overpopulation town project
Alan
in small towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists
concentrate forces like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project,
http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace
public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with
contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of
money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are mostly
federal and can be imported. Housing unit size could also be limited
to crowd large families but regular zoning is a big problem because it
makes it expensive for overpopulation activists to move in and build a
majority. Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in
your hometown. NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds
abortions and it is too overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to
move to or build a majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still
only a tiny fraction of their education funding.
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://christianexodus.org
Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are gays,
especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees, who
would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and
grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns and
would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who are
ideologically committed to small government.
-Alan Ditmore
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADit...@juno.com
To: Childfr...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:58:20 -0400
Subject: My speech to County Commission
Message-ID: <20060906.162452.-...@juno.com>
I'm Alan Ditmore of Leicester and I came accross a shocking statistic.
In America, and by inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents
are so environmentally callous that they would turn down even
subsidized contraception and squeeze out babies anyway; which calls
into question the ability of local contraception funding to save the
planet from overpopulation.
But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is
to stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the
responsibility to fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields
lies exclusively with parents. So how is it fair that I, as a
taxpaying nonparent, should be subsidizing such reproductive
activities? There is no ethical construct by which that is fair.
So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I might
as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while contraception
and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised privately.
And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true party of the
environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the Republicans.
The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut
parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and public
schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in
which most babies are planned. Local Republicans oppose zoning which
is bad for affordable housing, and Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a
direct democratic referndum on zoning, which makes the Republicans the
party of direct democracy.
-Alan Ditmore
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADit...@juno.com
To: edi...@outinasheville.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:30:07 -0400
Subject: succeeding in spite of efforts
Message-ID: <20060912.183041.-...@juno.com>
To the Editor:
Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people seem
to be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led
by Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at
the economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to
the 2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about
25% for the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of
Detroit. This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from
most other minority communities in a way that is massively under
appreciated, totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart
of economic conservatism. You are largely nonparents, with the
economic interests of nonparents.
And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can see
is that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to
transfer wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from
rich to poor adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities
and more specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax
burdens and consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms.
It may behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this
huge and inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink
some political alliances with minority parents versus those with
corporations.
Alan Ditmore, Leicester
See, I told you the ONLY answer was contraception, abortion and gay
rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with the
smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay
community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25%
nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown?
I will be voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in
the form of schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and
family leave. They also reduce the population more by killing more
anti-choice people in the middle east.
Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans are further from
the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that you can be rid
of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public schools teach
national unity, which is the real enemy of secession. So stop
subsidizing them.
-Alan Ditmore
Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I
don't think much of it as a political issue because direct
environmentalism distracts attention and then funding from
overpopulation and contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually
stop global warming. The windmills were for electric generation, but I
don't much care. Seven billion people just cannot live sustainably and
efforts to do so are counterproductive and diversionary. Though we
could limit yachts to 400hp (you lived in FL, those big semi-planers
are truly absurd. It's beyond me why the little jet ski's get the
complaints.)
I'm more interested in defunding parenthood including public
education. Did you know that Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San
Francisco is 14%, the USA about 25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a
hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and Colorado City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4%
children. What effect do you think that has on property taxes?
especially since old age subsidies are mostly federal. Do you know of
any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of children than 8% or
60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8% children, I
will move there and pay the property taxes. Though Frisco is both too
big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be inevitable
because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is 22.2%
children.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html
I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities in
the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find
very little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's
badly neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable
political parties.
A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the
west.
See, http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://christianexodus.org
I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop
subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very
important and far more cost effective than public education, and better
for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough to
make this possible in the rest of the country.
-Alan Ditmore
Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive
environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce
fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form of
childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two or
more members of this group live in the same town? county? state? Anyone
here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX?
-Alan Ditmore
Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a
myopic digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am
pro-development. I want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY
domestic migrants who may be moving for political purposes. I have no
problem with limiting the SIZE of houses in order to crowd large
families, but I oppose any limits on unit counts, unit densities, or
building height.
An overpopulation town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF
playgrounds, ballfields, childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO
with land use policies other than banning ballfields.
-Alan Ditmore
FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE
France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility
France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of declining
European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support for
people who have children.
Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic low,
with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe. All
European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per
woman in 1990, but in 2002, 15 counties had rates below 1.3 children
per woman, and six countries had rates between 1.3 and 1.4 children per
woman.
According to a report released recently by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, France's birth rate of about 1.8
children per woman makes it the only European country with the
possibility of maintaining its current population through births.
France has Europe's second-highest birth rate in part because of
incentives offered by the government. Such incentives include:
Three-year paid parental leave with guaranteed job protection upon
returning to the workforce; universal, full-time preschool starting at
age three; subsidized day care before age three; stipends for in-home
nannies; and monthly childcare allowances that increase with the number
of children per family.
Juliette LaFont, spokesperson for the French Ministry of Family
Affairs, said that what distinguishes France from other European
countries is its "policy of giving women the choice to work or not by
giving them all of the services and financial means."
Annually, France spends $57 billion, nearly 15 per cent of its total
budget, for family and child services.
Kaiser Network 25/Sep/06
SOURCE: Kaiser Network, 25/Sep/06
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADit...@juno.com
To: free2...@yahoo.com,Child...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:40:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Development regs do not help overpopulation at all.
Message-ID: <20060928.184102.-...@juno.com>
It sounds to me like people in your area should start more suburban
businesses so that people will not have to drive out to shop or work.
They should also obviously conserve water. Desert and semi arid
regions are much better for manufacturing and other industry because
moisture deteriorates buildings and machinery much faster than in the
desert and people can save heating oil in the sunbelt. So expect the
entire Northeast and industrial Midwest to move there soon.
I have purchased a small lot near Holbrook AZ and am looking for
concentrations of overpopulation activists out west in order to decide
where to move myself. New York City is the only municipality I know of
that funds abortions, but I have no intention of living there because
NYC is obviously overpopulated.
Only agriculture needs water in any real quantity, housing and
industry needs very little. If everyone except farmers moves to AZ
then Detroit and Philadelphia can be farmed again, and much heating oil
can be saved as well.
I am personally hoping to find an overpopulation aware town somewhere
between Loving County in West TX and Klamath Falls OR, where municipal
contraception funding is politically realistic. And which has no
zoning.
Does Las Vegas fund abortions or contraception? if so, then with what
percentage of the municipal budget?
-Alan Ditmore
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Keith Willmarth
<free2...@yahoo.com> writes:
> You missed my point. I was sharing my idea of moving like-minded
> people into an electoral district to accomplish a political
> objective, which paralleled your idea. In the sense that PREP is
> focused on overpopulation, you are right, it is a digression.
>
> No, limiting development has no effect on overpopulation. But
> building huge new communities remote from existing population
> centers directly exacerbates global warming, because everyone drives
> ridiculously long distances to the existing population centers to
> shop and do their business, so that the freeways leading into
> Phoenix and Tucson now come to a halt from sheer excess volume of
> traffic on a regular basis. Since the area has long since
> over-reached its groundwater capacity, the Colorado River now is
> being sucked dry, and is a trickle by the time it reaches the Gulf
> of California. And this is for the profit of the developers, there's
> no need for homebuyers to be in an area with no economic base,
> except that's where the houses are. Devastation of the natural
> landscape for no good reason. If none of these things are of
> concern to you, sure, why not.
>
>
>
>
> adit...@juno.com wrote: Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for
> fertility rates and is a myopic
> digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am
> pro-development.
> I want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic
> migrants
> who may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with
> limiting the SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I
> oppose any limits on unit counts, unit densities, or building height.
> An overpopulation town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF
> playgrounds, ballfields, childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO
> with land use policies other than banning ballfields.
> -Alan Ditmore
>
>
>
> FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE
>
> France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility
>
> France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of
> declining
> European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support
> for
> people who have children.
>
> Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic
> low,
> with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe.
> All
> European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per
> woman in 1990, but in 2002, 15 counties had rates below 1.3 children
> per
> woman, and six countries had rates between 1.3 and 1.4 children per
> woman.
>
> According to a report released recently by the Organization for
> Economic
> Cooperation and Development, France's birth rate of about 1.8
> children
> per woman makes it the only European country with the possibility of
> maintaining its current population through births.
>
> France has Europe's second-highest birth rate in part because of
> incentives offered by the government. Such incentives include:
> Three-year paid parental leave with guaranteed job protection upon
> returning to the workforce; universal, full-time preschool starting
> at
> age three; subsidized day care before age three; stipends for in-home
> nannies; and monthly childcare allowances that increase with the
> number
> of children per family.
>
> Juliette LaFont, spokesperson for the French Ministry of Family
> Affairs,
> said that what distinguishes France from other European countries is
> its
> "policy of giving women the choice to work or not by giving them all
> of
> the services and financial means."
>
> Annually, France spends $57 billion, nearly 15 per cent of its total
> budget, for family and child services.
>
> Kaiser Network 25/Sep/06
>
> SOURCE: Kaiser Network, 25/Sep/06
>
> I'm Alan Ditmore of Leicester and I came accross a shocking
> statistic.
> In America, and by inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents
> are
> so environmentally callous that they would turn down even subsidized
> contraception and squeeze out babies anyway; which calls into
> question
> the ability of local contraception funding to save the planet from
> overpopulation.
> But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is
> to
> stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the
> responsibility to
> fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively
> with
> parents. So how is it fair that I, as a taxpaying nonparent, should
> be
> subsidizing such reproductive activities? There is no ethical
> construct
> by which that is fair.
> So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I
> might as
> well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while contraception
> and
> abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised privately.
> And
> of course that would, and does, switch me to the true party of the
> environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the
> Republicans.
>
> And MY farm is MINE and peeping zoners have no right to look at it.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:45:15 -0000 "free2darby"
> writes:
> > Hi,
> > I just joined PREP, and happened to see your message in the
> > archives. Co-incidentally I just had a very similar idea earlier
> > today, in regard to a most hideous case of urban sprawl now
> > unfolding in Pinal County Arizona; They've permitted about 250,000
> > new houses in the last couple years (that's not a typo,
> > unfortunately), and are projecting a population of 1.9 million by
> > 2025. The current population is 270,000, which itself is a
> manyfold
> >
> > explosion from ten years ago. So it occurred to me, one way to
> > derail this insanity would be to organize a few thousand
> > environmentally aware people to move into the county and vote the
> > clueless county commissioners out.
> >
> > But then if pro-development forces used the same tactics, I would
> > think it was absolutely outrageous. In any case, if a few people
> > like us could get together and form a nucleus of creative problem-
> > solving thinkers, we just might be able to make a difference.
> > --best regards, Keith Willmarth, Tucson
> >
> > --- In mail...@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
> > >
> > > Is anyone out there? Are any of these lists active? Where
> >
> > in the US and
> > > world are overpopulation activists most concentrated? What about
> > the Idea
> > > of taking a tactical tip from the Libertarian Free Town Project;
> > > http://freetownproject.com/
> > > Where we choose a town or county and move there to build a
> > majority, then
> > > fund contraception, sterilization and abortion in order to save
> on
> >
> > school
> > > taxes. Then with almost no school taxes, our town would prosper
> > and set
> > > a HUGE example, while we activists could either live it up
> > virtually tax
> > > free or put what we save into advancing the cause of
> > overpopulation?
> > > -Alan Ditmore, near Asheville NC.
> > >
I am planning to move and would like to decide where to move. I want
to move to the small or medum sized town with the highest concentration
of people who oppose overpopulation so that we can build a municipal
majority to fund contraception and abortion instead of schools.
I see that the smallest town with a PC chapter appears to be Sun River
Oregon, which is just southwest of Bend. What is the contraception
budget of Sun River OR? Is it bigger than the school budget?
But what I really want to know is what zip codes appear the most times
on your mailing list? and what zip codes appear the most times on your
mailing list that are not in CA or in any major metropolitan area? What
are the top 20 zip codes on your mailing list?
It is very important that I find out these things as it will help me
decide where to move, and I don't think it should violate anyone's
confidentiality.
The growth of Sun River and Bend is due to domestic migration and not
reproduction and thus it is not causing overpopulation. I SUPPORT
domestic migration as my political strategy absolutely depends on it.
If local carpenters can't build houses fast enough than they should
import modular apartment houses from China and Mexico. On huge
container ships hopefully with kite sails.
My interest is in political movements associated with subnational
geographic regions and it includes southeastern racist as well as
northwaster environmentalist regional movements. That does not make me
a southeastern racist or a northwestern environmentalist, I am a
northeastern ovepopulation activist living in the shallow shoutheast.
Though racism is pragmatically handy because humans seem to better
understand ovepopulation when applied to races other than their own.
The overpopulation movement has no regional strategy with it's own
listserve. They seem to be strongest in California but I don't want to
live there because the emmission control laws make it too hard for me
to maintain my car myself.
-Alan Ditmore
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:26:08 -0000 "Augie" <augi...@yahoo.com>
writes:
> The environmental load of 300 million: How heavy?
> As the US population rises, environmental problems
> that were once pushed aside may get worse, experts
> say.
> By Brad Knickerbocker
> Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> PORTLAND, ORE.
> September 26, 2006 edition
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0926/p01s01-ussc.html
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0926/p01s01-ussc.htm
>
> [Feedback:
> http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/contactus.pl
> Letters to the Editor:
> http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.plID=CFF0C5E4&url=/2005/0927 /p01s02-ussc.html
> ]
>
> A flotilla of 100 fishing boats, rafts, and kayaks
> crossed the Willamette River to a downtown park in
> Portland, Ore., the other evening to rally for the
> Pacific Northwest's reigning icon: wild salmon, now
> plummeting toward extinction due to development across
> much of the Columbia River basin.
>
> It was a typical event for a "green" city that has one
> of the best records in the United States for
> recycling, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, using
> alternative energy, and providing public
> transportation and bike paths.
>
> But Portland's amenities - its natural setting along
> the Willamette River and its youthful techie vibe -
> are drawing a surge of new people, threatening to
> erode the very qualities that drew people here in the
> first place. As the US approaches 300 million people,
> that's the story of the nation as well.
>
> In many ways, Americans have mitigated the impact of
> their increasing presence on the land. Since reaching
> the 200 million mark back in 1967, they have cut
> emissions of major air pollutants, banned certain
> harmful pesticides, and overseen the rebound of
> several endangered species. Despite using more
> resources and creating more waste, they've become more
> energy efficient.
>
> The danger, experts say, is that the US may simply
> have postponed the day of reckoning. Major
> environmental problems remain, and some are getting
> worse - all of them in one way or another connected to
> US population growth, which is expected to hit 400
> million around midcentury. Some experts put the
> average American's "ecological footprint" - the amount
> of land and water needed to support an individual and
> absorb his or her waste - at 24 acres. By that
> calculation, the long-term "carrying capacity" of the
> US would sustain less than half of the nation's
> current population.
>
> "The US is the only industrialized nation in the world
> experiencing significant population growth," says
> Vicky Markham, of the Center for Environment and
> Population, a nonprofit research and advocacy
> organization in New Canaan, Conn. "That, combined with
> America's high rates of resource consumption, results
> in the largest ... environmental impact [of any
> nation] in the world."
> The boomer challenge
>
> The changing nature of the population also has
> environmental consequences.
>
> "Today's baby boomers - 26 percent of the population -
> are the largest, wealthiest, highest
> resource-consuming of that age group ever in the
> nation's history, and they have unprecedented
> environmental impact," says Ms. Markham.
>
> The generation's preference for bigger houses and
> bigger cars - and the proliferation of them - are
> gobbling up more resources and creating more
> pollution, according to a recent study by the Center
> for Environment and Population. For example:
>
> · Land is being converted for development at about
> twice the rate of population growth. When housing,
> shopping, schools, roads, and other uses are added up,
> each American effectively occupies 20 percent more
> developed land than he or she did 20 years ago.
>
> · Nearly 3,000 acres of farmland are converted to
> nonagricultural uses daily..
>
> · Each American produces about five pounds of trash
> daily, up from less than three pounds in 1960.
>
> · While the US is noted for its wide open spaces, more
> than half of all Americans live within 50 miles of the
> coasts where population density and its environmental
> impact are increasing.
>
> That concentration poses special challenges for areas
> near the coast, like Portland, where land is rapidly
> being gobbled up. The city's population, which is now
> a bit over half a million, is fairly stable. But
> surrounding population pressures are great. The
> metropolitan area grew about 30 percent during the
> 1990s to just over 2 million. It's projected to grow
> to 2.6 million by 2010 and to 3.1 million by 2025.
>
> Some groups worry that Portland's growth will
> undermine its environmental sustainability.
>
> "Population pressures are overwhelming the Portland
> region's ability to absorb the influx of new people,
> fueling congestion and rises in land and housing
> prices," the ecological research group Environmental
> Tipping Points concluded in an analysis. "Portland's
> growth rate is twice the national average. With these
> challenges ahead, it remains to be seen whether this
> growth will threaten the very assets that Portland's
> progressive land-use planning policies have managed to
> protect so far."
>
> But recent US history suggests there are reasons for
> hope.
>
> It's no coincidence, for example, that the modern
> environmental movement began about the same time that
> US population ticked past the 200 million mark 39
> years ago.
>
> Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich's
> controversial book "The Population Bomb" had predicted
> that humanity's numbers around the globe would
> overwhelm natural resources, especially food
> production, in a Malthusian catastrophe.
>
> Things haven't turned out that badly, given the dire
> signs of distress in that era.
>
> It was a time when "our nation awoke to the health and
> environmental impacts of rampant and highly visible
> pollution - rivers so contaminated that they caught on
> fire, entire towns built upon sites so toxic that the
> only recourse was to abandon them," recalled
> Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Steve
> Johnson in a May speech.
>
> He was commemorating the 35th anniversary of the EPA
> by pointing to the Cuyahoga River in Ohio and Love
> Canal near Buffalo, N.Y. He might have mentioned that
> the bald eagle - the nation's symbol - was headed
> toward extinction as well.
>
> "But looking back, we see much to celebrate," Mr.
> Johnson added. "Our air is cleaner, our water is
> purer, and our land is better protected."
> Oomph behind environmental laws
>
> Generally speaking, that's true thanks largely to such
> groundbreaking federal laws as the Clean Water Act,
> the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
> Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances
> Control Act. Bipartisan coalitions on Capitol Hill and
> presidents of both parties enacted those statutes.
> Making them work, to the extent that they have, has
> involved full-time activists, grass-roots efforts at
> the community level, and courts of law.
>
> Increasingly, business is also getting involved.
>
> In the current issue of Atlantic Monthly magazine, for
> example, Weyerhaeuser Co. - whose history has included
> bitter fights with environmentalists over clear-cut
> logging - is pledging to reduce its greenhouse-gas
> emissions to 40 percent less than what they were in
> 2000 by 2020.
>
> "We will do this by harnessing the benefits of a
> renewable, natural resource - biomass - as fuel in the
> boilers that generate steam and electrical energy in
> our mills," says Ernesta Ballard, senior vice
> president for corporate affairs.
>
> Weyerhaeuser, based in Federal Way, Wash., is one of
> 41 corporate members of the Business Environmental
> Leadership Council, most of them Fortune 500
> companies, including such familiar names as Boeing,
> DuPont, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and Lockheed Martin.
> The group focuses on practical steps to reduce global
> warming.
>
> In New Haven, Conn., last week, a program to educate
> corporate board members on the potential liabilities
> and opportunities tied to climate change was launched
> by Yale University, Marsh (a leading risk and
> insurance services firm), and the Ceres network of
> investment funds, and environmental and other public
> interest groups. The first training session will
> involve some 200 board members of Fortune 1000
> companies.
>
> Faith groups, including typically conservative
> evangelicals, have also taken up "creation care"
> through such efforts as the National Religious
> Partnership for the Environment. The coalition
> includes the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the
> National Council of Churches USA, the Coalition on the
> Environment and Jewish Life, and the Evangelical
> Environmental Network.
>
> Among other things, they're providing literature on
> the environment to parishioners, providing sermons to
> pastors, organizing "Earth Day" and other events, and
> going "green" in their own facilities.
>
> Meanwhile, state and local governments in many ways
> have pushed well ahead of Uncle Sam in working to
> protect an environment from a population that is
> growing in both numbers and affluence. For example, 10
> states have adopted the "Clean Cars Program," to
> reduce global warming emissions by 64 million tons by
> 2020.
>
> At last count, 295 mayors (representing some 49
> million people) have accepted Seattle Mayor Greg
> Nickels's "Kyoto challenge," modeled after the Kyoto
> treaty that the US didn't sign. The goal is to cut
> carbon-dioxide emissions in their cities to 7 percent
> below 1990 levels by 2012.
>
> "All over the country in one way or another,
> communities are coming up against the issue of
> sustainability with their populations and their
> consumption styles," says Martha Farnsworth Riche,
> former director of the US Census Bureau.
>
> Of all parts of the country, Portland and the
> Northwest generally come closest to addressing the
> issue. Oregon launched formal recycling with its
> bottle bill in 1971, the nation's first
> container-deposit law. It was one of the first states
> (along with Vermont) to enact statewide land-use
> planning in the early 1970s. Early on, it protected
> beaches from commercial development. For years,
> Portland has had model public transit, including a
> light-rail system that recently celebrated its 20th
> anniversary.
>
> "At its root is a strong appreciation of the place we
> are among those who've lived here and those who come
> here," says Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman.
> "Those values get carried forward in public policies
> with great support of our citizenry and our business
> community.
>
> "There's just a tremendous desire to try to avoid many
> of the pitfalls that we've seen other cities find
> themselves in, and on a more global perspective how to
> live more lightly on the land," says Commissioner
> Saltzman, who holds environmental engineering degrees
> from two universities.
>
> As US laws and American attitudes toward energy and
> the environment have advanced, some experts argue,
> efficiency gains have outstripped population growth
> and consumption.
>
> "The average new house today is about a third larger
> than the average house in 1970, however the energy
> consumption is about the same as the smaller house in
> 1970," says Steven Hayward, author of the 2006 Index
> of Leading Environmental Indicators, released this
> summer by the Pacific Research Institute in San
> Francisco and the American Enterprise Institute in
> Washington. "That's from insulation, new appliance
> standards, and so forth."
>
> New houses may be more efficient, but their
> environmental impact grows in other ways.
>
> "They use more resources to build and use," says
> Markham of the Center for Environment and Population.
> "Also, the average amount of land around houses is
> growing."
> Lots of land to handle growth, some say
>
> Some observers aren't that worried. "We're a very big
> country in terms of our land and our expansiveness,"
> says demographer William Frey of the University of
> Michigan and the Brookings Institution in Washington.
> "The people who argue that we're going to run out of
> energy, that we're going to run out of water, that
> we're going to run out of other natural resources,
> overlook the fact that time and again technology has
> been able to overcome those limitations."
>
> Even so, the US may face a stiff challenge in dealing
> with the environmental impact of its growing
> population.
>
> Earlier this year, researchers at Yale and Columbia
> universities constructed an "environmental performance
> index" comparing 133 countries on the basis of> environmental health, air quality, water resources,
> biodiversity and habitat, productive natural
> resources, and sustainable energy. The US ranked 28th.
> (New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, and
> Britain were the top five.) Among 29 Organization for
> Economic Cooperation and Development nations, the US
> ranked 23rd.
>
> Augie
> Live Simply So That
> Others May Simply Live
I think I am only slightly more of a purist than the FSP people, I
just think the FSP should start with a particular town before expanding
to a state. Mostly I am an overpopulation activist and thus oppose
subsidizing parenthood with public schools, childcare, playgrounds or
ballfields. I do believe in subsidized contraception and abortion,
however, instead.
As for choosing a town with some local support, You live in a town now
and so do I. If either of those towns were chosen, then it would have
one local supporter, you or me respectively. One is significantly
better than 0. Mine is Leicester, NC. And once it incorporates and
gains some independence from the county, it might not be a bad choice.
Though the State of NC doesn't give towns much independence.
What is FTP's position on illegal immigration as in Hazleton PA???
Also I will look up the percentage under 18 of Grafton NH and Loving Co
TX and report. This goes to fertility rate and overpopulation. Detroit
MI has 31.1% minors, My county of Buncombe has 22.2% and the gay town
of Provincetown MA has 8.0%. Maywwod CA, a hispanic LA suburb, has
37%. Those are the lowest and highest I have found yet.
-Alan Ditmore
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:17:20 -0000 "Zack Bass" <Ro...@Poldark.org>
writes:
>
> --- In freetow...@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
> >
> > Your right that local opposition is inevitable, what you might
> and
> > might not get is minority local support as well.
> >
>
> No, there is no place in America where there will be local support
> for
> Libertarianism. It is imperative that we bring our own. Fewer than
> one in a thousand will, after being briefed on what libertarianism
> is,
> prefer it to his present perceived Democratic Control of his
> neighbors.
> You're in for a shock. Even most people who identify themselves as
> Libertarians are in favor of the use of Government Force against at
> least one disgusting but Victimless behavior.
>
> Here's a quote from the blog of a MEMBER OF THE BOARD of the Free
> State Project (FSP):
> http://www.freestateobserver.com/?p=71
> "While libertarians support free speech and generally agree that
> victimless crimes should not be legislated against, many FSP
> participants have strong moral qualms about such activities, would
> not
> choose to live in a community where they were allowed to flourish"
>
> You see that? They want to live in a place where Victimless Crimes
> ARE NOT ALLOWED!!! That means only one thing: A place where FORCE
> IS
> USED TO PUNISH SUCH ACTS!
