Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

1950 Census Data released (Who's in charge, Pfizer?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    In the U.S. you still need building permits and there are zoning restrictions, but nearly all the land that someone wants to develop is in private hands.
    Yup. the land my house was on was probably farm land that someone sold for megabucks to developers to create my subdivision. The land I was talking about being developed now was cleared but not being used as farm land, but could have been in the past. Looked like just open fields of weeds for the last 10 years until they started developing it recently. Put in a bunch of stores and banks and now they are making more subdivisions and apartment buildings.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seanD View Post

      "We don't need the environment" view is a heck of a leap from "Births must cease to save the environment" view. But it doesn't at all surprise me you'd create such a strawman.
      "Births must cease to save the environment" is quite a strawman in and of itself.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        "Births must cease to save the environment" is quite a strawman in and of itself.

        A population that "is not growing" to help the environment sounds pretty close to "Births must cease to save the environment." Whereas "We don't need the environment" is something you just made up out of thin air as if I said that.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seanD View Post


          A population that "is not growing" to help the environment sounds pretty close to "Births must cease to save the environment." Whereas "We don't need the environment" is something you just made up out of thin air as if I said that.
          A population that "is not growing" just means there are no more births than deaths. Births don't have to cease to achieve that.

          I'm sorry if it looked like I was attributing the "we don't need the environment" view to you. But it's a real thing, evidenced in just about every discussion where protecting the environment might cost jobs or slow GDP growth.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by seanD View Post


            A population that "is not growing" to help the environment sounds pretty close to "Births must cease to save the environment." Whereas "We don't need the environment" is something you just made up out of thin air as if I said that.
            A population that is not growing means births are equal to deaths. So unless there are zero deaths then it would not mean "births must cease". 10,000 deaths in a population that is not growing would mean 10,000 births in the same time period. Etc..
            Last edited by Gondwanaland; 04-04-2022, 04:03 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              A population that "is not growing" just means there are no more births than deaths. Births don't have to cease to achieve that.

              I'm sorry if it looked like I was attributing the "we don't need the environment" view to you. But it's a real thing, evidenced in just about every discussion where protecting the environment might cost jobs or slow GDP growth.
              Your argument reflects typical population control propaganda we saw from the early 20th century, it's just that now "saving the environment" is the new leftist justification for curbing population growth.

              And I've never seen one conservative (since that's obviously who you're referencing) skeptical about leftist environmental issues make a "we don't need the environment" argument. Not one. I've heard them say we need to focus on different issues of the environment that are actually feasible.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                "Births must cease to save the environment" is quite a strawman in and of itself.
                Right up until it isn't.
                • James E. Lovelock, best known for his advocacy of the Gaia hypothesis, 2006 book, "The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How we Can Still Save Humanity"[1] calls for nine-tenths of humanity to vanish to "save" the planet from global warming which he claims will kill billions of humans by the end of the century with the survivors forced to move to the Arctic regions to survive.[2]
                • Retired National Park Service research biologist, who served as the Chief Scientist for the Pacific West Region David Graber remarked in his review of Bill McKibben’s "The End of Nature" for the Los Angeles Times: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." He would later concede that "death is by far the crudest and cruelest solution to a problem of crowding" but stood by his earlier comments.[3]
                • A 1989 Earth First! newsletter asserted that "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS." Since AIDS didn't turn out to be the disease that they had hoped for I imagine that today they were rooting for COVID.
                • David Foreman, who has worked for The Wilderness Society as Southwest Regional Representative, was a board member for the New Mexico chapter of The Nature Conservancy and served on the Sierra Club’s board of directors before helping to co-found Earth First!, is infamous for his comments about the famines in Ethiopia a few decades back: "The best thing would be just to let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there starve." Nature didn't need to "seek its own balance" there considering that the famine was largely man-made.
                • Stewart Brand, founding editor and publisher of the Whole Earth Catalog has said that "We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism; our appropriate technology, our homemade religion – guilt free at last!" "Appropriate technology"? According to Brand that means the Stone Age.
                • Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace, said we are the "AIDS of the earth" and "We, the human species, have become a viral epidemic to the earth." This sentiment was echoed by tropical biologist Thomas Lovejoy who is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Foundation and University Professor in the Environmental Science and Policy department at George Mason University, who wrote that "The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."
                • The late Prince Philip, who headed the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) since 1981[4], said in the Foreword to Fleur Cowles' If I Were an Animal that "I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus." This was written so it wasn't something that he blurted out off the top of his head. What's more, a year later (1988) he was quoted as saying that "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve over-population."
                • In his influential "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics" Paul W. Taylor wrote that "The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’" There is that "Environmental Ethics" again.


