tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post5695343881270182086..comments2024-03-08T07:09:46.527-07:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Too Many (Other) PeopleWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-86226270031323916952011-07-12T08:32:18.066-06:002011-07-12T08:32:18.066-06:00[url=http://inpirewoll1988.centerblog.net]casino e...[url=http://inpirewoll1988.centerblog.net]casino en ligne[/url] La performance d'un casino sur internet dépend qui prend place pour hautement des facteurs étant dépourvu un grand approvisionnement en jeux d'Internet d'amusement que [url=http://chaludica1979.blog4ever.com]casino virtuel[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://mikcircpiggtu1987.blog4ever.com]casino en ligne gratuit[/url] nos listes qui remplace casino restent très indépendant plusieurs compagnies commerciales, s'assurant qu'il n'y a aucun guide [url=http://rlinarnorcomp1989.centerblog.net]casino sur internet[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://mupomegigg1972.posterous.com]casino virtuel[/url] BRITANNIQUE décentré pour le casino nous visons Jusqu'à t'apporter l'information utile se concentrant principalement au niveau du casino BRITANNIQUE [url=http://diearocklectsu1976.posterous.com]casino en ligne[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://wordkuliro1989.posterous.com]casino sur internet[/url] pour casino sur internet équilibré , qui casino virtuel fournit Certainement quelques informations a la surface de les 4 logiciels pour casino virtuel les plus populaires assez élevé long [url=http://muvelcava1982.jeuneblog.com]casino sur internet[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://cehafaldia1982.centerblog.net]casino virtuel[/url] de vos listes suivantes sont certains casinos en ligne bloqués et ainsi que les qui remplace confiance qui restent véritables et enfin fournissent alors que la valeur afin de l'argent [url=http://earadkhamex1979.blog4ever.com]casino virtuel[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://beikasubsa1976.centerblog.net]casino sur internet[/url] ses celui-ci se présente encore plu se présente comme que des jeux de casino en ligne que nous possédons soyez insurmontable [url=http://useratban1984.blog4ever.com]casino[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://whittmithsvolgio1971.blog4ever.com]casino sur internet[/url] qui remplace l'ensemble emplacements BRITANNIQUES principaux pour le tisonnier écrits en utilisant notre indépendant [url=http://fumbdevipsio1983.frblog.net]casino en ligne[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://rourarvestgen1971.blog4ever.com]casino en ligne[/url] premièrement, alors que la juridiction ce mauvais état . casino sur internet BRITANNIQUE est autorisé dedans devrait être de un honorable augmenté pays [url=http://holrulebhi1974.posterous.com]casino sur internet[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://glamissormu1983.actifsblogs.com]casino[/url] le route à créer frémir amené casino en ligne gameplay s'avère être rapidement voyagé [url=http://chesnaconfhyb1989.centerblog.net]casino en ligne[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://letzlotone1984.posterous.com]casino virtuel[/url] entre leur présente généreuse pour le bonification mais aussi excellentes fentes en ligne [url=http://dizcoolele1983.blog4ever.com]casino[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://blesipagex1973.posterous.com]casino virtuel[/url] des jeu signifiant service Jusqu'à les soins de clientèle librement : Rien ne définit la récréation en ligne gallinacean signifiant fentes que [url=http://ramctosuzo1982.blog4ever.com]casino[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://partheerigor1977.centerblog.net]casino[/url] système peut s'habituer club pour jeu de casino avait actionné l'ensemble des casinos en ligne autour du monde puisque [url=http://adjapurmind1971.blogsactifs.com]casino[/url]<br> <br />[url=http://sadddollfullunch1971.centerblog.net]casino en ligne[/url] notre corps casino en ligne d'Etailed passe en appréciation grace à de certains professionnels en matière des marché, bouts pour le jeu de casino, revues choisies qui prend place pour pièce qui remplace tisonnier [url=http://padtysinly1974.actifsblogs.com]casino virtuel[/url]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-69674613024204692572011-03-16T13:58:48.588-06:002011-03-16T13:58:48.588-06:00In a free society, where government doesn't ar...In a free society, where government doesn't artificially encourage or penalize population growth, population will always approach the optimal level -- precisely because people <i>don't</i> want to live in a place with no resources or limited living space. People can and do control their individual reproduction rates, when left free to do so.LarryRuanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187331388492812355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-31620390160381993602011-03-16T11:17:50.668-06:002011-03-16T11:17:50.668-06:00I am curious... What are your solutions to dealing...I am curious... What are your solutions to dealing with the projected population growth to 15billion and beyond? Your thinking in the very short term if you think that popping out a bunch of babies will benefit anyone. Even your own children will suffer as resources dwindle, living space declines, and biodiversity crashes. Do you idiots learn nothing from Easter Island.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-77448984904112136582009-11-25T23:15:10.409-07:002009-11-25T23:15:10.409-07:00@LarryRuane,
