World's first attempt to keep out illegal aliens.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> The liberal left wants environmental protection, food and shelter for the
> world's masses, and immigration reform. There is conflict in these goals
> that is difficult to resolve.
Hi, Jeff:
Perhaps it will help to reframe these goals.
In my opinion, Liberal left organizations want environmental
protection, food and shelter for the world's masses, but not
immigration reform. In other words, liberal leftists support immigrant
rights at the expense of population stabilization, and generally
support open borders in order to shelter the world's masses.
Environmentalists want to protect today's environment and fight
current battles for preservation of open spaces, forests, deserts,
etc. They generally lean toward sheltering the world's masses and shy
away from immigration reform because of their liberal upbringing.
Conservationists want to preserve our natural supporting ecosystems
for future generations and fully understand that we can not shelter
the world's masses and that immigration numbers have to be reduced in
order to stabilize our population.
Deep ecologists want to preserve natural supporting ecosystems not
only for ther benefit to humanity but also for their own intrinsic
worth. They understand that humanity is inseparable from nature,
which has value external to the scope of human affairs.
So when considering the nature and behavior of a particular
organization, one might ask which category they belong to.
Because of it's Population and Habitat campaign, I believe that
Audobon Society is generally a conservationist organization, with the
exception that they still do not address the root cause of U.S.
population doubling: mass immigration.
The Sierra Club, in my opinion, is an environmental organization with
distinct liberal left leanings. These leanings are derived the
liberal left membership base which management caters to in order to
grow the Club's membership base. Thus, population stabilization and
true conservationist efforts are aften shunted away from the main
agenda in order not to offend the perceived membership base. This is
quite different from the original Sierra Club which was oriented
towards conservation with deep ecology leanings.
Fred Elbel
EcoFuture (TM) environmental references:
http://www.ecofuture.org/
Mike Vandeman
.On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:39:05 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@yahoo.com>
.wrote:
.
.> The liberal left wants environmental protection, food and shelter for the
.> world's masses, and immigration reform. There is conflict in these goals
.> that is difficult to resolve.
.
.Hi, Jeff:
.
.Perhaps it will help to reframe these goals.
.
.In my opinion, Liberal left organizations want environmental
.protection, food and shelter for the world's masses, but not
.immigration reform. In other words, liberal leftists support immigrant
.rights at the expense of population stabilization, and generally
.support open borders in order to shelter the world's masses.
.
.Environmentalists want to protect today's environment and fight
.current battles for preservation of open spaces, forests, deserts,
.etc. They generally lean toward sheltering the world's masses and shy
.away from immigration reform because of their liberal upbringing.
Nonsense. There is NO proven relation between immigration and environmental
damage. A person crosses an invisible line and suddenly becomes an environmental
rapist? NONSENSE! There are just as many reasons why they would treat the
environment better (e.g. more Americans than Mexicans are environmentalists) as
worse.
.Conservationists want to preserve our natural supporting ecosystems
.for future generations and fully understand that we can not shelter
.the world's masses and that immigration numbers have to be reduced in
.order to stabilize our population.
What's important is the WORLD'S population. If a person makes our environment
worse, but Mexico's better, what is the NET effect? I don't think you or anyone
else really KNOWS. To pretend that you do is dishonest and unscientific.
.Deep ecologists want to preserve natural supporting ecosystems not
.only for ther benefit to humanity but also for their own intrinsic
.worth. They understand that humanity is inseparable from nature,
.which has value external to the scope of human affairs.
.
.So when considering the nature and behavior of a particular
.organization, one might ask which category they belong to.
.
.Because of it's Population and Habitat campaign, I believe that
.Audobon Society is generally a conservationist organization, with the
.exception that they still do not address the root cause of U.S.
.population doubling: mass immigration.
.
.The Sierra Club, in my opinion, is an environmental organization with
.distinct liberal left leanings. These leanings are derived the
.liberal left membership base which management caters to in order to
.grow the Club's membership base. Thus, population stabilization and
.true conservationist efforts are aften shunted away from the main
.agenda in order not to offend the perceived membership base. This is
.quite different from the original Sierra Club which was oriented
.towards conservation with deep ecology leanings.
Nonsense. Not wanting to support racism is not the only reason we didn't want to
oppose immigration. See above.
.Fred Elbel
. EcoFuture (TM) environmental references:
. http://www.ecofuture.org/
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Iconoclast
"Fred Elbel" <fre...@spamless.net> wrote in message
news:mer7su8cpl8iufmcg...@4ax.com...
Very astute observations! California is now taking water from farm
production and wetlands (Salton Sea for example) in order to provide water
for the immigrants and illegal aliens who are flooding into the state. This
will lead to extinctions of bird populations and loss of food production
while gaining more janitors, fast-food workers, and gang activity. What a
poor tradeoff. It is the moral equivalent of the Chernobyl meltdown which
took Ukraine, which was the breadbasket of Europe, out of the food
production business because of the nuclear fallout. The coveted Hispanic
vote is now worth more to the Republicrats than a viable food supply and a
viable environment. They care more about silly things like snail darters
and some field mouse than the San Juaqin Valley or the Imperial Valley.
Iconoclast
"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5j08susm0i6eam3hm...@4ax.com...
The Amazon rain forests have been disappearing for decades due to the influx
of immigrants from the urban areas of Brazil. Haiti has become an
environmental wasteland due to population growth on an island with finite
resources. Colorado's rivers no longer have a natural stream flow due to
the demand for water in California, Arizona and Nevada. The population
growth in those states and in Colorado is almost totally due to immigration.
To state that there is no "proven" environmental damage due to immigration
is to ignore 300 years of the impact of European settlement in North America
and Australia. The impact of the white man on the envirnonment in
Australia, especially, is well documented and well known. To claim that
European settlement in the Americas, Australia, Africa, and New Zealand had
no proven envirnonmental damage as a byproduct is ignorant beyond belief.
Every Love Canal, Times Beach, and EPA Super Fund site is a result of
immigration from Europe and the impact of the white man on his environment.
Are you a spokesman for some environmental group? If so we are in real
trouble.
David Eduardo
"Iconoclast" <gas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CjWw9.3196$t4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Very astute observations! California is now taking water from farm
> production and wetlands (Salton Sea for example) in order to provide water
> for the immigrants and illegal aliens who are flooding into the state.
Prior to the last century, there was no Salton Sea. It's a result of
flooding and an early "accident" in water control.
Ever been to the Salton Sea? Ugh. It even smells bad.
David Eduardo
>
> The Amazon rain forests have been disappearing for decades due to the
influx
> of immigrants from the urban areas of Brazil. Haiti has become an
> environmental wasteland due to population growth on an island with finite
> resources.
Wrong. Haiti's problem has to do with the aftermath of the slave rebellion
about 200 years ago. Large estates were broken into small landholdings. Much
of the natural forrests were slash and burnt to create agricultural land or
trees were felled for fuel. Within a genration, the soil erosion was so bad
that there was a huge net reduction in agricultural land; population growth
had nothing to do with it.
> Colorado's rivers no longer have a natural stream flow due to
> the demand for water in California, Arizona and Nevada. The population
> growth in those states and in Colorado is almost totally due to
immigration.
But water usage is not the same per capita. Water usage has increased about
ten-fold in the Coachella Valley in the last 20 years, yet opopulaiton is up
only about 2.5 times. Do you think the over 100 golf courses with verdant
fairways might have something to do with it? Or the construction of over
50,000 homes in weekend/retirement/seasonal communities for the affluent?
If you go to the areas where immigrants are living, the apartments and small
homes are not using much water. But try the gated communities in Palm
Desert, Indian Wells and such... sprinklers running on large plots three
times a day!
A significant percentage of the water usage increase in california are
income and agreculture related, not due to immigration or population growth.
And, in truth, there is the fact that the immigrants would use as much water
anywhere they lived is true.
Iconoclast
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:78Xw9.819$RM7.61...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Every thing you mention is the result of immigration, so you simply prove my
point that immigration impacts the environment. The slaves who were brough
to Haiti and the Europeans who brought them there were immigrants and
everything that followed, even the slave rebellion, was a result of
immigration. Everything else you mention in your response to me followed
from a wave of immigration. You have not disproven my thesis in any way,
shape, or form. You simply throw in your usual propaganda that Mexican
illegals (or legal immigrants) have less impact than a golf course or a
monster home. 10 million illegal aliens represent 20 times the population
of Wyoming. To claim that they have minimal impact on the environment is
utter nonsense, Dave. How many millions of acres of rainforest were cut
down to provide beef for the Mexican restaurants in the U.S.?
Iconoclast
>
> "Iconoclast" <gas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CjWw9.3196$t4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Very astute observations! California is now taking water from farm
> > production and wetlands (Salton Sea for example) in order to provide
water
> > for the immigrants and illegal aliens who are flooding into the state.
>
> Prior to the last century, there was no Salton Sea. It's a result of
> flooding and an early "accident" in water control.
>
Irrelevant to the facts that are pertinent in the 21st century.
> Ever been to the Salton Sea? Ugh. It even smells bad.
>
>
>
Thanks largely to horribly polluted water coming from Mexico into the Salton
Sea. Mexico, like all Third World countries, has no pride in what it does
to the environment. If I had any say in the matter, I'd bring in water from
the Gulf of California or the Pacific Ocean through pipelines into the
Salton Sea and use it to produce hydroelectric power and to clean up the
water.
Jeff Strickland
"Iconoclast" <gas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CjWw9.3196$t4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
California has no intention of diverting water from wetlands to illegals. We
are engaged in the diversion of water from the fields of the Imperial
Valley, but the diverted water will flow into the taps of tens of thousands
of homes built in San Diego. These homes are so expensive that people with
high paying jobs in San Diego still do not make enough to afford them, and
these people are migrating into Temecula and Murrieta in search of a home
for their families.
The loss of food production is a red herring argument, the farmers in the
Imperial Valley will simply improve their irrigation methods to save the
water allotment they already get, and divert the unused water to San Diego.
The problem is, the improvements in the irrigation system will result in
less run-off into the Salton Sea. The farmers might also fallow some fields,
but all sides in this do not feel that the impact will be a problem from the
perspective of food production.
The irony in yor argument is that the water diversion is likely to be
harmful to the Mexicans and the Mexican vote that you claim the Republicans
so covet. If the fields go fallow, the Mexicans will be out of a job. You
also completely ignore the fact that this is a short term plan to reduce the
impact to California on the demand that California take less water from the
Colorado River.
Jeff Strickland
that diverted river water to the irrigation canals of the Imperial Valley.
If ever there was a cause for the Sierra Club to want to restore the
environment to pre-human-tinkering levels, this is it. Yet, they insist on
not allowing this massive mistake from being restored to its natural
condition.
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:S%Ww9.815$pL7.61...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
David Eduardo
>
>
> Every thing you mention is the result of immigration, so you simply prove
my
> point that immigration impacts the environment. The slaves who were
brough
> to Haiti and the Europeans who brought them there were immigrants and
> everything that followed, even the slave rebellion, was a result of
> immigration. Everything else you mention in your response to me followed
> from a wave of immigration. You have not disproven my thesis in any way,
> shape, or form. You simply throw in your usual propaganda that Mexican
> illegals (or legal immigrants) have less impact than a golf course or a
> monster home. 10 million illegal aliens represent 20 times the population
> of Wyoming. To claim that they have minimal impact on the environment is
> utter nonsense, Dave. How many millions of acres of rainforest were cut
> down to provide beef for the Mexican restaurants in the U.S.?
>
Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources. Borders are political,
not environmental.
There are not 10 million illegals, and they are not all in SoCal no matter
how many they are. Most of SoCals water needs have been agricultural,
irrigational and industrial, not due to increased population (which would be
fourth).
You said the Haitian issue was due to population growth. It was actually due
tot he reduction of large land holdings into small ones. If anything, it
makes a case for industrial farming or slavery. It makes no statement on
population or migration as the population in Haiti was highly productive
pre-rebellion. And it did not grow post-rebellion, as the population
actually declined.
David Eduardo
>
>
> Thanks largely to horribly polluted water coming from Mexico into the
Salton
> Sea. Mexico, like all Third World countries, has no pride in what it does
> to the environment. If I had any say in the matter, I'd bring in water
from
> the Gulf of California or the Pacific Ocean through pipelines into the
> Salton Sea and use it to produce hydroelectric power and to clean up the
> water.
The water that comes into the sea comes form the Coachella Valley irrigation
district, not Mexico (which is an hour's drive to the south. Water does not
flow uphill.
americankernel
--
The American Kernel
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:giYw9.726$VJ2.56...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
I just found a footnote on a US Department of Justice report on the control
of non-immigrant overstays. Here's a portion of a footnote:
--
"Scholars at Boston's Northeastern University estimated the number as close
to 13 million in a February 2001 study, An Analysis of the Preliminary 2000
Census Estimates of the Resident Population of the U.S. and Their
Implications for Demographic, Immigration, and Labor Market Analysis and
Policymaking"
--
The low figure noted in the report was "at least 8 million. FAIR puts the
figure at 11 million. Newsmax notes that 10% of the workforce may soon be
illegal. Haiti's population, by best estimates, grew 20% during the 1990's
alone and added more than 1.4 million people. There were only 543 thousand
people there in 1850 and I cannot find statistics from immediately after the
1804 rebellion, but Haiti has most certainly been growing stadily throughout
its existence.
Iconoclast
There isn't a person living in Haiti that isn't a descendent of the African
diaspora or a result of European immigration. Anything that has happened
there is an indirect result of immigration from Africa or Europe. So the
devastation to the environment would have never happened had there been no
immigration to Haiti from somewhere else at some time in the past.
Iconoclast
The Salton Sea is 20 feet below sea level. The polluted water from Mexico
flows down hill into the Salton Sea.
David Eduardo
"americankernel" <america...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Bp_w9.213336$md1.48961@sccrnsc03...
>
>
>
> The low figure noted in the report was "at least 8 million. FAIR puts the
> figure at 11 million. Newsmax notes that 10% of the workforce may soon be
> illegal. Haiti's population, by best estimates, grew 20% during the
1990's
> alone and added more than 1.4 million people. There were only 543
thousand
> people there in 1850 and I cannot find statistics from immediately after
the
> 1804 rebellion, but Haiti has most certainly been growing stadily
throughout
> its existence.
>
Due to the exodus of the Europeans and famine and disease, there was a net
decrease in population through about 1860. Still, what was the richest
colony of the Americas became totally impoverished due to the stripping of
the land for firewood and the consequent erosion of the soil. Not
population... deforestation by a declining population.
David Eduardo
No it does't. The sea is fed 90% from the runoff from the Coachella Valley.
