Article

2015-04-07 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

UN Climate Chief: We Should 'Make Every Effort' To Reduce Population Increases

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-04-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 See, I told you these global warming "advocates" are NUTS.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2015-04-07 00:08|| 2015-04-07 00:08|| Front Page Top

#2 "As global population booms" > AND, as the SUN intensifies its heating up of the Earth.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2015-04-07 00:17|| 2015-04-07 00:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Christina, I have a solution for you...

Posted by Raj 2015-04-07 00:38|| 2015-04-07 00:38|| Front Page Top

#4 "We'll be consulting with experts in the field such as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, the Kim Dynasty..."

Posted by charger 2015-04-07 00:50|| 2015-04-07 00:50|| Front Page Top

#5 You first!

Posted by CrazyFool 2015-04-07 01:08|| 2015-04-07 01:08|| Front Page Top

#6 This will feed the conspiracy nutz no end.

Really - to reduce world poverty, pressure on fish stocks and farming resources and to just let everyone live a nicer life, you don't need to go any further than giving 3rd world women access to contraception.

If women have some control on their own fertility they don't usually choose to have 11 kids they can't feed, they'll choose at most 3 or 4

by and large

problem solved.

This is why Mother Theresa was a curse on Calcutta not a saint. The poor don't need charity, they need the empowerment of women, and she preached exactly the opposite of that.

Posted by anon1 2015-04-07 03:30|| 2015-04-07 03:30|| Front Page Top

#7 What's the German term?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2015-04-07 05:25|| 2015-04-07 05:25|| Front Page Top

#8 Except that they don't have three or four. They have none, one, or at most two, in the current state of human development. First world, third world, all worlds. Japan, Italy, coastal U.S., Iran, China. Even sub-Saharan Africa has plummeting birthrates.

Adapting to easy access to contraception will take many, many generations, if it can occur at all without collapse of the species. It will affect economics, government, and the concept of the Westphalian state. It will have massive effects on family dynamics. One need only interact with children in Euroland or the U.S. and Canada or Japan to see what the effects of growing up as pampered only children or even one of two children really are. Many if not most of these kids are damaged goods.

The nation that will rule the world 150 years from now will be the one where all women fertile enough to have 3 or more children want to have them, actually DO have them, and have them in intact monogamous stable families. The current state of feminism, with its concurrent unleashing of primate hypergamy as the primary mating strategy after it had been bottled up by religion and culture for centuries, demand for absolute government protection from any negative effects of an unplanned pregnancy, and demand for material status as the primary motivator of women in their lives, has created a scenario where women are choosing Prada accessories and multiple exciting non-procreating sex partners over a lower level of material comfort and being a faithful wife and cub scout den mother and realizing that that is more important than the status.

No society can survive long like that.

Posted by no mo uro 2015-04-07 05:28|| 2015-04-07 05:28|| Front Page Top

#9 It's almost as though they want nuclear proliferation. Good old fashion war, pestilence, disease, and famine just around the corner. "What mother nature doesn't do to us, will be done by our fellow man"

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-04-07 09:53|| 2015-04-07 09:53|| Front Page Top

#10 I suspect we'll see a Spanish Flu or something within the next decade or so that will change all the numbers on a global scale. Sad for the third world but they are far less prepared for such an event

Posted by rjschwarz 2015-04-07 10:05|| 2015-04-07 10:05|| Front Page Top

#11 Every time I hear someone say there are too many people, I want to ask "Why haven't you helped the problem by committing suicide?".

When people say there are too many people, they usually mean there are too many OTHER people.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2015-04-07 10:10|| 2015-04-07 10:10|| Front Page Top

#12 Sounds very much like Adolph Hitler and the eugenics movement under the guise of climate change or global warming. Agree with Sock Puppet--these people are NUTS.

Posted by JohnQC 2015-04-07 11:02|| 2015-04-07 11:02|| Front Page Top

#13 They are NUTS, and they are also dangerous.

Posted by Spats Snore1011 2015-04-07 11:05|| 2015-04-07 11:05|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm all for wiping these people off the face of the Earth.

Line up assholes! Along that wall will be fine.