I think you answered your own questi...@LarryRuane,<br /><br />I think you answered your own question/thought experiment in your second comment:<br /><br />"Secondly, because you can't save the child (or fetus if you prefer) from abortion by taking it away, for obvious physical reasons; and preventatively locking up pregnant women is anathema to my way of thinking as a libertarian."<br /><br />Yes, obvious physical reasons being that a fetus can't exist without the use of a woman's body. It seems to me that most anti-choicers forget about a woman's involvement in the whole pregnancy, birth and subsequent life, if she decides to go through with the pregnancy. It's like the debate stops where the "child" is concerned and doesn't take into account what happens before, during or after that. <br /><br />As always, I'm feeling a little cut out of this debate. To you it's black and white, and this is murder. If I had an unplanned pregnancy, I'd have to shift my whole life around. I'd have to be in a position to buy things to accommodate my body, to see a medical specialist as often as weekly, to take time off work for potentially as much as a year, to deal with a deadbeat or just uninvolved dad (if that's the case, and who may tout his rights as an individual to have nothing to do with it), to be able to afford, in all sense of the word, life with and raising a child... or perhaps to be emotionally ready to give it up, should I be unable to do those things. While abortion won't necessarily ease what women who have to make that decision go through, I honestly feel they have considered the gravity of the situation. And this is all as a consequence to having sex, possibly only once and possibly with the use of protection. <br /><br />I don't think abortion is a beautiful thing. I certainly can't say whether or not I'd have an abortion if I had an unplanned pregnancy. This doesn't change the fact that I believe personhood happens at birth, not when a sperm hits an egg. What I ask, as any libertarian asks, is that my views be respected. They will not change. <br /><br />"That's why I think persuasion and reason is far preferable to coercion when it comes to abortion."<br /><br />It's funny how quickly persuasion becomes coercion and "Why can't you see reason?!" when the other person stonewalls. I'll add that your views are the ones that would restrict my actions and define my life if we went ahead and stuck them on the list of things to be accepted 'voluntarily' in our utopia, not the other way around. In an ideal world this would be a medical issue only and you would have no idea what decisions I make and when. <br /><br />Here's a link regarding the anti-choice movement's inconsistencies, aka reasons I find it difficult to see a "pro-life" libertarian as anything but a glibertarian. <a href="http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Do they really believe abortion is murder?</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-3699276620649447812009-11-24T09:43:16.270-07:002009-11-24T09:43:16.270-07:00Having said this, I want to mention that I am an a...Having said this, I want to mention that I am an anarchist. I don't believe in coercive, monopoly government. I support liberty in governance, multiple competing governments that one can subscribe to (similar to cell phone service) without having to physically move. So if you want to belong to a government that does not consider abortion to be murder, then that should be your right.<br /><br />I do admit that abortion presents a problem for pro-life anarchists like me; let's go back to my example above. Suppose most people in the society you live in believe that a child doesn't have rights until he or she can speak, and the law agrees. You disagree. Do you have the right to intervene and save (take away) these children who are about to be killed? I would say yes; don't you think so? People who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany, in defiance of the law, were doing the right thing. But abortion is much harder, for two reasons. First, because there is at least a superficial plausibility to the idea that we get our rights at the moment of birth (birth is a big change), so pro-choice people, although in my view mistaken, have good hearts. Secondly, because you can't save the child (or fetus if you prefer) from abortion by taking it away, for obvious physical reasons; and preventatively locking up pregnant women is anathema to my way of thinking as a libertarian.