Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rio+20: Scientists call for action on population (the real face of “sustainable development”)
EurActiv ^ | 18 June 2012 | Jonathan Watts for The Guardian, part of the Guardian Environment Network

Posted on 06/18/2012 3:04:20 AM PDT by Olog-hai

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last
To: impimp
Are you opposed to 1. high birth rates, 2. immigration, 3. both?

1. Yes, I am opposed to high birth rates -in others. Unfortunately, that makes me a rank hypocrite because my years of striving for the improvement of the breed have produced six kids and six grandchildren. I plead in evasion of the hypocrisy that I do not advocate government control. It is simply my preference that others who are not blessed with my genes voluntarily practice self-control.

Actually, I count the Liberty to have high birth rates if one chooses to indulge to be of the highest rank.

2. Yes, I am opposed to immigration excepting only immigrants who are exceptionally wealthy or who possess a desirable skill and these exceptions should be actively encouraged by public policy.

Both?-You decide.


51 posted on 06/18/2012 8:22:25 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
My point is that as a nation, we think about this stuff ass backward. We have this idea that we need to keep growing the population to feed an economy (state and federal revenue) when the reality is that revenue and spending should follow population.

Bingo!


52 posted on 06/18/2012 8:27:46 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Arguing that we need to stimulate population growth is exactly the same argument that we should force women to submit to insemination in order to increase the population of the state.”

How so?

“There are many ways of stimulating population growth without forcing women to become pregnant and they include opening the gates to immigration, subsidizing parents with tax deductions for having children, or putting unwed mothers in the baby business with welfare.”

And what makes you think I support any of these three? Simply stop the taxpayer funding devoted to population control, and you’ll see things go back. This includes taxpayer funding for abortion. If the state intervened less, and taxes were lower more people could afford to have children and more of them. I am concerned that you are using the same rhetoric in favour of population control, that the abortion supporters use to support abortion.

“I think you have three reasonable answers before you and not one of them includes abortion.”

When we are losing about a million a year though abortion, we are effectively paying to kill children and paying to save them. Simply stop paying to kill them in the first place.

“It is a logical non sequitur to insist that one cannot be in opposition to abortion and at the same time stand in opposition to population growth. The only oxymoron is in your persistence in connecting the two.”

Most prolifers (if not all), see children as a blessing. Most proaborts (if not all), see children as a burden.

You are treating children as a burden and claim to be against abortion. That to me seems implausible. So I am entertaining your assertion here, to clairify how you manage to square the circle with supporting population control AND being prolife.

“When will you say that the population of America is high enough?”

If you sincerely the population of America is X+1 too high, kill yourself.

“If you say there is no limit”

Well, that raises the question. What is the effective population limit? China raises roughly a billion on the same acreage as America.

Do I want that to be the number of people in America? Sure, if that is what it works out to be. I do not believe the state or anyone else has the right to tell them, (or me), (or you), for that matter as to how many children you can or cannot have.

That is what freedom is about. If people want to have 5 kids, or 10 kids, then they should be permitted to do so.

“If you admit that there is a limit, for example, that you are comfortable with the limit”

I don’t believe there ought to be an arbitrary limit enforced by the government. I think people ought to have as many children as they wish to have without the interference of the government. That is what freedom is all about. Most of America is empty, and getting emptier.

“So long as you mindlessly persist in connecting the two you are in a trap.”

So, as I asked earlier, by what means do you wish to control the population without resorting to abortion?

“Uneducated, poverty-stricken, illiterate, socialist minded, culturally alien, illegal (or legal) intruders cost more than they contribute.”

And educated, wealthy, literate, capitalist minded, america loving legal immigrants contribute more than they cost. Your point?

“The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources.”

If you feel the limit is X+1 over the current population, then kill yourself. That is rational, no?

“Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims.”

Only if you believe that it is the job of the government to provide for it’s citizens, and the job of the government to redistribute wealth. I reject that presumption. Once the inevitable collapse comes, we will finally see limited government.

“Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc.”

What about the 50 million unborn children who have been denied the right to life?

“Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City?”

Does North Dakota permit the killing of unborn children within it’s borders? Does North Dakota also provide public funding for planned parenthood? Then, yes, my religious freedoms are at state in sparsely populated North Dakota, as they are not here in densely populated Texas.

Our governor just KO’d abortion funding for PP.

“Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.”

And you believe that if we killed 170 million Americans that this would restore the property rights already lost?

You first, sir.

“If we are cheek by jowl with our neighbor inevitably the government will arbitrate the friction created by one rubbing against the other.”

As opposed to the whole sustainability movement which seeks to create people-free zones filled with wilderness, etc.

“I agree. But I also say: Those who are concerned about liberty need to relax their militant insistence on population growth.”

And to that, I say, wake up and smell the coffee. Ehrlich was 100 percent wrong, and so are you.

BTW, how do you propose that we control the population of the United States without abortion? I want to hear this.


