Reply With Quote
So, if you write about something, you are ipso facto supporting it?
I love how he wrote that 280 million people in the US by 2040 would be WAAAAY to many.
It's 2009 and we have over 300 million people.
So, if you write about something, you are ipso facto supporting it?
Well, not necessarily, I suppose.
I suppose that Al Gore might not really believe in Global Warming, but, from all his books, his sci-fi docudrama, and his speeches, I'd be inclined to believe he does believe in AGW.
The passage states that achieving ZPG is somewhat that we should aim for, but it does not specifically advocate which of the proposed policies he prefers.
It also states how hard it is to disentangle certain bits of data, and the uncertainty of whether current reproduction numbers are going to increase, decrease or remain steady.
I believe Al Gore does believe in Global Warming. I'm referring to it in the sense that I could write a paper discussing certain ways of dealing with a problem, even including rather outlandish answers.
For instance, in finding ways to deal with Iraq, I could propose two solutions. One, counter insurgency, and the other, dropping two or three nukes on Iraq. Both would (technically) solve the problem of insurgencies in Iraq. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of one over the other though.
I love how you lied about his advocating population control policies.
Right-wing blogs reported it, so Darrin just assumes it to be true.
It does seem his predictions were off, in the sense that we'd face mass overpopulation.
He doesn't advocate population control policies, just a zero net population growth -- the two are as different as night and day.
Or, you can just read what the man has written.
Now you're getting it.
Took you long enough.
Exactly -- then he too can see that....
....YOU LIE!
Thank you for proving our point here that he isn't, in your words
After all, I'm a proponent of peace in the middle East, but I'm not a proponent of laying waste to everyone there. Even though, technically, that would bring 'peace' to the region. Tough to fight when you're dead.
Here's a letter by Paul Ehrlich to Barack Obama:
http://www.populationmedia.org/wp-co...ama-advice.doc
Ehrlich and Holdren co-authored textbooks and papers on overpopulation.
Why are you so desperately trying to change the subject away from the fact that you lie?
I'm down with Registration for Reproduction.
The letter doesn't advocate eugenics or any sort of specific population control. In fact, it just seems that this guy is a hippie. He talks about 'quality of life', bemoans the idea of progress = new toys, and generally seems very liberal.
But, apart from saying that it's important to reduce our population, it doesn't list specifics. The only one he seems to support is access to abortion.
Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Cons ution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: 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.
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Yep, not advocating anything.
Thanks for proving, once again, YOU LIE!
--though I don't know how much of your work day you should spend repeatedly kicking your own ass like this.
All these quotes provide answers of how to solve overpopulation. Can you find a quote in which he says, "I think the best answer would be X solution."? Or something like, "I feel if America doesn't do X population control, then Y problem will exist?"
Yeah well we now have about 12,000 new unemployed a month in CA. and we hand out about 100,000 new green cards a month in the U.S. go figure.But the forced sterilization thing has finality that must appeal to the Soros/Obama whitehouse.
Whinehole you like most of the Obamamunitsts are sidestepping the peoples issue with the czar thing.It's not that people have a problem with the presidental advisors, what they have is a problem with is the overstepping of these people"s power and the clandestine way in which lunatics and radicals are being allowed to form policy. Shoplifting is embarassing, but communists,people with extremely hostile at udes toward westeren culture,and enviro-facists is what is concerning people. The people are not interested in your Clarance Darrow fantasy life, they're concerened that there is a regime in power, whose motives become frighteninglly apparent daily.
Again Darrin, writing about the possibilities of a situation does not necessarily mean advocating for them. If I wrote a book suggesting ways to build a real-life Frankenstein monster, a technical book that was as well-researched as possible, to the point where others may try to take my book and actually perform such a feat....
That STILL does not mean I'd be an advocate for building Frankenstein monsters.
Now, we know this guy is an advocate for controlling the population. And he lists different methods. But you've not found anything that he's said that lists which methods he favors/advocates.
Damn, these get better and better.
No weirdness here.
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
Yes, he's very hippie liberal. I mentioned that earlier.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