<br /><br />That's why I think persuasion and reason is far preferable to coercion when it comes to abortion.LarryRuanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187331388492812355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-36976149381776273552009-11-24T09:42:03.006-07:002009-11-24T09:42:03.006-07:00Anonymous, not that the following will lead you wi...Anonymous, not that the following will lead you will agree with us on the pro-life side, but just so you know where we are coming from:<br /><br />To us, abortion is just a form of murder. Here is a thought experiment. Suppose you lived in a society in which it is a commonly-held belief that until a child is able to speak, it is not a human being with rights. You object, and state that children have rights as soon as they are born. But your opponents dismiss your view as "dogma" and say they don't really care how you "feel" about anything, and they'd like to continue not caring about how you feel about their families. They tell you to go ahead and have your beliefs, to sit around and chat with other people who share your beliefs. But don't try to get the government involved in people's freedom of choice to decide what constitutes a family and what constitutes a person with rights.<br /><br />What would your reaction be to that? That's about the same reaction we have to what you wrote.LarryRuanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187331388492812355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-21013418554260097002009-11-22T07:56:13.001-07:002009-11-22T07:56:13.001-07:00Wow. I was really feeling this blog and thinking ...Wow. I was really feeling this blog and thinking I'd found yet another libertarian I could read and support. Back to the drawing board! "Glibertarianism" reigns supreme. <br /><br />I'm sorry, gentlemen. My right to my life and my right to my own damn body trump your dogma. You'll have to concede it's your personal belief that life begins at conception and that one of your biggest gripes with Roe is that you feel the government is trying to tell you otherwise. Well, I don't really care how you feel about anything, like a good libertarian ought to, and I'd like to continue not caring how you feel about my body.<br /><br />Go ahead and have your beliefs. Sit around and chat with other people who share your beliefs. But don't try to the get the government involved in approx. 51% of the population's reproductive freedom, especially after championing liberty for the duration of your blog.<br /><br />As for the eugenics, I agree with you that there are many kooks out there with horrifying ideas about population control. But do you really think most pro-choice feminists are pro-forced abortion or sterilization? (Hint: key word is "choice.") I can guarantee you we aren't, at least not by definition, despite what some pseudo pro-"choice" crazies or detractors want to claim. Either way, eugenicist and population control policies have nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with control, with these policies having the most negative effects on women. No one who is pro-human rights, as most feminists are or claim to be, can be a eugenicist. And, well, since science can't tell you when the "soul enters the body" or whatever, we're going to have to agree to disagree on when "life" starts and what that means.<br /><br />I'll leave you with a much better and likely much more effective population control method to think about: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0710/p09s01-coop.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-91591734160341925712009-08-31T03:20:30.573-06:002009-08-31T03:20:30.573-06:00This article definitely provides correct informati...This article definitely provides correct information opn tubal ligation and tubal ligation reversal. Another great thing about my baby doc Reversal Center is that they provide accurate and truthful statistics. Others do not provide this information.<br /><br />What a wonderful option for women out there who are desiring to have more children after a tubal ligation.<br />The suggestion are highly appreciatedtubal reversalhttp://www.mybabydoc.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-44800650395832308872009-08-18T09:30:32.937-06:002009-08-18T09:30:32.937-06:00My own view is that "fixing" is never in...My own view is that "fixing" is never in order, unless it's voluntary. We should always oppose the many ways government subsidizes having children (although we must also be aware of and oppose the ways government subsidizes <i>not</i> having children as well). <br /><br />But if someone like this woman pays for her own children's upbringing (or enlists voluntary charity), then that is okay (although it sounds like she is living an immoral life by having more than one husband).<br /><br />Let me also make it clear that even <i>before</i> government subsidies for having children are eliminated, I'm still <i>completely</i> against having people "fixed" against their will; it is a monstrous idea.LarryRuanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187331388492812355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-21056332958958396742009-08-18T06:17:02.957-06:002009-08-18T06:17:02.957-06:00I worked at a suburban hospital a few years ago.
