to Britain do tend to have more than 2 children, and these are propping up the British birth rate figures. The statistics for birth amongst white couples is significantly under 2.1 per family (IIRC it's 1.7, although I couldn't tell you where I remember that from). The US has a similar situation with Latin-American immigrants. So eventually the number of us using resources will decrease. The problem is countries where having many babies is a cultural thing (India, parts of Africa) or where it's due to religion (Ireland, Latin America). Culture can and does change, when it becomes obvious that all your children will live due to modern medicine, and it's more pleasant to have fewer children and have more money to spend on yourself and them. The WHO and the UN are working on getting this message over to India and Africa. Religion is still the big kicker though - I just hope the next pope (coming soon by the looks of things, since JP's health doesn't look too good) has more sense on abortion than the current one. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Gareth Date: 12 Jul 01 - 06:53 PM A statistical thought ! With Zero population growth wfhat demograpic age distribution will we see. Will the productive poulation be able to support the Grey years ? And if so will it be divided on Geographical Grounds ? Or for the Sci Fi (filkies) fans will the "Sandman" come. See the works of Niven and/or Huxley. Sorry 4 pints of Bass makes me cynical. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 12 Jul 01 - 06:59 PM *sigh*...thanks, kat, I think... ...yep...the warming thing is a bit harder to pin down as to how much of it is our fault, but intense industrialization seems to make it worse...and MORE people certainly require more 'stuff'. And if warming does continue, and there are fewer safe, comfortable places to live, and less farmland to grow crops, more population is an even greater problem. I know that some assume that clever scientists will solve it all, but wow, that's putting a lot of trust in 'maybe'. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 01 - 11:29 AM Well, Bill, "we" are not dealing with 6 billion people, in actual terms. To analyze the problem in those terms you kinda have to step back from being a person and count bodies as they were molecules in a pressure vs temperature vs volume calculation, which of course leaves out the one element that has saved our asses so many times -- human ability. The raw flux of life force working on a planet surface has some very unpredictable curves in it. I am not promoting blind optimism, but as the birth rate changes mentioned above show, the complexity of the system including the subtle levels of perception and invention and adjustment into which we have very little visibility, tends to adjust. We can do that intelligently and compassionately, or we could get really shortsighted and do it by dreaming up new justifications for large-scale slaughter. But I don't think we are anywhere near pushing ourselves off the edge of the planet. And I do not think we have begun to tap the reserves of which we are capable. Regards, A
|
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 13 Jul 01 - 01:49 PM *digesting the import of Amos' post* ..seems to me the core of that is the phrase 'tends to adjust' , which I'd have have some examples of to judge. but also, those molecules you mention are not insignificant...the notion of 'total bio-mass' comes into play very quickly when very large populations (and this includes animal & plant populations) try to co-exist. Ethiopia is a small scale example. " But I don't think we are anywhere near pushing ourselves off the edge of the planet" ...but we sure ought to have some idea of HOW close, hmmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 01 - 05:36 PM Bill D, instead of forcing contraception on girls, how about vasectomies on all males for two generations? Seems like a better solution. And easily proved, too. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 01 - 06:12 PM How about enforcing awareness on stupid people, while we're at it??? Why does that seem any more difficult? (BTW this is not a remark aimed at someone, not at all!) A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 01 - 07:16 PM Right, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 13 Jul 01 - 07:18 PM IF I were seriously proposing forced contraception at all, (which I am not...yet) I would not object to adding men to the list for some 'tweaking', but ALL men for two generations would sorta prevent generation #3, I'd think. *grin*...all we want to do is slow things down. It is simply the case that women are the key when it comes to reproduction...if you want MORE population at a faster rate, you need more females. You only need a few men, mathematically speaking. (look at the farm, where a few good bulls are used for MANY cows) If you want to reduce population, you need to reduce the number of fertile women, as reducing the # of men won't help much unless you get most of them. The other virtue of contraceptive implants for females is that they can be easily removed, whereas vasectomies are tricky to reverse if needed.....it still doesn't make the political issues any less fraught with purple prose..*big grin*, but like Amos said........... (BTW, Amos, one of my favorite quotes is something to the effect of "It's too bad ignorance isn't painful." .....and it is sort of important to distinguish between ignorance & stupidity, as the latter seems to imply 'inability' to comprehend, instead of reluctance.) |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 01 - 07:22 PM Sorry- premature exclamation. My point is that while the male of the species can impregnate an almost unlimited number of females per year, each female is usually not able to have more than one pregnancy. Also, the procedure on the male is far less invasive, expensive and takes less time to recuperate from than an operation on the female. So why not stop the sperm rather than try to inactivate the egg? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 13 Jul 01 - 07:38 PM because them sperms am REAL hard to stop!...as I say, unless you get all or most of the men, nature will find a way. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jul 01 - 07:46 PM Bill, I expect my ignorance/stupidity is excessive. However, in wildlife control, as in wolves, they sterilize the males. Doesn't take away the pleasure for either sex so if a male had a harem... Don't tell me that the vasectomized guy wouldn't guard his turf! And I do realize the suggestion was to implant a removable contraceptive device in the women, rather than a tubal ligation or hysterectomy- I used it for effect. OK- two generations is too many. How about the current one and the male children down to 10 years, as they become young adults? Guys, surely you know that you are being tweaked? Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 01 - 08:27 PM Thanks, Ebbie -- I hoped your tongue was in your cheek but I couldn't tell from over here! !:>)) Bill, ignorance IS painful, and the trouble is it is sometimes hard to notice where the pain is coming from, because of the ignorance!! :>) I do think that for a full grown adult to be ignorant of fundamental issues of the day -- such as population and resources -- is more than just "omission of onformation", it also reeks of elecive ignarance, the kind that stays in place by continuous choice. A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 13 Jul 01 - 08:36 PM *big grin*..well, tweaked or not, it doesn't hurt to make the point. Are you SURE they sterilize males in wildlife control? If the Alpha wolf does manage to defend his harem, fine...but the other males are often sneaky critturs!...Humans are, if I may say so, even sneakier! Yep...vasectomies are a fine tool in some cases...(especially in a captive, controlled population), but if you DO try to do vasectomies on a large % of men, you'd still have to do something about the women too!,,,just extra work & expense. |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 01 Aug 01 - 10:59 PM A later follow up, this from the current issue of Nature magazine: The end of world population growth
WOLFGANG LUTZ*, WARREN SANDERSON*† & SERGEI SCHERBOV‡
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to W.L. (e-mail: lutz@iiasa.ac.at).
