Posted on 11/01/2014 8:21:13 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
ebola without borders? :-(
I was thinking the same, but with the Middle East.
Some are gonna hafta die and the Libs who believe in this BS get to choose whom.
Because if there were only 7000 people on the earth, the climate would stay the same day to day forever. You see. Consensus.
You are making assumptions that do not consider the nature of the system on this planet, or, for that matter, the nature of systems in general. There is no system that is permanent and inviolable. It is in the nature of every system that it change. Systems do, however, seek stability. these are immutable conditions. They cannot be substantially mitigated.
Attempting to maintain a limited population of any species as a hedge against extinction or environmental degradation ignores the reason for the system to have produced that particular species.
These are, of course, unknowable conditions. To act as if an unknowable is certain knowledge is foolish in the extreme. That is my considered opinion of environmentalism. It is foolish in the extreme.
You are mistaken, they are not raising the living standard in the Third World.
Population will control itself quite nicely. All that is needed is clean drinking water, decent nutrition, proper sanitation and funeral practices, and vaccinations against disease. Those are the only living standards that matter.
Every area of the world were these simple steps have been implemented have seen birthrates dramatically decline VOLUNTARILY.
Your money is going to bureaucrats, corrupt juntas, public unions and politically correct, crony “industries”, and will never reach those in need in the Third World because that would dry up the justification to forcibly take your wealth.
The progressives are going full Nazi now and not even trying to hide it.
I agree with all you say. When a trend is unsustainable, it will not be sustained.
But one truly effective way to analyze the logic of assumptions is to carry them to their logical conclusions.
I agree that the Earth, were it not for the dead hand of oppressive governments, could easily support 10B people. Is it therefore logical to believe that it could equally well support 100B? 1000B? 10 trillion?
Well, no. Human population expansion must and will, obviously, at some point end, or we will eventually have 10 trillion people jammed onto the planet.
Where enviros err is not in advancing this truism, but in assuming that population expansion must be stopped next year, and that they should be put in charge of imposing that stop, by focre if necessary.
In actual fact, we have lots and lots of excellent evidence that population growth is slowing and that population is very likely to begin declining before the end of this century. Every single population project I’ve seen over the last 50 years has wildly overestimated our present levels.
Fertility rates are dropping in almost all countries. Most people haven’t realized how drastic these changes have been over the last decade or two. They still envision “third world” countries as swarming with babies. Just isn’t true anymore.
Many countries are below replacement rate of 2.1 now. Brazil is 1.8. Canada 1.6. Germany 1.4. Iran 1.9 (!). El Salvador 2.2. Russia 1.6.
We think of Mexico as swarming with children, but their rate is 2.2, only slightly above above our own of 1.9.
A few years back a surprise movie hit was My Big Fat Greek Wedding. It was based on big extended Greek families with lots and lots of cousins. Doesn’t exist anymore. Greek fertility rate is 1.3. Most children don’t have siblings, and their children won’t have any first cousins.
Even in countries where the rate is still well above replacement, it is almost always trending down.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
Why a closed system? We have already exceeded the initial counts that were supposed to overwhelm the planet. And we are not truly limited to this planet, are we? Malthus is dead and God is not.
Depopulation is more a concern to modern societies. Western nations are doomed unless they can increase their populations. Japan will be history in a few generations, if they don’t change. Europe is almost as bad. It’s one of the biggest reasons Muslims have inordinate power in many civilized countries.
Heretic!
The third world is a static place filled with degenerate, ignorant masses who need to be fed by the West! /s
Of course, you don’t address that virus that has infected so many places: Islam. Large population growth combined with an intransigent ignorance. Of course, their xenophobic murderous inclinations do moderate some of their growth and most of their neighbors.
Western societies and Japan/Korea are out in front, but most others aren’t resisting the trend, they’re simply a decade or two behind.
That thing is freaky scary.
“Climate solution” that will not affect the climate
It was a “monument” erected in 1980 in Elbert County, Georgia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
It’s rumored that Ted Turner commissioned it. There’s no real evidence of that, but I wouldn’t put it past him. He’s insane enough to have thought it was a good idea at the time, and all of the stuff inscribed on it is congruent with his fevered philosophies.
I agree. Human population is self governing by conditions far beyond our understanding. Population control extremists err in not learning about natural processes. They are, at best, ignorant fanatics.
Countless studies in naturally occurring populations reveal they level off numerically when their perpetuation is - virtually - assured. High rates of infant mortality produce high rates of pregnancy, not the reverse.
The belief that some people are so smart they should control everyone else is a sure sign of stupidity, not intelligence.
The law of unintended consequence is fast ganging up on China as its one child policy produces vastly more men than women. Natural population control would never create such an imbalance.
I am firmly convinced that the natural system is not capricious but is coherent and wholesome. When troublemakers try to enforce their will upon nature catastrophe always ensues.
Here’s the thing. The opening sentence of the article: “The equation seems fairly simple: The more the world’s population rises, the greater the strain on dwindling resources and the greater the impact on the environment.”
First, resources are not dwindling. They are increasing. Greater population creates greater resources.
Second, of course this impacts the environment but only to alter it, not to destroy it. Unless, of course, you believe things should never change, in which case you fail to grasp the basic truth that all things change.
The article is based on a Luddite grasp of reality. As such it is ignorant and stupid.
Japanese and Korean xenophobia has accelerated the process and they will be the canaries. China is watching closely...
Europe, on the other hand, will be overrun by Muslims before the collapse. Strange how liberalism and its inherent death worship kills society. At least they’ll all be dead before the world freezes over from global warming.
ALL of the World’s problems would be solved by 100 % birth control for one generation!!!
It isn't a "nuance" at all, it's simply that the two have different degrees of coercion. The overall idea is that medical methods for preventing pregnancy would have a positive overall effect if they were implemented in countries that do not have them at present. I can think of a few problems.
It is ironic that the proponents claim to be the staunchest opponents of First World cultural imperialism, which this is, and that they cannot seem to anticipate a certain natural resentment at this interference with other cultures, some of which are likely to respond to condom shipments with a good, old-fashioned stoning. Call it "sales resistance". And there is a slightly more pertinent objection: WE CAN'T EVEN GET FOOD TO THESE PEOPLE, much less rubbers and IUDs. Nor can we (nor do we have a right to) make them use them if we could - that would be the "nuance" the author claims between Condoms For The Willing and China's draconian one-child policy.
The reason that this is a "touchy" topic is simply that these, like so many utopian nostrums, will not work in the absence of coercion. Pretending that a box of Trojans in every drug store in sub-Saharan Africa will cause the inhabitants to enjoy the privileges of first-world women in terms of "family planning" is, to say the least, a little naive.
I’ve read about that thing. It has some astronomical significance, too.
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.