Posted by DarthVader 2015-04-07 11:12|| 2015-04-07 11:12|| Front Page Top

#15 "The revolution is successful. But survival depends on drastic measures. Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony. Therefore, I have no alternative but to sentence you to death. Your execution is so ordered, signed Kodos, Governor of Tarsus IV." -- Kodos the Executioner, quoting himself in the Star Trek episode The Conscience of the King.

Posted by Korora 2015-04-07 11:49|| 2015-04-07 11:49|| Front Page Top

#16 Makes me want to read up on Thomas Malthus. From Wikipedia

Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.

In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles.

On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.

Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages.

Maybe he was more than the one-trick pony I thought he was!

Posted by Bobby 2015-04-07 12:45|| 2015-04-07 12:45|| Front Page Top

#17 Nah, Malthus was no Ricardo. Sad that the fool is more famous.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2015-04-07 13:25|| 2015-04-07 13:25|| Front Page Top

#18 #7 - g(r)om - were you thinking of lebensraum?

Posted by Bobby 2015-04-07 14:04|| 2015-04-07 14:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Selection

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2015-04-07 14:24|| 2015-04-07 14:24|| Front Page Top

#20 Lefty opposition to genetically modified foods make more sense from this angle.

Posted by rjschwarz 2015-04-07 14:28|| 2015-04-07 14:28|| Front Page Top

#21 ObamaCare is a great first step toward achieving this goal. Death Panels indeed.

Posted by Merp 2015-04-07 14:57|| 2015-04-07 14:57|| Front Page Top

#22 rj, these people must really hate Norman Borlaug. Some estimates say he saved the lives of others er a BILLION people.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2015-04-07 15:12|| 2015-04-07 15:12|| Front Page Top

#23 Evolution is going to take care of the whole problem after 2 or 3 generations of freely available birth control.

Generation one: by and large, only people who like kids and want kids will have kids. People who don't like kids won't have any, or will stop after the first one. Liking kids is a HIGHLY heritable trait. As much as red hair or IQ. So most children who get born will like kids a lot too, they will have a built in propensity towards big families, lots of kids.

Generation two: People who like kids will be by and large marrying people who like kids (cause about the only people who will be alive to get married are descended from people liked kids so much they had a couple or three.) The 'accidents' that made it through the first selection process (the ones descended from people who don't like kids) mostly won't have kids themselves, and will select themselves out.

Generation three: about the only people left will be people who REALLY REALLY like kids. Big families, everywhere.

By generation 10 we will be at fixation I expect. Everyone will want a dozen kids, and we will be eying Mercury or Alpha Centauri for living space.

If you call a generation 25 years, the whole birth control episode will soon be a hardly remembered blip in the history of mankind. People will look back on it and ask each other, 'but why would anyone want to have fewer kids?'

All the women who chose Prada over a baby are committing genetic suicide. The good news is, that family values are going to come back no matter what the liberals do. Even better news,as far as I can see, the more radically leftwing they are, the more likely they don't like kids, and aren't going to inflict any of their genes on succeeding generations.

Posted by dlr 2015-04-07 19:46|| 2015-04-07 19:46|| Front Page Top

#24 What does he think flooding low-lying land masses is all about?

Posted by Skidmark 2015-04-07 20:25|| 2015-04-07 20:25|| Front Page Top

#25 Liking kids is a HIGHLY heritable trait.

I don't know if you're right about this, or about the generations, but I think this is a massively overlooked point. I didn't want kids, so I didn't have any. I was an adult before I met people who acted like they really liked being parents.

Mark Steyn's always going on about pessimism about the future being responsible for the drop in birth rates (in Europe, particularly). I'm thinking that the urge to reproduce (as opposed to the urge to have sex) is a lot less common than he assumes.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2015-04-07 21:26|| 2015-04-07 21:26|| Front Page Top

23:31 jvalentour
23:21 SteveS
22:36 Rob Crawford
22:34 49 Pan
22:11 Alaska Paul
22:07 Alaska Paul
22:05 Alaska Paul
22:05 SteveS
22:03 Alaska Paul
21:54 JosephMendiola
21:50 JosephMendiola
21:26 JosephMendiola
21:26 Angie Schultz
21:25 NoMoreBS
21:25 Frank G
21:15 JosephMendiola
21:12 JosephMendiola
21:07 3dc
21:04 DarthVader
21:04 JosephMendiola
20:58 OldSpook
20:54 OldSpook
20:44 OldSpook
20:44 DarthVader