(hat tip to Daffynition)
Cheers!
Posted on 08/13/2009 10:32:37 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
A couple of weeks back, when the hottest topic of discussion on most forums was the "birther" movement, I ran across a nifty little article on The Wall Street Journal Online. It used the topic of so-called "birthers" to introduce the left-leaning interest of "anti-birthers". Not in relation to the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President, but in relation to overpopulation. It was quoting an article from a couple of statistics professors at Oregon State University, pontificating from their lofty self-annointed perch, about the dangers to the environment from population growth. Just like the 1960's and early 1970's, right? Only, this time, instead of working to reduce crowding in the impoverished Third World, the authors held up the Third World -- more specifically, their lifestyles -- as examples; they called on the developed West to consider very carefully the idea of having any more children, since the environmental burden of having more Western children (with their consumer-driven lifestyle, SUVs, and other creature comforts, hereafter to be reserved to socially, environmentally conscious professors) will GREATLY outweigh the burden posed by Third World infants. (And this, the authors point out, propagates even beyond the lifetime of their children, being magnified through their descendants. The authors manage to condescend even to the point of deigning to explain the esoteric concept of compound interest to us mere peons.)
Really, one doesn't know quite where to begin. Those with military experience might recognize the concept of a "target-rich environment".
First, notice the racism and cultural biases exhibited, apparently unconsciously, by the authors. Racism is a serious charge, so I do not make it lightly. And what is more, the authors seem to engage in racism against those of European heritage, and those of Asiatic extraction, at one and the same time. As noted in the article,
"The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. – along with all of its descendants – is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh."
This seems to be the classic "brown skin good, white skin bad" beloved by so many in Europe and liberal bastions: remember the "wise Latina" remark from Sotamayor (despite the fact that she attended the same privileged colleges and law schools as the whites she criticized)?
But then, the authors turn around and attempt to keep the indigenous peoples at a low socioeconomic level too:
"China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living," Murtaugh said.
A number of sources, like ABC and Newsweek have already fretted about the impact of emerging economies' rising standards of living on the environment. So really, it looks like the authors just hate everyone. (Except I guess, if one takes their attitude towards civilization to its logical conclusion, they probably agree with Theodore Kaczynski...)
Second, for all their talk of "environmental impact" from Western children, the authors fail to take note of another even more potentially dangerous side effect, from a lack of Western children.
Demographics is destiny.
Birthrates in Japan, Russia, and much of Europe have fallen below replacement level. Soon, if not already, the populations of these countries will (like a collapsing star) reach the point that they can no longer sustain their own populations. Not just from the point of view of live births, but also of income necessary to support their large, Socialist-inspired government giveaway programs. In order to keep these schemes going (as in the US), the government is finding it necessary to import large numbers of foreigners: foreigners who do not share the core values of "diversity", "tolerance" and "environmental purity" enjoined by the current governments of the Western powers.
Speaking of demographics takes us to another topic in the news -- Apathacare. Studies report that a disproportionate share of medical costs are incurred in the final six months or year of a person's life. See for example this study, reported in the USA Today back in 2006, before Obama's Death Panels. (And yet -- the terms the problem is couched in, the type of solution offered ("Final" if you catch my drift), sound eerily like Obamacare. Maybe some powerful interests have been trying to foist this on us for longer than we think.
Taking this coincidence as a signal to put on my tin foil hat, I note that, also according to the USA Today, that in 2004 the median net worth of the 55-59 age cohort was $249,000, as compared to $48,940 for those aged 35-39. That's five times as much wealth, for those playing along at home.
(Incidentally, while researching the economic statistics I came across another article, this one from 2007, suggesting that all incomes across the US be equalized. Again, shades of Socialism, even before the Obama's administration.)
Not to mention the unfunded obligations of Medicaid and Social Security. So given the high net worth of seniors, and the chance to confiscate their wealth through estate taxes, rather than frittering it away on unavailing health care, and incurring massive future unfunded liabilities -- if you were a bureaucrat, wouldn't *you* regard the elderly mainly as low-hanging financial fruit? (Incidentally, in passing -- why can't we do the same for smokers, Type II diabetics, and homosexuals and drug addicts suffering from AIDS? While it may not be PC-approved, these conditions are just as much self-induced as the other "lifestyle-related" health conditions so universally derided by the planners.)
But let us return to the Malthusian ethic. We are endlessly told the sad lesson of unchecked population growth, that in ecosystems from petri dishes to herds of deer, any group given sufficient available food, but not sufficiently culled, will grow unchecked until they completely overwhelm all sources of nourishment -- resulting in gruesome mass starvation for those individuals in later generations. I must hasten to say, I agree: and the need for immediate action could not be greater.
But I'm not talking about the elderly, or about the chronically ill.
I'm talking about the unchecked growth of GOVERNMENT!
In particular, not only will natural populations grow unchecked; so will bureaucratic and governmental populations. In the last six months alone, many states have seen mass deficits; California totters on the brink of insolvency, paying its bills with IOUs and refusing to accept its OWN notes as payment; under Obama, TRILLIONS of dollars have been added to the national debt.
For the sake of our survival, we must cull the herd: such growth in government, and out-of-control spending and regulation, threatens our very political and social ecosystem's survival. The threat CANNOT be more dire.
As a high UN official said the other day, we have just four months to save the planet!
Can I count on you to do your part to restrict the uncontrolled growth of government?
The country you save may be your own -- and your energy wasting descendents' as well.
Attack of the midnight birdcage liner!
Just askin'...
Do you even have a bird?
And rumor has it there are several ferrets as well.
But "bird cage liner" is convenient shorthand for that which is made to be crapped upon, so it's fitting for my screeds.
Cheers!
And rumor has it there are several ferrets as well.
But "bird cage liner" is convenient shorthand for that which is made to be crapped upon, so it's fitting for my screeds.
Cheers!
(hat tip to Daffynition)
Cheers!
That kid’s quite annoying...
The Wall Street Journal Online. It used the topic of so-called "birthers" to introduce the left-leaning interest of "anti-birthers"... in relation to overpopulation. It was quoting an article from a couple of statistics professors at Oregon State University, pontificating from their lofty self-annointed perch, about the dangers to the environment from population growth... the authors held up the Third World -- more specifically, their lifestyles -- as examples... First, notice the racism and cultural biases exhibited, apparently unconsciously, by the authors... the authors seem to engage in racism against those of European heritage, and those of Asiatic extraction, at one and the same time... and attempt to keep the indigenous peoples at a low socioeconomic level too... Second, for all their talk of "environmental impact" from Western children, the authors fail to take note of another even more potentially dangerous side effect, from a lack of Western children. Demographics is destiny.Thanks grey_whiskers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
