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 > Here come the anti-populationists, there go the people > Comments

Here come the anti-populationists, there go the people : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 12/5/2010

The anti-populationists say that population, technological progress and capitalism will irreducibly lead us to ruin.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Malcolm says:
"The climate changers have not proved their thesis. Even if one employs the precautionary principle, as I have done, and accept we should cut carbon emissions, we are still a long, long way from saying, by erroneous extension, that climate change is caused by population. If it is caused by anything, it is first world consumption and corporate greed."



If Malcolm is still an RMIT staff member, he might try downloading the letter published in AAAS Science Magazine, May 7th last week, titled

"Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

"WE ARE DEEPLY DISTURBED BY THE RECENT ESCALATION OF POLITICAL ASSAULTS ON SCIENTISTS in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."

The letter goes on to present a carefully argued case, and is signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/328/5979/689.pdf

Perhaps there's still a chance that Malcolm will one day be mildly embarrassed by this odd essay of his, which I do not think is very carefully argued at all. Its form reminds me of the diatribe I heard on Parliamentary radio yesterday arvo, by some Liberal backbencher from WA. I could almost feel the spittle in my ear.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 10:36:59 AM
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
Oh another botchy article by Labor's smear and spin-doctor Malcolm King!
Wait wait!
Let me guess- he tries to gather the silliest and flimsiest accusations and apply it to the 'anti-pops', and tries to argue against his own silly perceptions of this 'group' to make himself look good, maybe throw in a few tacky lines hoping they'd make him look like a statesman-like individual making an impenetrable argument.

Oh! And maybe even makes up some kind of goal 'anti-pops' are supposed to have, and elaborate how anti-pops don't know what they are talking about because that goal they supposedly all have cannot come true?

Am I right?

(its the fact that the Labor Party hires such a dodgy individual to represent them makes me worry about their integrity- the fact that he's such a dud makes me think they can't even get someone of higher caliber than a gorilla to work for them).
Needless to say I now know to put Labor at the very bottom of my paper.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 10:47:39 AM
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
It's hard to know how to respond to such an ill-informed rant. While there are always a few bigots and xenophobes around, this debate is not about religion or race or refugees or about telling people how many children to have. It's about the fact that there cannot be infinite growth in a finite world and the sooner we start planning to deal with that the better. It's hard to think that Mr King, who evidently plies the trade of writing resumes and inflammatory articles, appears to have no real grounding in economics, the environment, working in industry or capitalism. On the other hand, I have owned and led a major firm in the construction industry for many years, believe that capitalism is the only economic game in town and that it is capable of adapting to a low or zero growth environment while keeping us all at least as well off as now.

Save us from know-it-all commentators with no first hand knowledge of the real world of industry and capitalism!
Posted by John Stewart, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:00:19 AM
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
Crikey Malcolm. I don't consider myself an anti-populationist, but when you throw all kinds of people in one bucket and generalize in such an offensive, and dare I say it, 'half assed' manner, I can't help but wanna sign up, to protest such idiocy.

Anti populationists are "opposed to technology".

Where the hell did you dig this nugget up? From what I can tell, it depends on the technology. I bet they're pretty keen on improving solar cells and the like. Though I suppose "they're opposed to some technologies" doesn't sound nearly as damning now does it?

You also say: "Humans are “units” to be measured. All of the anti-pops ideas stem from this premise."

Actually, I've heard many people arguing on the basis of resource consumption, not by numbers of people. So, your premise "all of the anti-pops ideas stem from this premise", is fundamentally flawed.

Though again, arguing in favour of increasing resource consumption sounds kinda dumb, so you create a pigeonhole, then stuff your opponents in it.
Again, intellectually shallow, but hey, this was just the warm up.

"Actually, the anti-pops don’t believe in economics. It’s not, as they say “in their paradigm”. Their focus is on limiting growth or as one critic put it, stunting potential"

'The anti-pops don't "believe in" economics? For crying out loud Malcolm, enough with the generalisations. By the same token, evidently I can argue that all people named Malcolm are clearly prone to idiotic hyperbole.

To rebut this one, review this piece. It's an economics article, on OLO, from not long ago. A cursory review of this site could have shown you that some arguments argue in favour of population reduction. To make things incredibly simple, you should note that the name, put simply, is "Economic arguments against population growth".

It's a fine example of how to make an argument logically, as opposed to offensive ranting.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10375

The truth is, I'm not opposed to immigration. But Malcolm, your style of argument makes me want to join the other side.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:52:43 AM
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
Oh dear, King has ruffled a few feathers. The bearded gnomes have started name calling early. I'd better go back and re-read it.

Done.

A fine debunking of the most idiotic thesis that has appeared in OLO for some time. My only criticism is that he didn't roll in the whacko rising sea level 'thesis' as well.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:01:46 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
Sorry Fellas but the author is basically right, nor is the article in any sense incoherent or a rant.
The anti-pops movement has fundamental problems in that its advocates are trying to limit population growth - mess with the basic decision about how many children we should have - and that just isn't going to happen. They may have more success with limiting immigration but for that to happen they need to be able to point to a good reason - and not just wild-eyed statement about expected increases in temperatures and the like, or moanings over how the environment can't cope any longer.
These dire warnings have been repeated for decades with no results and no indications of dire consequences. Novels written in the 1930s have references to concerns over population growth.. In the 1960s there were forecasts of mass starvation..
None of it has come to pass.. time to move on to other issues.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:03:35 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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