Over-Population Mythology

[Marxist]

4. One might expect academia to drop ideas that have been proven wrong....but Malthus and Marx are still way up there in syllabi..... those bastions of Liberalism, the universities, carry on in the same fraudulent vein...



Professor Dennis Meadows was with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he said:

"It used to take 1,500 years to double the world's population. Now it takes about 30 years.... Mankind is facing mass starvation, epidemics, uncontrollable pollution and wars if we don't discover new methods of population and industrial control and do it fast. If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."


"....If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."
He said that in 1971.

The Al Gore Syndrome: never correct, but never in doubt.



a. Of course, Professor Meadows is the former director of the Institute for Policy and Social Science Research at the University of New Hampshire.[1]He is President of the Laboratory for Interactive Learning and widely known as the co-author of The Limits to Growth.
Dennis Meadows - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

HIs politics are....guess what?....waaaaayyyyy Left.



b. He is a member of "The Club of Rome," the socialist entity that determines UN environmental policies.

"The official United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was headquartered at Rio Center, Brazil, and "Maurice Strong, the conference's secretary general, declared at the official opening that the human race is "a species out of control." He is a member of the Club of Rome, which predicted in 1972 that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and natural gas by 1993. But no one at Rio was likely to remind Strong or anyone else of the Club's absurd predictions."
Carnival of Dunces Competitive Enterprise Institute



Hazlitt correctly states the fallacy:
' Most of these predictions are reached by simply extrapolating recent annual growth rates and assuming that they will continue, come what may.'


Folks that think that way probably view the growth of infants and predict that they will be the size of barns.

Ok? We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking.

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

 

[Correll]

All systems have waste. At least capitalism PRODUCES surpluses, so the waste doesn't mean people have to go without.

People do go without all the time, child poverty is on the rise in first world imperialist countries, millions lack basic food, while capitalists distribute and sell food for profit in first world dumps. All systems don't have waste to the scale capitalism encourages.

NOt because of waste of resources.

Because of failed distribution methods, and yes, capitalists waste resources in mass.

Most poverty in this nation is caused by the decline of the family and poor trade policy.

NOt any flaw of capitalism.

Decline of the family? It's capitalism you idiot. Look at how it works.

Yes. You have tens of millions of women starting families without primary breadwinners.

It does tend to impact their finances.

ALso, lots of drug addition.

Also, crazy people who should be locked up for their own good, but lawyers.


NOne of this is a result of Capitalism.

 

[Correll]

4. One might expect academia to drop ideas that have been proven wrong....but Malthus and Marx are still way up there in syllabi..... those bastions of Liberalism, the universities, carry on in the same fraudulent vein...



Professor Dennis Meadows was with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he said:

"It used to take 1,500 years to double the world's population. Now it takes about 30 years.... Mankind is facing mass starvation, epidemics, uncontrollable pollution and wars if we don't discover new methods of population and industrial control and do it fast. If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."


"....If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."
He said that in 1971.

The Al Gore Syndrome: never correct, but never in doubt.



a. Of course, Professor Meadows is the former director of the Institute for Policy and Social Science Research at the University of New Hampshire.[1]He is President of the Laboratory for Interactive Learning and widely known as the co-author of The Limits to Growth.
Dennis Meadows - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

HIs politics are....guess what?....waaaaayyyyy Left.



b. He is a member of "The Club of Rome," the socialist entity that determines UN environmental policies.

"The official United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was headquartered at Rio Center, Brazil, and "Maurice Strong, the conference's secretary general, declared at the official opening that the human race is "a species out of control." He is a member of the Club of Rome, which predicted in 1972 that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and natural gas by 1993. But no one at Rio was likely to remind Strong or anyone else of the Club's absurd predictions."
Carnival of Dunces Competitive Enterprise Institute



Hazlitt correctly states the fallacy:
' Most of these predictions are reached by simply extrapolating recent annual growth rates and assuming that they will continue, come what may.'


Folks that think that way probably view the growth of infants and predict that they will be the size of barns.

Ok? We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking.

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Marxist]

People do go without all the time, child poverty is on the rise in first world imperialist countries, millions lack basic food, while capitalists distribute and sell food for profit in first world dumps. All systems don't have waste to the scale capitalism encourages.

NOt because of waste of resources.

Because of failed distribution methods, and yes, capitalists waste resources in mass.

Most poverty in this nation is caused by the decline of the family and poor trade policy.

NOt any flaw of capitalism.

Decline of the family? It's capitalism you idiot. Look at how it works.

Yes. You have tens of millions of women starting families without primary breadwinners.

It does tend to impact their finances.

ALso, lots of drug addition.