I was down there by the lake today, on the way to shopping in Mexicali, and
there is no real entrance for water from the South. If you are looking at
the "New River: which flows out of Calexico through Imperial to the lake,
that is a dry wash except when it rains, and it has not rained at all so far
this year (that's right... Coachella and Imperial Valley rainfal is 0.0
inches in 2002 per today's Desert Sun)
Iconoclast
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message
news:us8ipb3...@corp.supernews.com...
Thanks for taking the time to set the record straight. You sound much more
informed than I am on the issue. I will defer to your explanation.
Iconoclast
You are wrong Dave. First you claimed that water can't run "up hill" from
Mexico. The Salton Sea is over 200 feet below sea level. Water does flow
in from Mexico. Quit trying to be all-knowing and the "expert" on
everything and do your homework before you post stuff.
http://www.iid.com/aboutiid/env-salton.html
Elevation
The Salton Sea's average elevation in 2000 was 227 feet below sea level.
This is only five feet higher than the lowest point in Death Valley. In
1907, the Colorado River stopped flowing into the sea, and evaporation
greatly exceeded inflow, resulting in a rapidly declining water level until
1924. Today, evaporation remains the only outlet as the sea exists in a
closed basin. Increased irrigation development, improved agricultural
drainage systems and several major rainstorms caused inflow to exceed
evaporation, which resulted in a gradual rise in the sea until 1980. Decades
of increased elevations have caused damage to agricultural, recreational and
residential properties along the sea's shore. After 1980, the elevation
stabilized somewhat due largely in part to IID's water conservation
programs. Today the surface covers about 250,000 acres and contains about
7.5 million acre-feet of water evaporating at a rate of 1.36 million
acre-feet each year.
Water Conservation
It was the rising level of the Salton Sea that focused public attention on
water use practices at the Imperial Irrigation District. Although IID began
water conservation programs initially in the mid-1950s, the effects of these
water conservation programs were not readily recognized as stabilizing the
level of the sea until 1980. Despite savings of more than 100,000 acre-feet
annually with these early conservation programs, state, federal agencies and
several court decisions prompted a more aggressive plan to conserve water
and lower the elevation of the Sea. In 1989, IID and the Metropolitan Water
District of Los Angeles signed a landmark conservation agreement that would
conserve an additional 106,000 acre-feet of water each year.
Pollution
New River pollution from Mexico, although an issue at the border, is not
significant as the river enters the Salton Sea. In fact, by the time the
river reaches the sea, the water quality has improved due to the addition of
agricultural drain water and through natural cleansing occurring in the
intervening 60 miles.
The sea is considered a Rec I swimmable water body by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The primary water quality problem
currently facing the sea is the salinity level. Agricultural pesticides have
never been detected in the sea at levels to cause a public health concern.
Selenium
Selenium, a sulfur-like element, is to blame for waterfowl deformities at
the Kesterson Reservoir in Merced County, California, and has been detected
in Salton Sea fish in concentrations exceeding state advisory levels. As a
result, the public has been cautioned about consuming large quantities of
fish from the sea (currently under reevaluation). Given this fact,
abnormalities in Salton Sea wildlife have not yet been detected. Selenium
found in the Imperial Valley is imported with Colorado River water used for
irrigation and does not naturally occur in the Imperial Valley. State and
federal agencies are now looking more closely at studies on the impacts of
selenium at the sea.
Salinity
The salinity concentration of the Salton Sea is 25 percent higher than ocean
water and Salton Sea wildlife as well as the sport fishing industry is
threatened by these rising salinity levels. All salts that drain from the
surrounding agricultural lands of the lower Colorado River and Mexico are
deposited there. The high evaporation rate of the desert climate removes
water from the sea each year, but leaves salt behind that becomes more and
more concentrated. The annual water inflow is currently 1.36 million
acre-feet with an annual salt intake of 4.5 million tons.
Stabilizing the sea
In 1986, at the direction of the governor of California and the California
Resources Agency, the Imperial Irrigation District joined a group of 20
interested agencies and formed the Salton Sea Task Force. Their goal is to
find workable solutions in stabilizing the elevation and salinity of the
Salton Sea. The statewide group studied solar pond technology, pump-out
facilities and diked impoundments, among other options, along with possible
funding sources.
In 1993, the Salton Sea Authority was formed under a Joint Powers Agreement
between the counties of Imperial and Riverside, IID and the Coachella Valley
Water District. The group was organized to work with the state of
California, the federal government and the Republic of Mexico to develop
programs that will ensure continued beneficial use of the Salton Sea. In
addition, IID is working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to develop
marshlands for water quality improvement and to provide habitat for
endangered species along the Salton Sea.
The Salton Sea has evolved over the years from human induced changes and
natural processes. Local, state and federal officials will continue to play
active roles in efforts dealing with the restoration and preservation of the
sea. This intervention will be expensive, but is necessary to save the sea's
economic, environmental and recreational values.
Pacific Flyway
The Salton Sea is a critical component of the habitat base that currently
sustains migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. Wetland losses within the
state of California exceed 90 percent of the acreage present at the time of
statehood and is one of the reasons why the sea has become an important
wintering and staging area for migratory birds. Populations of up to 1.5
million Eared Grebes have been documented at the sea during recent years
along with up to one-half of California's wintering White-faced Ibis, tens
of thousands of shorebirds, waterfowl and White Pelicans. Nearly 40 percent
of the nesting Black Skimmers in California are found at the sea along with
significant breeding colonies of Double-crested Cormorants and Caspian Terns
and the largest breeding population of Gull-billed Terns in western North
America. In total, more than 380 species of birds have been recorded at the
Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, the largest number of
species found on any national wildlife refuge in the West. Endangered
species are also prominent at the sea. A significant portion of the Yuma
Clapper Rail population is dependent upon the sea and the drains that feed
the sea. Desert Pupfish are another prominent species present as are
endangered California Brown Pelicans.
Facts About the Salton Sea
Over 200,000 visitors each year visit the sea's recreation areas and
wildlife refuge.
The state park has 1,400 campsites, five campgrounds, hundreds of picnic
sites, trails, playgrounds, boat ramps and a visitor center.
Activities at the sea include boating, water skiing, fishing, jet skiing,
hiking, bird watching and sail boarding.
The lake is known as the fastest boat racing lake in the nation because its
high salt content causes vessels to be more buoyant.
Four million birds are estimated to use the sea daily in the winter, more
than any other resource in the nation.
The sea is also a vital link for waterfowl and shore birds on the Pacific
Flyway.
Nearly 400 species of birds have been observed at the sea - almost half of
the 900 species known to exist on the North American continent.
IID maintains 17 miles of dikes that protect adjacent farmlands and other
property from flooding.
Imperial County has seven geothermal power plants generating 380 megawatts
of installed geothermal generating capacity around the Salton Sea and is
currently the second largest producer of geothermal-generated electricity
and mineral recovery in the U.S.
The Salton Sea geothermal system is the hottest water-dominated system in
the world.
Back to Environmental
Home | About IID | Water | Power | News | Economic Development | Contact Us
| Index | Search
© 1998 Imperial Irrigation District
David Eduardo
>
> >
> > I was down there by the lake today, on the way to shopping in Mexicali,
> and
> > there is no real entrance for water from the South. If you are looking
at
> > the "New River: which flows out of Calexico through Imperial to the
lake,
> > that is a dry wash except when it rains, and it has not rained at all so
> far
> > this year (that's right... Coachella and Imperial Valley rainfal is 0.0
> > inches in 2002 per today's Desert Sun)
> >
> >
> >
>
> You are wrong Dave. First you claimed that water can't run "up hill" from
> Mexico. The Salton Sea is over 200 feet below sea level. Water does flow
> in from Mexico. Quit trying to be all-knowing and the "expert" on
> everything and do your homework before you post stuff.
The New River does not always flow. It is a close to being a dry wash
converted in areas to a drainage ditch. It is a few feet wide. I looke at it
today, and in a few areas I saw some agricultural run-off, but it only flows
when there is rain, something that happens a few times a year. Or no times,
as is the case this year. The Mexican input is less than 200 cubic feet per
minute, which, lacking rain, can totally dry up before reaching the lake.
HTis is one of the reasons the lake is shrinking all by itself.
In the case of rainfall, any contaminated water sitting in the ditch that
has not seeped into the surrounding land would be so diluted as to not be a
factor. Check the rainfall here when you do your research; what appears on
maps as rivers are really dry washes... like the "Salt River" in Phoenix
which you can drive across without a bridge all but a handful of days in the
year.
Water does not run uphill; it would take a major filling of the New River to
make it flow over terrain variations to the Salton Sea, 60 miles away.
As mentioned, I went by the Sea and the New River today, as I do every
couple of weeks. And I pay my electric bill to the Imperial Valley
Irrigaiton District. Most of the stuff on the net is outdated, as Mexicali
has installed new treatment plants (Station #4 built with NAFTA-sponsored
loan agreements) which treat sewage and divert much of the water to local
agriculture.
Fred Elbel
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 15:42:38 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
> .Environmentalists want to protect today's environment and fight
> .current battles for preservation of open spaces, forests, deserts,
> .etc. They generally lean toward sheltering the world's masses and shy
> .away from immigration reform because of their liberal upbringing.
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:56:45 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Nonsense. There is NO proven relation between immigration and environmental
> damage.
Of course there is, Mike. The U.S. is the world's third largest
populated country and is the fastest growing industrialized nation.
The U.S. is the highest-consuming nation - in fact, the U.S. is
drawing down its own resources as well as the resources of other
countries.
Consumption multiplied by population yields a tremendous impact on the
carrying capacity of the country, and on the planet.
Unfortunately, the Census Bureau says U.S. population will double
within lifetimes of children born today. 90% of this doubling will be
caused by mass immigration - that is, by recent immigrants and their
descendents.
Twice as many Americans will inevitably cause more, not less,
environmental degradation, let alone cause more sprawl, pollution,
congestion, and decline in quality of life.
> A person crosses an invisible line and suddenly becomes an environmental
> rapist? NONSENSE! There are just as many reasons why they would treat the
> environment better (e.g. more Americans than Mexicans are environmentalists) as
> worse.
You missed the point. Read what I wrote above.
> What's important is the WORLD'S population. If a person makes our environment
> worse, but Mexico's better, what is the NET effect? I don't think you or anyone
> else really KNOWS. To pretend that you do is dishonest and unscientific.
Average Mexican standard of living is approximately 10% of that in the
U.S. Clearly people are moving here to increase, not decrease, their
standard of living.
Now it's nice that you care about overpopulation problems in Uganda
and Bangladesh. And I hope you do everything you can to help them -
such as pressuring Congress and the president to reinstate funding for
U.N. family planning assistance.
But you, I presume, and I live in this country, the U.S.. We have
much more ability to control our own domestic population policy. I,
at least, have a direct concern as to how we are leaving this country
to future generations.
There is no more a world *population* problem than there is a world
pothole problem. Every country has the right and the responsibility
to stabilize its population as quickly as possible. Only by the
farthest stretch of the imagination can one cop-out and say "we'll all
be ok when *they* fix their overpopulation problem; in the meantime
just invite the excess here."
> .The Sierra Club, in my opinion, is an environmental organization with
> .distinct liberal left leanings. These leanings are derived the
> .liberal left membership base which management caters to in order to
> .grow the Club's membership base. Thus, population stabilization and
> .true conservationist efforts are aften shunted away from the main
> .agenda in order not to offend the perceived membership base. This is
> .quite different from the original Sierra Club which was oriented
> .towards conservation with deep ecology leanings.
>
> Nonsense. Not wanting to support racism is not the only reason we didn't want to
> oppose immigration. See above.
Racism my ass. Get your head on straight, my boy, and take those
false accusations somewhere else.
Fred Elbel
Why population stabilization is important:
http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html
Fred Elbel
<amd...@pacbell.net> naively wrote:
> Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources.
People in different countries use resources disproportionately. In
addition, countries have disproporationate rates of population growth.
The U.S., as the world's worst offender of sustainability, needs to
focus first and foremost on the twin causes of impact: population
numbers and consumption levels.
> Borders are political, not environmental.
So you are telling that the government (or the people) of Nigeria care
enough - and have enough influence - to protect America's wildlands?
You know, there is tremendous devastation to our Arizona desert
National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests -
see www.DesertInvasion.us . The Mexican government could care less
about this destruction; in fact the U.S. government is trying to sweep
it under the carpet, as are U.S. "environmental" organizations.
Your implication is that borders are irrelevant to environmental
preservation. That is a false premise. In fact, borders are clearly
germane to environmental preservation.
> There are not 10 million illegals, and they are not all in SoCal no matter
> how many they are.
More like 13 million. And a sizeable number are in S. California,
which has forced masses of Californians to leave their overcrowded
state for other states such as Colorado.
> Most of SoCals water needs have been agricultural,
Cite, please.
Fred Elbel
US Overpopulation and Long-term Sustainability:
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/us.html
Lets Roll
year 2000 when the census was complete. They discovered a massive
undercount which placed the accurate estimate at closer to 9 -11 million.
That was two years ago. An estimated 1 million illegal aliens each year
jump the border, in addition to the over 1 million legal immigrants. That
puts the current estimate of illegal aliens in 2002 at 13 million, or more.
Over 40% of them are in CA.
And what effects does poverty and transforming a prosperous area into a
third world atmosphere have on the environment.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/cali-j13.shtml
Several recently released reports paint a new, disturbing picture of reality
in Southern California, a reality that has been quietly transformed over the
past decade. Not the usual image of sunshine, wealth and opportunity-but
sharpening social polarization, record levels of poverty and manufacturing
decay. For decades, poverty was lower in the entire state of California than
in the rest of the country. Now that relationship has been reversed.
"We're beginning to resemble much more a Third World society where a class
of people are stuck at the bottom," said Ruth Milkman, director of UCLA's
Institute for Labor and Employment. She has been leading an ongoing study of
the north-south divide between the industrial development of Northern and
Southern California.
On July 1 the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC)
issued a study warning that the region's manufacturing is at a crossroads
unless policymakers take major steps to save the nearly one million factory
jobs in the five-county LA region. Average annual employment in
manufacturing fell by 28,600 jobs in 2001, with 19,400 more losses projected
this year.
According to Deborah Reed, an economist and program director for population
research at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) in San
Francisco, the state's poverty level surpassed the US average in 1989 and
remained higher than the nation's level through the recession and subsequent
stock market boom of the last decade.
In 1969, California's poverty rate was more than three points below the rest
of the nation (9.1 percent compared to 12.5 percent). By 2000, the state's
figure was nearly two points higher (12.9 percent compared to 11 percent).
In another comparison, in 1980 the state ranked thirtieth in the nation in
poverty levels; by 2000 it was twelfth
Actually, the standard poverty measure does not take into account the wide
disparities in cost of living across states and regions. If the California
poverty threshold were set at one-half the state's median family income, it
would be $26,347 for a family of four. By this measure, the state's poverty
rate in 2000 was 24 percent, compared to 21 percent in the rest of the
country. That means California would be second in the nation in poverty,
after Washington DC.
The result of this decades-long process found further statistical
verification in the Census 2000 data released in May. A Los Angeles Times
article presented the details of this report, which was based on the first
data released from the "long form" questionnaire given to one in six
households throughout the country. The results confirm what many economists
studying California have been observing in the 1990s: the growing divide
between the haves and have-nots.
Bruce E. Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC
Berkeley, termed the wealth gap and signs of a shrinking middle class
"potentially ominous." He said local leaders need to find ways to help the
poor get out of poverty. If nothing is done to reverse the situation, the
income divide fuels resentments, as it did in the 1965 Watts Riots, he
warned.
Los Angeles is on a different trajectory than the rest of California and its
other major cities, according to demographers. LA County's poverty rate was
15.1 percent in 1990, while San Francisco reported a 12.7 percent rate,
according to Hans Johnson, a demographer with the Public Policy Institute of
California in San Francisco.
While San Francisco's poverty rate fell to 11.3 percent, caused mainly by
high housing costs which drove low-income workers out, LA County's rate went
up to 17.9 percent-placing it eighteenth highest in poverty among the state'
s 58 counties.
"There's no other large, primarily urban area that's higher in poverty than
Los Angeles County," according to Johnson.
Other facts:
* The numbers of both rich and poor in LA, the county and the state rose in
the past decade. The trend was sharper in the city, where 22.1 percent of
residents live at the poverty level, up from 18.9 percent a decade earlier.
This compares with 15.7 percent of city residents who earn more than
$100,000 a year, up from 9.7 percent in 1990.
* Los Angeles County had the worst drop in median household income in
California during the past 10 years. Household incomes fell during the 1990s
in much of Southern California, a dramatic reversal after decades of gains.
* The number of people living in poverty rose 28 percent to 1.6 million.
Eighteen percent of the county's 9.5 million residents live below the
federal poverty line. The trend was similar throughout the area. Orange
County had a 44 percent increase in the number of people in poverty.
* The statewide increase in the percentage of people in poverty, 30 percent,
was greater than LA County's. The state's median income rose, partly due to
the numbers of wealthy residents. About 216,000 California residents had
incomes above $150,000 in 1990. In 2000, the number grew to about 642,000,
without adjusting for inflation.
According to the Times, "much of what went wrong was a loss of jobs in the
recession of the early and mid-'90s that was never fully reversed. For
example, the number of manufacturing jobs in Los Angeles County fell in the
decade to 587,000 from 861,000, a decrease of 32 percent, census data show."
Many in these low-wage jobs are immigrants with low education levels, mostly
from Mexico and Central America and especially to Los Angeles. These often
highly exploited immigrants have contributed to the increased levels of
poverty. The majority of people living in LA County now are either
immigrants or second-generation Americans
> You said the Haitian issue was due to population growth. It was actually
due
> tot he reduction of large land holdings into small ones. If anything, it
> makes a case for industrial farming or slavery. It makes no statement on
> population or migration as the population in Haiti was highly productive
> pre-rebellion. And it did not grow post-rebellion, as the population
> actually declined.
>
>
--
To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World--
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots
I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I
have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have
not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise,
the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have
answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly
over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in
four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain
myself as long as possible and die like a solder who never forgets what is
due his honor and that of his country.
VICTORY OR DEATH
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comd't
Mike Vandeman
.
.> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 15:42:38 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
.
.> .Environmentalists want to protect today's environment and fight
.> .current battles for preservation of open spaces, forests, deserts,
.> .etc. They generally lean toward sheltering the world's masses and shy
.> .away from immigration reform because of their liberal upbringing.
.
.
.On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 16:56:45 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.> Nonsense. There is NO proven relation between immigration and environmental
.> damage.
.
.Of course there is, Mike. The U.S. is the world's third largest
.populated country and is the fastest growing industrialized nation.
.The U.S. is the highest-consuming nation - in fact, the U.S. is
.drawing down its own resources as well as the resources of other
.countries.
But that doesn't prove that immigrants from Mexico will live like that. You are
making up nonsense, for your own convenience.
.Consumption multiplied by population yields a tremendous impact on the
.carrying capacity of the country, and on the planet.
Then the solution isn't to stop low-consuming Mexicans from coming here, it is
to export high-consuming people like you to Mexico.
.Unfortunately, the Census Bureau says U.S. population will double
.within lifetimes of children born today. 90% of this doubling will be
.caused by mass immigration - that is, by recent immigrants and their
.descendents.
That doesn't prove that they will harm the environment.
.Twice as many Americans will inevitably cause more, not less,
.environmental degradation,
BS. Many Americans live very simply. We have more environmentalists than any
other country.
let alone cause more sprawl, pollution,
.congestion, and decline in quality of life.
What is reducing my quality of life is hearing racist BS from people like you.
.> A person crosses an invisible line and suddenly becomes an environmental
.> rapist? NONSENSE! There are just as many reasons why they would treat the
.> environment better (e.g. more Americans than Mexicans are environmentalists) as
.> worse.
.
.You missed the point. Read what I wrote above.
.
.
.
.> What's important is the WORLD'S population. If a person makes our environment
.> worse, but Mexico's better, what is the NET effect? I don't think you or anyone
.> else really KNOWS. To pretend that you do is dishonest and unscientific.
.
.Average Mexican standard of living is approximately 10% of that in the
.U.S. Clearly people are moving here to increase, not decrease, their
.standard of living.
.
.Now it's nice that you care about overpopulation problems in Uganda
.and Bangladesh. And I hope you do everything you can to help them -
.such as pressuring Congress and the president to reinstate funding for
.U.N. family planning assistance.
.
.But you, I presume, and I live in this country, the U.S.. We have
.much more ability to control our own domestic population policy. I,
.at least, have a direct concern as to how we are leaving this country
.to future generations.
.
.There is no more a world *population* problem than there is a world
.pothole problem. Every country has the right and the responsibility
.to stabilize its population as quickly as possible. Only by the
.farthest stretch of the imagination can one cop-out and say "we'll all
.be ok when *they* fix their overpopulation problem; in the meantime
.just invite the excess here."
.
.> .The Sierra Club, in my opinion, is an environmental organization with
.> .distinct liberal left leanings. These leanings are derived the
.> .liberal left membership base which management caters to in order to
.> .grow the Club's membership base. Thus, population stabilization and
.> .true conservationist efforts are aften shunted away from the main
.> .agenda in order not to offend the perceived membership base. This is
.> .quite different from the original Sierra Club which was oriented
.> .towards conservation with deep ecology leanings.
.>
.> Nonsense. Not wanting to support racism is not the only reason we didn't want to
.> oppose immigration. See above.
.
.Racism my ass. Get your head on straight, my boy, and take those
.false accusations somewhere else.
.
.
.Fred Elbel
. Why population stabilization is important:
. http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html
Mike Vandeman
.On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:26:20 GMT, "David Eduardo"
.<amd...@pacbell.net> naively wrote:
.
.> Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources.
.
.People in different countries use resources disproportionately. In
.addition, countries have disproporationate rates of population growth.
.
.The U.S., as the world's worst offender of sustainability, needs to
.focus first and foremost on the twin causes of impact: population
.numbers and consumption levels.
Then most logically, we should reduce our OWN population, rather than blaming
the people who consume a lot less, like Mexicans.
.> Borders are political, not environmental.
.
.So you are telling that the government (or the people) of Nigeria care
.enough - and have enough influence - to protect America's wildlands?
.
.You know, there is tremendous devastation to our Arizona desert
.National Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests -
.see www.DesertInvasion.us . The Mexican government could care less
.about this destruction; in fact the U.S. government is trying to sweep
.it under the carpet, as are U.S. "environmental" organizations.
.
.Your implication is that borders are irrelevant to environmental
.preservation. That is a false premise. In fact, borders are clearly
.germane to environmental preservation.
.
.
.
.> There are not 10 million illegals, and they are not all in SoCal no matter
.> how many they are.
.
.More like 13 million. And a sizeable number are in S. California,
.which has forced masses of Californians to leave their overcrowded
.state for other states such as Colorado.
"Forced"?! Methinks you exaggerate.
.> Most of SoCals water needs have been agricultural,
.
.Cite, please.
.
.
.Fred Elbel
. US Overpopulation and Long-term Sustainability:
. http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/us.html
americankernel
"Iconoclast" <gas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xB5x9.4169$t4.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:_S0x9.2947$Ai6.22...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Iconoclast" <gas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:nH_w9.3564$t4.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ojYw9.727$LI2.56...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Iconoclast" <gas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:EVXw9.3327$7n.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> You are wrong Dave. First you claimed that water can't run "up hill" from
> Mexico. The Salton Sea is over 200 feet below sea level. Water does flow
> in from Mexico. Quit trying to be all-knowing and the "expert" on
> everything and do your homework before you post stuff.
>
> http://www.iid.com/aboutiid/env-salton.html
Icon,
You have now officially slam dunked Deduardo on this issue. Anything and
everything this old dog posts from here on in this thread is simply a feeble
attempt to lick his own testicles. Don't get sucked in. You win. Declare
victory and let him stew. Don't respond further.
--
The American Kernel
TL
the legal, illegal and quasi-legal immigrant. The burden for carrying these
folks gets shifted onto the taxpayer directly or indirectly. With an estimated 3
million of all catagories of foreign nationals entering the USA every year the
costs are escalating and the damage done to all of our American systems and
environment is growing.
When you grow up you have to pay for things, that's a fact that doesn't get to
you when you are young or in school. Of course some folks never grow up and some
nations never grow up!
americankernel
> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 15:20:53 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
> .On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:26:20 GMT, "David Eduardo"
> .<amd...@pacbell.net> naively wrote:
> .
> .> Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources.
Mike,
Is there any way in which you can change your post deliniator from "." to
">"? It is nearly impossible to follow your thoughts, which seem to be
quite good. Somehow you've changed the default settings.
--
The American Kernel
David Eduardo
>
>
> You have now officially slam dunked Deduardo on this issue. Anything and
> everything this old dog posts from here on in this thread is simply a
feeble
> attempt to lick his own testicles. Don't get sucked in. You win.
Declare
> victory and let him stew. Don't respond further.
>
One problem: I am a few minutes drive from the New River,and Mr. Clast is
not. Most of the data he has posted goes back several years and is now
totally outdated; there has been 0 rain in the Coachella Valley all 2002 and
an imperceptible amount in the Imperial Valley. The "New River" is
essentially a drainage ditch.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 15:20:53 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
> .On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:26:20 GMT, "David Eduardo"
> .<amd...@pacbell.net> naively wrote:
> .
> .> Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources.
> .
> .People in different countries use resources disproportionately. In
> .addition, countries have disproporationate rates of population growth.
> .
> .The U.S., as the world's worst offender of sustainability, needs to
> .focus first and foremost on the twin causes of impact: population
> .numbers and consumption levels.
>
> Then most logically, we should reduce our OWN population, rather than blaming
> the people who consume a lot less, like Mexicans.
This is exactly the problem, but you have got it backwards.
When the people who are used to living with next-to-nothing -- and thus don't
have that much impact on global resources, living off of mostly very-local
resources -- come to the US, as they become upwardly mobile, the per-capita
resource consumption balloons.
When you say "we should reduce our own population", _we have been doing our
best to do that since the mid-1970s_. Almost all of US population growth is
due to immigration -- legal and otherwise -- and the children of the first
generation of immigrants makes up for almost all of the rest. The population
ballooned 15% in the last decade alone; that means that whatever was the US
impact on the global ecology and resource-base, it was 115% of that in 2000.
Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
Illegal Immigration must be halted.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
americankernel
news:3DC5AADE...@earthops.net...
Nail>>>Head = Direct hit.
--
The American Kernel
Iconoclast
"americankernel" <america...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Zsdx9.75850$wG.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>
Thanks, American! Davo now argues that my information is "dated." I tend
to believe that the Salton Sea is still 220 feet below sea level and the New
River still flows into it. The geography of the area has remained the same
for some time now.
Mike Vandeman
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>
.> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 15:20:53 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
.>
.> .On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:26:20 GMT, "David Eduardo"
.> .<amd...@pacbell.net> naively wrote:
.> .
.> .> Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources.
.> .
.> .People in different countries use resources disproportionately. In
.> .addition, countries have disproporationate rates of population growth.
.> .
.> .The U.S., as the world's worst offender of sustainability, needs to
.> .focus first and foremost on the twin causes of impact: population
.> .numbers and consumption levels.
.>
.> Then most logically, we should reduce our OWN population, rather than blaming
.> the people who consume a lot less, like Mexicans.
.
.This is exactly the problem, but you have got it backwards.
.
.When the people who are used to living with next-to-nothing -- and thus don't
.have that much impact on global resources, living off of mostly very-local
.resources -- come to the US, as they become upwardly mobile, the per-capita
.resource consumption balloons.
The trouble is, you can't prove it. They have the choice of NOT doing that,
also, as many do.
.When you say "we should reduce our own population", _we have been doing our
.best to do that since the mid-1970s_. Almost all of US population growth is
.due to immigration -- legal and otherwise -- and the children of the first
.generation of immigrants makes up for almost all of the rest. The population
.ballooned 15% in the last decade alone; that means that whatever was the US
.impact on the global ecology and resource-base, it was 115% of that in 2000.
.
.Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
.moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
.Illegal Immigration must be halted.
BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant. You just
refuse to lower your consumption rate. It's easier to blame someone trying to
improve their lifestyle. It's thinly disguised racism -- that's all. An old guy
on the Sierra Club Population Committee told me "The wrong people are
reproducing". There you have it!
Bob Tiernan
Are you talkin' about the Sierra Club's endorsement
of keeping immigrants (both legal and illegal)
out of the USA?
Bob Tiernan
"Poverty is the worst polluter."
-- Indira Ghandi
Sancho Panza
>> Do you think the over 100 golf courses with verdant fairways might have
something to do with it? Or the construction of over 50,000 homes in
weekend/retirement/seasonal communities for the affluent?
> Every thing you mention is the result of immigration, so you simply prove
my point that immigration impacts the environment.
If you think golf-course and second-home construction are a result of
immigration, then you should really be encouraging immigration, so it can
help keep producing such obvious indicators of affluence and well-being.
>How many millions of acres of rainforest were cut down to provide beef for
the Mexican restaurants in the U.S.?
Not even 10 percent of the quantity of forest cut down to supply McDonald's
and Burger King.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
irrelevant. The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double
this century and will keep on growing; 90% of this doubling will be
caused by mass immigration.
You note that U.S. consumption is part of the problem and it must be
reduced. Ok, let's say that by forceful legislation, government
incentives, and general decline of American earning power, U.S.
consumption is decreased by 20% so that the nation consumes at 80% of
its current level.
But wait a minute - U.S. population will double within the lifetimes
of today's children. Not just grow by 20%, which would negate all
that consumption savings, but by 100% - 5 times that amount. The end
result will be a country of twice as many people with total
consumption at a drastically higher level than today.
Consumption *and* population must be reduced and stabilized to realize
any significant gain. Got it?
> It's easier to blame someone trying to
> improve their lifestyle. It's thinly disguised racism
Cut that bullshit right now. I'm not blaming anyone (other than
Congress, who refuses to listen to the wishes of the vast majority of
Americans). I'm not blaming immigrants for coming here any more than
I am blaming babies for being born. Yet both contribute to U.S.
overpopulation.
We currently have a national immigration policy that takes in about 1
million legal and 500,000 - 700,000 illegal each year. Modifying the
overall number admitted under this national policy is not racist, even
by the greatest leap of imaginative powers. So put a sock in it.
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat").
And you think it will be preserved through the next doubling of U.S.
population, with all the commensurate demands for land, natural
resources, and recreational opportunities?
Look at what's happening right *now* to our southern National Wildlife
Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests:
www.DesertInvasion.us
You've gotta be dreaming. Final grade:
A for effort
F for cognitive understanding of the root cause of U.S. environmental
destruction.
We'll be offering a make-up quiz later on this newsgroup.
Fred Elbel
US Overpopulation and Long-term Sustainability:
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> .The U.S. is the world's third largest
> .populated country and is the fastest growing industrialized nation.
> .The U.S. is the highest-consuming nation - in fact, the U.S. is
> .drawing down its own resources as well as the resources of other
> .countries.
>
> But that doesn't prove that immigrants from Mexico will live like that. You are
> making up nonsense, for your own convenience.
So you propose to bring in MORE people into the U.S. No matter what
the level of consumption of people coming into the U.S. the result
will be more people, not less, along with more aggregate consumption,
not less.
It is also clear that immigrants come to the U.S. to *increase* their
quality of life and consumption levels.
Think about it. It may hurt for a few minutes, but give it some
serious thought.
> Then the solution isn't to stop low-consuming Mexicans from coming here, it is
> to export high-consuming people like you to Mexico.
Mexico doesn't even let people from Guatemala immigrate cross their
southern border. I doubt if they would let 287,000,000 Americans
migrate there so that they could export their 100,000,000 here.
Solutions based in reality would be more helpful.
> .Unfortunately, the Census Bureau says U.S. population will double
> .within lifetimes of children born today. 90% of this doubling will be
> .caused by mass immigration - that is, by recent immigrants and their
> .descendents.
>
> That doesn't prove that they will harm the environment.
I leave it to you to prove that doubling U.S. population within the
lifetimes of children born today will *not* harm the environment.
Ready... go!
> BS. Many Americans live very simply. We have more environmentalists than any
> other country.
The quantity of environmentalists has nothing to do with the overall
level of environmental impact. Clearly if we were effectively in the
environmental arena, we would not be depleting our topsoil and
aquifers, clearcutting old-growth forests, depleting costal fisheries,
depleting oil from other countries, and consuming rainforest beef.
There are 4 billion people in the world who live at a lower standard
of living than those in Mexico, who live at a standard of living 10%
of that of the U.S.
America is the highest-consuming country, is the third most populated
country on the planet (after China and India), and is the fastest
growing industrialized nation. On the whole, Americans do not live
very simply.
> let alone cause more sprawl, pollution,
> .congestion, and decline in quality of life.
>
> What is reducing my quality of life is hearing racist BS from people like you.
You uninformed misguided aspiring homunculus. Don't you EVER call me
a racist for wanting to stabilize America's population.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> Are you talkin' about the Sierra Club's endorsement
> of keeping immigrants (both legal and illegal)
> out of the USA?
Bob, the Sierra Club no longer has a position on immigration. See the
following history pages for more information:
Jeff Strickland
you ignore that fact as well.
Mike Vandeman
.On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:22:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.
.> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
.> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
.> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
.
.
.> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
.
.So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
.irrelevant.
No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other people
for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in the uS.
The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double
.this century and will keep on growing; 90% of this doubling will be
.caused by mass immigration.
What is "mass immigration", as opposed to "immigration"?
.You note that U.S. consumption is part of the problem and it must be
.reduced. Ok, let's say that by forceful legislation, government
.incentives, and general decline of American earning power, U.S.
.consumption is decreased by 20% so that the nation consumes at 80% of
.its current level.
We consume something like 17 times as much as people in Kerala, India. A 20%
reduction is NOTHING.
.But wait a minute - U.S. population will double within the lifetimes
.of today's children. Not just grow by 20%, which would negate all
.that consumption savings, but by 100% - 5 times that amount. The end
.result will be a country of twice as many people with total
.consumption at a drastically higher level than today.
You don't reason well. You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as much as
residents.
.Consumption *and* population must be reduced and stabilized to realize
.any significant gain. Got it?
.
.
.> It's easier to blame someone trying to
.> improve their lifestyle. It's thinly disguised racism
.
.Cut that bullshit right now. I'm not blaming anyone (other than
.Congress, who refuses to listen to the wishes of the vast majority of
.Americans). I'm not blaming immigrants for coming here any more than
.I am blaming babies for being born. Yet both contribute to U.S.
.overpopulation.
But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced US
consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
.We currently have a national immigration policy that takes in about 1
.million legal and 500,000 - 700,000 illegal each year. Modifying the
.overall number admitted under this national policy is not racist, even
.by the greatest leap of imaginative powers. So put a sock in it.
That's the natural conclusion, when you ask Mexicans to change, but not US
citizens.
.> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
.> humans ("pure habitat").
.
.And you think it will be preserved through the next doubling of U.S.
.population, with all the commensurate demands for land, natural
.resources, and recreational opportunities?
Those are "wishes", not "demands".
.Look at what's happening right *now* to our southern National Wildlife
.Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests:
.www.DesertInvasion.us
It sounds like those are drug traffickers, not illegal immigrants. Illegal
immigrants would die in that desert.
.You've gotta be dreaming. Final grade:
.
.A for effort
.F for cognitive understanding of the root cause of U.S. environmental
.destruction.
It's US citizens that are doing the most damage. Be honest, Fred!
.We'll be offering a make-up quiz later on this newsgroup.
.
.Fred Elbel
. US Overpopulation and Long-term Sustainability:
. http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/us.html
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
Mike Vandeman
.On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 17:37:47 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.> .The U.S. is the world's third largest
.> .populated country and is the fastest growing industrialized nation.
.> .The U.S. is the highest-consuming nation - in fact, the U.S. is
.> .drawing down its own resources as well as the resources of other
.> .countries.
.>
.> But that doesn't prove that immigrants from Mexico will live like that. You are
.> making up nonsense, for your own convenience.
.
.
.So you propose to bring in MORE people into the U.S. No matter what
.the level of consumption of people coming into the U.S.
I never said that. Read what I said.
the result
.will be more people, not less, along with more aggregate consumption,
.not less.
.
.It is also clear that immigrants come to the U.S. to *increase* their
.quality of life and consumption levels.
