The green issue that dare not speak its name

[ribozyme]

Ask an environmentalist in private what the world’s biggest problems are and they will probably talk of climate change and human population growth, before moving on to disappearing species and habitats, deforestation, chemical pollution, resource wars, energy shortages and globalisation, to name just a few. Ask that same question in public and the odds are you will get one omission from that list - population growth.

…

Perhaps the clearest example of this came recently when the charity Population Concern, which began life in the 1970s, changed its name to Interact Worldwide - an innocuous designation aimed at countering the chilling effect the words “Population” and “Concern” had on potential donors. Under the old name, researchers concluded, the group “did not have a long-term survival rating”.

Why aren’t we talking about population? One reason is its almost unique capacity to offend just about every shade of opinion, from the neo-cons and evangelicals, who see it as an attack on liberty or a promotion of contraception/abortion, to the left, for whom multiculturalism has achieved iconic status - and who therefore view any questioning of immigration, currently responsible for some 84 per cent of projected UK population growth, as tantamount to racism.

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-nicholson-lord-the-green-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-494756.html

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control. I support population control because I count myself as a “green.” Hopefully, the taboo on population control will not last when peak oil takes its toll. I expect population control to make a comeback as a popular “green” issue. I want to ensure the prosperity of humanity in the long run, and I find it difficult to improve the average quality of life of the people of the world if there are a few more billion.

But the environmental problems with population growth have become so large and noticeable and set to get so much worse that environmentalists are being forced to confront it. I expect population reduction to make a come-back as as a “green” issue. Humans are going to wreck the world if we do not control our numbers.

parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

Many environmentalists privately support population control. I wonder if they will have the audacity to come out of the closet.

There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming" -Ted Turner

youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dare not speak its name? It’s been screaming since Margaret Sanger’s time (and before). . .'population ’ as the panacea to all human ills.

Because of course it has to be ‘quantity’ of life that is causing all the problems of ‘planet wrecking’. It has to be a magic number of ‘bodies’ that are depleting natural resources.

It couldn’t possibly be that all (yes, all) the environmental worries (and don’t think I’m necessarily saying they don’t exist–we have finite resources and we do need to be intelligent stewards) are not caused by ‘quantity’ of life but by the same ‘quality’ that the more vociferous and ‘activist’ minded themselves enjoy and supposedly want to supply to all others???

It couldn’t possibly be that a relatively small amount of people are enjoying the ‘fruits’ of the planet to an obsene degree while the majority of the people (that ‘human population bomb’ ) that they blame for 'destroying resources) are made to suffer needlessly?

It couldn’t possibly be that the planet has the capacity to house all the world’s people multiplied by 100s, comfortably? It does. It can also feed those billions and billions, clothe them, and supply them with satisfying work and a good education as well. But that would mean a massive–and I mean massive–coordinated effort of all world governments to stop the corruption, the theft, and the privilege to actually let the food be available. The land. The resources. The schools.

And it would also mean a massive–and I mean massive–and coordinated effort of all the world’s people to take responsibility for themselves.

As St. Paul said, “Those who do not work should not eat.” Barring those who truly cannot work due to physical disability–and it is actually surprising to see how people with such disabilities not only often WANT to work, but find ways to do so! or true mental disability (same as above). . .people should be able to work. Work brings fulfilment in many ways.

And yes, raising children is work–worthwhile work. So is caring for elderly parents. And should be so considered.

Those who choose drugs and find themselves unable to ‘work’ because of the addictions can be cared for in long term facilities where they can stay clean and sober.

Jails can be overhauled into communities which emphasize WORK for the community and where study and education are rewarded and the current negative stereotypes are condemned. . .not only by the wardens but most importantly by the prisoners themselves.

So that instead of worrying that we will have ‘too many bodies’ and ‘what about the quality of life’, let’s fix the real problems. . .greed and corruption of many of the ‘haves’, greed and laziness of many of the have-nots, all of which have wound up corrupting not just the bloated fat cats and the junkies but many ‘normal’ people. . .not just the man with the 2 million dollar a year job but the man with the ‘average’ paycheck who couldn’t care less about the poor because “they brought it on themselves.”

Not just the pusher who doesn’t touch the stuff himself but has his pimp mobile and ‘hos’ but the young mother whose boyfriend goes in and out of rehab, the kids growing up with chips on their shoulders, wanting what they ‘see’ on TV but thinking all they have to do is show up and demand it because they’re ‘victims’, etc.etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Once again, I marvel that those who favor “population reduction” do not set the example and take early departure themselves.

