Over-Population Mythology

[Marxist]

Oh....and

Just had to get in your anti muslim bullshit, hey? Whats your source?

What?

What in that post did you consider anti-Muslim?

"Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries." Let's not forget her posting in general... No, I won't rewrite it until you answer my question: Millions starve to death every year, yes or no?

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

Oh.....and did I mention that you are really stupid?

1. 1. Women 40 to 49 without formal education average five children, while for those who have completed high school or higher, is two. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/050509_paper08.pdf
   2. Between 1995-1998, Turkish fertility was 2.29 children per woman; but Kurdish fertility was 4.27. Since Kurds comprise 18% of the Turkish population (based on mother tongue), the Turkish fertility rate excluding Kurds, was only 1.5, which is as low as Europe’s! Ibid. and http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60137

Just had to get in your anti muslim bullshit, hey? Whats your source?

What?

What in that post did you consider anti-Muslim?

"Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries." Let's not forget her posting in general... No, I won't rewrite it until you answer my question: Millions starve to death every year, yes or no?

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

BTW.....you're really stupid.


1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new policy on Tuesday to encourage population growth, dismissing Iran’s decades of family planning as ungodly and a Western import….Throughout the 1990s, Iran tried to reduce population growth by encouraging men and women to use free or inexpensive contraceptives, as well as vasectomies. The government brought down the country’s population growth rate from its 1986 height of 3.9 percent to just 1.6 percent in 2006. Ahmadinejad caused public outcry, however, when shortly after he was elected in 2005 he said two children per family were not enough and urged Iranians to have more.
Iran to pay for new babies to boost population - Salon.com

a. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged girls to marry at the age of 16, according to newspaper reports. The leader criticised the current average marrying age of between 24 and 26.
Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16 World news The Guardian


You were saying?

The actual trends and actual population growth don't lie, you can find a article that has "proof" the earth is flat.

 

[Correll]

Oh....and

What?

What in that post did you consider anti-Muslim?

"Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries." Let's not forget her posting in general... No, I won't rewrite it until you answer my question: Millions starve to death every year, yes or no?

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

Oh.....and did I mention that you are really stupid?

1. 1. Women 40 to 49 without formal education average five children, while for those who have completed high school or higher, is two. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/050509_paper08.pdf
   2. Between 1995-1998, Turkish fertility was 2.29 children per woman; but Kurdish fertility was 4.27. Since Kurds comprise 18% of the Turkish population (based on mother tongue), the Turkish fertility rate excluding Kurds, was only 1.5, which is as low as Europe’s! Ibid. and http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60137

What?

What in that post did you consider anti-Muslim?

"Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries." Let's not forget her posting in general... No, I won't rewrite it until you answer my question: Millions starve to death every year, yes or no?

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

BTW.....you're really stupid.


1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new policy on Tuesday to encourage population growth, dismissing Iran’s decades of family planning as ungodly and a Western import….Throughout the 1990s, Iran tried to reduce population growth by encouraging men and women to use free or inexpensive contraceptives, as well as vasectomies. The government brought down the country’s population growth rate from its 1986 height of 3.9 percent to just 1.6 percent in 2006. Ahmadinejad caused public outcry, however, when shortly after he was elected in 2005 he said two children per family were not enough and urged Iranians to have more.
Iran to pay for new babies to boost population - Salon.com

a. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged girls to marry at the age of 16, according to newspaper reports. The leader criticised the current average marrying age of between 24 and 26.
Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16 World news The Guardian


You were saying?

The actual trends and actual population growth don't lie, you can find a article that has "proof" the earth is flat.

You are not understanding what the term declining fertility means.

You are confusing it with declining population.

 

[Marxist]

Oh....and

"Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries." Let's not forget her posting in general... No, I won't rewrite it until you answer my question: Millions starve to death every year, yes or no?

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

Oh.....and did I mention that you are really stupid?

1. 1. Women 40 to 49 without formal education average five children, while for those who have completed high school or higher, is two. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/050509_paper08.pdf
   2. Between 1995-1998, Turkish fertility was 2.29 children per woman; but Kurdish fertility was 4.27. Since Kurds comprise 18% of the Turkish population (based on mother tongue), the Turkish fertility rate excluding Kurds, was only 1.5, which is as low as Europe’s! Ibid. and http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60137

"Where faith goes, fertility vanishes. This is not to say that all faiths are equal in this regard: the fastest decline is taking place in Muslim countries." Let's not forget her posting in general... No, I won't rewrite it until you answer my question: Millions starve to death every year, yes or no?

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

BTW.....you're really stupid.


1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new policy on Tuesday to encourage population growth, dismissing Iran’s decades of family planning as ungodly and a Western import….Throughout the 1990s, Iran tried to reduce population growth by encouraging men and women to use free or inexpensive contraceptives, as well as vasectomies. The government brought down the country’s population growth rate from its 1986 height of 3.9 percent to just 1.6 percent in 2006. Ahmadinejad caused public outcry, however, when shortly after he was elected in 2005 he said two children per family were not enough and urged Iranians to have more.
Iran to pay for new babies to boost population - Salon.com

a. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged girls to marry at the age of 16, according to newspaper reports. The leader criticised the current average marrying age of between 24 and 26.
Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16 World news The Guardian


You were saying?

The actual trends and actual population growth don't lie, you can find a article that has "proof" the earth is flat.

You are not understanding what the term declining fertility means.

You are confusing it with declining population.

Ehh, read the pew things I posted

 

[Correll]

Oh....and

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

Oh.....and did I mention that you are really stupid?

1. 1. Women 40 to 49 without formal education average five children, while for those who have completed high school or higher, is two. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/050509_paper08.pdf
   2. Between 1995-1998, Turkish fertility was 2.29 children per woman; but Kurdish fertility was 4.27. Since Kurds comprise 18% of the Turkish population (based on mother tongue), the Turkish fertility rate excluding Kurds, was only 1.5, which is as low as Europe’s! Ibid. and http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60137

Pointing out that Muslim countries have a rapidly declining rate of fertility is hardly Anti-Muslim.

Indeed, in the context of arguing AGAINST the idea that overpopulation is a problem, suggesting that Islam leads to higher fertility rates is more likely to be seen as a good, not a negative.

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

BTW.....you're really stupid.


1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new policy on Tuesday to encourage population growth, dismissing Iran’s decades of family planning as ungodly and a Western import….Throughout the 1990s, Iran tried to reduce population growth by encouraging men and women to use free or inexpensive contraceptives, as well as vasectomies. The government brought down the country’s population growth rate from its 1986 height of 3.9 percent to just 1.6 percent in 2006. Ahmadinejad caused public outcry, however, when shortly after he was elected in 2005 he said two children per family were not enough and urged Iranians to have more.
Iran to pay for new babies to boost population - Salon.com

a. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged girls to marry at the age of 16, according to newspaper reports. The leader criticised the current average marrying age of between 24 and 26.
Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16 World news The Guardian


You were saying?

The actual trends and actual population growth don't lie, you can find a article that has "proof" the earth is flat.

You are not understanding what the term declining fertility means.

You are confusing it with declining population.

Ehh, read the pew things I posted

I just did.

It does not address changes in fertility rates.

 

[Marxist]

Oh....and

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

Oh.....and did I mention that you are really stupid?

1. 1. Women 40 to 49 without formal education average five children, while for those who have completed high school or higher, is two. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/050509_paper08.pdf
   2. Between 1995-1998, Turkish fertility was 2.29 children per woman; but Kurdish fertility was 4.27. Since Kurds comprise 18% of the Turkish population (based on mother tongue), the Turkish fertility rate excluding Kurds, was only 1.5, which is as low as Europe’s! Ibid. and http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60137

Muslim countries don't have declining fertility, it's a lie put forth by politicalchic the nutjob.
Why Muslims are the world s fastest-growing religious group Pew Research Center

BTW.....you're really stupid.


1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new policy on Tuesday to encourage population growth, dismissing Iran’s decades of family planning as ungodly and a Western import….Throughout the 1990s, Iran tried to reduce population growth by encouraging men and women to use free or inexpensive contraceptives, as well as vasectomies. The government brought down the country’s population growth rate from its 1986 height of 3.9 percent to just 1.6 percent in 2006. Ahmadinejad caused public outcry, however, when shortly after he was elected in 2005 he said two children per family were not enough and urged Iranians to have more.
Iran to pay for new babies to boost population - Salon.com

a. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged girls to marry at the age of 16, according to newspaper reports. The leader criticised the current average marrying age of between 24 and 26.
Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16 World news The Guardian


You were saying?

The actual trends and actual population growth don't lie, you can find a article that has "proof" the earth is flat.

You are not understanding what the term declining fertility means.

You are confusing it with declining population.

Ehh, read the pew things I posted

I just did.

It does not address changes in fertility rates.

The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics. To begin with, Muslims have more children than members of the seven other major religious groups analyzed in the study. Each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, significantly above the next-highest group (Christians at 2.7) and the average of all non-Muslims (2.3). In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility. Read it again.

 

[Correll]

Oh....and
Oh.....and did I mention that you are really stupid?

1. 1. Women 40 to 49 without formal education average five children, while for those who have completed high school or higher, is two. http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/050509_paper08.pdf
   2. Between 1995-1998, Turkish fertility was 2.29 children per woman; but Kurdish fertility was 4.27. Since Kurds comprise 18% of the Turkish population (based on mother tongue), the Turkish fertility rate excluding Kurds, was only 1.5, which is as low as Europe’s! Ibid. and http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60137

BTW.....you're really stupid.


1. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new policy on Tuesday to encourage population growth, dismissing Iran’s decades of family planning as ungodly and a Western import….Throughout the 1990s, Iran tried to reduce population growth by encouraging men and women to use free or inexpensive contraceptives, as well as vasectomies. The government brought down the country’s population growth rate from its 1986 height of 3.9 percent to just 1.6 percent in 2006. Ahmadinejad caused public outcry, however, when shortly after he was elected in 2005 he said two children per family were not enough and urged Iranians to have more.
Iran to pay for new babies to boost population - Salon.com

a. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has urged girls to marry at the age of 16, according to newspaper reports. The leader criticised the current average marrying age of between 24 and 26.
Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16 World news The Guardian


You were saying?

The actual trends and actual population growth don't lie, you can find a article that has "proof" the earth is flat.

You are not understanding what the term declining fertility means.

You are confusing it with declining population.

Ehh, read the pew things I posted

I just did.

It does not address changes in fertility rates.

The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics. To begin with, Muslims have more children than members of the seven other major religious groups analyzed in the study. Each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, significantly above the next-highest group (Christians at 2.7) and the average of all non-Muslims (2.3). In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility. Read it again.

I read it.

The reports PC is referring to are claiming that that number is changing over time, declining to be exact.

This does not mean that Muslim population is declining or even not growing.

But the rate of growth would be slowing, and might reverse at some future point.

And as the Turkish PM is concerned about, could already be reversed locally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is another side to this coin...and, as I suggested earlier, it is based on a religious perspective.


18. "Two exceptions to this [worldwide] demographic collapse are Israel and America in general and conservative Christians in particular.

Evangelicals, both in America and globally, are demographically proliferate and are making converts at a rapid rate, as are Orthodox Catholics. (The Evangelical movement is the fasting growing religious movement in the world) These groups are major factors in the fact that America’s birthrate is still above replacement rate. Other than Israel, we are the only major developed country to have a birthrate above replacement rate.


Secularists and mainline religious groups have a birthrate more in line with what we see in Europe.

... a new study from Baylor University entitled “The Values and Beliefs of The American Public”. People who strongly believe that God has a plan for their life are much more likely to have a high degree of hope for the future, a stronger degree of confidence in our free enterprise system, more skepticism of the ability of government to solve their problems, a belief that their ability to get ahead is largely a function of hard work, as well as numerous other attitudes that lead to a greater ability to adapt.
America Still a City on a Hill

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the fundies breed like rabbits.

 

[ralfy]

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???

The use of technology doesn't show over-population as a myth but the opposite. Otherwise, there would be no need to use technology.

Over-population is a scientific fact for painfully obvious reasons.

"Over-population is a scientific fact..."
Au contraire....

Your post has revealed how truly little intelligence you have at your command.
That is really the 'painfully obvious' fact.

I suggest you find someone with a higher education...any third grader will do....to read the thread and explain it to you.

Over-population is a scientific fact because the biosphere is limited. If you can show that the planet is infinite, then do so. Stop resorting to insults.

 

[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???

The use of technology doesn't show over-population as a myth but the opposite. Otherwise, there would be no need to use technology.

Over-population is a scientific fact for painfully obvious reasons.

"Over-population is a scientific fact..."
Au contraire....

Your post has revealed how truly little intelligence you have at your command.
That is really the 'painfully obvious' fact.

I suggest you find someone with a higher education...any third grader will do....to read the thread and explain it to you.

Over-population is a scientific fact because the biosphere is limited. If you can show that the planet is infinite, then do so. Stop resorting to insults.

The only thing limited is your comprehension.


Your ability to imbibe propaganda, though.......unlimited

 

[asterism]

You insult him by implying that he doesn't know that.

Marxist? What percentage of the US population would you be willing to see die in the Revolution, if it lead to the Communist Utopia?

What percentage would you see die to end feudalism? I have no idea, I'm hoping it would not be much violence at all, please look into anarchist syndicalism.

How many would you be willing to see die, if it meant you got what you wanted?

5%? 10%

Russia was a blood bath. So was China.

Here in America? With it's large capitalist class, and well to do middle class...

The toll would be staggering.

But you're up for it aren't you?

It's very unlikely anything violent would occur to any scale close to what you're talking about unless we've Allowed the world to get to such a horrible point.. Yeah. The middle class is certainly doing well... Russia and China were stupid, it's why many communists turn away from Leninism/Maoism and to more viable alternatives like anarchism and extensions of that thought.

Unlikely? WHy?

You see the hatred the lefties on this site have for the Right, and you think that a violent revolution by the left would not be a blood bath?

Nonsense.

YOu are kidding yourself.

Most marxists I have talked to have admitted that it would be in the millions, and they fully endorse that.

You need to ask your marxist buddies how many they would be will to see die to achieve their goals.

I never said people wouldn't die, but how many died in our civil war? The revolutions throughout history. Anarchist syndicalism Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.

It's refreshing to see someone who supports unions admit that they are stepping stones to collective production ownership and not simply a better capitalist labor model.

 

[Marxist]

What percentage would you see die to end feudalism? I have no idea, I'm hoping it would not be much violence at all, please look into anarchist syndicalism.

How many would you be willing to see die, if it meant you got what you wanted?

5%? 10%

Russia was a blood bath. So was China.

Here in America? With it's large capitalist class, and well to do middle class...

The toll would be staggering.

But you're up for it aren't you?

It's very unlikely anything violent would occur to any scale close to what you're talking about unless we've Allowed the world to get to such a horrible point.. Yeah. The middle class is certainly doing well... Russia and China were stupid, it's why many communists turn away from Leninism/Maoism and to more viable alternatives like anarchism and extensions of that thought.

Unlikely? WHy?

You see the hatred the lefties on this site have for the Right, and you think that a violent revolution by the left would not be a blood bath?

Nonsense.

YOu are kidding yourself.

Most marxists I have talked to have admitted that it would be in the millions, and they fully endorse that.

You need to ask your marxist buddies how many they would be will to see die to achieve their goals.

I never said people wouldn't die, but how many died in our civil war? The revolutions throughout history. Anarchist syndicalism Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and, with that control, influence broader society. Syndicalists consider their economic theories a strategy for facilitating worker self-activity and as an alternative co-operative economic system with democratic values and production centered on meeting human needs.

It's refreshing to see someone who supports unions admit that they are stepping stones to collective production ownership and not simply a better capitalist labor model.

Thanks?

 

[ralfy]

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???

The use of technology doesn't show over-population as a myth but the opposite. Otherwise, there would be no need to use technology.

Over-population is a scientific fact for painfully obvious reasons.

"Over-population is a scientific fact..."
Au contraire....

Your post has revealed how truly little intelligence you have at your command.
That is really the 'painfully obvious' fact.

I suggest you find someone with a higher education...any third grader will do....to read the thread and explain it to you.

Over-population is a scientific fact because the biosphere is limited. If you can show that the planet is infinite, then do so. Stop resorting to insults.

The only thing limited is your comprehension.


Your ability to imbibe propaganda, though.......unlimited

Nothing that I post is propaganda, unless you can prove that the biosphere is infinite. Since you cannot, then I do not see any relevance or logic in your posts.

Adding you to my ignore list.

 

[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???

The use of technology doesn't show over-population as a myth but the opposite. Otherwise, there would be no need to use technology.

Over-population is a scientific fact for painfully obvious reasons.

"Over-population is a scientific fact..."
Au contraire....

Your post has revealed how truly little intelligence you have at your command.
That is really the 'painfully obvious' fact.

I suggest you find someone with a higher education...any third grader will do....to read the thread and explain it to you.

Over-population is a scientific fact because the biosphere is limited. If you can show that the planet is infinite, then do so. Stop resorting to insults.

The only thing limited is your comprehension.


Your ability to imbibe propaganda, though.......unlimited

Nothing that I post is propaganda, unless you can prove that the biosphere is infinite. Since you cannot, then I do not see any relevance or logic in your posts.

Adding you to my ignore list.

Ah, you little cloaca, you....you seem beside yourself today!

Let's review:

The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.

You post "is too, is too....waaaaaa" ....simply because you're an imbecile.


Clearly, you put your entire educational career on 'ignore,' as well.

 

[ralfy]

Per capita consumption can be estimated using ecological footprint and other means, and in turn compared to biocapacity per capita:

List of countries by ecological footprint - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That means currently the population is in overshoot. Ecological footprint per capita is expected to continue rising due to a growing global middle class:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

but increasing population plus environmental damage will negate that. That's why oil prices are volatile, oil production costs have gone up, and economic crises remain.

Given "business as usual," collapse is inevitable:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Again, there's no "propaganda" involved, just historical data compared to forecasts made decades ago.

 

[Wuwei]

The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.

There is a lot of argument on overpopulation. If it has been defined, I haven't seen it. There would really have to be a clear definition that all sides agree on before any argument makes sense. Can you refresh my memory on how you define overpopulation?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.

There is a lot of argument on overpopulation. If it has been defined, I haven't seen it. There would really have to be a clear definition that all sides agree on before any argument makes sense. Can you refresh my memory on how you define overpopulation?

The following is a concise list of online English dictionaries whose definitions are based upon well-established content.

• Collins Online Dictionary Collins Unabridged English Dictionary; Collins Unabridged Thesaurus; Collins Webster's American English Dictionary
• Dictionary.com Dictionary.com Unabridged v. 1.1 and American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Ed.
• Merriam-Webster OnLine Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
• Oxford Dictionaries Online Oxford Dictionary of English; New Oxford American Dictionary; Oxford Thesaurus of English; Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus

Advanced learner dictionaries[edit]

• Oxford University Press Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
• Longman Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
• Cambridge Dictionaries Online Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
• Macmillan Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners List of online dictionaries - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Wuwei]

The following is a concise list of online English dictionaries whose definitions are based upon well-established content.

I'm not going to do a study on online dictionary definitions so I choose the first one you provided.
Definition of overpopulation Collins English Dictionary

noun
the population of an area in too large numbers

I would have thought you would have understood my question to be more along the lines of what "too large" means to you. It is rather ambiguous in light of the controversy on this forum. Can you refresh my memory on what you in particular mean by overpopulation?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The following is a concise list of online English dictionaries whose definitions are based upon well-established content.

I'm not going to do a study on online dictionary definitions so I choose the first one you provided.
Definition of overpopulation Collins English Dictionary

noun
the population of an area in too large numbers

I would have thought you would have understood my question to be more along the lines of what "too large" means to you. It is rather ambiguous in light of the controversy on this forum. Can you refresh my memory on what you in particular mean by overpopulation?

I don't find anything ambiguous in the thread.
I believe I made my point clear and undeniable.
Have a nice day.

 

[danielpalos]

The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.

There is a lot of argument on overpopulation. If it has been defined, I haven't seen it. There would really have to be a clear definition that all sides agree on before any argument makes sense. Can you refresh my memory on how you define overpopulation?

I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.