                And this has been going on for quite some time. Back when the use of DDT was being banned Charles Wurster, a leading environmentalist with the Environmental Defense Fund, captured this thinking succinctly in 1972. When it was mentioned to him that the banning of DDT would cost millions of lives in poor countries, Wurster responded: "So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any." (“Them” includes "all those little brown people in poor countries," as fellow de-populationist Dr. Van den Bosch of the University of California so indelicately put it).

                His views were far from atypical. In the 1960s World Health Organization (WHO) authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure that up to 40% of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated: "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

                Finally, there was the late South African botanist, zoologist, biologist, anthropologist, Lyall Watson who in a 1995 editorial in The Fiscal Times wrote that cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." One can only hope it was similar to Jonathan Swift's satirical economic essay "A Modest Proposal" where he suggested that poverty, hunger and overpopulation could be eliminated in Ireland if the Irish would only eat their children. But given the above it really is hard to tell.

                Strange that you never see any of these advocates for massively reducing the human population ever taking the lead and practicing what they preach.




                1. Some editions of the book have a different, less optimistic subtitle: "Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity."

                2. "By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin."

                3. Graber has also stated that, "We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have ... more value to me than another human body, or a billion of them."

                4. International President from 1981, and President Emeritus from 1996

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by seanD View Post

                  Your argument reflects typical population control propaganda we saw from the early 20th century, it's just that now "saving the environment" is the new leftist justification for curbing population growth.
                  In my case, it isn't a matter of striving for curbing population growth so much as being very willing to accept zero or even somewhat negative population growth.

                  And I've never seen one conservative (since that's obviously who you're referencing) skeptical about leftist environmental issues make a "we don't need the environment" argument. Not one. I've heard them say we need to focus on different issues of the environment that are actually feasible.
                  I would love to see an indication that there is at least one positive thing that conservatives would be willing to sacrifice in order to preserve the environment.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                    In my case, it isn't a matter of striving for curbing population growth so much as being very willing to accept zero or even somewhat negative population growth.
                    Yes, I never doubted that one bit.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post

                      Your argument reflects typical population control propaganda we saw from the early 20th century, it's just that now "saving the environment" is the new leftist justification for curbing population growth.

                      And I've never seen one conservative (since that's obviously who you're referencing) skeptical about leftist environmental issues make a "we don't need the environment" argument. Not one. I've heard them say we need to focus on different issues of the environment that are actually feasible.
                      Curbing population growth with a population at 8 billion and still growing is not a bad idea. Limited resources yielding a massive famine being a not unlikely long term outcome of not curbing population growth.

                      Bottom line- nature will likely curb our population at some point anyway. We can do it the hard way or the easy way.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                        Curbing population growth with a population at 8 billion and still growing is not a bad idea. Limited resources yielding a massive famine being a not unlikely long term outcome of not curbing population growth.

                        Bottom line- nature will likely curb our population at some point anyway. We can do it the hard way or the easy way.
                        The "population control" mantra that you hear from wealthy elites is just another political leftist fraud. From what I understand, and from the OP, birthrates have been slowing and even drastically dropping off in some areas. What leftist population control nutcases want is nothing short of a population die-off. So why would I not be surprised you're on that political bandwagon as well.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                        16 responses
                        159 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post One Bad Pig  
                        Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                        53 responses
                        400 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                        25 responses
                        114 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                        33 responses
                        198 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Roy
                        by Roy
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                        84 responses
                        379 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post JimL
                        by JimL
                         
                        Working...
                        X