11

Environmentalists’ Marching Orders for Human Extinction

Posted by ZenRoy 2 months, 3 weeks ago to Government
77 comments | Share | Flag

I found this to be an interesting read, thought others may do so as well.
SOURCE URL: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2018/12/environmentalists-marching-orders-for-human-extinction/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I am one of those who think that human arrogance has done tremendous damage and caused unnecessary suffering to the Animal Kingdom.

    We all have pets and must attest to the observation of Lord Byron: (Dogs) " Have all the virtues of Man without his Vices".

    Naturally, this does not translate to the extermination of humans but it definitely means that the perception that animals have no emotions and we can treat them in the most terrible ways are wrong.

    And yes, humans are only one of the species on Earth and looking through history not the wisest and most beneficial.

    I know I am going to get flak for this but that is what I believe. If I had to chose between a Democrat and an animal to take home, I'd chose the animal without hesitation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Calling man's domination of nature "arrogance" and "tremendous damage" through the imagery of a pet dog and appeals to unnecessary cruelty is a vicious package deal denouncing humanity as such. It is a non-answer to Craig Biddle's TOS article.

      Every living creature follows its own nature to live. Animals routinely savage each other as part of their nature, and no one calls them "arrogant". They do not have rights, which is moral concept for rational beings. Rights do not come from emotions. Man's domination of nature, following his nature to use his rational mind to alter his environment in order to live is not a metaphysical "arrogance".

      Denouncing mankind as such as morally inferior to wild animals is disgusting misanthropic nihilism. No other species can be "wise" at all, let alone the wisest on the planet. None of us live to be "beneficial" to nature, which is the lowest -- viro -- form of altruism.

      Ayn Rand gave her characteristically principled, philosophically moral answer to the misanthropic nature-worshipers in her 1971 "The Anti-lndustrial Revolution", reprinted in the anthology Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Environmentalist articles I've read don't call for human extinction, but some serious "culling" down to no more than 100 million persons, contained/restrained to perhaps no more than 10 megacities across the globe. The culling mechanism preferred is usually a laboratory developed virus that results in a global pandemic. A secondary (plan B, if you will) method is an engineered world famine. The least desired, but surprisingly not refused, method is a global war.

    Of course all of these destructive paths will leave only the enlightened surviving, who will dedicate themselves to saving the planet, undoing any remaining human filthy byproducts left behind. Exactly how they do this remains just a pious vision, like a godless religion.

    It is the naive stupidity of the environmentalist believers that has made the globalist elite their allies. The globalists have sold the environmentalists on the idea that the only way to enact their vision is through a global government with absolute power. Of course where the two groups differ wildly is in what the end game is, and the objectives sought. While the environmentalists seek a greatly reduced population, the globalists really don't care how many people there are, so long as they exercise absolute control. The environmentalists' end game is saving the planet, while the globalists' end game is all power and wealth to the globalist elite. As to the survivors, should population reduction is a result, the globalists don't give a rat's patootie about planet saving, but care very much that they and their like minded cohorts are the survivors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      The difference between the Marxist collectivists and the viros is that Marxists at least in the beginning claimed to be for the "people" in their forced sacrifices. They reified the abstraction of a collection of people resulting in the sacrifice of the only real people there are -- the individual -- in the name of the collective, but at least had some semblance of connection to humanity in their warped way. The viros don't.

      But the viros didn't need modern tyrants to tell them they wanted absolute power. The modern viro movement rose politically out of the New Left of the 1960s. Before they changed their name to "Environmentalist movement" in the early 1970s they called themselves the "Ecology movement".

      The American public didn't know what "ecology" meant or why they should identify with it. But the viro leaders knew the intellectual tradition they came from. The ecology movement was founded in 1860s Germany by Ernst Haeckel, an Hegelian biologist who coined the term "ecology". He wanted individuals and our values to be subservient to "ecosystems". The ecologists lived in compulsive fear that man was destroying the earth, with a primary hand-wringer being loss of the soil to erosion.

      The political expression was to be rule by "scientists" whose "expert" permission was required for all individual action -- just as today the viros demand that everything be regulated in advance with permission required from permanent bureaucracies, with Nature as the standard superseding individual values and freedom.

      That was the modern viros' source for their disgusting misanthropic evil proclaiming humans to be "arrogant" for daring to put our own values above raw nature, and their immoral imperative that we strive to "leave no footprint" on the earth -- they reject man as the source of moral value and reject the moral necessity that man reshape his environment to further his own life: Animals can routinely brutally savage each other as their natural state, but man's nature requiring using his mind to alter the environment in order to live is to be rejected as "outside nature" and "arrogant".

