Population and environmentalism.

[Brain Candy]

...There are far too many people consuming too much. The overconsumption part does get some play (which is why I don't focus on it much), but the "too many people" part is avoided at all costs by most environmentalists and groups. This has the potential to go down as the most tragic instance of intellectual dishonesty in human history...

...At any rate, their position really crystallized at the UN's 1994 conference on population in Cairo. Responding to pressure groups, leaders there decided to go along with the idea of avoiding dealing with population in terms of numbers in favor of a focus solely on social issues, some of which are thought to be linked to population growth. A major report from the UK last year summarized this very well. It solicited the input of scores of scientists and population experts, and concluded that this shift of attention has been a serious setback to the population issue and to environmental matters worldwide.

Those opposing addressing population are, I should also say, extremely anthropocentric or speciesist if you will. Everything is seen as a matter of human rights with no regard whatsoever for the rights of other species which are disappearing at rates 100 to 1000 times normal. Anthropologist Jeffrey McKee at Ohio State University has demonstrated convincingly that this "sixth extinction" (the fifth eliminated the dinosaurs) is due primarily to our sheer, growing numbers...

Environmentalist John Feeney .

I think the fact that population growth, and not JUST our consuming habits, is harming the sustainability of our environment will slowly dawn on the more streamlined green movement we got nowadays.

It also seems taboo to point out that overpopulation has humanitarian implications. Look at Africa, no matter how many resources we put into it, it will mean just more people fighting over the sparse resources within the continent, unless we continuosly put more resources into it, and then we get into overconsumption issues again.

Julian Simon had some interesting ideas about how the market might eventually take care of everything, but I think he fails to demonstrate how living in a overpopulated world would create better, happier lives for people. Also he seems to think that sheer numbers of people will mean more creation and innovation, even though it has always been the "quality" of people- which is severely impacted by the surrounding environment- and not quantity that determines creativity and ingenuity within civilisations.

A certain british politician recently got in trouble for mentioning possible population control measures within another context, but arent we just covering up an issue that will keep hammering at us harder and harder in a variety of ways?

Edited April 7, 2008 by Brain Candy

[August1991]

I think the fact that population growth, and not JUST our consuming habits, is harming the sustainability of our environment will slowly dawn on the more streamlined green movement we got nowadays.

Population growth?

Of the G8 countries, all but the US is "growing" at less than replacement rates. For example, the birth rate in Japan is 8.1 per 1000 (the death rate is 8.98 per 1000). The only reason Canada, the UK and France are above replacement levels is because of immigration - from poor countries.

How about Russia? Birth rate of 10.92 per 1000 and a death rate of 16.04 per 1000. Germany? Birth rate of 8.2 per 1000 and a death rate of 10.71 per 1000.

Or how about anecdotal evidence? The other day, sitting in a Tim Horton's, I leafed through a copy of Le Journal de Montreal. There were about 8 pages of death notices and one column of birth notices. That's not only a statement about Quebec's population but also about changes in the clientele of newspapers.

----

If you really believe in controlling the world's population, you might want to look at which countries have increasing populations. To which I always have it found it apt to say: the world does not lack children, it lacks educated children.

Is it PC to make that observation?

[Brain Candy]

I didnt mean to imply that immigration was not part of population growth in first world countries. Overconsumption is a combination of a growing population and that populations use of resources. While a huge population in poor countries doesnt mean much outside of human suffering, that huge population being supported by first world nations as it continues to grow -or slowly immigrating into first world nations- does.

And no, I dont think having "PC" views is wrong. Population growth, along with dysgenics which is connected to it and arguably even more important, should become PC topics.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Brain Candy]

I reread the article about John Ward and picked up on something that will probably come up everytime a political figure makes mention of population control measures or related things:

But Medway Labour deputy leader Glyn Griffiths said: "If the Conservatives care about their image they should expel him immediately. There is no place for this in mainstream politics."

Labour councillor Bill Esterson added: "It's the sort of thing Nazis did in Germany."

Medway Liberal Democrat leader Geoff Juby said: "He is on a different planet. He should move to China where they have a one-child policy."