 

[ribozyme]

Once again, I marvel that those who favor “population reduction” do not set the example and take early departure themselves.

I am going to say this and I am not joking.

I WILL kill myself IF the calamities predicted by the global warming and peak oil doomers come to fruition. Rather die than compete in a zero sum game for resources for survival in the Hobbesian jungle. I do not want to live in a world with ubiquitous poverty with one can say with complete certitude that the means for escaping poverty do not exist because they were depleted by previous generations.

No, a suicide hotline will not help me since in that scenario – I doubt the phones and Internet would be working then.

So some population reduction advocates already have suicide pacts. Now stop talking about that puerile objection.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am going to say this and I am not joking.

I WILL kill myself if the calamities predicted by the global warming and peak oil doomers come to fruition. Rather die than compete in a zero sum game for resources for survival in the Hobbesian jungle. I do not want to live in a world with ubiquitous poverty with one can say with complete certitude that the means for escaping poverty do not exist because they were depleted by previous generations.

No, a suicide hotline will not help me since in that scenario I doubt the phones and Internet would be working.

So some population reduction advocates already have suicide pacts. No stop talking about that puerile objection.

Then stop making all these purile posts about population reduction.

 

[Newbie2]

Once again, I marvel that those who favor “population reduction” do not set the example and take early departure themselves.

Then stop making all these purile posts about population reduction.

Ya know, Vern and I often disagree…but I gotta go with him on this one.

On one hand, those that advocate population control are among the most selfish I can imagine; prevent others from living so that they can live.

On the other, those who lead the charge by offing themselves pitiful, and I mean that in the best way possible. It’s a senseless, needless action. The earth can support us all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-nicholson-lord-the-green-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-494756.html

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control. I support population control because I count myself as a “green.” Hopefully, the taboo on population control will not last when peak oil takes its toll. I expect population control to make a comeback as a popular “green” issue. I want to ensure the prosperity of humanity in the long run, and I find it difficult to improve the average quality of life of the people of the world if there are a few more billion.

parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

Many environmentalists privately support population control. I wonder if they will have the audacity to come out of the closet.

There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming" -Ted Turner

youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0

Would you favour voluntary race suicide - & if not, why not ?​

To have a population makes sense, & so does an anti-natalist position: but if there is to be a human race at all, how does one decide whom not to eliminate, cull, or abort; & on what grounds ?

Those who favour the extinction of the human race, & regard abortion, euthanasia, & suicide as positive goods are not likely to be wildly popular, but they do have a point - the question they have answer to is, how do they justify their own existence ?

There are some very interesting links on this page on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

 

[Swan]

Once again, I marvel that those who favor “population reduction” do not set the example and take early departure themselves.

My understanding of population control has nothing to do with killing the people who are already here, only of limiting future births. Are you suggesting that there are mainstream green groups who serioulsy suggest murder and suicide to lessen the population or are you simply being disingenuous?

 

[Calliso]

My understanding of population control has nothing to do with killing the people who are already here, only of limiting future births. Are you suggesting that there are mainstream green groups who serioulsy suggest murder and suicide to lessen the population or are you simply being disingenuous?

Yeah I certainly haven;t heard any main stream green groups that suggest people mass suicide or that we killl a bunch of people. Most just suggest limiting future births like you pointed out.

 

[JimG]

It’s way too late to jump on the population control bandwagon. Current demographic trends point to drastically declining fertility rates, and declining populations, beginning with Europe and the West but continuing into the rest of the world.

This is bad news for economic growth, bad news for development, bad news for workers, bad news for pensions. Declining fertility rates mean births below replacement level, an aging population, and societies dying out.

Look at some small Kansas towns that used to have thriving economies back in the 1950’s and ‘60’, but are now turning into ghost towns because of declining population. The same thing is happening in Europe as a whole.

This decline in fertility rates seems to have a momentum which will be difficult if not impossible to stop.

If we’e going to worry about population, let’s worry about the right thing: the birth dearth.

The New Demography of Depopulation

Demographic Winter

 

[wabrams]

I am going to say this and I am not joking.

I WILL kill myself IF the calamities predicted by the global warming and peak oil doomers come to fruition. Rather die than compete in a zero sum game for resources for survival in the Hobbesian jungle. I do not want to live in a world with ubiquitous poverty with one can say with complete certitude that the means for escaping poverty do not exist because they were depleted by previous generations.
.