...I worked at a suburban hospital a few years ago.<br /><br />A white woman, obese, definitely of child-bearing age was having blood tests re. her 11th pregnancy.<br /><br />Two 'husbands' accompanied her, one white, one black.<br /><br />She seemed utterly vapid, and utterly blissful.<br /><br />The 'husbands' present that day (there were more) boisterously congratulated her and each other. <br /><br />Several 'husbands' and 11 children in as many years. She planned to have more, she told me with a big smile.<br /><br />I remember thinking that a little "fixing" might be in order sometimes.<br /><br />b<br />911=USraelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-70873284916454280052009-07-22T19:16:16.000-06:002009-07-22T19:16:16.000-06:00Lemuel Gulliver,
You write, "You recently e...Lemuel Gulliver, <br /><br />You write, "You recently eulogized Switzerland. How come you do not find Haiti, the most densely populated nation in this hemisphere, as lovely and admirable as Switzerland? . . . and then tell me if you think this is an acceptable way for human beings to live:<br /><br />To me it illustrates an existence barely above the animal; in fact many animal populations in the wild would seem to me to live more fulfilling lives than some human populations in Haiti."<br /><br />Lemuel, are you intimating that a high population density is a cause of poverty in Haiti?<br /><br />The population density of Singapore is 17,000 per square mile. The median income in Singapore is $30,000 USD. The population density of Haiti is about 660 per square mile. Their median income is about $700. <br /><br />Does Singapore really have more in the way of resources? How about Hong Kong, a region which was literally an aggregate of some bird-dung encrusted rocks, not 75 years ago. Now it is a booming metropolis. <br /><br />The poverty in Haiti is caused by their culture and subsequently, the State. Any culture in which private property rights are esteemed and recognized, in which the people have a work ethic, and where stability is present, you will find prosperity. <br /><br />Another social ailment ascribed to "overpopulation" is war. Utter and complete <i>nonsense.</i> Men have been killing men everywhere since time immemorial. Cain did not kill Abel in an urban alleyway. Nor did Cain kill Abel for any other scarce resource. <br /><br />You want to know what causes war? People who want power and material possessions. People who want to be left alone and put their treasure in heaven don't want war. <br /><br />It doesn't matter whether the population living under a State is 1,000 or 10,000,000. If the powers in be want more power, they'll make war. Naturally, more people will die in a war if there is a higher population engaged in war, but the war itself is <i>not</i> caused by the mere presence of numerous human beings. <br /><br /><br /> -Sans AuthoritasSans Authoritasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-81933118199942731782009-07-21T06:45:21.529-06:002009-07-21T06:45:21.529-06:00MoT,
Hope you see this reply. I saw a table of fi...MoT,<br /><br />Hope you see this reply. I saw a table of figures recently, have not been able to find it again - too much Internet browsing - of how many gallons of water it takes to yield whatever. From something like 20 gallons to make a pound of soybeans, to several hundred to extract a gallon of oil, etc. etc. Sorry now I did not bookmark it.<br /><br />Climate change is unpredictable. At the end of the last Ice Age, what is now the Sahara Desert was just like the Amazon. The Nile flowed into the Atlantic. It has been drying out ever since. 2,000 to 1,700 years ago, the Romans got their lions to eat the Christians from North Africa - now Tunisia and Libya. Where do you guess Hannibal got his elephants? There were still jungles and animals of all kinds - giraffes, hippos, elephants, lions, cheetahs, along the coast of North Africa. But they have been gone for over a thousand years now, and gradually even the trees are dying out.<br /><br />Would we like to see another Sahara where the Amazon basin is now? <br /><br />In 2004 or 2005, the Atlantic was very warm, and the rains which blow in over the Amazon failed. The Amazon at its mouth became a savannah - a hundred miles of grassland with a channel 10 miles wide in the middle - and the governments had to fly planes with water into the interior so the people living at the headwaters would not die of thirst.<br /><br />That happened in one year. Fortunately it was exceptional. But catastrophic climate change could happen that quickly.<br /><br />Scares me.<br />Lemuel Gulliver.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26927091680728120362009-07-21T04:55:28.453-06:002009-07-21T04:55:28.453-06:00(Continuation...)
