Skip to comments.Rio+20: Scientists call for action on population (the real face of “sustainable development”)
Posted on 06/18/2012 3:04:20 AM PDT by Olog-hai
click here to read article
I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:
I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:
ZPG .. zero population growth and culling.. Their true agenda.
No doubt... that is why we should challenge them to walk the walk of their talk.
“I proposed that the government withdraw its subsidies for procreation.”
While retaining public support for planned parenthood. I see.
“How do you propose to stimulate population growth apart from the forceful insemination of women?”
If you read my post I would have explained how. Remove subsidies for population control. If we aren’t paying you to kill your baby, and we aren’t paying for your contraception, and we lower taxes across the board, people will be more likely to have and keep their children.
“I will stop asking that question when you stop conflating opposition to government controlling population”
I’m still waiting for your answer as to how you propose we should stop the population of the US from increasing without invoking abortion.
“Check your dictionary to understand the difference between “encouragement” and “control.” “
There is coercion and there is coercion. How do you propose that the government ‘encourage’ people not to have children and add to the surplus population?
“It is a deplorable debating tactic to resort to the ad hominem”
Which is why you still aren’t answering the question asked.
“In your last post you twice suggested I kill myself.”
It is the logical consequence of this argument.
One, there are too many people in America today.
Two, reducing the population would improve America.
Ergo, I should kill myself to reduce the population pressure on America.
“I concede no moral ground”
Hey, it’s simple. Answer the question asked.
Thank you for posting your article. I am still baffled why you see population growth as a bad thing.
"Scientists call for action on population"
I don't know which Angel, the better or the lesser, that represents Jefferson and which represents Alexander Hamilton. Sometimes I find myself a Jeffersonian and and sometimes a Hamiltonian. On this issue I am listening to the Jeffersonian Angel who wants an agrarian society as being the most representative and least tyrannical.
The Hamiltonian Angel at this point gets quite indignant and he accuses me of being a Luddite unwilling to contend with the modern age. The Jeffersonian Angel tells me that the founders shared Jefferson's vision and that's why we have federalism in the Constitution. Hamilton's Angel reminds me that we have been to the moon and live in a cyber age far removed from a fictive agrarian utopia of the slaver, Thomas Jefferson.
And so it goes on.
Nevertheless, my bias is for the Jeffersonian Angel. If the Hamiltonian Angel is correct and we can run our economy fast enough to stay ahead of the demographic wave, imagine the increased wealth and happiness if the wonders of the American economic system were not under such a strain. Imagine the improved quality of life if we were not competing so desperately for finite resources such as land or access into the cities. Imagine the increased degree of democracy if my vote were one among 140 million instead of 310 million?
What's wrong with Cracker Barrel democracy?
Hamilton tells me that the wonders of science and free markets are just beginning and Jefferson tells me that robots are no substitute for knowing our neighbor and, anyway, with Jefferson we can have an intimate democracy as well as material progress but, with Hamilton, perhaps just material progress.
So you’re from a rural area and have moved to an urban area? I sympathise. It’s a difficult adjustment, I don’t like it much myself in the city. :)
From my window I can see a lake, the largest in Bavaria, in which abundant fish are taken every day and have been for taken for 2000 years. Wherever I look I see deer blinds because in this region in order to keep your hunting license you are required, repeat required, to harvest a quota of deer a year and produce the skulls for proof.
I live in 150-year-old farmhouse with walls about a foot and a half thick. The structure, like all neighboring buildings conforms to a delightful Bavarian style which seems to add to the beauty of the landscape rather than detract from it.
None of these wonders come without cost. It is almost impossible to get a commercial fishing license for the lake, unless you have the right bloodlines because those licenses are handed down from generation to generation. To get a sportsman's license to fish you must get the equivalent of the PhD and ichthyology and pass practical and written tests which require you to know everything from anatomy to breeding habits etc. In effect, the fish stocks have been maintained by severely controlling accessibility to the fish. It works and it is fine for those who enjoy hereditary rights, but it is not a liberty that has been passed on to me.
Similarly, a hunting license is very difficult to obtain and requires a great deal of study. One must actively hunt almost year-round in order to retain the right which is exclusive in a geographical area. These regulations were put in place or at least extensively modified by Hermann Goering. It works but what about liberty?
The buildings in rural Bavaria are beautiful but they are subject to extremely strict zoning regulations. The effect works, tourists come here partly because of the architecture but I have no liberty to build a Cape Cod.
Moreover, the real estate is tightly controlled. Building lots are very expensive because they are rare with most of the area zoned for farming. The farmers are permitted to build houses for their children as they grow up and, when the town fathers decide, the city will buy a farm and subdivide it for sale as lots to build houses. But as a rule, the majority of those lots are designated for people who have lived in the town for many years, who are married, who have kids, and you have what is called in Germany, "vitamin B" (cronyism). These people receive their lots at a much reduced, subsidized price but they must live in the house for a period of time etc.
In other words what the state gives the state can regulate. They do this to preserve the countryside from the onrush of the population out of Munich. It works, but what about liberty?
I have a home still in Florida where there is white flight into gated communities much of the motivation for which is to shield the inhabitants from the press of population. These inhabitants submit themselves to draconian zoning housekeeping regulations by their community Association because they're willing to give up liberty in order to protect themselves from their neighbors. Although the in a different way, it is much the same as what is happening here in Bavaria-we are trading our liberties to protect us against the press of population.
In Germany it is almost impossible to own a handgun because the philosophy is that the government should protect us from our neighbor. Put another way, this society fears its neighbors more than its government, a surprising lesson to draw from history considering Germany's past.
In America, we believe that we should fear the government more than our neighbor so we, at least we conservatives, want the liberty of owning a gun. In highly populated areas in America where we most need the gun, we are least likely to be allowed the liberty.
In many ways, rural Germany is like rural America, there is enough space for decent living. The cities here are also civilized. Munich is one of the great cities in the world, relatively safe, with real trees, and all of the amenities without the brutality of New York or Chicago. But it only has a little over 1 million people.
No matter where I look, whether in Germany or at home, I see trade-offs between liberty and population density.
Ahh, that explains it all.
Drawing a circle 700 miles from Munich will include London, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Naples, Belgrade, Napoca, Lemberg, Warsaw, Danzig, Gothenberg.
You get 50 percent of the population of Sweden, 80 percent of the population of Italy, 20 percent of Romania, 20 percent of the Ukraine, 80 percent of France, and 50 percent of the United Kingdom.
That’s added onto the population of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia.
That’s 300 million people.
From where I live, drawing that exact same circle I get:
Pensacola, Tampico, Torreon, Chihuahua, Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Amarillo, Wichita, Springfield MO, Memphis, Jackson.
So that would be, all of Texas, Oklahoma (90 percent), 40 percent of New Mexico, 10 percent of Missouri, All of Arkansas, 10 percent of Tennessee, All of Louisiana, 90 percent of Mississippi, 10 percent of Florida, and about 20 percent of Mexico.
Adding that all up gives me 25 + (4.5) + (3) + Chihuahua (3) + 4.6 (Neuvo Leon), + 2.7 (Coahula) + 3.2 (Tamaulipas) + 4 million on the fringe gives me 50 million people.
1/6th that of you in Bavaria. :)
America (or in this case, America + Northern Mexico), is not Europe.
Thanks for posting this.
These are very dangerous people. One world rule is their goal.