53 posted on 06/18/2012 8:30:07 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“1. Yes, I am opposed to high birth rates -in others. Unfortunately, that makes me a rank hypocrite because my years of striving for the improvement of the breed have produced six kids and six grandchildren. I plead in evasion of the hypocrisy that I do not advocate government control. It is simply my preference that others who are not blessed with my genes voluntarily practice self-control.”

Fair enough. Everyone should have six kids just like NBForrest.

I don’t have any. I think people should be free, without government coercion telling them how many children they should have.

Actually, I count the Liberty to have high birth rates if one chooses to indulge to be of the highest rank.

2. Yes, I am opposed to immigration excepting only immigrants who are exceptionally wealthy or who possess a desirable skill and these exceptions should be actively encouraged by public policy.

Both?-You decide.


54 posted on 06/18/2012 8:37:33 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Yes, I am opposed to immigration excepting only immigrants who are exceptionally wealthy or who possess a desirable skill and these exceptions should be actively encouraged by public policy.”

Well, I agree. Immigration into America should expect that immigrants contribute. I believe the best thing America could do is to ditch the welfare system altogether. Then the only immigrants who will come are the ones who want to work. The problem isn’t the immigration, but the entitlements.


55 posted on 06/18/2012 8:39:28 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: nathanbedford

Let me twist around your philosophy about your preference for maximizing the percentage of the world’s genes that belong to you. If there are too few “American genes” and too few “Christian genes” relative to others then your genes may be eliminated by our future enemies. You need those genes you deem to be less desireable to protect your genes.

To expand even further - an inadequate number of genes (i.e. population) in the world could mean we are less able to handle alein attacks, asteroid strikes, etc. Economies of sclae and the technological advances that go with them require massive populations. Try thinking 20,000 years ahead. Saint Paul really wasn’t happy when people were being lazy because they thought Jesus was coming any time. We don’t know when he will come (it could be millions of years from now) so we need progress to face future threats - progress that comes with massive populations.


57 posted on 06/18/2012 9:08:39 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
BTW, how do you propose that we control the population of the United States without abortion? I want to hear this.

I thought I had enumerated three instances in a clear and unambiguous manner. I proposed that the government withdraw its subsidies for procreation.

What makes you think that I have ever proposed that we "control the population United States"?

How do you propose to stimulate population growth apart from the forceful insemination of women?

I will stop asking that question when you stop conflating opposition to government controlling population, that is, controlling its increase with support for abortion. You are resorting to the rankest kind of unfair debating tactics. You are inviting an equivalent response, and you just got one.

For the record, I oppose now and I have always opposed government subsidies for abortion. I am opposed to government controlling population up or controlling population down. I would support the withdrawal of subsidies which encourage procreation. Check your dictionary to understand the difference between "encouragement" and "control."

It is a deplorable debating tactic to resort to the ad hominem. What you did in these two paragraphs is scurrilous:

Most prolifers (if not all), see children as a blessing. Most proaborts (if not all), see children as a burden.

You are treating children as a burden and claim to be against abortion. That to me seems implausible.

In your last post you twice suggested I kill myself. You are a caricature of an abortion fanatic. If I don't pander to you with the requisite politically correct vocabulary I am a "pro-abort" and I should "kill" l myself.

I concede no moral ground to you on this subject whatsoever:

Ruthie "Remidies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart

I will let the reader judge.


58 posted on 06/18/2012 9:21:16 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts


59 posted on 06/18/2012 9:26:56 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts


60 posted on 06/18/2012 9:27:29 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts


61 posted on 06/18/2012 9:28:06 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts


62 posted on 06/18/2012 9:28:20 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
It bore repeating but…


63 posted on 06/18/2012 9:31:39 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

ZPG .. zero population growth and culling.. Their true agenda.


64 posted on 06/18/2012 9:32:24 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

No doubt... that is why we should challenge them to walk the walk of their talk.

LLS


65 posted on 06/18/2012 9:58:53 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“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.


66 posted on 06/18/2012 1:37:55 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Thank you for posting your article. I am still baffled why you see population growth as a bad thing.


67 posted on 06/18/2012 1:42:36 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Royal society. Yikes! The name is nothing but arrogance and snob horse crap. Condescending.

"Scientists call for action on population"

double yikes!

68 posted on 06/18/2012 9:34:22 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Lincoln referred to the "better angels of our nature" so I suppose there must be lesser angels on one shoulder and better angels on the other shoulder whispering into our ears.

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.


69 posted on 06/18/2012 11:32:46 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

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. :)


70 posted on 06/19/2012 6:00:47 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
These days I am blessed to be able to live in one of the loveliest areas of the world, an area which has been occupied for 2000 years and yet remains unspoiled to a large degree.

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.


71 posted on 06/19/2012 7:25:27 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

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.


72 posted on 06/19/2012 8:37:16 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; TigerLikesRooster; landsbaum; Signalman; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Lancey Howard; ...

Thanks for posting this.


73 posted on 06/23/2012 5:49:49 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

These are very dangerous people. One world rule is their goal.


74 posted on 06/23/2012 6:43:33 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson