My reflection through other eyes

Often we wonder how others see us. We question whether people like us or enjoy our company. Do they find us attractive, amusing, intelligent or ugly, ridiculous and stupid? Most of the time we never know the truth, and perhaps we are better off not knowing.

However, it seems that social media is opening up Pandora's box and giving us a small insight into how others might really view ourselves. On Facebook there are dozens of 'applications' (I know because I've blocked them all) that will seek the truth from your 'friends', compare their perceptions, ask them to reveal their opinions as well as judge you on a range of issues and personality traits. Who needs a therapist any more?

And if that wasn't enough, now you can even be stereotyped, pigeon-holed and categorised by complete strangers. Break out the champagne!

Thanks to Twitter's introduction of 'lists' you can now gain an insight into how your followers see you via your profile and tweeting history. Let me explain by analysing the lists that I've found myself thrust into.

Firstly, geographic locations account for the vast majority of Twitter lists, so it is natural that I find myself grouped in with fellow sandgropers (Western Australians) on no less than 18 lists with names like perthians, perthites, perth-peeps, perth-people, perthmafia, perth-twitterati, the-perth-files, perthizzles, perthies or simply "perth". In addition I'm included on 3 generic "Aussie" lists and a "outside-usa-overflow-box".

That means that more than half of the 38 lists that herald my twitterings are geocentric. No surprises there, in fact it's pretty boring unless there is more to the 'mafia' than simple metaphor.

The next most popular type of category seems to depend on whether you can be confirmed as a real person with "people-not-spammers", "rl-peeps" (presumably rl='real life'), "knowirl" (know in real life), "yet-to-meet-irl" and "twitter-contacts".

What really sparked my interest (and the reason for this prattle) was the group of lists that categorised my activity. Apparently I make the grade for "Social media" by two followers, despite being nothing more than a mere user. Other tweeps have fashioned my twitter existence with descriptions like "rationalists", "politics", and most surprisingly "journalists".

Meanwhile there were compliments like "awesomepeople" and "they-make-me-smile". Both of which compensated for being on the "other and "random" lists.

I'm just not sure what to make of being on the list titled "naughty-max" :-p

A new creed

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

V for Vendetta

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

And the war begins ...

Xenophon's head up his own arse!

The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.

South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,

The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.

An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.

Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.

Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!

Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.

What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p

Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!

Pride risks nationalism

Something I came up with today in a discussion about national pride and nationalism:

A preoccupation with the colours, emblems or subjective values of a nation instead of the beauty of the peoples and cultures that inhabit it, is pure nationalism and we should despise it before we learn to fear it.

There's a fine line between pride and nationalism and I choose to stand as far away from that line as possible. To that end, I don't like:

• vehicles adorned with flags (as if we don't know what it looks like)
• tattoos of flags or other nationalist symbols (as if you need proof of where you were born)
• objections to the burning of flags as a valid form of protest
• anything that promotes bigotry or vilification of any kind

What do you think?

Google v China

The last straw seems to have been placed on the back of Internet behemoth, Google. At least in China.

In a carefully worded announcement, Google announced it's intention to cease censoring search results for China after a detailed investigation into last year's cyber-attack which, among other issues, seems to have been aimed at Chinese dissidents and human rights activists. The company fell short of pointing the finger directly at the Chinese government, but the diplomatic language was unequivocal in assigning guilt.

Read the full announcement here.

The question remains, is this merely sabre rattling on Google's part, or do they fully intend to undo the many years of painstaking work and withdraw from the fastest growing market in the world? Time will tell what discussions, negotiations and concessions are made to the current arrangements and whether Google.cn is closed and the Google offices in China are vacated.

Almost 3 years ago to the day, Google admitted that the decision to assist with censorship was a mistake. <China censorship damaged us, Google founders admit, The Guardian, 27 Jan 2007)

Season's Greetings

Friends, family and fellow journeyers of life,

In the spirit of the festive season I wish you joy and peace ...

... in amongst the corny jokes and silly hats, whining kids, paper cuts, sunburn, carpet burn, grazed knees, poked eyes, pulled hair, gluttony, intoxication, hangovers, accidentally drinking the bottle of Grange, busted toys, missing batteries, things you never wanted, gifts you'll never use, presents you don't even understand, overflowing bins of garbage, sinks full of dishes, mozies and flies galore, overturned pot plants, cricket balls thru the neighbour's window, toddlers whacked with totem tennis racquets, siblings drowning each other in the pool, groin injuries, all night parties down the road, blaring music, police sirens, smashed bottles, slashed tyres, broken side mirrors, burnouts on the front lawn, broken sprinkler heads, rolling drunk uncle Joe, skinny dipping great aunt Ethel, and other relatives you wish you could sell into slavery, ...

Yes ... I do hope you all find that precious moment of joy and peace ... somewhere, quietly, alone, even for just a few seconds !

Season's Greetings!

:-)

Clima-facsism

Clima-fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with anthropomorphic climate change, in which a mass-based grouping of committed environmental militants, manipulated by and working in an uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues its anti-humanistic goals through the manipulation and suppression of debate, without ethical or legal restraints [Courtesy of Open Your Eyes News]

its basis:

Fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion [Robert Paxton]

P***** Off!

POLEMICOL polysemously proposes to profusely ponder and promote the polymorphic potentiality and perpetuity of policing political polemics through perpetration of proscribed pyrolysis in pandemic proportions.

RIP Jack - and please don't haunt me!

It is a day of many and mixed emotions when one's nemesis passes away. Where would Sherlock Holmes have been without Moriarty, Batman without Catwoman, Superman without Lex Luthor.

It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.

Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.

That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.

Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.

One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)

Dear Friends,

It is with great sadness today that I have the duty to inform you that one of our greatest has passed away. Jack Evans died early this morning in Perth.

A former Senator, National President and National Campaign Director, Jack Evans was instrumental in the formation of the Australian Democrats, and was a significant figure in many of our greatest moments, including rafting the Franklin River with Don Chipp all those years ago.

Jack was a man of visions and ideas. He wanted to make things happen, and often they did. People would get caught up in his enthusiasm and share his vision and work hard to make it happen. He had a deep and commanding voice and chose his words carefully. He didn’t prattle on, but spoke with quiet dignity after listening to others opinions. Therefore – people listened, felt heard and had confidence in his ability to deliver.

He was a deal maker, pulling people together to make things happen. He was also very cautious and very much kept what he saw as the Party’s best interest deep in his heart. He was very protective of the Party when he could see people who’s intent was questionable or potentially problematic and some took this as obstructionist. He knew how to be a strategist and develop ways of achieving goals. Jack never spoke ill of people despite the criticisms he would inevitably receive and had a remarkable ability to tenaciously push through obstacles, disregarding personal cost.

There was nothing more he loved, it seemed, than talking about political ideas, about ways to address the big issues, about the way the Democrats could continue to make a difference. He remained absolutely committed to the ideals of the Party and those remaining have a responsibility to Jack to do their best to ensure those ideals are not lost from the political landscape.

He remained very private about his personal side, yet once one of his friends he was warm and gracious, always showing a keen interest in those around him.

People like Jack Evans are rare – I know he touched and inspired many Australian Democrats and others across the country. To those close to him we offer our deepest and most heartfelt condolences. We will all miss him.

Julia Melland
National President
Australian Democrats

And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.

Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.

Not recommended for vegans!

Following on from my posts about killing day old chickens and the dolphin for food campaign I thought I would share this enlightening fictional perspective written by Terry Bisson.

The title is also the first line; it thus commences:


"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."

Full story here

Closer to A Brave New World

In a recent post I asked "Is a virus secretly killing you?" and cited growing examples of how common and uncommon virii are being connected with various cancers.

Here is more research that points to the same conclusion, this time in relation to prostate cancer.

Big pharma must be joyous at the opportunity to develop more and more vaccines. Meanwhile the world's fresh food supply is becoming more restricted leading up to the implementation of codex alimentarius.

I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of soma and soylent in the marketplace.

Dolphin Dilemma

Simultaneously published at Online Opinion

It is both intriguing and bewildering watching the fallout and resulting hype over the documentary The Cove which portrays animal activists, led by Flipper trainer Ric O’Barry, outing the not-so “secret” practice of dolphin fishing in Japan.

At the heart of this political campaign is the emotional bond that we have been conditioned to believe exists between dolphin and human; that somehow dolphins are more human than other animals and thus deserving of something more than what we give to other animals. On the other side is a tradition spanning thousands of years across many cultures all around the world; that dolphins are a genuine food source.