      Hegel's Absolute became the Ecosystem and his Organic Theory of the State became Environmentalism. The 19th and early 20th century back-to-the land German Green movement was a prominent contributor to the fascist takeover and rise of Hitler. They didn't need 21st century "globalist" tyrants to tell them to seize absolute power.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Collective population control can be brutally simple. Find the gene or part of the brain that resists sacrificing for the collective, then remove that part. In a few generations, Utopia!
      /s

      Of course, there would be exemptions for this procedure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      And that's precisely what the entire thing is about: elitism. What they do not understand is that one of the reasons we have such choice and consumer options in this world is because of the plethora of people who can then offer them. With reduced human population goes reduced choice in alternatives. Of course, that is precisely what an elitist wants. It is the "their way or the highway" mentality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    "will May and the New York Times acknowledge their part in the attack? "
    Not even if the New Yellow Times is the target for destruction.
    Radical environmentalists are insane and completely out of touch with reality.
    In my view PETA is an acronym for People Eating Tasty Animals.
    My view also includes homo sapiens as a rational being that uses technology to make life more than just survival and tries to maintain an environment that is as benign as possible for all species that do not threaten homo sapiens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    It is not necessary to 'control' population: If you make birth control available and provide good health care so that children survive, the individual people making individual decisions reduce the population on their own. This is what is actually happening in all of the first world nations.

    Just a minor comment: While it is true that Malthusian predictions have been foiled by technology, the reason that this has happened is because Malthus' theory was inherently flawed. Malthus created a model in which changes occurred in quantity but not in quality. Predicting population problems from Malthusian calculations is like trying to figure the number of beehives we would need to provide candles to light all our homes if electricity had not been invented. Malthus was an 18th-19th C scholar...and should be left in those centuries.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    That is spot-on.

    See also the report from the Heartland Institute on how Greenpeace works.
    Authors are Patrick Moore a Greenpeace founder, and Willie Soon who was smeared by the NYT about a year ago.

    From the summary-
    " Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:
    Invent an environmental problem which sounds plausible. Provide anecdotes in support with emotional imagery.
    Invent a simple solution which sounds plausible and emotionally appealing, but is unlikely to be implemented.
    Pick an enemy and blame them for obstructing the solution. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.
    Dismiss any alternative solutions to your problem as completely inadequate. "

    See- heartland.org/
    or to download the report-
    heartland.org/publications-resources/...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  pixelate 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I have heard the phrase "Pets are People Too" -- along with the notion that the family dog is really just another member of the family, just like everyone else. To which I say, can your dog solve a differential equation or perhaps something simpler - a linear algebra problem with two variables and two unknowns? Does your dog know what a contradiction is and can this be demonstrated? This tends to dampen the enthusiasm for folks to invite me back for dinner and cards . . .

    I think that all of this social programming is done so that humans and animals are made to be indistinguishable. We are to elevate dogs (and cats, rats, pigs, horses ...) to have the same value and respect as human beings. But the real program is to devalue humans to the level of dogs ... and horses ... and other animals that are "put down" when the need arises.

    When I hear these monsters spouting their nonsense regarding the good in the elimination of the Human Race, what I see is the rot in their core -- they are displaying their self-hatred.

    Of all the different species, the diversity between individuals within the human species is the greatest. And it is this vast spectrum that showcases the huge middle -- the rather bland -- that would be perfectly happy to be fed and entertained ... and that far left end of the spectrum populated by the dolts. At the far right of the curve reside that statistically small set of individuals whose creativity, vision, ambition and intellect propels them, in context of a relatively free society where free markets are allowed to operate, to the stratosphere of success. Some people, in the middle or perhaps even a bit offset to the right, see this success as illuminating their own shortcomings. Instead of taking part in being lifted by the advances of their superiors, their resentment takes the form of envy-intoxication. They choose to speak and act in a manner that would denigrate the entire species, when in fact, they are the very self-loathing cancer that the world would be better off without.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by STEVEDUNN46 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I will not argue your views. just your stated facts. we do not ALL HAVE PETS. now that is a fact.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      No pets here. I like animals, and have had pets in the past, but not in the past 30 years. The idea that all pets must live indoors is not going to happen with my household, plus we like to travel in places where pets are not allowed. So for the betterment of humans AND pets, no pets for us.