There has been enormous concern about the consequences of human population growth for the environment and for social and economic development. But this growth is likely to come to an end in the foreseeable future. Improving on earlier methods of probabilistic forecasting, here we show that there is around an 85 per cent chance that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the century. There is a 60 per cent probability that the world's population will not exceed 10 billion people before 2100, and around a 15 per cent probability that the world's population at the end of the century will be lower than it is today. For different regions, the date and size of the peak population will vary considerably.
|
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Aug 01 - 05:10 AM When I read this in my newspaper this morning I had the same idea as you, Amos, namely to add it here. As it is I just can add the main figure: 9,000,000,000 is the estimated maximum (at about 2070), that is roughly 50% more than today. And I can add how 'exact' that prediction from Austria is: With a probability of 80% the real figure in 2100 will be between 5.6 and 12,1 billion. Not a very impressive accuracy. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 02 Aug 01 - 08:17 AM It seems that the impressive advances in complexity theory still don't giveus a model that can account for emerging compound human decision making and political turbulence. I guess some things are just too complex, eh? A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: sledge Date: 02 Aug 01 - 10:22 AM I firmly believe that there needs to be serious effort directed at ensuring that the population does not smother the planet, I have seen what a country on the brink is like and to picture the world like that is not a happy thought. Several years ago I spent nearly two years working in Bangladesh, not only a very poor country but a very over crowded one. 125 million people crowded into an area slightly smaller than that of the uk. Forests have been almost completely denuded, any land usable is cultivated, even the coastal tidal areas is in places. As a consequence of this intense cultivation it is not uncommen to have very violent, murderous disagreements between villages over field boundries. Even with intense farming, albeit non industrial Bangladesh still imports huge amounts of food. If the population continues to grow globaly where will the rest of us import our food from, what will our conflicts over field boundries be like. At the moment in the west we can have large families and still get by, but what of the future if or when, welfare states become overwhlemed. The time when people can say I want a large family is surely over, I see it as selfish, the consequences may not be that pleasant for following generations. This obviously steps on peoples personal freedom but collective responsibilty should not be ignored, we can always blame polititions but we can allways do our bit. Some out there may think I am being a miserable reactionary sod but Lets face it, all the posts pretty much come from comfy western lifestyles, I don't see many from the likes of Bangladesh. As for the efforts of the Austrian think tank, tealeaves and crystal balls may give as much reliable info. Sledge (putting on flak jacket and helmet) |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Amos Date: 02 Aug 01 - 10:31 AM Well, Sledge, I am in agreement with you, and I think that at some level people do reduce the number of their offspring during times of over-dense population, left to their own devices, sometimes. I think your case should be made to the Pope. There's a power point for you. A moral code born when the desperate need for manpower was a universal concern, before themachine age began, has been elevated to a divine doctrine and shoved down the throats of millions of believers planet wide for centuries. It may well be that a "rational" review of this "divine" policy is in order, eh? Or would the counter-argument be that God will step in and provide a second planet in due course, taking care of his favorite species in all Creation? Oi!!!! If i were the Pope I'd load up on stocks in drug companies that produce birth control aids and then announce a divine revelation fromt he Almighty based on the millenial report's statistics. But I'm not. A |
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Aug 01 - 05:05 PM There's a sensible editorial about this in today's Guardian, pointing out among other things that women in India today have fewer babies than women in America did in the 1950s. "Average birth rates for women in developing countries have fallen from six per woman to three in the last three decades."
Poverty is more the cause of overpopulation than it is the result. And at the other end, the main threat to the world and the main drain on resources and cause of environmental damage is people living in the wealthiest countries.
Focusing attention on what people in poor countries ought to be doing or ought not to be doing distracts attention from what we ought to be doing in wealthy polluting countries, to stop using up more than our share and wrecking the place. (And when it comes to pollution and environmental damage in Third World countries, most times you can bet your bottom dollar the relevant decisions were made in western boardrooms, on behalf of western shareholders.)
|
|
Subject: RE: world population day From: Bill D Date: 02 Aug 01 - 06:38 PM Whether or not the forecasting models are accurate or not..(I am NOT conversant in those maths), the issue of the effect of even the current level of population is very much with us. I was watching a program last night where several widlife biologists were commenting on species diversity and extinction patterns, particularly in the African savannah.They all were just short of panicing at the continued loss of both plant & animal species, largely as a result of human encroachment and pressure. Lots of work is being done on these matters, but once a species is stressed so far, recovery is difficult....if we DO reach 7-9 billion, and Brazil & Borneo continue to be chopped up & burned off...etc., the year 2100 looks pretty bleak to me. |
| Share Thread: |