|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: Stop having kids to save environment, says Guardian |
 |
|
To most of us, a human baby is a good, wonderful thing, period. To the Guardian-left, it's simply a future gas-guzzler, a parasite, a overconsumer, a carbon-emitter and a threat. Babies are only good insofar as they don't destroy the environment.
The communists thought nothing of taking human life en masse (the establishment of the socialist utopia, the One True Faith, man's sole route to salvation, being infinitely of greater value). People are a means, not an end in themselves. Say hello to the same thing in 2009 form - only this time, the lefties are slaying the unborn. And of course (see paragraph 4), it is the same old enemy - capitalists, the bourgeoisie. The poor, by contrast - well, the sun continues to shine out of the poor's arse.
| Quote: |
There are already 6.8 billion people living on this crowded planet and the figure is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050. How can we expect to reduce global carbon emissions by 50 per cent or more if populations continue to grow exponentially? Many are now coming round to the view that curbing population growth will be crucial to combat climate change
The Optimum Population Trust (patron, David Attenborough) runs a campaign urging parents to "Stop At Two".
"There's no question that population growth is part of the reason why we have growth in carbon emissions ...
Every child in the US adds 9,441 tonnes to each parent's carbon footprint. This is assuming that emissions per capita continue at today's levels. Compare that with 1,384 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each child in China, or 56 tonnes in Bangladesh.
So now that you know that becoming a parent could lead to a legacy of 262 times more carbon emissions than failing to convert to energy-saving light bulbs, are you still keen to start a family?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/aug/04/population-climate-change-birth-rates
|
Why don't we all just kill ourselves? After all, human life is so catestrophic for the evironment! And it's the environment that's most important - the One True God! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Every time you try to hammer the heads of the Left with the spectre of Communism, you (the Right) leave your own flank open for them to retaliate with the spectre of Nazism. Both attempted smears are of equal relevance and (il)logic.
It's not a tactic that encourages lucid debate on the part of either party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why don't we all just kill ourselves? |
For the most part, the point of environmental initiatives is to ensure the Earth remains comfortably habitable for humans. Rendering ourselves extinct as a species would work against that, not for it.
| Quote: |
| the lefties are slaying the unborn. |
Characterizing willingly choosing to avoid conception of children as "slaying the unborn" is more than questionable.
I have to say, suggesting voluntary population management for the sake of keeping Earth comfortably habitable seems totally reasonable to me. Is the content of your post a joke? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thoreau
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Every time you try to hammer the heads of the Left with the spectre of Communism, you (the Right) leave your own flank open for them to retaliate with the spectre of Nazism. Both attempted smears are of equal relevance and (il)logic.
It's not a tactic that encourages lucid debate on the part of either party. |
Its not really a left or right thing - I think the OP is in the conspiracy camp. For them, global warming is to be the new unifying religion. Under that umbrella, populations will be decreased under the premise of saving the planet but in reality the goal is to rid the world of 'useless eaters.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E_athlete
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Location: Korea sparkling
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is actually one of the most important issues we don't like talking about.... we think we can perserve human rights when our world is on the brink of implosion. We have to control population size....but we havent done it ( well china has to some extent but the rest of the world...)
I'm guessing we will reach that carrying capacity soob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That article is spot on. The earth is dying under the depredations of 6 billion people ..who are busy trashing it for short-term greed. The last thing we actually need is more humans on the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| That article is spot on. The earth is dying under the depredations of 6 billion people ..who are busy trashing it for short-term greed. The last thing we actually need is more humans on the planet. |
Then why don't you be the first to sign up for sterilization? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thoreau wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Every time you try to hammer the heads of the Left with the spectre of Communism, you (the Right) leave your own flank open for them to retaliate with the spectre of Nazism. Both attempted smears are of equal relevance and (il)logic.
It's not a tactic that encourages lucid debate on the part of either party. |
Its not really a left or right thing - I think the OP is in the conspiracy camp. For them, global warming is to be the new unifying religion. Under that umbrella, populations will be decreased under the premise of saving the planet but in reality the goal is to rid the world of 'useless eaters.' |
This, and as an excuse to tax carbon emissions (ie. tax every facet of your daily life). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Stop having kids to save environment, says Guardian |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Why don't we all just kill ourselves? After all, human life is so catestrophic for the evironment! And it's the environment that's most important - the One True God! |
| VisitorQ wrote: |
| Then why don't you be the first to sign up for sterilization? |
You and most people as evidenced by this thread understand very little about the worlds natural environment and the dangers facing the planet at the hands of humans.
I put this general lack of knowledge partly down to the relatively recent mass-urbanization of the globe. Most people nowadays live in cities and are far-removed from the natural rythms or basic understanding of how the worlds natural systems work. Looked at objectively humans are simply a greedy and destructive species who's goal is to multiply off the scale at the expense of any long-term sustainable future. Thanks for proving my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:32 am Post subject: Re: Stop having kids to save environment, says Guardian |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Why don't we all just kill ourselves? After all, human life is so catestrophic for the evironment! And it's the environment that's most important - the One True God! |
| VisitorQ wrote: |
| Then why don't you be the first to sign up for sterilization? |
You and most people as evidenced by this thread understand very little about the worlds natural environment and the dangers facing the planet at the hands of humans.
I put this general lack of knowledge partly down to the relatively recent mass-urbanization of the globe. Most people nowadays live in cities and are far-removed from the natural rythms or basic understanding of how the worlds natural systems work. Looked at objectively humans are simply a greedy and destructive species who's goal is to multiply off the scale at the expense of any long-term sustainable future. Thanks for proving my point. |
Oh really? And have you gone around the globe and assessed the "damage" first hand yourself? Or do you live in a city and get your info from Al Gore documentaries?
Most of the destruction caused by humans is a result of our current monetary system, which has attached interest to every unit of currency in circulation and forces consumption of resources to increase exponentially. It's perfectly possible for 6+ billion people to live harmoniously with the earth, the technology is mostly already there. The problem lies in the current system which is based on rapacious consumption of resources, keeping the elite in power, and keeps their financial ponzi scheme going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E_athlete
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Location: Korea sparkling
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have to be really naive to think that not controlling the world population wont lead to serious problems later on. Our planet is finite, so is it's resources.
You're looking at depletion of resources, a decrease in quality of life, more competition, more pollution, more extinctions, less space to live on. Every year an extra 70million come into play and it's growing at a geometric rate. The world is going to be a horrible place to live in a 100 years, not just for people but for all the other species that will be driven to extinction. The only hope is that hopefully we terraform some other planet like mars and ship our people there. Things are looking really grim.. and to think that we can continually and selfishly expand is a real problem. We might have to hit a brick wall to learn something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Every time you try to hammer the heads of the Left with the spectre of Communism, you (the Right) leave your own flank open for them to retaliate with the spectre of Nazism. Both attempted smears are of equal relevance and (il)logic.
It's not a tactic that encourages lucid debate on the part of either party. |
The Nazis had nothing to do with us Rightists. The Nazis wanted complete control of the economy and were, therefore, quintessentially leftist. We on 'the Right' sanctify capitalism. And capitalism - almost by definition - is the complete absence of any ideology (capitalism is the operation of markets unmolested by anything or anyone).
Rightism in a nutshell: liberty and economic equality are incompatible. A far cry from the Third Reich.
| Fox wrote: |
Why don't we all just kill ourselves?
For the most part, the point of environmental initiatives is to ensure the Earth remains comfortably habitable for humans. Rendering ourselves extinct as a species would work against that, not for it.
Quote:
the lefties are slaying the unborn.
Characterizing willingly choosing to avoid conception of children as "slaying the unborn" is more than questionable.
I have to say, suggesting voluntary population management for the sake of keeping Earth comfortably habitable seems totally reasonable to me. Is the content of your post a joke? |
Babies - particularly Western capitalist bourgeois babies - are bad for the environment. They have no independent, intrinsic value. Babies derive their value solely with respect to their carbon footprint. If only Americans etc - the evil - would stop reproducing, this will make the world safer for the noble savages of Bagladesh etc - the good.
The article concludes with the question "are you still keen to start a family?"
Yes, I am, because I believe babies have independent, intrinsic value aside from their effects on the environment. I don't view babies as gas-guzzling carbon-emitters. Carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate change, not humans qua humans. There is no alternative than to change the way we produce energy. Having fewer children certainly isn't it. Actually, that's the very last thing a leftist should be advocating, because the policies they admire aren't reconcilable with low fertility rates.
Low fertility rates, also, are a massive threat to civilized life
A complete cowpat of an article. Particularly heinous was the picture of a cute baby with the caption "Another mouth to feed, another gas guzzler, long-distance traveller, consumer ... and future parent" underneath - profoundly, wretchedly vulgar stuff.
| thoreau wrote: |
| Its not really a left or right thing - I think the OP is in the conspiracy camp. For them, global warming is to be the new unifying religion. Under that umbrella, populations will be decreased under the premise of saving the planet but in reality the goal is to rid the world of 'useless eaters.' |
I'm not a global warming skeptic. But it's not about just the climate anymore. It's a stick with which to bash capitalism and America. I'm a skeptic about that.
| E_Athlete wrote: |
| We have to control population size.... |
The Khmer Rouge said the exact same. They thought the ideal population of Cambodia was 1 million. Everyone else was superfluous to their socialist paradise's requirements. The belief in an optimal population size presents golden opportunities for tyrants to flourish.
If the world population in 2050 will be 9bn, that means its population density will be 156 per sq mile. That's about as dense as the 18th most densely populated US state is now (not worryingly dense). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| E_athlete wrote: |
| We might have to hit a brick wall to learn something. |
Brick walls tend to be fatal.
We may already have passed the point where it is too late to brake in time. In any case nothing tells me that we're going to make the necessary changes in time. You only have to look at the mushrooming economies of Asia pumping out billions of tonnes of carbon, the rapidly receding polar ice and the thawing permafrost belching out masses of methane into the atmosphere to get that feeling.
Are we capable of stopping it? yes. Will we? no. Humans are far too unlikely to overcome their short-term greed and exploitation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| An article about high consumption states needing population decreases that doesn't mention the single largest source of population increase. This is yet another example of how leftists are nothing more than chickenshit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
Every time you try to hammer the heads of the Left with the spectre of Communism, you (the Right) leave your own flank open for them to retaliate with the spectre of Nazism. Both attempted smears are of equal relevance and (il)logic.
It's not a tactic that encourages lucid debate on the part of either party. |
The Nazis had nothing to do with us Rightists. The Nazis wanted complete control of the economy and were, therefore, quintessentially leftist. We on 'the Right' sanctify capitalism. And capitalism - almost by definition - is the complete absence of any ideology (capitalism is the operation of markets unmolested by anything or anyone).
Rightism in a nutshell: liberty and economic equality are incompatible. A far cry from the Third Reich.
| Fox wrote: |
Why don't we all just kill ourselves?
For the most part, the point of environmental initiatives is to ensure the Earth remains comfortably habitable for humans. Rendering ourselves extinct as a species would work against that, not for it.
Quote:
the lefties are slaying the unborn.
Characterizing willingly choosing to avoid conception of children as "slaying the unborn" is more than questionable.
I have to say, suggesting voluntary population management for the sake of keeping Earth comfortably habitable seems totally reasonable to me. Is the content of your post a joke? |
Babies - particularly Western capitalist bourgeois babies - are bad for the environment. They have no independent, intrinsic value. Babies derive their value solely with respect to their carbon footprint. If only Americans etc - the evil - would stop reproducing, this will make the world safer for the noble savages of Bagladesh etc - the good.
The article concludes with the question "are you still keen to start a family?"
Yes, I am, because I believe babies have independent, intrinsic value aside from their effects on the environment. I don't view babies as gas-guzzling carbon-emitters. Carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate change, not humans qua humans. There is no alternative than to change the way we produce energy. Having fewer children certainly isn't it. Actually, that's the very last thing a leftist should be advocating, because the policies they admire aren't reconcilable with low fertility rates.
Low fertility rates, also, are a massive threat to civilized life
A complete cowpat of an article. Particularly heinous was the picture of a cute baby with the caption "Another mouth to feed, another gas guzzler, long-distance traveller, consumer ... and future parent" underneath - profoundly, wretchedly vulgar stuff.
| thoreau wrote: |
| Its not really a left or right thing - I think the OP is in the conspiracy camp. For them, global warming is to be the new unifying religion. Under that umbrella, populations will be decreased under the premise of saving the planet but in reality the goal is to rid the world of 'useless eaters.' |
I'm not a global warming skeptic. But it's not about just the climate anymore. It's a stick with which to bash capitalism and America. I'm a skeptic about that.
| E_Athlete wrote: |
| We have to control population size.... |
The Khmer Rouge said the exact same. They thought the ideal population of Cambodia was 1 million. Everyone else was superfluous to their socialist paradise's requirements. The belief in an optimal population size presents golden opportunities for tyrants to flourish.
If the world population in 2050 will be 9bn, that means its population density will be 156 per sq mile. That's about as dense as the 18th most densely populated US state is now (not worryingly dense). |
Well said!
A key word that needs to be used here is 'eugenics'. Eugenics has had an incalculable impact on the world for the past century, but became a taboo word after WWII (when it became associated with Nazism and the holocaust). Eugenics goes back to thinkers like Malthus, Galton, and Darwin, but really took off in the USA in the early 20th century where it was even legislated in some states (forced sterilization for example). The largest funders of eugenics in history, by far, are the Rockefellers (mainly through the Rockefeller Foundation), who even funded much of the research done in Nazi Germany (ex. at the Kaiser Wilhem Institute).
The same people who have always promoted eugenics (responsible for many atrocities, including the holocaust), are still very much in power today. They hide their agenda (which is basically to get rid of or cull a large portion of humanity, and treat the rest like cattle) in more innocuous sounding organizations such as UNESCO, the World Wildlife Foundation (founded by influential eugenicist Julian Huxley), and Planned Parenthood. Much of the environmentalist movement stems from eugenics, and is very Malthusian in ideology. All of it could be labelled "leftist", but state-controlled would be a more straight forward label. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