We cannot and should not and mu...(Continuation...)<br /><br />We cannot and should not and must not "solve" this problem by "thinning" the population, like pruning rose bushes. People are not chickens to be harvested or grass to be kept trimmed. But we should and must help people in these places where resources cannot support their numbers, to voluntarily limit the size of their families. It would cost a trivial amount of money to help them do so. Considering the hundreds of billions this country spends on military hardware for killing people, and how much money governments in Africa and Asia spend on arms to kill each other and suppress their own people, it is, as I said, a monumental stupidity which our supposedly intelligent species should be able to remedy with ease.<br /><br />If human numbers are not stabilized by voluntary family planning, our species, (yes, humans are a species - we are exactly like the animals, except we have been gifted with language and reason and abstract thought, all of which we should be using to the best of our ability to glorify God and His creation, and which we fail miserably to do,) our species will suffer horribly for our stupidity and our failure to act responsibly.<br /><br />I am sorry you took exception to what I said. I hope this clarification will deflect your anger. However, I will not change my mind on the fact that the human population is getting too large in many countries to be sustained, and if we do not use our resources and God-given brains to change this, a great tragedy will descend on us, upon us humans mostly, but also upon all the other species on the planet.<br /><br />They say we evolved from a small rodent-like mammal living 65 million years ago. I do not know if this is true or not. But perhaps in another 65 million years, descendants of the beavers will be building churches and praising God, instead of us. <br /><br />(Not descendants of the rats - they breed too fast.)<br /><br />Yours, <br />Lemuel Gulliver.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-51212328052894815212009-07-21T04:54:35.044-06:002009-07-21T04:54:35.044-06:00Mr. Grigg,
I do not advocate government intrusion...Mr. Grigg,<br /><br />I do not advocate government intrusion into ANY facet of the lives of people, ESPECIALLY into something so fundamental as reproductive rights. We have the example of Nazi eugenics programs, and the end of where that road leads: to the mass elimination of "undesirable" or "inferior" populations.<br /><br />As someone else observed here, the governments advocating these programs somehow never apply their own criteria to themselves. Heinrich Himmler, the chinless, squirrel-faced, yellow-bellied head of the Nazi SS, was the greatest advocate of the tall, blond, square-jawed, steely-eyed Aryan ideal, from which he could harldy have been more divergent himself. How come Nazi eugenics did not apply to him?<br /><br />The historical examples of "government" coercion, suppression, and resultant viciousness are so many, we could spend days just listing them.<br /><br />What I advocate is not government coercion, which inevitably leads to corruption and evil, but exhortation to a voluntary limitation of family size, and only in places where it is needed. Not everywhere.<br /><br />You recently eulogized Switzerland. How come you do not find Haiti, the most densely populated nation in this hemisphere, as lovely and admirable as Switzerland? (That, of course, is a rhetorical question.) Please do me the favor of viewing this YouTube video: "Haiti: The Kidnap Capital of the World," and then tell me if you think this is an acceptable way for human beings to live:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8OvnvuQcRA&feature=fvw<br /><br />To me it illustrates an existence barely above the animal; in fact many animal populations in the wild would seem to me to live more fulfilling lives than some human populations in Haiti. <br /><br />(Not all, by any means - many parts of Haiti are absolutely beautiful, and the people live rich and happy lives. It is not everywhere as described in this video.)<br /><br />I am not a monster. I would hope, for all people in the world, lives of plenty: good food, good health, companionship, happy families, spiritual fulfillment, and the opportunity to better their economic situation.<br /><br />But in many places, and yearly more and more of them, the crush and pressure of rampant population growth dooms people to lives of grinding poverty, squalor, and misery. They are forced to kill, steal, maim and murder their fellow humans, just in order to keep themselves alive. (Port-au-Prince, Lagos, Manila and Mexico City come to mind.)<br /><br />(Continued...)Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-64783887526003706702009-07-20T06:45:09.434-06:002009-07-20T06:45:09.434-06:00MO T - That was great! I love your scathing writin...MO T - That was great! I love your scathing writing style! "Sustainable Stalin" is a term that will definitely be used by this reader in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-18550265294305661982009-07-20T01:14:13.287-06:002009-07-20T01:14:13.287-06:00"If some individuals contribute to general so..."If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children..."<br /><br />Mr. Grigg, those words sent chills down my spine.<br /><br />I'm a native of India. For 21 months between June 1975 and March 1977, the government declared a "State of Emergency" - suspending the Constitution and giving the State unprecedented powers.<br /><br />Of all the disasters that ensued from this debacle, none was more horrifying that the program of forced sterilization - the aim being to enforce independent India's "unofficial but highly recommended" policy of 'two children per family'.<br /><br />That being said, I agree with you when you say: "Whatever happens in the political realm, the only effective protection for human beings in their gestational state is the conscience of the mother, and that's where people who share my pro-life convictions have to focus our efforts."<br /><br />I'm not sure if I'm "pro-life" or "pro-choice". But I agree that this is a matter that transcends politics.<br /><br />Here's a question: What if the Mother wishes to terminate the pregnancy but the Father does not?Spook, RNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11085577662135429417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-32934478119762799502009-07-19T21:04:34.254-06:002009-07-19T21:04:34.254-06:00Lemuel Gullible
"And an eight-celled or sixt...Lemuel Gullible<br /><br />"And an eight-celled or sixty-four<br />celled human embryo is not a <br />person"<br /><br />Because you say so?<br /><br />Tell me, at what point will YOU<br />reach full maturation?<br /><br />At any stage of development, yours<br />included, a human being is a <br />human being.willbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-65506235495693508732009-07-19T20:50:10.889-06:002009-07-19T20:50:10.889-06:00"Oh, those dreadful Nazis:
If only they hadn..."Oh, those dreadful Nazis: <br />If only they hadn’t given<br />totalitarian eugenics such <br />a bad name…."<br /><br />This of course would include<br />Margaret Sanger, a known Nazi,<br />but it hasn't discredited the<br />organization she founded:<br />Planned Parenthood.willbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-55827895349997555442009-07-19T19:47:54.937-06:002009-07-19T19:47:54.937-06:00LG... I wish you'd at least cite where you get...LG... I wish you'd at least cite where you get the figures for beef production etc. Even if it does use as much water as you say... So what! It doesn't simply disappear. There are more than enough ways to properly manage water in order to carefully produce food for the world. <br /><br />Thats why I look forward to global warming. I'm all for it because it will free up arable land in places that now are considered ice bound and if it sinks Mordor on the Potomac and New York City then its all the better!. Thats a win win in my eyes.<br /><br />Think of this. Even without a warming you could use hydroelectric power to transform Greenland or Iceland, places that once held vineyards, into food production sites through hydroponics. There isn't much else there under the ice and snow except vast mineral wealth. So use the tunnels afterwards for farming.<br /><br />Desalination systems with newer efficient alternative energy sources can provide fresh water for home and farms thus fueling the ability to farm in arid and semi arid regions that as of yet can't support themselves. <br /><br />With individual home energy systems you can create an entire new industry that takes the "power" out of a few hands... moreover those that government "permits" and "controls" and put it back into the individuals own hands. Imagine what that could do for poor people around the world. A means to produce their own veggies without the need to cut down trees for fuel.<br /><br />That being said it's by and large fear mongering by government politicos and their money sucking hangers on that contribute to mankind's misery and all at the miserable ones expense. Notice how they flit about in those big bad polluting jets for their conferences and awareness raising efforts? Nobody traveling by bicycle or catamaran that I see. Still, they manage to point a bony finger at any poor slob who they deign to be out of touch. <br /><br />Who are these "Eco Mao's" or "Sustainable Stalins" but those with the time and stolen treasure to dictate to us! Whenever these perfumed pashas prance about with tales of doom and gloom I instinctively reach for my wallet while I get the feeling a rope is being fastened about my neck.<br /><br />No, mere babies are not responsible for our present problems but very adult, very evil, humanoid replicants in positions of power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-11575472103355325852009-07-19T13:26:27.947-06:002009-07-19T13:26:27.947-06:00Will -
As usual you have managed to make me burs...Will - <br /><br />As usual you have managed to make me burst out laughing several times while at the same time describing some of the most monstrous ideas ever conceived by the human mind. <br /><br />It occurs to me that you - the greatest libertarian blogger alive - are certainly included in "undesirable populations" according to our ruling elites. I commend you on not only your writing, but on the fact that you have opposed these horrible ideas in practice with the large family you have fathered. <br /><br />Inspired by your writing, I immediately went upstairs and woke my wife up from her nap, so that I could join you in your struggle against tyranny. :D<br /><br />Keep 'em coming, Will.Tom Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560337910390558259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-24367052496177869602009-07-19T06:34:42.530-06:002009-07-19T06:34:42.530-06:00William, this is slightly off thread but you may f...William, this is slightly off thread but you may find it useful in a future post.<br /><br />http://cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:woman-charged-with-possession-of-child-pornography-for-taking-photos-of-herself-breastfeeding&catid=3:news&Itemid=96Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-24874931334986534462009-07-19T05:04:56.907-06:002009-07-19T05:04:56.907-06:00(Continued)
