NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (5 Viewers)

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Steve R.]

This cartoon, highlights that the radical environmentalists don't really comprehend that what they are advocating for is not environmental protection, but to manipulate the environment of the earth for anthropocentric reasons. (PS: Manipulating the environment also implies humans attempting to overcome nature with a variety of human actions. So the radical environmentalists really aren't in favor of living with nature.)

Notice that the radical environmental never suggest an ideal (correct) temperature for the earth. Changes to the earth's temperature are always within the context of the "damage" it would have on the human condition. That is not valid environmental viewpoint. There is no correct temperature for the earth.

Today is Earth Day, so I'm cheating by re-posting this post. Serendipitously, the article below was also published. That article indirectly supports one of my pet themes that I have been pushing. That is that the illegal immigrants (beside simply crowding out natural habitat) are moving from a low carbon footprint environment to a high carbon footprint environment. Consequently, they are generating global warming, the very activity the leftist environmentalist claim to be against.

Earth Day Founder Warned Against Mass Immigration as 'Tremendous Cost' to Americans' Quality of Life

Former Sen. Gaylord Nelson championed reducing overall immigration to the United States to protect America's quality of life.

www.breitbart.com

“With twice the population, will there be any wilderness left? Any quiet place? Any habitat for songbirds? Waterfalls? Other wild creatures? Not much,” Nelson said at least two decades ago.

In his 2002 autobiography, Beyond Earth Day: Fulfilling the Promise, Nelson warned that mass immigration to the United States would cripple quality of life for Americans and force the destruction of wildlife sanctuaries.

 

[Steve R.]

Earth Day Founder Warned Against Mass Immigration as 'Tremendous Cost' to Americans' Quality of Life

Former Sen. Gaylord Nelson championed reducing overall immigration to the United States to protect America's quality of life.

www.breitbart.com

In reading the comments to this article, one person made a very typical comment that on the surfaces appears to have great appeal and to be very valid

Decline in population goes along with a decline in influence and economic activity.

My response to that comment:

You are "correct" in a limited sense. The most obvious problem, perpetual population growth will eventually soak-up all resources. Moreover, as the limited resources get rationed to serve a growing population, our standard of living will decline. Also you will have an oppressive government telling you that you can't have certain things like a gas stove.

Having a small population, while it limits economic growth, actually gives you greater freedom and a higher standard of living. You also will not have a government that tries to limit your freedom in the name of serving the public good.

Since I made that response, it also occurred to me that I forgot to mention that the Biden administration is pushing high density residential development and attempting to eliminate single family residences because they take up too much space and are too expensive for low income people.

 

[NauticalGent]

The first few minutes are actually related to this topic. The rest of the video is pretty interesting too...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think I said this before. Our problem in reducing carbon footprints is made worse because population growth in impoverished countries triggers higher use of a common primitive energy source - combustion of carbon-based fuels including oil-based and plant-based fuels. I would wish this on no-one, but a bloody shooting war that significantly reduces a densely packed population would do more to reduce carbon footprint long-term than most of the modern scientific techniques for carbon capture. China's one-child policy either will have or already has had the effect of making them no longer the world's most populous country. I think India is now in the #1 slot, but if not, then it is predicted to be so when China's demographic trends play out.

 

[Pat Hartman]

China's one-child policy either will have or already has had the effect of making them no longer the world's most populous country

Did a lot worse than that. There is now a whole generation of military aged men with no prospects of marriage. The effect of the one-child policy was to kill off all the female babies because they were worthless.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And the NEXT bad thing that happens is that they have no young workers to replace the ones who are either retiring or dying while working. Their birth rate tanked some time ago and that demographic negative blip is going to devastate production for years to come. Or decades.

 

[Steve R.]

here is now a whole generation of military aged men with no prospects of marriage.

Agree that this is a major sociological problem. Ironically, even in the US we have a marriage problem as those who are on the far left want to abolish the nuclear family.

And the NEXT bad thing that happens is that they have no young workers to replace the ones who are either retiring or dying while working. Their birth rate tanked some time ago and that demographic negative blip is going to devastate production for years to come. Or decades.

The concept that we must have a growing population of young workers who will replace old workers is antiquated. It is antiquated in the context that you cannot have an ever increasing population. There is a population limit. Eventually, you will run of resources, energy, space, etc. Not to mention an evermore onerous government trying to "help" everyone through regulations.

I will agree that a negative demographic trend will have a "devastating" economic effect. That is a hurdle that we will eventually need to adapt to. Along those lines, we need to look at 1st world countries that have a declining population to examine how they have adjusted. Japan comes to mind, but I have not done any research on this issue; so I can't make any positive/negative remarks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It is antiquated in the context that you cannot have an ever increasing population.

Even a zero-growth (but zero-decline) population would be good. The proverbial American family of the mid-20th century with 2 parents and 2.2 children (on average) would have been stable. But what China is about to experience is a nose-dive.