      I get a big laugh out of all the "lost dog/lost cat" entreaties I see on various neighborhood networks. "Oh, my dog is just like my child; but he got out of the fence and I must have him back," My answer to that is always the same - Oh really? You allow your children out to run on the streets and don't secure the doors and fences around your home?

      Maybe a call to CPS is in order, then.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Not having pets changes nothing.

      It was only a reference for first hand information/knowledge.

      The fact remains that some humanoids (by OUC) behave like beasts when it comes to animals. It only proves their own degradation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        I can agree, but I do not think those who act like beasts are anything other than beasts.

        The question is what is bestial behavior? My guess would be that we may have different definitions of the term.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I do think it is ridiculous that the environmentalist from any group have not advocated to control population as a means to control...you name it (pollution, CO2, energy use, deforestation, on, on on).
    If there is really AGW or similar issue, limiting the population to contributors, and culling the inordinate number of parasites is an obvious solution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      "the environmentalist from any group have not advocated to control population"
      I think they have. It's the Malthusian question. So far we've escaped the Malthusian trap by increasing production. We're causing global warming and mass-extinction event, but maybe technology will deal with the effects of those things. I actually suspect they will. The more of us there are, though, the harder it is for us not to make a mess for one another. It seems to me there need to be vehicles that make people pay for their own mess, and hopefully market forces would take care of it. Right now we tax work and give tax breaks for kids.

      If people could be freer and more educated, that tends to cut the birth rate. How to make people freer, of course, is the whole thing. Humans freely pursuing happiness is the only reason the environment matters.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have, but rather impose on others to deal with the consequences.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          Freedoms aren't supposed to come with "responsibility"; that is a conservative notion. Freedoms are rights. You are responsible for specific actions. You are held accountable to someone else only if you violate his rights under law. More generally you are responsible and accountable only in how others choose to judge you and decide how to relate to you as a result of what they judge you to be.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            Sounds to me like we are saying the same thing and mincing words. See CG response.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              We don't say the "same thing" as conservatives who demand their "responsibilites" (duties) in exchange for our allowing rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                Don't follow you. Let's take a simple example. A person takes all their money to Las Vegas and gambles it away. They are now financially broken and can not pay their mortgage.

                In my world, that person is responsible, and must take care of the mess, step back in their lives, and rebuild.
                In your scenario, what happens?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  If a person can't pay his mortgage he loses his house regardless of why he can't pay. It has nothing to do with his "freedoms"; he borrowed money and violated the contract requiring payments.

                  Conservative statists tell us we have duties to 'society' in exchange for its gifts allowing us some freedoms, such as the ones who have told us we have a duty to be conscripted in the military and serve society as a price of being allowed to be "free". Those who do that are tribalists with no concept of reason and egoism as the basis of natural rights to freedom. We hear their "responsibility" (duty) rhetoric constantly. It does not mean that individuals are responsible for their own lives, thoughts and actions. To the extent they appeal to that it's a vicious package deal.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    Like I said, If one accepts freedom, one accepts responsibility for owns own actions.

                    I have no idea what these other responsibilities you assign to the whims of conservatives, but if one gets to pick (buying, eating, infusing, aggressing, gambling, fucking, teasing, saying, etc), one gets to live with the consequences of ones own choices. Anything else is a state-led menagerie. NO FREEDOM CAN EVER COME WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENT OUTCOME...EVER.

                    With ALL Freedom comes responsibility, or the system fundamentally fails. If Ayn didn't say this, she failed.

                    CG is apoplectic now, seeking the socialist version of this fundamental assertion.

                    I dare the entirety of the site to refute this simple assertion.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      " NO FREEDOM CAN EVER COME WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENT OUTCOME...EVER.
                      [...]
                      CG is apoplectic now seeking the socialist version of this fundamental assertion."
                      Speak for yourself. I believe categorically in people's right to blow their money on gambling. I think you're saying people are free to do it but not free from the consequences. Some people use similar language to say if people are irresponsible with their money, someone else is justified in using force to take away their money.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        No, that is precisely what I am saying is the problem: The system is fundamentally unstable if people's freedom does not come accountability for their own actions.

                        The English is not complicated. "The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have, but rather impose on others to deal with the consequences. "
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                      Individuals cause their own thoughts and actions and are responsible for what they do regardless of the political system they live in, which may or may not hold them accountable for actual crimes. It does not "come from freedom", which is a conservative slogan trying to limit our freedom. Our rights are philosophical principles stemming from our nature as human beings. Our right to freedom is not contingent on serving society or whatever freedom a government may or may not allow.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                        Wow! Maybe I am a conservative by this definition and not a libertarian.

