View Single Post
  #45  
Old February 21st 19, 07:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default earth tilt to 45 deg?

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:23:31 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in
:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:41:07 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote in
m:


I'm all for a reduction of the human population back down to a
billion or less. But ideally by attrition, not cataclysm.

(snip restored)

You volunteering to go first?


I guess you're unfamiliar with the meaning of "attrition".


Feel free to attrit the hell out of yourself, son. Really, go for
it.


Attrition means the slow removal or wearing down of a group by removal of its
members.

Thus, a company can say that it has reached an agreement with its union to
reduce its workforce "by attrition". In that case, what is meant is that the
company won't fire or lay off anyone in order to achieve its goal, but will only
reduce its workforce by not hiring replacements for employees who quit.

On the other hand, attrition doesn't _have_ to mean that no active removal of
group members is taking place. Thus, the verb "attrit" was used during the
Vietnam War to refer to inflicting slow but steady casualties on the Viet Cong.

So here Terry Austin has two points in his favor against Chris Peterson:

1) The _literal meaning_ of the word attrition doesn't preclude achieving population control by attrition involving killing people - just not a lot of them in a hurry.

2) In any case, what was posted was: "I'm all for a reduction of the human
population back down to a billion or less. But ideally by attrition, not
cataclysm." So, even if we accept that a sense of "attrition" was meant, as in
the example of reducing a workforce by attrition, that involved no killing, just
not replacing people as quickly as they died naturally, this is only an _ideal_,
and apparently, therefore, if one is "all for" such a reduction in population,
this implies one would still regard it as a positive development if such a
reduction took place even in ways that fell somewhat short of the ideal.

I mean, if you say you're "all for" reducing the human population to a billion
or less, and then start getting picky and opposing anything that comes short of
the _ideal_ way to achieve this, people are going to start to say you weren't
really _that_ enthusiastic about population reduction after all!

Thus, while I suspect that Chris Peterson never really *meant* to come out in
support of, say, a global thermonuclear war as a somewhat less than perfect
means to achieve an urgently needed result, and so Terry Austin is, no doubt,
being disingenuous with respect to what Chris Peterson actually _intended_ to
say...

as far as what Mr. Peterson *actually* said, he has a point.

John Savard