These are clear fallacies. He was talking about the need to regulate the breeding habits of people on welfare, who tend to breed more and contribute less. This has nothing to do with race, and he never said anything about being cruel and killing people who dont comply. However what he did say is hard to argue with and drawing bizzare connections to Nazis or China seems like the easiest way to make him go away.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Brain Candy

[White Doors]

I reread the article about John Ward and picked up on something that will probably come up everytime a political figure makes mention of population control measures or related things:

These are clear fallacies. He was talking about the need to regulate the breeding habits of people on welfare, who tend to breed more and contribute less. This has nothing to do with race, and he never said anything about being cruel and killing people who dont comply. However what he did say is hard to argue with and drawing bizzare connections to Nazis or China seems like the easiest way to make him go away.

I think it quite scary that a government would feel that it is able to regulate who has a right to have kids. It's the last place that they should be sticking their noses. Despite people who are on welfare having kids, they have a right to have kids. We cannot dictate who can or cannot have children even for the best of intentions because that is a way too much power to be given to a beurocracy. I get angry with people who take advantage of the system too, but the last thing we need is more 'system' that gave them an ability to take advantage of in the first place.

BC, you need to eat some of what you handle says.

[Brain Candy]

I would agree they had these rights if they currently didnt depend on handouts. As it stands not only are they mainly dead weight, they are breeding at a faster rate.

We could cry about the rights of people worldwide to do what they want while we support them, but if their is currently a problem and it is getting bigger, reality will kick our ass eventually.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Brain Candy

[White Doors]

I would agree they had these rights if they currently didnt depend on handouts.

No, they have these rights simply for being human.

I disagree that they have children when they are on welfare and it angers me, but they have the RIGHT to have kids regardless. I protect their right to do so to protect everyone else's rights too.

Same reason I encourage freedom of speech rights for communists.

Same reason I think that Robert Pickton is entitled to a fair trial.

.......

[White Doors]

I would agree they had these rights if they currently didnt depend on handouts. As it stands not only are they mainly dead weight, they are breeding at a faster rate.

So what?

These children are going to go to school and grow up and hopefully get out of the cycle. Even if they do not, it is no reason to restrict someone's fundamental right to have children.

Change the system so it does not reward this behaviour? Sure. take their fundamental rights away from them to be able to bear children??? NO WAY

[White Doors]

I would agree they had these rights if they currently didnt depend on handouts. As it stands not only are they mainly dead weight, they are breeding at a faster rate.

Besides, we are all dependent on 'handouts' to a degree. Did you build the internet access to your house? No, of course not. It was subsidized by the government and business.

Your argument is weak, ill-conceived and not well thought out and bears a striking resemblance to eugenics.

In short, your 'cure' is much, much worse than the 'disease'.

Edited April 8, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

We could cry about the rights of people worldwide to do what they want while we support them, but if their is currently a problem and it is getting bigger, reality will kick our ass eventually.

can you repeat this again in your native language?

[Brain Candy]

Change the system so it does not reward this behaviour? Sure. take their fundamental rights away from them to be able to bear children??? NO WAY

Again I could agree with that, but Im pretty sure seeing breeding as a "fundamental right" will eventually be a problem, especially since even without the welfare system they might still be outbreeding us. Though some offspring manage to work their way out of their system, even more are perpetuating it. I think limiting the breeding of welfare recipients to one child-if they are aloud any- would be a good way to reduce the size and need for it, as well as to make people second guess whether they want to go on it.

[Peter F]

He was talking about the need to regulate the breeding habits of people on welfare, who tend to breed more and contribute less.

and he was rightly condemned by his peers for such a statement. 'Regulate' is a harmless word but I wonder by what means the state would 'regulate' breeding habits? and how this would be limited to only people collecting welfare checks?

'Tend' is interesting too. Unspecified 'regulation' would be applied to people on welfare not because of thier actual breeding habits...but because some one welfare may or may not have more children than others on welfare.

I also note the assumption that people on welfare are there volountarily somehow...and this is somehow tied to how many kids they have and somehow they do not and apparently never have nor ever will 'contribute' to society.

The entire argument for 'regulating' the lives of people who collect welfare is certainly not racist but certainly is bigotted bunk.

[Brain Candy]

No it is not, it's practical. It ultimately doesnt matter if people need it or not. If people need it then they should be on it, and also since they are financially in need they definately shouldnt be thinking about having children.

But thats just part of it, howabout the billions of dollars that keeps 3rd world countries breeding habits going strong? If they emigrate to here they, as a whole, use more resources and appear to continue to breed at large rates.

I realize places like Canada might need them to keep their current population, but maybe our population needs to go down from what it is? Or maybe we need to turn the welfare system on its head and have more insentives for the "best" (healthy, intelligent) among us to outbreed the rest?

If you disagree, explain how their is a better way to deal with this problems, or how these problems wont ultimately matter.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Brain Candy

[Oleg Bach]

and he was rightly condemned by his peers for such a statement. 'Regulate' is a harmless word but I wonder by what means the state would 'regulate' breeding habits? and how this would be limited to only people collecting welfare checks?

'Tend' is interesting too. Unspecified 'regulation' would be applied to people on welfare not because of thier actual breeding habits...but because some one welfare may or may not have more children than others on welfare.

I also note the assumption that people on welfare are there volountarily somehow...and this is somehow tied to how many kids they have and somehow they do not and apparently never have nor ever will 'contribute' to society.

The entire argument for 'regulating' the lives of people who collect welfare is certainly not racist but certainly is bigotted bunk.

The earth as a living organism - will not generate more humans than it can sustain. Corruption and mean spirited behaviour brings on the suffering - not the numbers. With extremist socialism or communism such as in China...the whole premise that the populace is all free through total equality is a faulty concept...when ever you create a collective mass and tell them they are all equal - a tyrant or group of tyrants rise up and ride on the collective like blood sucking worms - such is the problem in China - mean spirited cold blooded corruption..so they attempt to control breeding because these leaders are to stupid and non-charismatic - they simply do not have the leadership qualities to truely create good and kind stewardship over the people ----WHY you might ask is this so? - It's a genetic issue..

- The so-called revolutionary types killed all the intelligent and good people leaving the dregs - now after a generation , some of the dregs have risen to rule and they are not fit...same thing has happened in America - where the decendends of the robber barrons now sit in high positions - but do not have the genetic tools to rule as good kings - it's like the crooked hardware store owner who sold bootleg booze and took over the town - he is the frinking hardware guy in a suit - not a king...Getting back to the so-called over population problem as percieved by some. We have weapons dealers and oil merchants calling the shots...dullards with money and influence.

These twits who run things like say The Canadian Institute Of International Affairs...actually believe they know best..not just for Canada but for the world - they support orgainization like the Wild Life Fund - but - hold humans in contempt ...in fact on EARTH day in Toronto - the turned off the lights on the corporate towers...how noble of the jerks - seeing the average home owner contriutes to the lighting of the bank towers...because the corporates pay half the going rate for power - we pay the balance - THEN - the next night - they have those silly spot lights blasting all around the CN Tower - enough power in each light to power 5 city blocks...so it is deceptive and hypocritial...and for this weasily elite to actually believe they have the right to cull the population because they are so much more clever (deceptive) is outrages...you must respect nature - and man kind is natural...just like the trees and those silly Snowy frinking owls that rich people preserve with millions while give nothing to the poor blacks at Jane and Finch - stewardship is a must on this huge pirvate estate that is Canada - if you can not run the farm right - then don't bother trying to run the world...and control the population as if you are better and of higher quality. Because histroy has porven you are not!

[White Doors]

Again I could agree with that, but Im pretty sure seeing breeding as a "fundamental right" will eventually be a problem, especially since even without the welfare system they might still be outbreeding us. Though some offspring manage to work their way out of their system, even more are perpetuating it. I think limiting the breeding of welfare recipients to one child-if they are aloud any- would be a good way to reduce the size and need for it, as well as to make people second guess whether they want to go on it.

And I completely and fundamentally disagree with you.

[Brain Candy]

And I completely and fundamentally disagree with you.

Thats is fair, but that doesnt make the problems go away. Maybe its just a question of how to approach it?

[White Doors]

No it is not, it's practical. It ultimately doesnt matter if people need it or not. If people need it then they should be on it, and also since they are financially in need they definately shouldnt be thinking about having children.

But thats just part of it, howabout the billions of dollars that keeps 3rd world countries breeding habits going strong? If they emigrate to here they, as a whole, use more resources and appear to continue to breed at large rates.

I realize places like Canada might need them to keep their current population, but maybe our population needs to go down from what it is? Or maybe we need to turn the welfare system on its head and have more insentives for the "best" (healthy, intelligent) among us to outbreed the rest?

If you disagree, explain how their is a better way to deal with this problems, or how these problems wont ultimately matter.

not practical? lol. Your solution is fundamentally WRONG in every sense of the word, I didn't even bother going into how unpractical it is. What happens if someone on welfare gets pregnant by mistake and they have a child. What to do then? lol unreal.

A better way to deal with this non-existent problem? Well first you could read up that people are not on welfare due to genetics for the most part, they are there for a variety of reasons and genetics plays a very limited role in why they are there. There are alot of dumb rich people you know.

Having an education system that people of every class can access is one main way to alleviate this 'problem'.

Look up some famous, rich and talented people. Look at where they came from, the odds that they overcame and think that under your totaliarian system they would have never been born. Jk Rawling for one. Shania Twain for another. You obviously have very limited knowledge to what you are speaking.

Shocking that you could argue for such a suspension of fundamental human rights and you never even to bothered looking into the effects of it.

A young mind I think.

Edited April 8, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

Thats is fair, but that doesnt make the problems go away. Maybe its just a question of how to approach it?

What problem?

Question for you. Are there more or less people on welfare now than say 20 years ago?

thanks!

[Brain Candy]

- The so-called revolutionary types killed all the intelligent and good people leaving the dregs - now after a generation , some of the dregs have risen to rule and they are not fit...same thing has happened in America - where the decendends of the robber barrons now sit in high positions - but do not have the genetic tools to rule as good kings - it's like the crooked hardware store owner who sold bootleg booze and took over the town - he is the frinking hardware guy in a suit - not a king...Getting back to the so-called over population problem as percieved by some. We have weapons dealers and oil merchants calling the shots...dullards with money and influence.

I think you are my hero. Keep in mind that this is not so much an issue of destroying the planet, their may be undeniable damage to its ecosystems and natural beauty as developed since the dawn of time, but the planet will remain. It is more a question of human civilisations, and their sustainability, and the quality and joy of life within one.

[White Doors]

I think you are my hero. Keep in mind that this is not so much an issue of destroying the planet, their may be undeniable damage to its ecosystems and natural beauty as developed since the dawn of time, but the planet will remain. It is more a question of human civilisations, and their sustainability, and the quality and joy of life within one.

The fact that you have Oleg as your hero confirms my earlier, unstated, hypothesis on you.

[Brain Candy]

There are alot of dumb rich people you know.

Yes, that is why I think IQ and health are the better measures then money.

Look up some famous, rich and talented people. Look at where they came from, the odds that they overcame and think that under your totaliarian system they would have never been born. Jk Rawling for one. Shania Twain for another. You obviously have very limited knowledge to what you are speaking.

Both of these people got rich from pandering to children and the pop form of country and western, they made important contributions how?

Shocking that you could argue for such a suspension of fundamental human rights and you never even to bothered looking into the effects of it.

I have, stop assuming things before providing good arguements.

[Brain Candy]

The fact that you have Oleg as your hero confirms my earlier, unstated, hypothesis on you.

I disagree with most of what he said, but his particular point here is quite good, why not ask for clarification rather then resorting to personal attacks?

[White Doors]

Yes, that is why I think IQ and health are the better measures then money.

Both of these people got rich from pandering to children and the pop form of country and western, they made important contributions how?

I have, stop assuming things before providing good arguements.

What contributions have YOU made?

Maybe we should retroactively abort YOU for having this inane idea?

Hitler and Stalin had above average IQ's.

Get it yet?

I doubt it. You are fighting for a solution that is worse than the disease for a problem that does not exist.

Takes a certain amount of stuborness to keep going along in your argument not admiting that you are completely wrong in every measure - in regards to this topic.

Edited April 8, 2008 by White Doors

[Peter F]

White Doors asked a very good question 'What problem?"

Whats the problem here? That people have kids or that poor people have kids? If the problem is about overpopulation whats this horsebollocks about 'contributing to society'?

Would it be okay to have kids and increase the worlds population as long as there is 'contributing' happening?

Your arguments appear contradictory.

Then you endorsed Olegs point that the foxes were running the hen-house...except you endorsed it on the grounds of his assertion that the genetic inferiors were somehow running the hen-house of the genetic superiors and thats wrong for some reason or other.

I think your argument isn't about overpopulation at all - but about genetics. People on welfare are inferior to those not on welfare so they should not be allowed to breed prodigiously because that will effect the quality of the gene pool.

I won't even go into the fundemental inhumanity of the state denying folks the joy of having and raising children - be they poor or not.

White Doors is right on the money regarding this whole idea of state interferance of who can or cannot have kids.

[White Doors]

Thanks

For example, I would prefer Peter F have no kids so as to not perpetuate his socialistic philosophy.

But I know I have no right to do so. Nor should anyone else have that right. It is perposterous to even entertain the idea. Humans are so fallable, this amount of power would turn out to be bad at avery turn.

(Just kidding Peter. nice we can actually agree on something:)