                        Seems so simple. One eats; one lives with one less meal. One creates a meal; one can eat, or one can trade for something worth a meal.

                        I must have missed the chapter where one plays, but one eats anyhow.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                          No one said anything remotely like that. We don't owe duties to the conservative state in exchange for our natural rights.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                            No, if you eat, you pay for what you eat.

                            You are responsible for your own freedom, just like i said in the first place. This isn't confusing.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                              Statist entitlements are not rights. There are no "rights" to food. Where you get your food is up to you and who ever sells or gives it to you. It has nothing to do with the fact that every individual has natural rights because of his nature as a human being, not as a gift from the state in exchange for fulfilling alleged duties to society. This isn't confusing.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                                This is a ridiculous discussion, that we have had before.

                                You keep going back to rights. Rights are completely irrelevant. The specific rights are irrelevant. Where rights originate (nature, religion, government, test tubes) is irrelevant. Rights are wholly irrelevant to the point.

                                I have no idea, at all, why you continue to resist the simple logical argument I have made that one must responsible for the consequences of their own decisions, and that without this feedback mechanism, the system, is unstable. If government takes from other people to service the consequences of their exercise of their rights (irrespective of the right or it source), people will take advantage, the system operating point will go to the margin, and responsible people will be taken advantage of unfairly.

                                Are we beating around the bush about abortion, which you know I agree with you on. One must live with the consequences: pay for the abortion (with or without insurance) and/or deal with the physical recovery. What the hell are we arguing about?

                                Now, please respond WITHOUT a bringing up rights. Rights are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Consequences of actions and responsibility for consequences are the point.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                                  Civilized life is not possible without rights. This country was founded on the principle of the rights of the individual. That is not irrelevant.

                                  You started this discussion with the assertion "The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have". Our freedoms are our rights. They are not contingent on "assigning responsibility".
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Thoritsu replied 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          "we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have, but rather impose on others "
          It's a fine line. Clearly some people who would impose do it under the guise of assigning responsibility.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            It seems to me, reading the above thread, that the word "responsibility" is being used to mean two different things. In one set of replies, it is used to represent 'imposed duties'; in the other the same word is used to mean 'natural consequences'.

            Similarly, when one says that "freedoms are rights" it must be clear that this phrase does not refer to a natural law such as gravity or the speed of light, because for most of the world at most of the time, those freedoms are notable by their absence.

            So what is strong enough to go against the current of most of human history and gain us these freedoms? I think it is the decision by individuals to choose such duties as voluntarily joining the military, in order to escape the natural consequence that would result from not doing so - namely, having these freedoms eradicated - that allows these freedoms to exist..

            So I think that "responsibility" indeed includes 'duty' - but not imposed. Awareness of the consequences of choosing or not choosing an uncomfortable situation in order to gain a long-term benefit is not only responsible, it is wise.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              There are no moral duties. The idea of duty is the opposite of the roots of morality as principles by which to make choices required to live. Remember Ayn Rand's article "Causality versus Duty".

              Rational principles of science have been undiscovered, ignored and traditionally defied throughout history. That never made them untrue. The same holds for natural rights as principles for human life. We do not owe duties in exchange for rights as conservatives demand, and accepting responsibility for what one does does include submitting to a duty mentality.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                Thank you for commenting, but there is a significant difference between lack-of-belief in physical laws, which then continue to operate just the same way they do when "believed' in and the actual negation of human rights under a regime that does not believe in them.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  The laws of human nature do not cease to operate when they are ignored. Ignoring them is just as destructive as attempting to ignore the laws of gravity.

                  There are no moral duties.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            It is not a fine line at all. It is completely fundamental.
            Children have fewer freedoms because they are irresponsible. When one gets the freedom to decide what to do with your money, and one:
            - Invests it wisely,
            - Buys a sports car,
            - Gambles it away,
            - Spends it all on drugs,
            that one takes responsibility for the consequences of the decision, not everyone else via social programs.
            Same goes for applying oneself in school, eating, shooting someone. Without complimentary responsibility, freedom is a disastrous childish notion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      What government (or other organization) do you propose defines who lives and who dies?

      What science is the need for an action of population control based on?

      Who has the right to enforce it?

      Think about the kind of power this suggests giving to governments, or some other collective group. It would an utter loss of all freedom to allow anyone to have this kind of power.

      the solution is not in controls, its in capitalism. As a society gets free markets they become more affluent. As they become more affluent the free market expands creating even greater wealth.

      As a society becomes more wealthy they have resources to put towards things like pollution, energy use, deforestation and they will because they have the resources and want to have a forest area to go camp in, hike in....

      All of these things as well as self governing population occur when free markets are allowed to increase wealth. The rich get richer, so do the poor. Children are no longer assets but expenses and as a result fewer people choose to have children and those that do have fewer of them.

      There is a great chapter on this in "enlightenment now" which puts all kinds of data behind it.

      Any other method requires tyranny to do it. Some one must have tyrannical power. I am against that. I am for the natural evolution that occurs for the environment when a free market is allowed to be free.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        Clearly something like this can not be enforced by joining the local rotary club. Please make sure you check the premise of my statement, and then acknowledge if people are the problem, then people are the simplest solution.

        It is not necessary to start soylent green. Time is our friend. population can be controlled by not adding to it, vs subtracting from it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          If a person is in favor of population control then certain things must happen for population control to occur. Some entity must have the power to determine proper population levels, and some entity must have the power to enforce it.

          No check of premise is needed. If anyone is in favor of population control these two things are true. The only exception is if you leave it up to the individual and then its no longer population control, its simply personal choice as it should be.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            Recall China's one child per family policy? It resulted in female infanticide on a monstrous scale because of a preference for male children, so now the male-female balance is way out of whack, with about 4 million more young males than available females in that generation. The policy has since been dropped, but the usual way to bring things back into line is to arrange a war that reduces the male population. Maybe that's why China keeps pushing so many other countries' buttons, looking for a way to reduce their young male problem before they get restless and start thinking about another revolution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Do you have data for this? I have looked (because this was the likely outcome) but I have never found actual figures to support this. (This is a genuine question; I am not being sarcastic.)

              All of the published figures that WHO etc publish show a normal male/female balance, going back decades. This data comes from China gov, so it may deliberately be incorrect, but I have not found another source.

              Jan
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              Agree. Also unlike the US, China has no issue putting the screws to a group or family squirting out children willy-nilly. Go ahead, and live in the street. There aren't any people in China on welfare with cell phones.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                I found it interesting that China, for all its vaunted socialism, is still relying on personal family care to take care of the old people. Woops! Something must'a slipped up in the Socialist cradle-to-grave plan.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                  I was not aware of this, but that is very interesting. Perhaps they have realized that all the cost associate with taking care of aging parents are astronomically higher when done by a third party other than the children of that person.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 3 weeks ago
                    Yes. This is what I recall from Lee Kwan Yew, Singapore, 'Socialism that works'-
                    the aged could get accomodation and help from the state. No prob. But the family then got a bill.

                    Families then found, with a little re-adjustment, they were able to take in their old folks.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
            I find it irritating when people latch on to some negative feature, but don't read the premise. The premise of the note was "IF THERE IS REALLY AWG OR SIMILAR ISSUE CAUSED BY HUMANS..."
            If you agree this is the problem, then continue reading. Otherwise stop wasting my time. I did not assert it is the problem.

            Individual choice is clearly the first, correct approach for everything, until one individual's choice compels another to servitude.

            With >60% of our government's funding going to social programs, a case can be made for population being an issue. I am not making this case here; however, if I have to repeat myself again, I'm going to assume this is a religious argument...again.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
              First no religious argument here.
              Second if a premise is made on a subject on which the premise has no bearing I will ignore it. Which I did.
              Third with the clarification that individual choice is the the first, and correct approach for everything I think we are on the same page in any meaningful way that will count.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh good god.

    Yes, and I stand by the original assertion. People must be responsible for the consequences of exercising their rights. There are many ways to say this. Dead sure you agree. No idea what about the original wording tripped your trigger. Also, reassert that what the rights are, the country, this coutry's founding, or the planet we are on, is irrelevant to the notion of taking responsibility for ones actions, which is a superset of taking responsibility for exercising ones rights, since one's actions may not be within one's rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      "The problem" is not a failure to "assign responsibilities". In a free society, unlike for conservatives, "responsibilities" are not "assigned". The central political problem now is the failure to acknowledge the rights of the individual, not a lack of "assigning responsibilities". There is no end to the "responsibilities" the government is assigning to provide for its entitlements and taxes. We do not owe society anything for living our own lives in accordance with the right to our freedom.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        In an ideal world, with square chickens, this may be a valid position. However when questioned by a liberal house guest in the other room, I just noted what I was writing about to . I noted "I'm arguing that one should be responsible for the consequences of one's own actions and exercising one's freedoms." She said: "I don't generally agree with you, but that makes perfect sense."

