info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Have More Kids. It's Good For the Planet
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Aug 26, 2016, 12:36:11 PM8/26/16
to
Have More Kids. It's Good For the Planet
By David Harsanyi
Townhall, townhall.com
Friday, August 26, 2016
The problem with environmentalists isn't merely that they
have destructive ideas about the economy, but that so
many of them embrace repulsive ideas about human beings.
Take a recent NPR piece that asks, "Should We Be Having
Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?" If you want to learn
about how environmentalism has already affected people in
society, read about the couple pondering "the ethics of
procreation" and its impact on the climate before
starting a family, or the group of women in a prosperous
New Hampshire town swapping stories about how the "the
climate crisis is a reproductive crisis."
There are, no doubt, many good reasons a person might
have for not wanting children. But it's certainly tragic
that some gullible Americans who have the means and
emotional bandwidth -- and perhaps a genuine desire -- to
be parents avoid having kids because of a quasi-religious
belief in apocalyptic climate change and overpopulation.
Then again, maybe this is just Darwinism working its
magic.
In the article, NPR introduces us to a philosopher,
Travis Rieder, who couches these discredited ideas in a
purportedly moral context. Bringing down global fertility
rates, he explains, "could be the thing that saves us."
Save us from what, you ask? The planet, he tells a group
to students at James Madison University, will soon be
"largely uninhabitable for humans," and it's "gonna be
post-apocalyptic movie time." According to NPR, these
intellectual nuggets of wisdom left students speechless.
Oh, no! Did someone forget to tell millennials that the
megatons of greenhouse gases that cellphone charging
emits into the atmosphere is going to create a dystopia?
That's an unforgivable oversight by our culture and
public schools -- which almost never broach the topic of
climate change.
What can we do? Well, Rieder says, "Here's a provocative
thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having
them."
The idea that we should have fewer children to save the
planet hasn't been provocative in about 50 years. It
would take these students five minutes of Googling to
understand that doomsayers have been ignoring human
nature and ingenuity since the 18th century, at least.
They might read about Paul Ehrlich and our "science czar"
John Holdren, who co-authored a 1977 book suggesting mass
sterilizations and forced abortions to save the world.
(We're decades past the expiration date.); or about
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who not long
said that she always assumed Roe v. Wade was "about
population growth and particularly growth in populations
that we don't want to have too many of." Did she mean
poor people? Did she mean people who recklessly use air
conditioners? It's still a mystery.
Overpopulation is regularly cited by journalists -- who
quite often live in the densest, yet somehow also the
wealthiest, places on Earth -- as one of the world's
pressing problems, thrown in with war and famine and so
on.
But it's got a bit of a new twist these days. As Rieder
tells it, Americans and other rich nations are
responsible for more carbon emissions per capita than
anyone. And since the world's poorest nations are most
likely to suffer "severe climate impacts," it all "seems
unfair."
However, we have fewer hungry people than ever in the
world; fewer people die in conflicts over resources; and
deaths due to extreme weather have been dramatically
declining for a century. Over the past 40 years, our
water and air is cleaner, despite population growth.
Everything is headed in the wrong direction for
environmental scaremongers. If we're already experiencing
the negative force of climate change -- which I'm told we
are every time we have ugly weather somewhere in the
country -- shouldn't things be getting worse? Well, the
real trouble is always right over the horizon.
Take India. Not only does it have to deal with Americans
despoiling the Earth but its population has exploded from
450 million in 1960 to 1.25 billion today. Yet, by every
tangible measurement of human progress, the Indian people
live better now than they did before the colonialists
started using refrigerators. And it's not just India.
Even the United Nations estimates that the world
population of 9 billion expected by 2050 could be
supported with the technology we already possess. What
Malthusians never take into consideration are the
efficiencies and technology we don't have yet, which
continually amaze us and undermine their dark vision of
humankind's future.
The real problem we face is sustaining population. The
replacement fertility rate is 2.1, and in certain places
where they fail to meet this threshold -- parts of Europe
and Japan, for example -- they've suffered economic and
cultural stagnation. Here in the United States we have,
for a variety of reasons, long struggled with this
problem, as the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Last has
argued. The success of developing nations also portends a
similar slow-down.