Also, crazy people who should be locked up for their own good, but lawyers.


NOne of this is a result of Capitalism.

Tens of millions? I seriously doubt that, give me your information. Yeah, finances suck when healthcare isn't provided by the state, wages are stagnant... Drug addiction? Who do you think produces the drugs and farms them, etc... Crazy people? Yeah, millions are crazy now.. Idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All systems have waste. At least capitalism PRODUCES surpluses, so the waste doesn't mean people have to go without.

People do go without all the time, child poverty is on the rise in first world imperialist countries, millions lack basic food, while capitalists distribute and sell food for profit in first world dumps. All systems don't have waste to the scale capitalism encourages.

NOt because of waste of resources.

Because of failed distribution methods, and yes, capitalists waste resources in mass.

How truly stupid and incorrect.

The only thing that could possible by more obtuse would be to pretend to be a Marxist.

I see you've got that covered, too.

It's not incorrect, it's why millions lack access to basic needs, why children starve to death worldwide, why the government has to intervene to make sure children are fed.. You're stupid, tell me more about the amount of food produced. Yeah. You obviously know all about Marxism and stupidity, you're a grade A idiot.

Wow!

With conditions being that dire....it sure is a good thing that there are conservatives around!


"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" by Arthur C. Brooks
. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.

Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."
The Giving Gap - Reason.com



I don’t dislike you personally…it’s just that I’m a member of the Partnership For An Idiot Free America, so you’re on my list.

 

[Marxist]

4. One might expect academia to drop ideas that have been proven wrong....but Malthus and Marx are still way up there in syllabi..... those bastions of Liberalism, the universities, carry on in the same fraudulent vein...



Professor Dennis Meadows was with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he said:

"It used to take 1,500 years to double the world's population. Now it takes about 30 years.... Mankind is facing mass starvation, epidemics, uncontrollable pollution and wars if we don't discover new methods of population and industrial control and do it fast. If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."


"....If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."
He said that in 1971.

The Al Gore Syndrome: never correct, but never in doubt.



a. Of course, Professor Meadows is the former director of the Institute for Policy and Social Science Research at the University of New Hampshire.[1]He is President of the Laboratory for Interactive Learning and widely known as the co-author of The Limits to Growth.
Dennis Meadows - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

HIs politics are....guess what?....waaaaayyyyy Left.



b. He is a member of "The Club of Rome," the socialist entity that determines UN environmental policies.

"The official United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was headquartered at Rio Center, Brazil, and "Maurice Strong, the conference's secretary general, declared at the official opening that the human race is "a species out of control." He is a member of the Club of Rome, which predicted in 1972 that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and natural gas by 1993. But no one at Rio was likely to remind Strong or anyone else of the Club's absurd predictions."
Carnival of Dunces Competitive Enterprise Institute



Hazlitt correctly states the fallacy:
' Most of these predictions are reached by simply extrapolating recent annual growth rates and assuming that they will continue, come what may.'


Folks that think that way probably view the growth of infants and predict that they will be the size of barns.

Ok? We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking.

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

 

[Correll]

4. One might expect academia to drop ideas that have been proven wrong....but Malthus and Marx are still way up there in syllabi..... those bastions of Liberalism, the universities, carry on in the same fraudulent vein...



Professor Dennis Meadows was with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he said:

"It used to take 1,500 years to double the world's population. Now it takes about 30 years.... Mankind is facing mass starvation, epidemics, uncontrollable pollution and wars if we don't discover new methods of population and industrial control and do it fast. If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."


"....If our society hasn't succeeded in ten years in coming to grips with these problems, I think it will be too late."
He said that in 1971.

The Al Gore Syndrome: never correct, but never in doubt.



a. Of course, Professor Meadows is the former director of the Institute for Policy and Social Science Research at the University of New Hampshire.[1]He is President of the Laboratory for Interactive Learning and widely known as the co-author of The Limits to Growth.
Dennis Meadows - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

HIs politics are....guess what?....waaaaayyyyy Left.



b. He is a member of "The Club of Rome," the socialist entity that determines UN environmental policies.

"The official United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was headquartered at Rio Center, Brazil, and "Maurice Strong, the conference's secretary general, declared at the official opening that the human race is "a species out of control." He is a member of the Club of Rome, which predicted in 1972 that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and natural gas by 1993. But no one at Rio was likely to remind Strong or anyone else of the Club's absurd predictions."
Carnival of Dunces Competitive Enterprise Institute



Hazlitt correctly states the fallacy:
' Most of these predictions are reached by simply extrapolating recent annual growth rates and assuming that they will continue, come what may.'


Folks that think that way probably view the growth of infants and predict that they will be the size of barns.

Ok? We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking.

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

Money.

 

[Marxist]

People do go without all the time, child poverty is on the rise in first world imperialist countries, millions lack basic food, while capitalists distribute and sell food for profit in first world dumps. All systems don't have waste to the scale capitalism encourages.

NOt because of waste of resources.

Because of failed distribution methods, and yes, capitalists waste resources in mass.

How truly stupid and incorrect.

The only thing that could possible by more obtuse would be to pretend to be a Marxist.

I see you've got that covered, too.

It's not incorrect, it's why millions lack access to basic needs, why children starve to death worldwide, why the government has to intervene to make sure children are fed.. You're stupid, tell me more about the amount of food produced. Yeah. You obviously know all about Marxism and stupidity, you're a grade A idiot.

Wow!

With conditions being that dire....it sure is a good thing that there are conservatives around!


"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" by Arthur C. Brooks
. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.

Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."
The Giving Gap - Reason.com



I don’t dislike you personally…it’s just that I’m a member of the Partnership For An Idiot Free America, so you’re on my list.

I don't like the idea of charity, I'd prefer solidarity. Ok, a study done in 2000 is a great indicator, but let's be real now, government supported aid programs are supported mainly by liberals, and do far more then charities.

 

[Marxist]

Ok? We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking.

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

Money.

Name one program or thing that "liberals" wasted money on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

Money.

Name one program or thing that "liberals" wasted money on.

You are truly a moron.

Every post of yours is a race to the bottom.

Liberal welfare policy not only wastes, currently, $1 trillion a year...but causes crime and family dissolution.

"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Anyone see the recent documentary, "Just Eat It"?

Showed the US wastes 40% of the food we produce and the consumer wastes 15-20% of the food they buy. The footage they showed of how our policies cause and even force waste was just horrendous.

Its not just the poor who suffer for our waste. Farmers must pay to produce the food they are forced to throw away.

And needless to say, prices at the grocery store reflect our waste.

Marxist is correct that "We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking."

This is just as true for the rest of the world. Watch the latest documentary Vice. Shows that we (and others) sent big bucks in aid to Haiti but WE used it to build soccer fields, parks, model homes no one is living in, a multimillion dollar police station that is locked up. Meanwhile, the people still have no running water, sanitation and are dying of cholera or homes.

 

[Marxist]

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

Money.

Name one program or thing that "liberals" wasted money on.

You are truly a moron.

Every post of yours is a race to the bottom.

Liberal welfare policy not only wastes, currently, $1 trillion a year...but causes crime and family dissolution.

"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient."
Scribd

No, I'm not, and let's remember that there has been constant opposition to social programs, stagnant wages for decades, and are you honestly telling me food stamps cause crimes? That's like saying guns cause crimes, which I know you don't believe. It's also like saying disability destroys families, Medicare and Medicaid destroy families. You're an idiot. Where would we be without these programs, genius?

 

[Marxist]

Anyone see the recent documentary, "Just Eat It"?

Showed the US wastes 40% of the food we produce and the consumer wastes 15-20% of the food they buy. The footage they showed of how our policies cause and even force waste was just horrendous.

Its not just the poor who suffer for our waste. Farmers must pay to produce the food they are forced to throw away.

And needless to say, prices at the grocery store reflect our waste.

Marxist is correct that "We do need new distribution methods, less waste, new, cleaner technologies, preservation of our fertile land, preservation of rain forests.. Yes, he was wrong, congratulations, keep circle jerking."

This is just as true for the rest of the world. Watch the latest documentary Vice. Shows that we (and others) sent big bucks in aid to Haiti but WE used it to build soccer fields, parks, model homes no one is living in, a multimillion dollar police station that is locked up. Meanwhile, the people still have no running water, sanitation and are dying of cholera or homes.

It's not the fault of the consumers worldwide, I've been preaching this. The policy in America is horrible, but when looking at worldwide food production, the picture is even worse, capitalists rely on waste to make sure profits and prices are what they want them to be. The example in Haiti just shows how stupid we are.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Lefties like yourself are still insisting on basing policies on these false ideas.

Pointing that out is the opposite of a circle jerk.

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

Money.

Name one program or thing that "liberals" wasted money on.

As the VICE documentary showed, because of some really ridiculous requirements the GOP pushed though, its mostly the right that is forcing the waste.We saw the same corruption in Iraq and other places.

How do you end it? Thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, vote theft by the right, the worst of the pubs have permanent places at the public trough.

Also, although not nearly as blatant as Republicans, the Dems are not blameless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. There have been a number of posts on the board about the danger of overpopulation! The issue comes up regularly, mostly among those committed to the view that only big government can save mankind from itself.



The rational basis for the fear of overpopulation is personal observations of various 'quality of life' irritations.... overcrowding, "urban sprawl," more automobiles, more roads, more traffic jams, more waste products, more garbage, more sewage, more smoke, more noxious fumes, and more pollutants, contaminants, and poisons.



Those folks would be well advised to remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.



6. " Most of the neo-Malthusians, unfortunately, are collectivist in their thinking; they want to solve the problem in the aggregate, and by government coercion.... [Garrett Hardin,] professor of "human ecology" at the University of California declares that the community cannot "watch children starve." Therefore: "If the community has the responsibility of keeping children alive it must also have the power to decide when they may be procreated. Only so can we save ourselves from the degradation of runaway population growth."
Hazlitt, Op.Cit.

Time and again we find the basis of every totalitarian plan is the oppression and slaughter of innocents....'gotta break some eggs to make an omelette...'

There is no food shortage....no overpopulation.....but Liberals, Progressives, Democrats are right there to impose Draconian restrictions to solve problems that don't exist.


Get that 'starve' thing? Right out of Malthus..... Of course, Malthus was totally wrong....another thing he had in common with modern environmentalists/Liberals.
Technology and changing methods have kept food supply outstripping world population growth.


The hand-wringers sound like your typical Holdren-Ehrlich big government sterilizationists...
...and a lot like Stalinist apparatchiks, huh?

 

[Marxist]

Even if they do base policies on these false ideas, the policies are still beneficial regardless

No, they are not.

They waste resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Really? Ok, name one that could be spent better elsewhere.

Money.

Name one program or thing that "liberals" wasted money on.

As the VICE documentary showed, because of some really ridiculous requirements the GOP pushed though, its mostly the right that is forcing the waste.

But, that does not excuse the left's part in this mess.

OTOH, how do you end it? Thanks to gerrymandering, voter suppression, vote theft by the right, the worst of the pubs have permanent places at the public trough.

And tell me who the right loves? The capitalist pigs. Yeah, both parties are idiots these days, but one is better then the other by a land slide, and actually appears to care for people. We end it by, well, I'm an anarchist.. XD

 

[mudwhistle]

It is my mission to explode Liberal mythology.....
But try as I may, I simply cannot keep up with the nonsense that Liberals are willing to believe.

Be fair, Liberals.....isn't it time for you to use even that limited intelligence and worldly experience to throw up your hands and shout 'Basta! Enough!...even I cannot accept....[fill in fable of your choice.]'



1. There are literally dozens of 'em....but the godfather of hand-wringing environmentalism, Thomas 'Chicken-Little' Malthus is simply ground-floor claptrap.

a. Malthus originated the view that the food production of the world would increase arithmetically (1-2-3-…), while the human population would increase geometrically (1-2-4-8…). Conclusion: mass starvation and epidemics. Sounds ‘environmental’ already, doesn’t it?

b. Malthus passed on in1834- yet his views continue in the hearts and minds of Progressives, who have expanded the vision to pollution and environmental damage.

c. Fact: Malthus has been proven wrong over and over, based on agricultural advances, and technological innovation.

2. "In spite of the serious errors in Malthus, we have witnessed in the last decade an outburst of "neo-Malthusianism," a new widespread fear, sometimes verging on hysteria, about a world "population explosion." Paul Erlich, professor of biology at Stanford University, in a book entitled The Population Bomb, warns us that we are all doomed if we do not control population growth."
Hazlitt, "The Conquest of Poverty," p.27.



Did I mention that this is about Liberal, Progressive, Democrat myths?


Let's remind all that Malthusians occupy the highest seats in Democrat government: Paul Ehrlich's co-author was chosen by Barack Obama as his 'science czar.'


3. "John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.
» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!





Now....if Malthus has been proven wrong, what does it say about Ehrlich and Holdren who are still pushing solutions to imaginary problems?


And, more to the point, what does it say about our petit mal President, who appointed Holdren......

...and about brain-dead voters who elected them???

Just watch NPT.......you'll learn that Democrats are nice people.....trustworthy people......just because they care about the environment ....or at least try to act like they fucken care.....

 

[Marxist]

5. There have been a number of posts on the board about the danger of overpopulation! The issue comes up regularly, mostly among those committed to the view that only big government can save mankind from itself.



The rational basis for the fear of overpopulation is personal observations of various 'quality of life' irritations.... overcrowding, "urban sprawl," more automobiles, more roads, more traffic jams, more waste products, more garbage, more sewage, more smoke, more noxious fumes, and more pollutants, contaminants, and poisons.



Those folks would be well advised to remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.



6. " Most of the neo-Malthusians, unfortunately, are collectivist in their thinking; they want to solve the problem in the aggregate, and by government coercion.... [Garrett Hardin,] professor of "human ecology" at the University of California declares that the community cannot "watch children starve." Therefore: "If the community has the responsibility of keeping children alive it must also have the power to decide when they may be procreated. Only so can we save ourselves from the degradation of runaway population growth."
Hazlitt, Op.Cit.

Time and again we find the basis of every totalitarian plan is the oppression and slaughter of innocents....'gotta break some eggs to make an omelette...'

There is no food shortage....no overpopulation.....but Liberals, Progressives, Democrats are right there to impose Draconian restrictions to solve problems that don't exist.


Get that 'starve' thing? Right out of Malthus..... Of course, Malthus was totally wrong....another thing he had in common with modern environmentalists/Liberals.
Technology and changing methods have kept food supply outstripping world population growth.


The hand-wringers sound like your typical Holdren-Ehrlich big government sterilizationists...
...and a lot like Stalinist apparatchiks, huh?

I've already said that as of now we produce enough food, the distribution is failed, millions starve to death every year, first world countries waste food like its a god damn party, capitalists exploiting third world countries/India/China.. The poor.. Protecting the environment is good no matter what is happening. There is a problem with distribution. And our destruction of fertile farm land isn't going to be helpful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is my mission to explode Liberal mythology.....
But try as I may, I simply cannot keep up with the nonsense that Liberals are willing to believe.

Be fair, Liberals.....isn't it time for you to use even that limited intelligence and worldly experience to throw up your hands and shout 'Basta! Enough!...even I cannot accept....[fill in fable of your choice.]'



1. There are literally dozens of 'em....but the godfather of hand-wringing environmentalism, Thomas 'Chicken-Little' Malthus is simply ground-floor claptrap.

a. Malthus originated the view that the food production of the world would increase arithmetically (1-2-3-…), while the human population would increase geometrically (1-2-4-8…). Conclusion: mass starvation and epidemics. Sounds ‘environmental’ already, doesn’t it?

b. Malthus passed on in1834- yet his views continue in the hearts and minds of Progressives, who have expanded the vision to pollution and environmental damage.

c. Fact: Malthus has been proven wrong over and over, based on agricultural advances, and technological innovation.

2. "In spite of the serious errors in Malthus, we have witnessed in the last decade an outburst of "neo-Malthusianism," a new widespread fear, sometimes verging on hysteria, about a world "population explosion." Paul Erlich, professor of biology at Stanford University, in a book entitled The Population Bomb, warns us that we are all doomed if we do not control population growth."
Hazlitt, "The Conquest of Poverty," p.27.



Did I mention that this is about Liberal, Progressive, Democrat myths?


Let's remind all that Malthusians occupy the highest seats in Democrat government: Paul Ehrlich's co-author was chosen by Barack Obama as his 'science czar.'


3. "John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.
» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!





Now....if Malthus has been proven wrong, what does it say about Ehrlich and Holdren who are still pushing solutions to imaginary problems?


And, more to the point, what does it say about our petit mal President, who appointed Holdren......

...and about brain-dead voters who elected them???

Just watch NPT.......you'll learn that Democrats are nice people.....trustworthy people......just because they care about the environment ....or at least try to act like they fucken care.....

Nasty folks at National Pipe Threaders????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Alexander Pope wrote "A little learning is a dangerous thing"

Wow does that apply to environmentalists/Liberals!




7. One of the ironies of Liberalism....rife with inconsistencies.....is that they rely on Malthus to inform their environmental policies, and the view that mankind is incapable of taking care of it's problems without those brilliant elites using coercion, regulation, gulags, etc.....


But they overlook the fact that Malthus was totally opposed to welfare policies that support the poor. He claimed that by doing so, we ensure that the poor will have more children....leading to the worst sort of overpopulation.


Malthus wrote:
"The poor laws of England tend to depress the general conditions of the poor. ... Their first obvious tendency is to increase population without increasing the food for its support. A poor man may marry with little or no prospect of being able to support a family without parish assistance. They may be said, therefore, to create the poor which they maintain. . . .


If it be taught that all who are born have a right to support on the land, whatever be their number, and that there is no occasion to exercise any prudence in the affair of marriage so as to check this number, the temptations, according to all the known principles of human nature, will inevitably be yielded to, and more and more will gradually become dependent on parish assistance."
Malthus, Essay on Population, Book III, Ch. VI and VII.


More evidence of stupidity .....beyond who Liberals voted for.