[ibogaine] more on helping or killing

Joshua Tinnin jtinnin at pacbell.net
Sun Jul 28 13:23:55 EDT 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Calabrese" <bcalabrese at yahoo.com>
> --- preston peet <ptpeet at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > and my prior comments still stand, even though I do
> > find myself, as I believe I've noted very recently,
> > shaking my head when I see news clips of all these
> > starving people around the world, people surrounded
> > by 2, 5, 25 children, all theirs. What are they
> > thinking?
> > But personally, I'd rather help feed them and give
> > them health care, (and myself too) than pay to
> But birth control isn't health care??? The only
> choices are birth control vs drilling for oil,
> building death machines and killing the environment???
> Problem with your theory (IMO) is more people use more
> fuel/food/land/resources and strain the environment.
> There is a simple fact we all live on the same petri
> dish called earth, there is only so much to go around
> and YES the death machines/killing environment (yadda,
> yadda, yadda) need to stop. It might be a good idea to
> help with the limited resources (not that they should
> be limited, just that they are) to not breed new
> addicts and focus those resources on the adults and
> little ones that we already have.

Well, with that in mind, let's just round up all the addicts and sterilize
every one of them.

BTW, starting with 2 people and assuming a 2% annual growth rate over only a
1,500 year period the population of the planet shuld be almost 16 billion.
The truth is that the fertility rate of men in the US has dropped
dramatically since the 1950s. This petri dish is rather like a fishbowl - we
only reproduce to the point of sustainability. The "sky is falling"
population explosion theory is a fallacy. Moreover, people in the US and
other highly developed nations have *far less* children per capita than in
less developed nations. Barring growth due to immigration, the US might even
soon begin to see a decline in population growth very soon. Most predictions
allow about 9 billion people by 2050. That would mean that the curve of the
hyperbola of population is starting to apex and from there, fall.

Compassion must outweigh the "one less addict" or "one less child of an
addict" thinking. It's a half step away from outright killing addicts.

Ridding the US of potential children of crack addicted mothers is a *very*
small drop in the bucket. Sterilization for $200 seems to be an extreme way
to accomplish this goal.

Smart growth and fostering sustainability would alleviate far more problems
due to limited resources than sterilizing crack-addicted mothers. Finally
realizing and accepting our huge consumption rate in the US and doing
something to change *that* will mean much, much more than the CRACK program
could ever hope to accomplish, and nobody would have to be sterilized.

> rebate), no killing and you keep going off on KILLING
> and sterilization as if it is being forced. You seem
> to want to limit the choices addicts have in their
> lives because of your beliefs - if someone wants an
> abortion, birth control or sterilization, that is
> their choice and CRACK is helping them with choices,
> they are NOT making choices for the addict.

Offering them $200 is ridiculous. How about a home and a recovery program in
exchange? $200 is a carrot.

- jt

More information about the Ibogaine mailing list