        You are stealing my meaning for the term "responsibilities" as a means for government coercion, when I mean or have said no such thing.
        Presently, the government assigns peoples' bad decisions to others, and we all pay with fair and hard earned money for other people's poor judgement, lack of discipline,weakness of character, et al. A simple axiom, like all freedoms come with responsibilities for the consequences, comes either with 1) fewer freedoms (unlikely), or 2) a growing, soul searching among people that we can not expect just a bunch of free stuff and safety nets. One hour and 13 minutes ago, I saw precisely this happen to a supporter of the entitled.

        We, Libertarians and/or Rand supporters will sway precisely zero people with philosophical arguments about rights and square chickens. We have to take the first steps first. Again I assert, people want freedoms, and think separately about responsibilities, when they MUST go hand in hand.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 3 weeks ago
          This has nothing to do with square chickens and this is not the time to stop thinking in principles. Telling people that "the problem" is a failure to "assign responsibilities to freedoms", which is what you wrote, only invites them to assign more "responsibilities to freedoms". Of course that is political coercion. Our freedoms have no such qualification. They do not go "hand in hand", which is a conservative slogan making freedom contingent on duty.

          Underlying the politics is the moral principle of assuming responsibility for one's own life, thoughts and actions, for which the political freedom, i.e., rights, is required. That moral responsibility is self-generated and does not consist in "assigning responsibilities". Without that being understood and accepted in place of altruistic duty there will be no end to the entitlements -- through a verbal 'shortcut' afraid to name the essence or any other means. The most that gets out of them is some temporary "workfare" in the name of reform along with the growing welfare state.

          "One should be responsible for the consequences of one's own actions and exercising one's freedoms" is a vague assertion that means nothing to a person who accepts altruism as morality and the primacy of need. Once he begins to apply it under his collectivist-statist premises and sees the clash with self-responsibility, it does not convince him to abandon his collectivism and statism. But he is all to ready to "assign responsibility" imposed on you for succeeding in exercising your freedom.

          Basic philosophical principles are not about "square chickens", they are about the real world and are required to live in it. The "first steps" are not the politics of employing vague assertions trying to sound acceptable to collectivists by not not "going too far" so as to say something meaningful and fundamental. Pragmatism does not work. Ayn Rand rejected the a-philosophical Pragmatist "libertarians". She confronted the chickens coming home to roost, not a fantasy world of "square chickens" in an evasion of "the problem".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I'm hoping for violent volcanic eruptions that will change the climate so those Enviro's will be freezing their butts oof along with the rest of us. Then they can see they were very wrong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    If that these environmental morons but knew that it is the Sun is in charge. CO2 was an Al Gore get rich hoax. I love literature, and Worodsworth in particular. He was a panentheist, who honored nature. That is easy enough, far better than falling for the UN scheme to move everyone to Gaia worship, then state worship. As Objectivists, it stands to reason that if people were self responsible, pollution would be less and animals would be thriving, as part of our own best interest, not to enrich or salve the insanity of some deranged group. They UN would wipe out real religion, red meat consumption (cow hating UN), capitalism, reproduction without license, and more. They would make being a human as we know it extinct, via control. Violence by some clone of these people solves noting. Common sense and reason solves problems. The UN makes up problems. Idiots listen to non problems. Seems simple I have a swail on my property, shelter for critters of the wild, I chase off any hunters (my land), I grow trees and plants that feed the animals. I love sports cars, red meat, and leather boots, Get over it wakos.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    $5Au supposes he is an "accidental" environmentalist. He delights progressives/socialists/etc. with his hybrid car, LED lightbulbs, battery-powered lawnmower, and solar panels UNTIL they dig too deeply. He bought the car because nobody wanted this model and the dealer was desperate to sell. He started buying energy efficient bulbs back in the days when they were available only by mail because he despises changing burned out bulbs. He bought the lawnmower because he hates maintenance on gasoline engines. And he installed solar panels because of federal and tax tax incentives plus a rebate from Duke Energy mandated by the state public service commission. He gets a lot of shocked into silence reactions from enviro-nuts who ask too many questions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    That might come soon enough...without their help...hoping it is them that go extinct and not the rest of us.

    Don't mean to leave you hanging on that statement. Will be posting something soon that will explain.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo