Have More Kids. It's Good For the Planet

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

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.

[hari.../kumar]

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]

About 2/3 of conflict comes from big egos at the top,
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]

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

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded post:

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

http://bit.ly/1EM9nsg

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded post:

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

http://ow.ly/UIz9w

[hari//.]

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

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

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

End of forwarded post.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

[dav...@agent.com]

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

[Mr. B1ack]

We're in the middle of a population spike - mostly the
result of better medical services and food supplies in
current or previous 2nd/3rd-world countries. The big
problem is that the food supply isn't sustainable ...
chem-ag can produce a short-term bounty but soon
the soil is depleted and water supplies give out or
become dangerously contaminated.

Fertilizers and pesticides/fungicides and fuel for ag
machinery are all becoming more expensive too ...
and as the oil supply diminishes the prices will shoot
up beyond what many nations can afford. GMOs can
take some of the sting out ... but they have limits and
also meet a lot of resistance from luddite alarmists.

In short, we're breeding a lot more people today than
we can afford to feed twenty or thirty years from now.
Most of these upcoming countries still won't have
the economic ability to provide food or even clean
drinking water in 30 years when prices go up.
However they MAY just happen to have an inventory
of nuclear weapons.

Then comes the great crisis.

IF everybody cuts way back on military spending, waste
on moralistic idiocies like the 'drug war' and some of the
rampant graft then we MIGHT have the money to cope
with the children being born TODAY. Alas there are a
lot more children that are gonna be born tomorrow ...

And a lot of them are gonna starve.

And many are gonna die fighting over food and water.

'Resources' are THE issue for the latter 21st century.
Money won't do you no good if it can't buy you a meal.

Coordinated global planning and action are needed NOW.
Aggressive population-control measures are needed NOW.
Mechanisms through which economies can work even
with shrinking populations and resources are needed NOW.

It's not gonna happen.

[dav...@agent.com]

Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>
>>[...]

Filipinos seen backing Duterte despite rising drug killings
By Teresa Cerojano, AP, August 27, 2016

MANILA, Philippines — On the day he was sworn into office,
President Rodrigo Duterte went to a Manila slum and exhorted
residents who knew any drug addicts to “go ahead and kill them
yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.”

Two months later, nearly 2,000 suspected drug pushers and users
lay dead as morgues continue to fill up. Faced with criticism
of his actions by rights activists, international bodies and
outspoken Filipinos, including the top judge, Duterte has stuck
to his guns and threatened to declare martial law if the Supreme
Court meddles in his work.

According to a survey early last month, he has the support of
nearly 91 percent of Filipinos. The independent poll was done
during his first week in office, and no new surveys have come
out since then.

National police chief Ronald dela Rosa told a Senate hearing this
week that police have recorded more than 1,900 dead, including
756 suspected drug dealers and users who were gunned down after
they resisted arrest. More than 1,000 other deaths are under
investigation, & some of them may not be drug-related, he said.

Jayeel Cornelio, a doctor of sociology & director of Ateneo de
Manila University’s Development Studies Program, said he suspects
only a few of Duterte’s supporters are disillusioned by the
killings and his rhetoric because voters trust his campaign
promise to crush drug criminals. They also find resonance in his
cursing and no-holds-barred comments.

Duterte’s death threats against criminals, his promise to battle
corruption, his anti-establishment rhetoric & gutter humor have
enamored Filipinos living on the margins of society. He over-
whelmingly won the election, mirroring public exasperation over
the social ills he condemns.

Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia has said the killings
“may be a necessary evil in the pursuit of a greater good,” a
sentiment echoed by a deluge of comments by Duterte supporters
in social media deriding his critics and defending the brutal
war on drugs.

“The killings are OK so there will be less criminals, drug
pushers and drug addicts in our society,” said Rex Alisoso, a
25-year-old cleaner in Manila. He said people have gotten used
to the way Duterte talks and voted for him knowing his ways.

Kim Labasan, a Manila shopkeeper, said she does not like
Duterte’s constant swearing, his “stepping on too many toes,” &
his decision to allow late dictator Ferdinand Marcos to be
buried in the Heroes’ Cemetery. But she supports the anti-drug
war despite the rising death toll because, she said, she has
personally seen the effects of drugs. Addicts in her hometown
north of Manila have ended up with “poisoned brains” and even
robbed her family’s home.

“A battle of moralities is being waged right now by this
administration — before, if you were a human rights advocate
you are a hero of the country, now you are seen as someone who
can destroy the country,” Cornelio said.

He said that Duterte fosters “penal populism” — identifying a
particular enemy, a criminal, and then hunting him down to
death. Because the results are visible, tangible and people
feel it, “it becomes more important than many other things to
the ordinary person.”

Duterte has said drugs were destroying the country. In his
State of the Nation Address last month, he said “human rights
cannot be used as a shield or an excuse to destroy the country.”

He also lashed out at U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg, calling
him gay in derogatory terms, after he criticized Duterte’s
rape comments during the presidential campaign. He threatened
to pull the Philippines out of the United Nations because of
U.N. comments condemning extrajudicial killings, saying he did
not “give a shit” about the consequences. The following day,
Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay said the Philippines was not
leaving the U.N. and Duterte made the comment only because he
was tired, angry and frustrated.

Phelim Kine, Human Rights Watch’s deputy Asia director, said
Duterte “is streamrolling the rule of law and its advocates
both at home and abroad.” The killings suggest his aggressive
rhetoric advocating extrajudicial solutions to criminality has
found a receptive audience, Kine said.

“His supporters are cheering him on, but wait till one of them
is killed,” said Ferdie Monasterio, a driver of a ride-sharing
company who doesn’t support Duterte. “He is no different from
Marcos and it looks like he wants to establish a dictatorship.”

Cornelio said the death toll is not the clincher in turning
public sentiment against Duterte, because a lot of people look
at them as justified killings. He said that Duterte’s first year
in office will be crucial since he promised quick action.

“I think the threshold has to do with the delivery of the
promises,” he said. “Are changes going to happen sooner or
later? If they don’t then, people will start getting
disillusioned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/filipinos-seen-backing-duterte-despite-rising-drug-killings/2016/08/27/a2e14bdc-6c22-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html

[Mr. B1ack]

Puritanical/moralistic crusading to no good end.

And let's see how they feel after some of THEIR
husbands/wives/kids/grandkids get assassinated
by Durerte's storm troopers .............

[dav...@agent.com]

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

Forwarded post:

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

http://preview.tinyurl.com/JaiMaharaj

[Mr. B1ack]

Lifespans can go up .... it's fecundity that has to
go way down. We can no longer act as if having
kids is a great thing ... and should loudly condemn
those who have lots of kids. All sorts of contraceptive
measures should be pushed and punitive taxes should
be levied on anyone who has more than two kids.

In the very bad old days, whole populations WERE at
risk of extinction due to plagues, wars and crop failures.
It was important to keep the population up so, maybe,
at least SOME would survive. Well, that's not the case
anymore - it's one big world and it's overflowing with
babies. Every one of them will need a huge amount
of food and other limited and unrenewable resources
through their lifetimes. Just won't work for 10+ billion ...
high-tech just ain't gonna get high enough fast enough
to cope.

The "unlimited bounty of the sea" proved to be anything
but "unlimited" ... we've fished-out most of the good stuff
in just the last 100 years (most within the past 30 years
due to 'factory ships'). Aquaculture works, but it has its
costs and limits. Expect the price of any edible fish to
double in 10 years, and double again in another five. Only
the top half of the economic pyramid will be able to afford
fish EVER.

Arable farmland is also in crisis. The USAs midwest is
drying out due partially to climate shifts but mostly just
because the aquifers have been pumped out for large-
scale farming. Salt and dangerous minerals now
increasingly contaminate irrigation water. The soil itself
has long been drained of any nutritional value ... it's
only chemical fertilizers that keep 'em going from year
to year and the prices on those keep rising.

This is the story for much of the worlds traditional farming
areas. The Chinese are diverting lots of water from their
biggest rivers towards irrigation and new farmlands but
even there the soil isn't all that good and increasing amounts
of chemicals will be needed. You can see the new ag
projects using Google maps.

One "hope" is that warming will make more of northern
Canada and Siberia into decent agricultural areas. It
will expand the growing season and geographical range,
but a lot of that far-northern soil isn't very good.

'Artificial' farming - hydroponics and such - do work, but
the costs are kind of high already and will get worse.

A serious problem exists in the decreasing genetic
diversity of staple food crops. Everybody wants the
highest-yeilding grains and such ... but that means
more people are planting exactly the same kind of
crops - and a single fungus or bacteria could trash
everything. In the US south there's "citrus greening"
that ruins fruit and in southern Italy it's a disease
that's killing all the olive trees. Nobody's figured out
how to stop either disease. Get something nasty
into the wheat or corn crop and it'll be a DISASTER.

There's a parallel problem with farm ANIMALS ...
decreasing genetic diversity. Indeed a lot of cows
now are essentially clones - and of those who aren't
large numbers were sired by a few prize bulls.
Again it's short-term sensibility (biggest, best) but
longer-term idiocy.

And then there's all the non-food stuff - from 'energy'
to copper wire to concrete and steel and even wood
for houses. Many of the minerals are non-renewable
and we've already used up all the prime deposits.
Steel and concrete require a HUGE amount of energy
to produce ... and that's usually from coal or gas.
Recycling ... well ... it kind-of works but remember that
the population is growing too. Soon we'll be behind
the curve.

10+ billion living the mideval serfs short miserable
life in mud huts ? It's a possible scenerio. It'll cause
wars too.

Malthus wasn't wrong ... his timing was just a little off.
Higher-tech extended our grace period before overpopulation
took its horrible toll. Alas I don't see the rate and degree of
improvement in food supplies and other resource access
that there was in the latter 19th and 20th centuries. Either
we tax excess babies out of existence or we bury millions
or billions of their emaciated corpses a little further along.

Oh, and we need economic systems that can do OK
when there's a declining/aging population. The current
ones all rely on "growth" - more kids, more customers,
more workers - and that's not gonna be a viable scenerio
for much longer. Look to Japan and S.Korea ... they've
experienced noteworthy population decine/aging ahead
of everyone else so they are the most likely to come up
with decent ways to tweak 'growth'-oriented economies.

[dav...@agent.com]

That doesn't address the selfishness gone wild at the top!
Stopping the prevention of some communicable diseases
does!