People are able to adapt to their mat...(Continued)<br /><br />People are able to adapt to their material circumstances quite capably where they are permitted to. This includes conditions of privation of the sort that are still too common in what is referred to, more out of political correctness than factual accuracy, as the "developing world."<br /><br />The chief cause of starvation is NOT some punitive instinct on the part of nature, which I refuse to anthropomorphize or deify; nor does it reflect the aggregate thoughtlessness of the local population, as if, amid terrible suffering they're consigned to think: "D'oh! We forgot to avoid having too many children for the local resource base to support!"<br /><br />The CHIEF CAUSE of starvation and similar suffering, in a word, is GOVERNMENT -- in this case, the mis-allocation of critical resources for political purposes.<br /><br />We will not solve that problem by treating human beings as another resource to be managed through political means.<br /><br />Is that what you intend to advocate here? Because it hasn't worked, nor can it. <br /><br />What I and others object to is the idea that questions of reproduction** and fertility be taken from the individual and put in the hands of the political class, those wise and generous people responsible for the mis-allocations of resources you describe while, in my view, mis-attributing their causes.<br /><br />Resource scarcity is a reality, and the pricing system is the best way of assessing it. You're probably aware of the wage Paul Ehrlich lost to Julian Simon regarding the inflation-adjusted prices of several key resources:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager<br /><br />Had the world adopted Ehrlich's totalitarian prescriptions in, say, 1977, when he and Holdren published Ecoscience, this is what would have happened: <br /><br />A lot of people would have died needlessly, yet the human population would have continued to grow, and the suppressive effect of government intervention on human productivity would have resulted in an even greater "crisis" that would have called for even sterner measures. <br /><br />And we would never have known that Ehrlich, like Malthus, was entirely wrong in his dire projections, the consummation of which always resides somewhere in the conveniently ambiguous future. <br /><br />A few additional points:<br /><br />*Regarding the term "species" as applied to human beings, I can't help but remember how Worf, from <i>Star Trek: The Next Generation,</i> reacted when a Borg drone chastised him and his fellow Klingons for not submitting to the Collective in the interest of "what's best for all species." "I like my <i>species</i>just the way it is," Worf snarled at the Borg representative, spitting out the term with hostile contempt.<br /><br />*One of the nastiest tricks played by the abortion "rights"/population control gang -- and they were pretty much the same people pre-Roe -- was in describing abortion as a matter of "reproductive" rights, when it is the nullification of reproduction. This little bit of legerdemain allows Chinese commissars to claim that even though they force women to abort "unauthorized" children, they still support "reproductive rights" because they don't ban abortion. <br /><br />*The parallel involving the chicken and the egg or "potential" chicken would be apt if at any point a chicken could be said to acquire a right to life, or, alternately, if at any point in his development a human individual could legitimately be used to satisfy the appetites of an anthropophage.William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-53279626752976437562009-07-19T05:03:17.784-06:002009-07-19T05:03:17.784-06:00Lemuel -- As you are no doubt aware, many if not m...Lemuel -- As you are no doubt aware, many if not most people already exercise controls over reproduction of a voluntary nature. <br /><br />Our "species" (see below) is NOT self-propagating, and rare indeed is the human being who doesn't figure that out by the time the relevant equipment is functioning and the impulse to copulate is making its urgent but resistible demands on our individual will. <br /><br />You observe that "the vast majority of the human race is in no economic or ecological position to keep on multiplying themselves endlessly." You know what? Nobody is in a position to do so, and nobody does. <br /><br />Apart from welfare state ghettos in which bastardy is subsidized by the same political class that supports Holdren's views of compelled population limits, we don't find people "breeding" heedlessly, whether or not they employ artificial means of limiting fertility. <br /><br />That's because human beings understand and respond to market signals, a point I'll flesh out anon....William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-44245784896126751112009-07-19T03:40:29.863-06:002009-07-19T03:40:29.863-06:00(Continuation...)
Malthus has been long derided, ...(Continuation...)<br /><br />Malthus has been long derided, as he could not foresee in the 1700's the advances in medicine and agriculture and the harnessing of energy - first coal, then oil, now nuclear - to increase food production. But it is no longer a question of production. It is a question of space - arable land - much of which we have paved over in order to drive our cars on it, and a question of water, most of which we have pumped out of the ground or dammed the rivers to make golf courses and programmable illuminated fountains in the deserts of Nevada.<br /><br />Our species is so smart we have become terminally and spectacularly stupid.<br /><br />Did you know it takes 2,400 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef? One thousand-pound steer requires nearly two-and-a-half MILLION gallons of water to raise it. And 1.3 billion Chinese are now acquiring a craving for meat. Goodbye Amazon rainforests. Goodbye Borneo rainforests and those spectacular Birds of Paradise. We need the land to make biodiesel to run our cars. As Malthus was saying....?<br /><br />Conclusion: Fine. Breed all you want. You can afford it, and do it successfully. But the vast majority of the human race is in no economic or ecological position to keep on multiplying themselves endlessly. <br /><br />Forget the extinction of half or more of the world's animal and vegetable species, which have taken sixty-five MILLION years to develop. (Thirteen thousand times as long as all of recorded human history, or 1.3 thousand thousand human lifetimes.) Is that a wise move on our part? Is it right or just, to bring numberless children into the world that you know are going to starve and die? <br /><br />Because that situation is what is coming down on us like the 7:30 AM express bullet train. <br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br />Lemuel Gulliver.<br /><br />PS: And if you think we can do a science fiction fast move and find another planet to live on, the nearest star is about 4.5 light years away. If we made our spacecraft fly TEN times as fast as they do now, it would take us 15,000 YEARS to reach that nearest star. Assuming it had a habitable planet, which is not likely. What you see, children, here on Earth, is what you got. Now and evermore. Treat it with respect. Or else, it will treat you with the same disrespect you show to it.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-19375930213253434712009-07-19T03:39:36.224-06:002009-07-19T03:39:36.224-06:00A couple of comments, since the choir here is all ...A couple of comments, since the choir here is all singing the same tune and someone needs to parse the lyrics....<br /><br />First: If you went to a restaurant and ordered fried chicken, and got a just-fertilized boiled egg instead, I think you would feel you had been cheated. An egg is not a chicken, it is a POTENTIAL chicken. And an eight-celled or sixty-four celled human embryo is not a person, it is a POTENTIAL person, all circumstances being favorable, just as I am a POTENTIAL billionaire, all circumstances being favorable. <br /><br />However, I have been working in the labor force some forty years now, and am still waiting for those favorable circumstances. The odds do NOT look good. I could BEHAVE as if I was a billionaire, just as some people behave as if a new embryo is a person, but I would either be laughed at or locked up for my own safety.<br /><br />I concede and agree that once the embryo begins to develop beyond a month or so, it acquires limbs and all the morphology of a small person, and that is a quite different thing than a tiny lump of undifferentiated cells. At that stage I would not favor abortion, much less one of those horrific late term procedures, which are plain murder in my estimation.<br /><br />Second point: It is easy for us in this wealthy country with vast open spaces and immense natural resources to say with lofty assurance that population control is a bad thing. Mr. Grigg, you have a wonderful family and I am sure you have enough material resources to raise them healthy, and enough spiritual resources to turn them into fine adults. Go for it.<br /><br />But if you lived in some arid dustbowl in Africa, or in the horrendous slums of Lagos or Calcutta, or in a muddy village in Bangla Desh, I would say bringing that many children into the world, only to watch them starve or die of disease, is the height of irresponsibility and extremely unfair to those children.<br /><br />There ARE more people in the world than it can sustain. Every day already, tens of thousands starve to death. The past hundred years, with the discovery of antibiotics and petroleum, have made possible the survival beyond birth of most children, as well as mechanized agriculture, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and mechanized irrigation. Now the fossil energy resources are in short supply and diminishing, (except for coal, which is choking the people of China to death - they build 2 new coal-fired power plants every week, and hundreds of thousands die of respiratory diesase evey year,) and the fossil water resources are likewise diminishing, while the Himalayan glaciers which supply a third of the world's population with a steady water supply are disappearing.<br /><br />The harsh truth which you and others on this blog do not want to face is this: If our species does not immediately curb its unbridled reproduction, Nature will curb it for us. You may not like to hear this, but within the next couple of decades there will be massive famines and rampant disease, (which often breaks out when people are already weakened by hunger,) which will kill millions if not billions of human beings. There will amost inevitably be resource wars, and vast floods of economic refugees overwhelming those countries or areas which are still able to sustain their indigenous populations, such as North America. Internal race wars and ethnic strife will break out everywhere as people struggle to feed themselves and their children.<br /><br />Is that what you intend to advocate?<br /><br />(Continued.....)Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.com