Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: longeyes on March 23, 2009, 09:43:24 PM
-
It is instructive to realize what experts are "advising" at the highest levels of such advanced nations as the United Kingdom. I would be inclined to call this dark satire if the enviromental movement had not already become the the Merry Pranksters. I'm wondering just how the population of the dastardly developed nations is going to be so drastically reduced.
From The Sunday Times
March 22, 2009
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
Jonathan Leake and Brendan Montague
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
“We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder,” he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.
This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.
Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.
Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”
The Tory leader, David Cameron, has also suggested Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.
Despite these comments, however, government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy. ”
Two Roads / Ron Scibilia
tworoadsinc@earthlink.net
-
Some politicians support a reduction.
Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”
The Tory leader, David Cameron, has also suggested Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.
IIRC, I think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all had nifty ideas on this matter........Now please pass the Soylent Green.......
-
Once upon a time, eugenics was as popular as doomsday "ecology" today.
-
"Sustainable": adjective.
1. Capable of being sustained; indefinitely possible.
2 (political). Incorporating sacrifices and limits the speaker would accept, but also imposing them on others as "reasonable."
Ex: "Driving SUVs around all the time is not sustainable, but driving little cars during the week and SUVs on weekends is."
-
Most populations have a way of self correcting over time to maintain sustainability. Whether due to conflicts over resources, famines, disease, or whatever populations that become too large for their terrority to support either gain more terrority or loose population. Doesn't matter in this instance if we're talking ants, deer, or people. If the human population of some region of the planet (or the planet as a whole) gets too large to be truely sustainable we'll either start to emigrate to other planets or we'll kill each other in wars, or starve, or die of various diseases or some combination thereof until the population is sufficiently reduced. Until then, we'll grow our numbers as we always have.
I'm not going to stop at 2 kids because some ninny with a badge thinks I should. I'll stop when my wife gets her tubes tied because she doesn't want to chase any additional kids around. Until then I'm OK with my recreation having the chance for procreation.
ETA: And if those ninnys think the population is too high, they have one guaranteed way to reduce it. And they start with themselves.
-
there's only one way to get back to the 1900's level of carbon emissions, nuke the world =(
-
I really don't give a rat's patootie about carbon emissions. Bring on the big al police to come get me......chris3
-
Alright, I'll say it here:
And now we have Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population) returning in his new green garb.
Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
-
I view it as just another phase in the War on The Enlightenment, with the Left identifying the "enemy" as the economically prosperous in Europe and America. To ignore the fact that there is a strong racial element here too would be naive, but from my perspective the Left is mainly driven by irrational self-loathing.
-
As soon as we can't produce enough food to feed the world the population will decline. Sad to say that day may come sooner than later if petroleum becomes to expensive to power farm equipment and make fertilizers.
-
As soon as we can't produce enough food to feed the world the population will decline. Sad to say that day may come sooner than later if petroleum becomes to expensive to power farm equipment and make fertilizers.
Malthus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population)
He suffered from the same problem you do.
He assumed that farming would continue its development linearly, continuing improvement upon what already existed.
He did not account for technological breakthroughs. You are doing the same thing.
-
Those wacky UKers. Haven't they already run this joke?
A Carbon Proposal=>http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
-
Its certainly true that if you do not allow for a fair amount of energy usage that even the current population of the UK is unsustainable.
-
Malthus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population)
He suffered from the same problem you do.
He assumed that farming would continue its development linearly, continuing improvement upon what already existed.
He did not account for technological breakthroughs. You are doing the same thing.
Maybe so, but they better get that technology now. I haven't seen a whole lot farmers applying anhydrous ammonia this February/March in Iowa, probably do to the higher costs of it outweighs the gain in yields. That is what farmer told me why he didn't do it. The extra 25 bushels of corn per acre loss he will experience with out anhydrous is less than the cost of applying anhydrous.
-
Maybe so, but they better get that technology now. I haven't seen a whole lot farmers applying anhydrous ammonia this February/March in Iowa, probably do to the higher costs of it outweighs the gain in yields. That is what farmer told me why he didn't do it. The extra 25 bushels of corn per acre loss he will experience with out anhydrous is less than the cost of applying anhydrous.