Here's a provocative thought: Maybe it's the best time in
history to have children.
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2016/08/26/have-more-kids-its-good-for-the-planet-n2210226?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
More at:
Townhall
http://townhall.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
By David Harsanyi
Townhall, townhall.com
Friday, August 26, 2016
The problem with environmentalists isn't merely that they
have destructive ideas about the economy, but that so
many of them embrace repulsive ideas about human beings.
Take a recent NPR piece that asks, "Should We Be Having
Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?" If you want to learn
about how environmentalism has already affected people in
society, read about the couple pondering "the ethics of
procreation" and its impact on the climate before
starting a family, or the group of women in a prosperous
New Hampshire town swapping stories about how the "the
climate crisis is a reproductive crisis."
There are, no doubt, many good reasons a person might
have for not wanting children. But it's certainly tragic
that some gullible Americans who have the means and
emotional bandwidth -- and perhaps a genuine desire -- to
be parents avoid having kids because of a quasi-religious
belief in apocalyptic climate change and overpopulation.
Then again, maybe this is just Darwinism working its
magic.
In the article, NPR introduces us to a philosopher,
Travis Rieder, who couches these discredited ideas in a
purportedly moral context. Bringing down global fertility
rates, he explains, "could be the thing that saves us."
Save us from what, you ask? The planet, he tells a group
to students at James Madison University, will soon be
"largely uninhabitable for humans," and it's "gonna be
post-apocalyptic movie time." According to NPR, these
intellectual nuggets of wisdom left students speechless.
Oh, no! Did someone forget to tell millennials that the
megatons of greenhouse gases that cellphone charging
emits into the atmosphere is going to create a dystopia?
That's an unforgivable oversight by our culture and
public schools -- which almost never broach the topic of
climate change.
What can we do? Well, Rieder says, "Here's a provocative
thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having
them."
The idea that we should have fewer children to save the
planet hasn't been provocative in about 50 years. It
would take these students five minutes of Googling to
understand that doomsayers have been ignoring human
nature and ingenuity since the 18th century, at least.
They might read about Paul Ehrlich and our "science czar"
John Holdren, who co-authored a 1977 book suggesting mass
sterilizations and forced abortions to save the world.
(We're decades past the expiration date.); or about
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who not long
said that she always assumed Roe v. Wade was "about
population growth and particularly growth in populations
that we don't want to have too many of." Did she mean
poor people? Did she mean people who recklessly use air
conditioners? It's still a mystery.
Overpopulation is regularly cited by journalists -- who
quite often live in the densest, yet somehow also the
wealthiest, places on Earth -- as one of the world's
pressing problems, thrown in with war and famine and so
on.
But it's got a bit of a new twist these days. As Rieder
tells it, Americans and other rich nations are
responsible for more carbon emissions per capita than
anyone. And since the world's poorest nations are most
likely to suffer "severe climate impacts," it all "seems
unfair."
However, we have fewer hungry people than ever in the
world; fewer people die in conflicts over resources; and
deaths due to extreme weather have been dramatically
declining for a century. Over the past 40 years, our
water and air is cleaner, despite population growth.
Everything is headed in the wrong direction for
environmental scaremongers. If we're already experiencing
the negative force of climate change -- which I'm told we
are every time we have ugly weather somewhere in the
country -- shouldn't things be getting worse? Well, the
real trouble is always right over the horizon.
Take India. Not only does it have to deal with Americans
despoiling the Earth but its population has exploded from
450 million in 1960 to 1.25 billion today. Yet, by every
tangible measurement of human progress, the Indian people
live better now than they did before the colonialists
started using refrigerators. And it's not just India.
Even the United Nations estimates that the world
population of 9 billion expected by 2050 could be
supported with the technology we already possess. What
Malthusians never take into consideration are the
efficiencies and technology we don't have yet, which
continually amaze us and undermine their dark vision of
humankind's future.