According to the campaign material on various websites in support of or directly related to the movie, the purpose of the film is to alert people to the “heinous” activity and gain support in demanding that the Japanese government ban the practice. They raise only the following few points:

• 20,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed each year in Japan;
• the way in which the dolphins are killed is "brutal";
• Japanese consumers are being sold dolphin meat;
• the meat can contain high levels of mercury; and
• the meat is often labelled as whale meat.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the aim is to prevent dolphins and porpoises from being killed (full stop) and that the other issues (the horror of death; that Japanese people are barbaric for eating dolphin meat; health and safety of consumers is at risk due to toxins; and illegal trading practices include mislabelling of seafood) are merely designed to attract a sympathetic audience from as far and wide as possible.

Subsequently, I’m not going to be drawn on debating some of these points in detail as they are simply red herrings, which I will explain shortly. My intention herein is to play Devil’s advocate by taking a philosophical look at each of the other points raised by the filmmakers to determine whether the practice of dolphin fishing is indeed as bad as they suggest.

Ultimately the question open for debate is whether dolphin meat should be available for consumption. Individual moral values aside, there are only three points to logically consider when determining whether we should eat a particular food (be it beast or plant):

1. Is the food fit for human consumption? It must be nutritious, palatable and have no ill side effects.
2. Will consumption hasten the extinction of that species or be detrimental to the population in a particular area?
3. Are the practices of bringing the food to the table the best available? Are they environmentally sound, humane, hygienic, efficient, competitive and honest?

Let’s look at these in detail for the example of dolphins and porpoises in light of the movie, The Cove. First, dolphins, whales and other cetaceans have been an integral part of the diet of numerous cultures for many thousands of years. Technically it is a nutritious and pleasant food to consume if you don't draw any conscious familiarity to Flipper. Those that are squeamish about the concept are likely to have similar issues with eating Bambi or Thumper.

Concerns about toxins, such as cadmium or mercury, are justified but are equally applicable to other seafood caught from the same waters as the dolphins. All pollution eventually reaches the oceans, so seafood has experienced increased levels of toxicity in recent decades and the developing nations of Asia are the leading culprits.

Similarly, we have examples in Australia where a cheap fish is substituted for an expensive one, such as barramundi. Labelling and toxicity are matters for the relevant agencies to address and most consumers are right to expect their food to be labelled correctly and to know that it meets health guidelines, no matter whether it was chicken or whale.

These are not issues unique to Japan or the dolphin trade and both arguments are simply red herrings. Thus, there is no gastronomic or biological reason for banning dolphin as a food item. Let’s move on.

As to the second question of extinction, my research indicates that this isn't a critical issue for dolphins like it is with, say, whales, the great cats or the orang-utans. With the exception of a few localised problems (e.g. Solomon Islands dolphin population being relatively small), global dolphin populations are quite safe. 20,000 per year may seem like a large number, but it represents about one third of a per cent (0.0033 per cent) of the world dolphin population.

“According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are likely more than six million dolphins worldwide. A few species are at risk of extinction, but most number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.” (National Geographic, August 2009)

In comparison, it is estimated that there are fewer than 5,000 blue whales, no more than 8,000 right whales, less than 50,000 fin whales and about only 60,000 humpback whales in existence (International Whaling Commission). But even these represent high populations when you look at the plight of the tigers with less than 7,500 worldwide with three of the eight sub-species already declared extinct (The Global Tiger Forum).

On the flipside chickens are almost exclusively farmed to meet human food needs and rarely exist in the wild. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) “The world population of domestic chickens increased by 160%, from 13.5 billion in 1998 to 35 billion in 2006” (Assist America). The vast majority of these birds are killed for food every year and our growing demand ironically ensures the survival of that species, as they almost certainly could not survive in the wild. Modern cattle, swine and sheep also enjoy high populations almost exclusively to serve human needs.

It’s important to highlight some points about farming. Apart from the fact that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to "farm" dolphins, captive breeding (modern farming) isn't always good for the animal, the species or the consumer. It requires more intensive land use and is often reliant on antibiotics, pesticides and nutritional supplements. Additionally, pollutants are a common issue across most Asian seafood so if a dolphin farm was developed (like a tuna farm) it would probably exist in the same polluted waters.

To argue, as I have heard some do, that dolphins are somehow different to other animals because they are not farmed is once again another red herring. If we were to farm dolphins in the same way that we farm tuna or salmon would that make the practice more acceptable? Perhaps not for those who are deep in the heart of the moral campaign. That makes it merely a straw man argument.