>
> >
> > one would hope that later on we would look from our county
> > or town to taking over the state we are in.
> >
>
> Not a chance! There are fewer than 150,000 libertarians in the
> entire
> U.S. - a figure I doubted when Jason Sorens (founder of the FSP)
> first
> told me, but soon began to know to be true. And there will be very
> few "fellow travelers" who, although not actually libertarians, will
> consistently vote with us or against our opponents.
> But that's no big deal, let the assholes go to hell in their own
> way,
> as long as they leave us alone. Our goal must be merely to create
> ONE
> SHINING PLACE - however tiny - where real libertarians can Vote With
> Their Feet. Such a place has never existed in the history of Planet
> Earth.
>
> >
> > .... it seems to me that Nevada is smaller,
> > has a nicer climate, and is already more libertarian
> > having already legalized prostitution and medical marijuana.
> >
>
> We're not interested in a place that is already "a little bit"
> libertarian. That is no indicator of the likelihood of success in
> creating a place that is truly libertarian. 99.9% opposition from
> Lib
> Lites results in exactly as much failure as 99.9% opposition from
> Nazis.
>
> >
> > Christian Exodus is way ahead of us.
> > Just google these towns and you will see what I mean.
> > The movement of the future is based on migration to
> > politically specific towns.
> > Colorado City AZ, Maywood CA, Ferndale MI, Provincetown MA, Gary
> IN,
> > Hazleton PA, Antelope OR.
> >
>
> I sure hope so... that's what I've been trying to tell people for
> several years now, but almost all of them get sidetracked into going
> someplace where they can get three or four (out of THOUSANDS) bad
> Laws
> changed. They would prefer to make 90% of a State 1% more Free,
> rather than making 1% of a State 90% more Free.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADit...@juno.com
To: issuesonlin...@yahoogroups.com,
populati...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:52:54 -0400
Subject: Fw: immigration and overpopulation/ gender selection
Message-ID: <20060904.215311.-...@juno.com>
I'm a USAian, nonparent from near Boston but living near Asheville,
and an overpopulation activist; probably the only one near Asheville.
I read about India's population programs and hope they can set an
example to the world especially Pakistan and the Muslim world.
However I do think a couple of things could be done to make it more
effective.
One is that It should be remembered that females are the limiting
factor in fertility rates, it is measured in children per woman, not
children per person. Also remember that in gender empowerment is the
opposite of democracy, the minority has the power. Men have power in
the middle east not in spite of being a minority but BECAUSE they are a
minority because they die in wars and other violence more. Anyway, it
would help overpopulation to go ahead and allow gender selective
abortions, which would make women the minority. Then women could pick
and choose among husbands and control their relationships and
fertility. Usually women tire of bearing children before men and would
stop, but even if each woman had the same number of children, less
women would still mean less children.
Gay rights helps also because gays have a very low fertility rate.
Also compensated (money) to accept contraception or sterilization would
help and could approach the mandatory point as people will need the
money to pay the taxes that fund the program.
The ideal WORLD population is about 5 million.
-Alan Ditmore
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ADit...@juno.com
To: tell...@thedahloneganugget.com
Cc: americans_agains...@yahoogroups.com,ohio...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 13:02:06 -0400
Subject: immigration and overpopulation
Message-ID: <20060901.131005.-...@juno.com>
To the editor:
I'm writing because I have seen how the population control
movement
has mixed feelings about immigration. I have had mixed feelings myself
because on the one hand, restricting immigration can be cruel, but on
the
other, immigrants are responsible for most U.S. population growth. I
also
advocate incentives for sterilization and have realized that these two
problems can be linked into a solution.
We can use immigration and U.S. citizenship as an incentive for
sterilization. If the U.S. were to allow immigration of people who can
prove that they are sterile, exclusively, immigration would not be a
lasting U.S. population problem. Any sane person facing dire
consequences
in their home country would be willing to be sterilized. So refusal to
be
sterilized would serve as evidence that asylum applicants are not
genuine
refugees.
Some might call deportation or sterilization a cruel choice. But
my
vasectomy was easier than having my wisdom teeth out. The cruelest
thing
for me about sterilization was its $500 price tag. So I don't believe
the
choice is cruel at all, provided a good quality operation is offered
free. Thus, the
U.S. could use sterilization to solve its immigration related
population
problem humanely and still remain a haven for refugees in dire need.
I should add that there are many people in the third world who are
already sterile and can prove it. this may be a result of accidents,
or voluntary or involuntary, present or past policies in their
home countries. Whatever the reason, the burden that a sterile person
will put on U.S. resources is both limited and temporary, so the
reasons to
exclude them are similarly limited.
If politically correct people are still concerned about
humanitarian
aspects, then we could also consider inviting sterile immigrants in
addition to current quotas, or any numerical compromise between the two
policies. The main precedent that needs to be set is that sterility is
a
major asset and should become part of immigration policy.
-Alan Ditmore, Leicester, NC.
I came accross a shocking statistic. In America, and by inference in
Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents are so environmentally callous that
they would turn down even subsidized contraception and squeeze out
babies anyway; which calls into question the ability of local
contraception funding to save the planet from overpopulation.
But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is
to stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the
responsibility to fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields
lies exclusively with parents. So how is it fair that I, as a
taxpaying nonparent, should be subsidizing such reproductive
activities? There is no ethical construct by which that is fair.
So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I might
as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while contraception
and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised privately.
And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true party of the
environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the Republicans.
Using literacy as a prerequisite to contraception seems to me to be a
bit roundabout and more expensive than necessary. After all, what can
be communicated in writing that cannot be communicated by mass media to
the illiterate? I also believe many things can be done to reduce
population short of pure force. I have already heard, though perhaps
falsely, that many civil service jobs require sterility. And
leadership roles especially should as role models.
Also, I think a sterile immigration policy, cash payments, and
legalizing gender selective abortions would help and are only partially
coercive. My old data has Pakistan's fetility rate at 6.2 and India's
at 3.9. That's a big difference, and much of it is due to better
policy on India's part. As for money, India can get it from the Hajj
subsidy. Peace with China can liberate more money for contraception
and associated education, but India needs a military to defend abortion
rights in all of Kashmir from Pakistan.
The "Cairo Consensus" talks a lot about indirect routes to
contraception through education and antipoverty and I think at Cairo
they put the cart before the horse. Contraception is the means to
education and ending poverty, not visa versa. I am not on board with
the "Cairo Consensus".
Also, education is a responsibility of parenthood. If you subsidize
parenthood with free education then you encourage more of it. Those
who refuse contraception should pay for education. Education is too
slow and expensive to preceed contraception, faster methods are needed.
As for Musharraf, the fanatics are already against him, and powerful
forces can back him up. So he might as well go for it, though a
President Hillary Clinton might back him up more on this issue, I'm not
really sure.
-Alan Ditmore
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 00:25:09 -0700 (PDT) satbir singh
<ssbed...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Neither India nor Pakistan is controlling their
> population. The reason may be due to illitracy. So,
> Mr. Ditmore, you cannot go to either Pakistan or
> India. I am also against overpopulation like you. I
> have written time and again about it but the real
> thing is that most of the people who do not practise
> family plannning i.e. a two child norm, are illiterate
> and are misled by religious preachers. So, the best
> course is to involve the religious preachers in
> telling the poor people to do family planning. In
> Indonesia, this has been done successfully but in
> India and Pakistan, the rulers require guts to do it
> because there is great opposition from religious men.
> Even Musharraf knows that he would not survive if he
> talked of compulsory family planning because then all
> the religious fanatics would turn against him. In
> India,the ruling UPA knows that if it resorts to
> family planning publicity or to effecting compulsory
> family planning, it would lose elections and would be
> out of power. So, it does not matter whether you have
> dictatorship or not, first of all, it is necessary to
> remove illitracy from India and Pakistan because
> literate people do not necessarily follow religious
> preacher's advice. For that they require big budget
> for educatin and less expenditure on military. so, it
> is of utmost importance that they resolve all their
> outstanding issues through peaceful manner so that
> they could spend a substantial amount on education
> instead of on military.
>
> Satbir Singh Bedi
>
> --- adit...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > In general, people should choose their country on a
> > philosophical/political basis and move to the
> > country closest to their
> > political philosophy. Most people should not
> > continue to live in the
> > country in which they were born unless they just
> > happen to agree with it
> > about nearly everything. However, language may be a
> > problem and there
> > might be economic and legal barriers too. As an
> > overpopulation activist,
> > I would move to the country with the lowest
> > fertility rate, which I
> > believe is Taiwaan, followed by Italy, but I do not
> > speak either
> > language, could not afford to ship my belongings,
> > probably could not get
> > a job there, and both countries are more crowded
> > than the US, and I don't
> > like crowds.
> > But anyway, my answer is yes, most muslims should
> > choose a muslim
> > country to live in. Actually, all muslims should
> > convert to agnosticism,
> > but short of that they should prepare to move in an
> > organized and
> > peaceful way in which they are well compensated for
> > their homes. I
> > certainly don't want them in my country, why should
> > you?
> > One big difference between Christianity and Islam
> > is that Jesus didn't
> > write anything (It is not at all clear that he could
> > write), Therefore
> > it is not at all clear what his position on anything
> > was, the historical
> > accuracy of the gospels being highly suspect. So a
> > person can be
> > Christian and believe virtually anything. But
> > Mohammad wrote a great deal
> > and was very specific, including that gay people
> > should be killed. Thus
> > a real muslim is for killing gay people and might do
> > so, especially
> > within their families. And I don't want such people
> > in my country, or
> > even on my planet and especially not on major oil
> > fields. Believe me it
> > is worth sacrificing some territory, such as
> > Kashmir, to be rid of them.
> > Kashmir doesn't have oil but I guess it does have
> > water, which may be
> > unsolvable if India without Kashmir doesn't have
> > enough (it eventually
> > would if people quit populating). Islam is not a
> > religion of peace,
> > violence (against gays) is prescribed right in the
> > Koran, and in other
> > writings of Mohommad.
> > I suppose a person could call themselves muslim and
> > believe that the
> > Koran or Sharia law was somehow mistranslated or
> > miscopied from the
> > original, But if they really believe in those laws
> > then get them away
> > from the oil.
> > -Alan Ditmore
I actually like it when kids are around in limited numbers, though I
didn't like my job as a school bus driver. It's parents that annoy me
with their paternalistic authoritarianism, safety freak worrying,
constant role modeling restrictions, censorship, and environmental
irresponsibility. I also don't like to pay the associated bills
including public schools. I was searching the US census site and the
town I found with the fewest minors is the gay community of Provicetown
MA, with 8%. The town I found with the most is the hispanic LA suburb
of Maywood CA with 37%. Detroit MI has 31.1%, and my Buncombe County
NC has 22.2%, which is about average for US.
-Alan Ditmore
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Leslie Litzenberg
<lslitz...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I have to agree with you, Tom, that I don't want to discourage others
> from having children. What I want to discourage is people forcing
> them on me or allowing their children to be disruptive in public or
> in my presence. Other people's personal choices are none of my
> business until they affect me. So far as funding and taxes and
> costs related to public schools and all that stuff is concerned, I
> view that pretty much the same as a lot of other government programs
> that don't benefit me directly. I just don't worry about it. Truth
> of the matter is, I am in favor of as good a school system as can be
> provided.
>
> Leslie
>
>
> Tom P <to...@qis.net> wrote:
> I agree that federal and local funding are complex issues.
> My comment
> about paying my Medicare was facetious.
>
> My point was only that I do not discourage having children, in
> contrast
> to some on this list. I just don't see why people felt the need to
> put
> pressure on ME to have the little dears, hence my gratitude for the
> support of the folks here.
>
> Tom P.
Alan
here is interested in becoming a local childfree majority where we can
save on property taxes as we save the world??!!
-Alan
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> I can't believe nobody responded to my post!! Your telling me nobody
> here is interested in becoming a local childfree majority where we can
> save on property taxes as we save the world??!!
> -Alan
Do you suppose it's possible that nobody wants to be told how
many children to have? Even if it's zero?
Socks
Alan
No, that is not possible because for one thing this is a childfree
group with over 300 members and for another thing such a town would do
no such thing, just not subsidize reproduction and subsidize
contraception and abortion instead.
-Alan
Phil Carmody
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I can't believe nobody responded to my post!! Your telling me nobody
> > > here is interested in becoming a local childfree majority where we can
> > > save on property taxes as we save the world??!!
> > > -Alan
> >
> > Do you suppose it's possible that nobody wants to be told how
> > many children to have? Even if it's zero?
> > Socks
>
> No, that is not possible because for one thing this is a childfree
> group with over 300 members
Newsgroups do not have members.
And your statement isn't just bogus, it's a complete non-sequitur -
there's no way that the readership of this newsgroup can affect
whether it's possible that nobody wants to be told how many children
to have, or not.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
The Rocket Scientist
> >
> I can't believe nobody responded to my post!! Your telling me nobody
> here is interested in becoming a local childfree majority where we can
> save on property taxes as we save the world??!!
> -Alan
You seem to have us confused with alt.support.jim.jones.cult.
Bill Sullivan
"You Guthrie? You bringin' in a couple of keys?"
- Customs Agent to Arlo Guthrie before asking for an autograph
Scott Eiler
> Alan wrote:
>
>>I am hoping that if overpopulation activists
>>concentrate forces like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project,
>>http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace
>>public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with
>>contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of
>>money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are mostly
>>federal and can be imported.
>
> I can't believe nobody responded to my post!! Your telling me nobody
> here is interested in becoming a local childfree majority where we can
> save on property taxes as we save the world??!!
> -Alan
It could be, people saw your ambition of becoming strong like the
Libertarian Party, and said, why bother.
--
(signed) Scott Eiler 8{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ ----
Perhaps I shall learn to walk in the dust of their wheels,
But to be false to myself - how shall I expose myself?
"Let us drink and enjoy the wine you have brought,
"For my path is already laid out and cannot be altered."
- Tao Qian (Tao Yuan-Ming), AD 365-427.
Alan
oppression and save the planet!! Don't let it get buried in fluff!
Alan
We cannot hope to do this nationwide because we are a minority, but by
moving we can build LOCAL majorities in order to do many of these
things, But we have to PICK A TOWN.
SEE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree/browse_thread/thread/612c36086ea1b295
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://christianexodus.org
If you don't I'll be going with the Libertarian free county project in
West Texas.
Anyone want to buy 10 acres near Asheville NC? Tentatively for
$80,000? They tax you for childcare and schools here though. That's
why I'm leaving and selling.
-Alan
elizabeth wrote:
> How about we simply stop ALL BENEFITS TO ALL BREEDERS, which would
> eliminate almost all of the problem? Make social support available
> ONLY to those who haven't bred, since they aren't adding to the
> problem.
> Allow in only those immigrants willing to be sterilized first to fill
> jobs that are open.
> When taxpayers realize that they will have more of their own earned
> income to spend only on their own kids they will be happy--taxes will
> be reduced since the legions of poverty pimps will be unemployed when
> their jobs are made obsolete
>
> Jacky, dear, Womben are *not* feminists. Not in the least. The
> breedercunts are what destroyed feminism.
>