The real problem we face is sustaining population. The
replacement fertility rate is 2.1, and in certain places
where they fail to meet this threshold -- parts of Europe
and Japan, for example -- they've suffered economic and
cultural stagnation. Here in the United States we have,
for a variety of reasons, long struggled with this
problem, as the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Last has
argued. The success of developing nations also portends a
similar slow-down.
Here's a provocative thought: Maybe it's the best time in
history to have children.
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2016/08/26/have-more-kids-its-good-for-the-planet-n2210226?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
More at:
Townhall
http://townhall.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://bit.do/jaimaharaj
o o o
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used
for the educational purposes of research and open
discussion. The contents of this post may not have been
authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views
expressed by others are not necessarily those of the
poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted
material the use of which may or may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This
material is being made available in efforts to advance
the understanding of environmental, political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social, and
cultural, etc., issues. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research, comment,
discussion and educational purposes by subscribing to
USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed by forgery by one
or more net terrorists, this post may be reposted several
times.
hari.../kumar
Aug 26, 2016, 12:49:33 PM8/26/16
to
India, 'nuff said, the experiment has been done and the results are in.
All of the many many poverty and social and economic and pollution and
other current ills bear drectly on the problem in india.
The experiment has been done, the results are in.
dav...@agent.com
Aug 26, 2016, 3:59:01 PM8/26/16
to
butting heads; another 10% is from drug prohibition;
another 10% is from overpopulation; another 10% is from
not having a stable currency, pegged to gold.
Shortening life spans, out of respect for other creatures
and future generations, by stopping the prevention of
some communicable diseases, will address the over-
population and the selfishness gone wild at the top.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Aug 26, 2016, 4:26:31 PM8/26/16
to
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Forwarded post:
The most effective way to increase birth rates is to
decrease education levels. Liberals have been destroying
America's education system for decades, especially in the
most Dump-O-Crapic cities. If Dump-O-Craps were really
concerned with over-population as they claim, they would
let responsible adults rebuild the schools their racist
policies have devastated. The Catch-22 for Dump-O-Craps
is that an educated and informed voter is an anti
Marxist-turd voter.
Posted by Phileas Fogg
End of forwarded post.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
The most effective way to increase birth rates is to
decrease education levels. Liberals have been destroying
America's education system for decades, especially in the
most Dump-O-Crapic cities. If Dump-O-Craps were really
concerned with over-population as they claim, they would
let responsible adults rebuild the schools their racist
policies have devastated. The Catch-22 for Dump-O-Craps
is that an educated and informed voter is an anti
Marxist-turd voter.
Posted by Phileas Fogg
End of forwarded post.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Aug 26, 2016, 4:29:53 PM8/26/16
to
All of 'Western Civilization' is on the slippery slope of
failing to meet the 2.1 children per couple 'replacement'
criteria. The US is at 2.1 currently and Western Europe
is well below it. The price for falling below the
'replacement' criteria of 2.1 is ... the 'Death of a
Nation'! Only the inundation/invasion of Muslims into
Western Europe will prop up their problem ... for now.
But in exchange they will become Sharia compliant by
2050. WOW! Now that's a trade off!
Common sense is all it takes to destroy the meme of the
'No Growth' crowd. Take a drive anywhere outside of a
large metropolitan build up and you find open spaces all
over this nation just itching for some human company! The
most populated state in the union, California, is only 3%
developed for example. No folks, we have ample space and
resources for more than 2.1 replacement growth for the
next 1000 years. But let us have that growth from like
minded folks currently living for the most part within
our borders. The 'European Solution' of importing Muslims
of prime 'Violent Jihad Age' as currently constructed is
a very bad idea. They will 'out-birth' the natives
(Hijra) for 3 generations, until they have numerical
critical mass. Then they will subjugate, enslave or slit
the throats of their hosts. Obviously, there are better
ways to stay above replacement criteria.
On that last point, providing Educational Savings
Accounts would take much of the stress off of parents who
would like to have more children, but are so greatly
concerned with the responsibility of educating them. Give
those parents the necessary financial resources now being
poured down the Public Education sinkhole and our
national birthrate would easily rise above the
replacement rate of 2.1 per couple! Unfortunately, the
same folks who want to see world population fall
(Progressives, Leftists and Democrat politicians), will
stop such common sense utilization of public resources to
protect their buddies in the teachers unions!
It is borderline evil what the left has been doing to
this country for the last 100 years. But, what they had
not done until recently is gain complete control. Now
with BHO and HRC their greening of America is near
completion. Sad to say, ...unless we do a 180 this
election?!
Posted by Mike Briggs
End of forwarded post.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Aug 26, 2016, 4:34:09 PM8/26/16
to
The problem is that the people who can afford to raise
kids are having less, and the people who can't afford
kids are having more. Ugh!!
Posted by Hound Dog
End of forwarded post.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
hari//.
Aug 26, 2016, 5:06:07 PM8/26/16
to
Jay stevens posting as "dr. jai etc." can repost as
many times as he wishes. He can nlot make the reality go away.
India is stretched to the limit by overpopulation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2517637/India-stretched-limit-overpopulation.html
many times as he wishes. He can nlot make the reality go away.
India is stretched to the limit by overpopulation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2517637/India-stretched-limit-overpopulation.html
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Aug 26, 2016, 5:15:49 PM8/26/16
to
Fifty years ago people raised their kids with a lot less
money. it now takes a larger percentage to raise a
family. the problem doesn't come from the people it comes
from government spending and raising taxes to pay for it.
I made two dollars an hour and my income tax would stop
in February When I retired I was making $41.00 hr and
they never stopped. I had only two girls so I didn't have
a large family. It was only with my wife's ability to
wisely put our money away that I had retirement funds.
Inflation's as much a tax as the ones in numbers on your
check. That is the direct fault of government trying to
pay back what it borrows with money that is worth less.
If we are to survive as a nation we need to run it as a
business. We need people to grow the economy but not ones
that are dependent on government.
Posted by Grampa
End of forwarded post.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
dav...@agent.com
Aug 26, 2016, 6:40:12 PM8/26/16
to
alt.fan.j...@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>Forwarded post:
>
>Fifty years ago people raised their kids with a lot less
>money. it now takes a larger percentage to raise a
>family. the problem doesn't come from the people it comes
>from government spending and raising taxes to pay for it.
>I made two dollars an hour and my income tax would stop
>in February When I retired I was making $41.00 hr and
>they never stopped. I had only two girls so I didn't have
>a large family. It was only with my wife's ability to
>wisely put our money away that I had retirement funds.
>Inflation's as much a tax as the ones in numbers on your
>check. That is the direct fault of government trying to
>pay back what it borrows with money that is worth less.
>If we are to survive as a nation we need to run it as a
>business. We need people to grow the economy but not ones
>that are dependent on government.
>
>Posted by Grampa
>Forwarded post:
>
>Fifty years ago people raised their kids with a lot less
>money. it now takes a larger percentage to raise a
>family. the problem doesn't come from the people it comes
>from government spending and raising taxes to pay for it.
>I made two dollars an hour and my income tax would stop
>in February When I retired I was making $41.00 hr and
>they never stopped. I had only two girls so I didn't have
>a large family. It was only with my wife's ability to
>wisely put our money away that I had retirement funds.
>Inflation's as much a tax as the ones in numbers on your
>check. That is the direct fault of government trying to
>pay back what it borrows with money that is worth less.
>If we are to survive as a nation we need to run it as a
>business. We need people to grow the economy but not ones
>that are dependent on government.
>
>Posted by Grampa
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Aug 29, 2016, 2:08:33 AM8/29/16
to
I feel bad for people that fall for the lies of feminism
and global warming/climate change or whatever they're
calling it this month. They are really missing out on the
joys of having children. I can't imagine growing old and
then realizing, Oh my God, I missed out on all of that
because of a bunch of lies.
Posted by Trillian
End of forwarded post.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
0 new messages