So now we come to the issue of herding and culling. Is it an unavoidable fact or an inhumane brutality? Again, let’s look at it from an objective perspective. Humans are predominantly omnivores. We eat meat, therefore we must kill animals. Killing involves shock, pain and bloodshed as anyone would expect. Unfortunately it is not efficient to put every animal “to sleep” with a chemical before slaughtering it. What we all would hope is that we engage best practice in our methodology. If we discover a better way to kill a cow that doesn’t drastically increase the costs, we should employ it.

The question therefore, is not about whether the practice of herding dolphins into coves for slaughter is barbaric, brutal or inhumane. Instead it is about whether a suitable alternative exists. I have found none, but I’m open to being educated on the subject and will gladly campaign for the worldwide introduction of such methods if they exist.

DO NOT WATCH IF SQUEAMISH! - Dolphin slaughter in Japan

Currently it can take a few minutes for a dolphin to die after it is cut open and bleeds to death - the same method is used to slaughter pigs, albeit after they receive an electric shock and they are hung upside down to hasten the bloodletting. I have a feeling that electricity and water would not be a good recipe for dolphin fishing, but perhaps the hanging of the carcass would make the event swifter and ease any suffering.

There is a distinct similarity between herding cetaceans and trawling for fish, however the trawl is less efficient due to the large amount of by-catch taken. Additionally, fish can take much longer to “suffocate” out of the water, resulting in higher levels of stress than other produce.

The only other difference is the cuteness and human-like qualities we observe in the prey. Anyone who has owned pet fish, mice, birds, cats or dogs and studied their behaviour might see that dolphins are hardly unique and that it is we humans instead who have the cute animal-like qualities. Cuteness is hardly a rational argument for deciding what to eat.

In conclusion, if we have a food that is palatable, fit for consumption, honestly labelled and reaches our plate in a manner equal to that of other produce, as long as that food is from a sustainable population and not at risk of future extinction then there is no argument against it continuing to be available. Whether you choose to buy or consume it is entirely up to you.

Certainly, no adult should be forced to eat kangaroo if they don’t want to, but please don’t argue that I shouldn’t eat it because it’s cute, has feelings, isn’t humanely killed or simply because it happens to be on our coat of arms. Similarly, the arguments don’t stack up with dolphin!

At the current levels of dolphin fishing, matched against wild populations there is nothing to suggest we should stop the practice of dolphin fishing. It is simply not in the same league as whaling. However, there is clear evidence that we could improve the method of culling and that we should proceed with haste in that direction.

To those readers who might like to jump in and claim that I have skirted around or ignored the moral issues, please feel free to do so now. Your morals are your own and they should direct your life, not anyone else’s and least of all mine.

All I'm asking is that people understand why they are reacting in horror upon watching The Cove - ultimately because it’s a cute dolphin and not an ugly pig.

Ask yourself “if a dolphin farm existed (like a tuna farm), that was free from pollutants and they were slaughtered as humanely as possible - would you allow dolphin meat to be sold?” If not, why not? Can you find a single reason that isn’t purely emotional and tied to your programmed conditioning of what a cute dolphin represents?

For the record, I eat meat - I know how it gets to my plate and I'm OK with it. Most people don't want to know because knowledge means accepting responsibility.

How to kill a day old chicken

There is a fair bit of hype going around the Internet at the moment about this video showing day old male chickens being "ground alive".

WARNING: do not watch the video if you are squeamish about how your food is produced!

According to this article on the RSPCA website:

"The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=3451) states that all culled or surplus newly hatched chicks that are destined for disposal must be treated as humanely as those that will be retained or sold. They must be destroyed promptly by a recommended humane method such as carbon dioxide gassing or quick maceration."

If the RSPCA believe that being ground alive is a quick and humane death, then that is good enough for me.

Who's for a roast chook?

On Monday (7 September 2009) I will be publishing a detailed article (on OnlineOpinion as well as here) with regard to dolphin fishing, which is practiced around the world in many countries but has been highlighted in the new film The Cove.

I take a look at the arguments raised by the film makers and test their veracity. You may be surprised at what I discover and the unusual conclusion that results.

The simple truth

A Brave New World

A simple, thought provoking quote from Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World:

"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too - all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides - made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions... Suggestions from the State."

And one from George Orwell's 1984:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

You can stick to your daily routine and believe that everything is under control, or you can read, think and decide otherwise!

Is a virus secretly killing you?

We should all heed this report which seems to confirm a long-held suspician that at least one strain of the enterovirus (the common cold) may be the cause of type 1 diabetes.

Combine this with the knowledge that 4 strains of the human papilloma virus (hpv) are the major cause of cervical cancer (now presumably prevented by the Gardasil vaccine), and that several other strains of the same virus causes cancer in various other parts of the body, including the anus and bowel.

HPV is also a common virus with more than 100 strains and carried by up to 50% of the population. As such it was never thought to pose much risk to human life, merely presenting itself in the form of warts in the affected part of the body.

Both discoveries should raise an obvious question to any logical thinker; Are common virii the blame for all our life-threatening ailments? If so, what does that mean for the future of human health, longevity and the future success of pharmaceutical vaccines?

Bruno & homophobia - let's get real people!

There has been a lot of hype about Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen's latest movie squirm-fest that is sure to leave you horrified or laughing hysterically. I was hysterically horrified, but then I found Borat to be provocatively amusing too.

Much of the media focus has been on predictable complaints about it being homophobic. Really? Yes - seriously. Some people are so far up their own activist arses that they enjoy a little tonsil hockey at the same time!

People like Colin Wilson at Socialist Worker are on the warpath by stamping their feet at any heterosexual that dares to highlight the taboo world of internalised homophobia. They claim that any fun made of anal sex must be an attack on gays around the world. Well, the last time I checked, gay men did not have the sole rights to anal sex, in fact I'm fairly certain that Eve asked Adam for it once or twice!

These infantile man-bag burners wave the banner of gay activism as if they were rampaging misandrists of a former era tarnishing the proud feminist movement.

Gay rights were born from the feminist campaigns of earlier decades, but just as we see today in the fundamentalist gay movement, there were a number feminazis that took things to the extreme and believed that every symbol of maleness was evil - even the word man, whose original meaning was all of humanity, regardless of sex or age.

Come on people - get your head out of your arse and grab a sense of humour before you die from suffocation due to an overdose of self-felching! Get a grip and focus on the real issues that plague human rights. This film is a satirical comedy that actually normalises gay sex through its confronting nakedness on all things gay.

I welcome it, I embrace it and I'll take the mind fuck completely!

Well done Sacha!

The silliest debate I've seen all year

I was shocked to read on Online Opinion, an article titled Anti-Populationists - the New Imperialists by Malcolm King.

It was the most uncompelling argument I've seen within this forum. Honestly, it is easier to argue with a religious fundamentalist on the existence of God, than to deal with any of the red herrings, straw men, pseudo-facts and nonsensical diatribe espoused by Malcolm.

I'm no fan of the extremist environmentalist movement that would have us reduce to a population of 500 million and survive on a completely vegan lifestyle reminiscent of our ancestral cave-dwellers. But Malcolm has illogically and stupidly tied this mindset to the entire population debate.

Malcolm has stuck his fingers in his ears, plunged his ostrich head in the sand and is singing "la la la - population isn't an issue".

I enjoyed reading his Feb 09 article "We have nothing to fear but hype itself" and suggest that Malcolm has taken this to the extreme by choosing to ignore any sign of any problem anywhere in the world, particularly if it means having to take some personal responsibility for one's over-consuming western lifestyle.

Malcolm claims some superiority without actually providing any evidence to support his argument or disprove the "anti-populationist" view. He appears to have a disliking for Sandra Kanck (and as both he and I are ex-Democrats I can totally understand that feeling *smirk*) but this feeling, rather than logic, seems to be driving his argument.

I particularly like this attack:

The anti-pops use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:

a. population is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of population.

Given that Malcolm also referenced carbon emissions, I presume that he is a believer in man made climate change, so I put the same argument back at him as my proof that climate change is NOT an issue to be concerned about:

The climate-changeists use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:

a. CO2 is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of CO2.

Whoops, Malcolm!

The reality is that the rise or fall in population of any species is known to have dramatic and measurable effects upon any local environment. We've seen it with fish, rabbits, cane toads, locusts, and thousands of others in modern history. Ecosystems while being generally robust and hardy are also delicately trying to maintain balance.

Humans are one of the few, if not the only, global species pervading and having a major effect on the local and global environments. To think otherwise is pure insanity.

Best Swine Flu Advice