I was chatting with someone who is in a direct position to know about the subject of corn yields last fall.
He said that 300 bu/acre will become the norm within a decade due to new hybrids being developed today. And this is corn that is highly drought and insect resistant. He said 400 bu/acre is not an unreasonable expectation in a couple of decades. Something to do with making the root system better.
-
I was chatting with someone who is in a direct position to know about the subject of corn yields last fall.
He said that 300 bu/acre will become the norm within a decade due to new hybrids being developed today. And this is corn that is highly drought and insect resistant. He said 400 bu/acre is not an unreasonable expectation in a couple of decades. Something to do with making the root system better.
...but what is the input requirements? (N, P, K) for 300-400 bu/acre corn. Corn is a nutrient sucking modified subtropical grass. Nutrients for that much production just don't appear out of thin air or are stored in the soil perpetually.
Also here at Iowa State University they are working on perennial corn too. Trying to find a way to keep vegetation on the ground year round to decrease soil loss from water and wind erosion.
-
Everytime a buncha tree hugging ninnys try to hatch a population control plan, some fool has to go and pull Malthus out of his butt.
:rolleyes:
:lol:
-
Everytime a buncha tree hugging ninnys try to hatch a population control plan, some fool has to go and pull Malthus out of his butt.
:rolleyes:
:lol:
Also, I'm well aware that people don't learn from the past anyway.
I might as well be Cassandra.
-
All you folks spouting off on pre-/post- Malthus, genetically modified crops (which the EU will not eat, even if they need the nourishment), and even Swift seem to be missing a point.
I mulled over this topic all night and into the morning. I knew there was something bothering me but I just could not nail down what it was. Then, as it started to become "clearer" to me, I went off on a tangent of wanting to disbelieve the thought that was forming.
I can't do any of that any more. If noone else is going to say it, I will to either a) get it out and discussed, or b) to have it shot down as tinfoilhattery. Here goes.
Much like Swift, this is a proposal aimed at a specific segment of the population. Unlike Swift's proposal, there are no economic gains driving this - just emotions.
GB has for many years now been over-run by foreigners, and most recently by those of the Muslim persuasion. Way too much has been bandied about of how GB will become a "Muslim country" within x years if the current rate of influx and breeding is not abated/extinguished. Muslims are not compared favorably with other immigrants, such as the Hindu tide that washed up on GB's shores a while back. The Hindus (Hindi?) were seen much as America's Korean merchants are - embrasing capitalism with a vengance and plowing money into the business until they could bring over the next wave of family or villagers. Admittedly, in both countries there was a very large component of hatred and discrimination also heaped on their respective heads, but by and large they were tolerated more than despised. (IMHO the Hindus (Hindi?) hurt themselves by the limited amount of acculturization/assimilation they did. Or was it that the Koreans were less blatant about retaining they homeland ways?)
The Muslims are the complete opposite - they (if we are to believe the popular press) insist on the host country acceding to their desire to live as they did back home, without regard for the ways and mores of the host country. We read of demands for sharia courts being agreed to "because it prevents violence". We read accounts of "honor killings" being swept under the rug or receiving the lightest of sentences.
There is a part of my twisted mind that believes this Optimum Population Trust research has a significant amount of, for lack of a better term - ethnic cleansing - to it.
Would the folks from over there please chime in and let me know if I am totally off my rocker on this? Please?
stay safe.
skidmark
-
You're correct about the Muslims. If the UK has a civil war then hopefully no one should have any reason to worry about overpopulation.
-
Just a friendly little note...
This will not become a Muslim, or any other religious denomination, bashing thread.
Do I make myself understood?
Thank you.
Carry on.
-
Well, according to Porritt, if anyone gets "cleansed," it should be the bloody Europeans and Americans.
-
Just a friendly little note...
This will not become a Muslim, or any other religious denomination, bashing thread.
Whats friendly about that? If we can't bash Moslems we will have to go back to bashing Fistful.