Skip to comments.Roger Dittman, Calls for a human "Big Die Off" in the name of "Sustainable Development"
Posted on 04/30/2012 11:58:40 AM PDT by JohnKinAK
Economic (and other) development that leads to reduction in population toward an optimum level for maximization of the quality of life, i.e. environmentally benign development that reduces the birth rate., he explains on page 14 of his lecture notes.
The Big Die Off has already begun" (page 17).
He calls for Global Government:
Since this is a global effort, it requires global organization, both governmental and popular pg 18 of notes
(Excerpt) Read more at slideserve.com ...
careful what you wish for there, junior.
It's been done.
Soviet Union - Ukraine and other places in Russia under Lenin and Stalin
China - Cultural Revolution under Mao
Cambodia - Pol Pot agrarian reforms
Vietnam - Those that missed the boats
Rowanda - Who knows who and why
Germany _ Final solution to the Jewish question
Turkey - Armenian Genocide
Cuba - under Castro and Che
Central America -Various communist psychopaths
UN policy in Africa 1958 - present
You can bet Roger Dittman is eagerly anticipating being on the selection of and disposal of excess eaters for the greater good side of the program as opposed to being on the side of those poor souls selected for disposed of for the greater good.
Sorry about the double post. Slow link today.
Stupid comment from a man advocating a stupid idea. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
According to every available source and common knowledge, the "Big Die Off" is currently moving in the direction of a higher population. Still it's no wonder liberals support Obama - they all assume he's in favor of cutting our population aggressively.
Mark fof later.
In a free division of labor society, with a just government, and a free market in labor, and freedom of competition,increasing the population will increase the supply of labor, which enlarges the division of labor, which increases the productivity of labor, which increases production, which increases supply, which lowers the average level of prices, which increases the real wage rate of the average worker, which means and increased standard of living of the average worker.
Roger, Roger! After you!
bet he’s eager to “pay more taxes” as well....
WOah, woah, hold on a second. Have you ever considered the people you don’t want to exist could instead be slaves on your plantation, when we abandon industrialism in favor of a better “quality of life”? Think about it. Don’t throw the babies out with the so on.
“he must convince me he has the courage of his convictions. How can he do that? Perhaps if he made a video calling for a huge human die off, said ‘Goodbye’, stuck a .357 Magnum into his mouth, and squeezed the trigger, maybe I would listen to him. NOT!”
Yes, but his convictions include that there should be a global government to force people to have less babies or kill themselves, or whatever. He could therefore argue his voluntary slaughter would be beside the point, as we couldn’t expect enough people to kill themselves to solve the problem (in his imagination) for who’s leftover.
With the left it *always* comes to this in the end. The “how you get there” can vary but the final goal is this, make no mistake.
Exactly. We’ve seen this movie many times before.
A .22 properly placed will be sufficient.
Nutlos Esser —— Literally, “useless eaters,” a term used by the Nazis to refer to the mentally and physically handicapped.
The phrase “life unworthy of life” (in German: “Lebensunwertes Leben”) was a Nazi designation for the segments of populace which had no right to live and thus were to be “euthanized”.
Since we are now a pure democracy, with no restraints, I propose the following vote.
In the name of sustainable development, and for the sake of bugs and bunnies and Mother Gaia, I suggest that all liberal professors at liberal universities be euthenized.
All in favor raise your hands.
The Ayes have it!
Let's all contact Obama for the perfect solution for the unworkable "entitlement" culture.
There are a number of serious difficulties with the depopulation thesis. The first of these is the assumption it is possible to distribute surplus more evenly without destroying its production. This has been falsified repeatedly in history; why the idea persists is a monument to human ignorance. Secondly, that smaller populations are more efficient with respect to resource utilization. In fact, they are not, they can simply afford to be more wasteful. Thirdly, overpopulation will lead to some sort of apocalypse. It is an observable biological fact that it does so only in an artificially closed system - a petri dish, for example, not a continental-sized ecosystem. In the latter interdependent populations adjust themselves. And lastly, ignoring the dozens of other valid objections that have already been raised, the assumption that the Earth and its flora and fauna can be separated from its human component with any logical validity. The Earth is not in danger. The Earth did just fine without humans and will do just fine after we are gone. If we choose to torture ourselves because we think that we're gods, we deserve what we get out of it, and it won't be pleasant.
his bio pic sure put him at around 80 or so