The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Peace in our time, habitat forever? > Comments

Peace in our time, habitat forever? : Comments

By Tim Murray, published 19/3/2010

National parks and wilderness: there is no sanctuary from economic growth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Seconded CJ- I was wondering when the "Pro-Pops" debunked the "anti-pops", but then I realized they just invoked Godwin (as you said) and tried to paint them up as Eugenicists, and of course made a silly strawman based on only the underused fringe arguments of anyone that thinks population expansion would cause problems and assumed victory (while being very careful to address any of the other points expressed on the site).

It's all coming back to me now.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 21 March 2010 3:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on a second, I was asked by Severin to respond and when I do, I get insulted or else there are these snide little references from a boys insider club which makes up the bottom feeder profile of Sustainable Population whatever.

The anti-pops are fringe dwellers of a sideshow. A Year 7 kid could refute their arguments. In future have a crack at playing the ball instead of the man or woman.
Posted by Cheryl, Sunday, 21 March 2010 3:50:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes CJ you were definitely right about the 'debunkers':

Not once was there an argument from them about where the future generations will go (either adding to urban density, replacing the (NOW) abundant farmland and forests, or a new city positioned in a less arable place- or possibly encouraging people to live on floating cities as proposed in Japan to counteract compressed urbanization).
Of course, that only goes for about a century into the future.
The rest of the space of what happens next is left blank.

It's a simple question- where do you PUT the new people? And of course, the sharing of resources (or requirement to invest more money to build the additional infrastructure of water recyclers and desalination plants).

Instead we get:
-Silly outlandish accusations
-Lazy slagging off
-Claiming one could 'refute' the arguments but constantly refusing to even answer some simply questions.
-A special category of their opponents which conveniently allows them to quote some loony that sort of coincides with some very base criteria and pretend they alone represent the gigantic sub-community
-Being very careful NOT to actually cite a specific argument actually put forward- or else be unable to pretend you didn't read it.

Strangely enough, the only answers to any of these questions are coming from people who see problems in population increases (and there are).

Yet a simple opportunity to prove me wrong by one such individual instead accurately recreated my own accusations.
Not mentioning any names.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 21 March 2010 4:16:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King H, old boy, you seem like a nice enough chap so I'll go easy on you.

The anti-pops are the con side in this argument. They have to first prove the case. It's no use going 'nah nah' or whinging when people have a go at you. You have to prove the case.

People are more than happy to listen to you, it's just that your arguments are at best untutored or silly and at worst, dangerous.
Posted by Cheryl, Sunday, 21 March 2010 4:45:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl I'm unsure what the proof is supposed to be when both sides are only gauging future hypotheticals.

But regardless, for population growth, you need a place to put the new people (the development of new houses either expanding outwards from cities into farmland or woodland or desert (thus shrinking them), or else try to fit them in the existing living spaces (compressing the living space of each person)- adding to that the smaller share of infrastructure, or the establishment of new infrastructure (easily done- but no small feat).

In short, the population will still keep increasing, although it should not indefinitely. And with that in mind, too few people (either those opposed or those lobbying for population growth) are coming up with tolerable ideas to address it.

Proposals to scout our abundant drylands for artesian basins to try to establish new cities would be welcome- but proposals to simply slap down a few acres of housing blocks along the outskirts of existing cities at the expense of prime farmland or ecosystems- or any proposal that just puts more strain on the people of the cities, is quite frankly immoral and greatly detrimental to the people of the city itself (further subdividing living, traffic space, administrative services etc)- and are often the only proposals being made because they're cheaper and more convenient for the people funding them.

I can confidently say that Sydney, in which one could sooner travel from the northern suburbs to Newcastle than to the Harbour Bridge via the expressway on certain times of the day, is too crowded.

Yet *MY* only suggestions to remedy these have been highly democratic and egalitarian proposals.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 21 March 2010 11:13:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl writes, "We could also feed starving Africa, but strangely, the anti-pops don't seem interested in that."

Oh please, spare me! Who has been flogging patented genetically modified seed stock that locks African agriculture into expensive chemical dependence? The Greens? Ralph Nader? GreenPeace?

The decision to let Africans starve is purely based on politics and commercial imperatives.

You've got an agricultural chemical with a dubious safety record? No worries, "THINK OF THE STARVING AFRICAN CHILDREN". Saving poor children from starvation and helping countries develop is always the argument from free market neo-fundamentalists but the poor are always left to suffer in the mire (often designed and maintained by Western economic imperialism) and the West finds ever more obscene ways to conspicuously consume disposable crap. If capitalists gave a stuff about anything other than filthy lucre we would have stopped deaths from preventable disease and starvation twenty years ago.

The people who argue for increased foreign aid programs are invariably the same people who argue for ecological sustainability in Western production systems. Cite one example where "anti-pops", as you call them, advocate against aid to developing nations. I'll give you dozens where conservatives want to cut foreign aid while progressives call for a lift in foreign aid as a percentage of GDP.

As for feeding 9 billion, who do you think you're kidding? You don't only want to feed 9 billion, you think we can all have the whole box and dice. You'll forego the McMansion, luxury cars, widescreen tv's, whitegoods, re-styling and makeovers, overseas holidays, renovations, private schools, holiday houses etc to help feed the poor and stop thousands of children dying from preventable diseases every day? Or you think 9 billion can live Western lifestyles? Don't make me laugh!
Posted by maaate, Monday, 22 March 2010 6:02:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy