They are already getting what they want, just not in the timeframe and with the power that they want. In many many countries the birth rate has fallen far below replacement and thus these countries will shrink over the next several decades. It appears that the way to get population control is to allow countries to become wealthy And westernized. Many women will forgo motherhood in favor of other life choices.
Thomas Malthus has now been wrong for 220 years yet his miscalculations seem to have eternal life. we don't see zombies physically rise from the grave but zombie ideas seem never to die.
I would be interested in your views on "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. He seems to make a pretty compelling case that global population levels are self regulating.
You had a piece a while back which mentioned population growth estimates. In particular it pointed to the projection of growth in Africa and decline everywhere else. I haven't read the WSJ article so it may also be in there. For me, your previous post was thought provoking.
Population growth decline, and eventually absolute decline will definitely affect economies and energy use.
Humanism (XVIth century), Enlightenment, (XVIII), Republic (XIX), secularization (XX), Human Rights (post WW II): what do these people think and what do they do about it?
Should their utilitarian views (a so-called "carrying capacity" which is a fraud) take precedence over the indisputable value and unconditional respect for every person on Earth?
In the 1970's a certain professor associated with a population control organization advocated for vending machines with poison pills to reduce the population.
The most important factors in producing changes in Earth's environment are increasing human population and increasing human living standards. Climate change produced by fossil fuels is only one of many human-directed effects. How should we humans weigh the positive effects of our activities for humans against the negative effects these activities produce for other environmental aspects, including living things?
Julian Simon chewed the cohones off these Malthusian fools decades ago. Their forecasts, pretty much like those of Mann and Gore and other green hallucinators have proven to be useless. One sad outcome of their pseudo-intellectual twaddle is that those who listen to them just long enough win the proverbial Darwin Award by removing themselves from the gene pool. The developing world should be encouraged to develop as fast as it can and to use any and all forms of energy necessary to do so. To compensate for the carbon impact of that, Mann can walk (he desperately needs the exercise), and Al Gore, Lenny Cappuccino et al can fly economy rather their private jets. The poor would be wealthier and the prats would be irritated. What could be more just and enjoyable?
Birthrates are falling fast, pushing countries to act.
Sources: United Nations; U.S. Centers for Disease Control; national estimates compiled by Jesús Fernández-Villaverde
Rosie Ettenheim/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Fertility is falling virtually everywhere for women across all levels of income, education and labor-force participation. Some estimates now put the number of babies each woman has below the global replacement rate of about 2.2. WSJ’s Greg Ip and Janet Adamy dive into how governments are trying to stop the decline, worried about shrinking workforces, slowing economic growth and underfunded pensions; and the vitality of a society with ever-fewer children. So far, those efforts have barely made a dent.
All kinds of people like to wrap their pre-existing druthers in the envelope of climate change to attract more attention, policy oomph, and bucks. Didn't like animal agriculture? Bad for climate. Didn't like people? Bad for climate. Don't like cutting trees? Bad for climate. Many people see right through this.. and in turn don't trust the whole club of climatism. To the extent of becoming unconvinced of anything these people say. In peoples' guts they know this isn't really about climate; it's just the current bandwagon.
“That's why we can't afford to destabilize the infrastructure that supports human civilization today. And that's what dramatic warming, that's what unmitigated climate change will do.”
Interesting. For the time being, it seems to me that this is what the crazy drive to net zero will do much faster than “unmitigated” climate change.
The wsj.com has an article today about falling birthrates worldwide:
"The world is at a startling demographic milestone. Sometime soon, the global fertility rate will drop below the point needed to keep population constant. It may have already happened."
It provides a counter point to the misanthropic viewpoint.
They are already getting what they want, just not in the timeframe and with the power that they want. In many many countries the birth rate has fallen far below replacement and thus these countries will shrink over the next several decades. It appears that the way to get population control is to allow countries to become wealthy And westernized. Many women will forgo motherhood in favor of other life choices.
Hmmm … unexpected decline in population coupled with no mention of vaccines. Since when does 2+2= a conspiracy theory?
I am with your position. With everu stomach you get 2 hands and a brain.
Folks - read Vaclav Smil. In this case “Harvesting the Biosphere”. No we do not need to cull. Yes we do need to work.
Thomas Malthus has now been wrong for 220 years yet his miscalculations seem to have eternal life. we don't see zombies physically rise from the grave but zombie ideas seem never to die.
I would be interested in your views on "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. He seems to make a pretty compelling case that global population levels are self regulating.
People who are against humanity should never be in positions of authority.
You had a piece a while back which mentioned population growth estimates. In particular it pointed to the projection of growth in Africa and decline everywhere else. I haven't read the WSJ article so it may also be in there. For me, your previous post was thought provoking.
Population growth decline, and eventually absolute decline will definitely affect economies and energy use.
Why don't we dare raise the moral question?
Humanism (XVIth century), Enlightenment, (XVIII), Republic (XIX), secularization (XX), Human Rights (post WW II): what do these people think and what do they do about it?
Should their utilitarian views (a so-called "carrying capacity" which is a fraud) take precedence over the indisputable value and unconditional respect for every person on Earth?
This is eugenics at its worst, full stop.
In the 1970's a certain professor associated with a population control organization advocated for vending machines with poison pills to reduce the population.
So climate catastrophe presumably involves a lot of people dying from global warming?
And the only way to avoid that catastrophe of a lot of people dying from global warming is....for a lot of people to die sooner, by some other means?
Better later than sooner, I always say...
The most important factors in producing changes in Earth's environment are increasing human population and increasing human living standards. Climate change produced by fossil fuels is only one of many human-directed effects. How should we humans weigh the positive effects of our activities for humans against the negative effects these activities produce for other environmental aspects, including living things?
Julian Simon chewed the cohones off these Malthusian fools decades ago. Their forecasts, pretty much like those of Mann and Gore and other green hallucinators have proven to be useless. One sad outcome of their pseudo-intellectual twaddle is that those who listen to them just long enough win the proverbial Darwin Award by removing themselves from the gene pool. The developing world should be encouraged to develop as fast as it can and to use any and all forms of energy necessary to do so. To compensate for the carbon impact of that, Mann can walk (he desperately needs the exercise), and Al Gore, Lenny Cappuccino et al can fly economy rather their private jets. The poor would be wealthier and the prats would be irritated. What could be more just and enjoyable?
Let me add this from the Wall Street Journal:
Birthrates are falling fast, pushing countries to act.
Sources: United Nations; U.S. Centers for Disease Control; national estimates compiled by Jesús Fernández-Villaverde
Rosie Ettenheim/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Fertility is falling virtually everywhere for women across all levels of income, education and labor-force participation. Some estimates now put the number of babies each woman has below the global replacement rate of about 2.2. WSJ’s Greg Ip and Janet Adamy dive into how governments are trying to stop the decline, worried about shrinking workforces, slowing economic growth and underfunded pensions; and the vitality of a society with ever-fewer children. So far, those efforts have barely made a dent.
All kinds of people like to wrap their pre-existing druthers in the envelope of climate change to attract more attention, policy oomph, and bucks. Didn't like animal agriculture? Bad for climate. Didn't like people? Bad for climate. Don't like cutting trees? Bad for climate. Many people see right through this.. and in turn don't trust the whole club of climatism. To the extent of becoming unconvinced of anything these people say. In peoples' guts they know this isn't really about climate; it's just the current bandwagon.
“That's why we can't afford to destabilize the infrastructure that supports human civilization today. And that's what dramatic warming, that's what unmitigated climate change will do.”
Interesting. For the time being, it seems to me that this is what the crazy drive to net zero will do much faster than “unmitigated” climate change.
Exactly! We are in far more danger from the "climate crisis" policies than we are from any climate change - regardless of the cause.
The wsj.com has an article today about falling birthrates worldwide:
"The world is at a startling demographic milestone. Sometime soon, the global fertility rate will drop below the point needed to keep population constant. It may have already happened."
It provides a counter point to the misanthropic viewpoint.
George Soros, call your office.