Glad our ancestors who had to live in poverty during medeviel Europe didn’t share you silly, yet disturbing, viewpoint.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control. I support population control because I count myself as a “green.” Hopefully, the taboo on population control will not last when peak oil takes its toll. I expect population control to make a comeback as a popular “green” issue. I want to ensure the prosperity of humanity in the long run, and I find it difficult to improve the average quality of life of the people of the world if there are a few more billion.

“There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming” -Ted Turner

It’s not that there are too many people. It’s that there are too many carbon emissions.

Here’s a quote from a very insightful article I read : As Gas Prices Soar, The Population Controllers Once Again Blame PeopleThey’re Back:

…The {Population Control] movement’s leading prophet of doom and gloom, Paul Ehrlich, has been repeatedly and utterly wrong. His 1968 jeremiad, The Population Bomb, warned that, with the earth approaching its carrying capacity, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. Instead, the estimated 6.66 billion people alive today live longer, eat better, and have higher living standards than ever before. Even Walsh has to admit that the “green revolution has vastly increased food production, while [Western trade and investment] have helped lift hundreds of millions in the developing world out of poverty.”

…blaming global warming on too many babies is the twisted logic of a profoundly misanthropic mind. How much carbon dioxide we produce is a result of how much fossil fuel we burn, not how many children are born. Nuclear power, for example, produces zero carbon dioxide.

I also recommend Catholics United for the Faith: Faith Facts; Debunking the Overpopulation Myth:

The claims of individuals and organizations like Zero Population Growth (ZPG) crumble in any encounter with the facts. Proponents of population control argue that the earth has too fragile an environment, too little space, and too few resources to sustain population growth. Historic and scientific facts prove these arguments false. More importantly, Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Catholic Church on man’s nature and the purpose of the earth provide a proper understanding of the issues and offer just solutions to the social problems of our day.

 

[exoflare]

There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming" -Ted Turner

:doh2: Ted Turner… LOL

Not that we needed any further proof that this guy was completely nuts anyway, but here are some more pearls of wisdom he had to share on the subject:

*If steps aren’t taken to stem global warming, “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.

“Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,” said Turner, 69. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable.”*

 

[jbuttrey]

Why arent USING linux boycotting microsoft and pp who use pop control as the excuse to attack children for you know who

Christ is in the eucharist

John

 

[exoflare]

Microsoft, Linux…? What??

 

[Ridgerunner]

Given that population decline is already inevitable, the case is moot.

Therefore, pursuant Pursuant to the powers invested in him, Ridgerunner is happy to issue a pardon to Ribozyme, so the self-imposed death sentence will not have to be carried out.

 

[Newbie2]

My understanding of population control has nothing to do with killing the people who are already here, only of limiting future births. Are you suggesting that there are mainstream green groups who serioulsy suggest murder and suicide to lessen the population or are you simply being disingenuous?

I can’t answer for Vern, but the premise is that the earth cannot support more people, therefore the number of births should be limited. Following this train of thought to its (logical?) conclusion, the fewer people on earth, the better for Mother Earth, and the sooner this lesser number is reached, the better.

The faulty thinking, of course, is the number of limited number of people that is arbitrarily chosen for the Earth to be able to support.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My understanding of population control has nothing to do with killing the people who are already here, only of limiting future births. Are you suggesting that there are mainstream green groups who serioulsy suggest murder and suicide to lessen the population or are you simply being disingenuous?

I suggest there are those hypocrites who want to limit the lives of others – by various means. Let them set the example and take early departure themselves.

 

[ribozyme]

I suggest there are those hypocrites who want to limit the lives of others – by various means. Let them set the example and take early departure themselves.

So what is hypocritical about care about the environment and the sustainability of the human race?

And people who do advocate population control are willing to commit suicide.

 

[whatevergirl]

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/david-nicholson-lord-the-green-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-494756.html

I am coming out of the closest as I openly count myself as a advocate of population control. I support population control because I count myself as a “green.” Hopefully, the taboo on population control will not last when peak oil takes its toll. I expect population control to make a comeback as a popular “green” issue. I want to ensure the prosperity of humanity in the long run, and I find it difficult to improve the average quality of life of the people of the world if there are a few more billion.

parapundit.com/archives/005265.html

Many environmentalists privately support population control. I wonder if they will have the audacity to come out of the closet.

There are too many people; that’s why we have global warming" -Ted Turner

youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0

I’m for the environment too, but not at the risk of bringing new life (human) into the world. I respectfully disagree with your opinion…the day we, as a society, start caring more for trees and polar bears, than for human life, is a sad day, indeed.