If so, where's the PROOF? You opinion is not PROOF.
.Think about it. It may hurt for a few minutes, but give it some
.serious thought.
.
.
.> Then the solution isn't to stop low-consuming Mexicans from coming here, it is
.> to export high-consuming people like you to Mexico.
.
.Mexico doesn't even let people from Guatemala immigrate cross their
.southern border. I doubt if they would let 287,000,000 Americans
.migrate there so that they could export their 100,000,000 here.
.Solutions based in reality would be more helpful.
So it's "realistic" to ask Mexicans to change, but not "realistic" to ask US
citizens to change? You are hypocrite and probably a racist.
.> .Unfortunately, the Census Bureau says U.S. population will double
.> .within lifetimes of children born today. 90% of this doubling will be
.> .caused by mass immigration - that is, by recent immigrants and their
.> .descendents.
.>
.> That doesn't prove that they will harm the environment.
.
.I leave it to you to prove that doubling U.S. population within the
.lifetimes of children born today will *not* harm the environment.
.Ready... go!
You are the one making that claim. Prove it!
.> BS. Many Americans live very simply. We have more environmentalists than any
.> other country.
.
.The quantity of environmentalists has nothing to do with the overall
.level of environmental impact.
Yes, it does. Environmentalists consume less. That's why the Republicans hate
us.
Clearly if we were effectively in the
.environmental arena, we would not be depleting our topsoil and
.aquifers, clearcutting old-growth forests, depleting costal fisheries,
.depleting oil from other countries, and consuming rainforest beef.
I am sure that environmentalists are helping.
.There are 4 billion people in the world who live at a lower standard
.of living than those in Mexico, who live at a standard of living 10%
.of that of the U.S.
.
.America is the highest-consuming country, is the third most populated
.country on the planet (after China and India), and is the fastest
.growing industrialized nation. On the whole, Americans do not live
.very simply.
Then there's the problem. Not Mexicans! DUH!
.> let alone cause more sprawl, pollution,
.> .congestion, and decline in quality of life.
.>
.> What is reducing my quality of life is hearing racist BS from people like you.
.
.You uninformed misguided aspiring homunculus. Don't you EVER call me
.a racist for wanting to stabilize America's population.
Because you only want to do it by banning Mexicans, NOT by reducing the US birth
rate. That is hypocritical and racist. And I am tired of you not listening to
what I am saying. Goodbye.
Mike Vandeman
.There has been no proven link between bikes and loss of habitat either, but
.you ignore that fact as well.
Yes, there is. I can see it with my own eyes.
TL
Some people and some nations never grow up.
Jeff Strickland
reason. It doesn't work that way ...
There very well may be reason to be concerned with loss of habitat, but
bikes on the trail are not one of them. Making the trail is arguably a
problem for the habitat, in this I would agree and we share common ground.
But once the trail is made, simply using it is of no great consequence for
the vast majority of the trail. After all, a mile long trail consumes only
.0004% of the a square mile. Even if the entire trail was an environmental
wasteland, and it is never true that an entire trail is damaged habitat,
then the impact to the environment is only .0004%. It would take another one
hundred trails in the same square mile to consume under one half of one
percent.
Habitat loss is a large problem, but vehicle routes for recreational
purposes is not the cause. Permanent development is a much more serious
problem.
"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:6eeesu4aru63ou65i...@4ax.com...
Jeff Strickland
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
> .On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:22:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
> .wrote:
> .
> .
> .> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should
be -- a
> .> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely
all
> .> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
> .
> .
> .> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
> .
> .So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
> .irrelevant.
>
> No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other
people
> for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in
the uS.
>
America's birth rate is already at or slightly below sustaining levels.
Everybody that is in-the-know, except you, says that our growth rate today
is due to immigration.
> The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double
> .this century and will keep on growing; 90% of this doubling will be
> .caused by mass immigration.
>
> What is "mass immigration", as opposed to "immigration"?
>
> .You note that U.S. consumption is part of the problem and it must be
> .reduced. Ok, let's say that by forceful legislation, government
> .incentives, and general decline of American earning power, U.S.
> .consumption is decreased by 20% so that the nation consumes at 80% of
> .its current level.
>
> We consume something like 17 times as much as people in Kerala, India. A
20%
> reduction is NOTHING.
>
We produce something like 20 times as much as they do.
> .But wait a minute - U.S. population will double within the lifetimes
> .of today's children. Not just grow by 20%, which would negate all
> .that consumption savings, but by 100% - 5 times that amount. The end
> .result will be a country of twice as many people with total
> .consumption at a drastically higher level than today.
>
> You don't reason well. You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as
much as
> residents.
>
Won't they? Actually, if we end up with "twice as many people with total
consumption at drastically higher levels than today," where is the
assumption that migrants consume as much as residents? If we double due to
immigration, but cousumption goes up 75%, then we have drastically higher
consumption than today, and the immigrants consume less than the natives.
Perhaps you should trade in your PhD for some remedial math.
> .Consumption *and* population must be reduced and stabilized to realize
> .any significant gain. Got it?
> .
> .
> .> It's easier to blame someone trying to
> .> improve their lifestyle. It's thinly disguised racism
> .
> .Cut that bullshit right now. I'm not blaming anyone (other than
> .Congress, who refuses to listen to the wishes of the vast majority of
> .Americans). I'm not blaming immigrants for coming here any more than
> .I am blaming babies for being born. Yet both contribute to U.S.
> .overpopulation.
>
> But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced
US
> consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
>
He, like almost everybody else, understands that the US birth rate is
already at a level that barely sustains our population.
> .We currently have a national immigration policy that takes in about 1
> .million legal and 500,000 - 700,000 illegal each year. Modifying the
> .overall number admitted under this national policy is not racist, even
> .by the greatest leap of imaginative powers. So put a sock in it.
>
> That's the natural conclusion, when you ask Mexicans to change, but not US
> citizens.
>
> .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> .> humans ("pure habitat").
> .
> .And you think it will be preserved through the next doubling of U.S.
> .population, with all the commensurate demands for land, natural
> .resources, and recreational opportunities?
>
> Those are "wishes", not "demands".
>
> .Look at what's happening right *now* to our southern National Wildlife
> .Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests:
> .www.DesertInvasion.us
>
> It sounds like those are drug traffickers, not illegal immigrants. Illegal
> immigrants would die in that desert.
>
Some do die, but most make it.
> .You've gotta be dreaming. Final grade:
> .
> .A for effort
> .F for cognitive understanding of the root cause of U.S. environmental
> .destruction.
>
> It's US citizens that are doing the most damage. Be honest, Fred!
>
Yeah Fred, be honest. Its all of those damn bikes that are solely
responsible for the decline in habitat. Didn't you know that?
Tiny Human Ferret
Yeah right. They all claim that they are coming to the US for a better life,
and so of course their per-capital resource consumption balloons.
Just the fact that they are riding a bus instead of walking shows that they're
increasing their resource consumption.
>
> .When you say "we should reduce our own population", _we have been doing our
> .best to do that since the mid-1970s_. Almost all of US population growth is
> .due to immigration -- legal and otherwise -- and the children of the first
> .generation of immigrants makes up for almost all of the rest. The population
> .ballooned 15% in the last decade alone; that means that whatever was the US
> .impact on the global ecology and resource-base, it was 115% of that in 2000.
> .
> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
>
> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
Not at all. Immigration can't possibly be irrelevant, since it is occurring.
> You just
> refuse to lower your consumption rate. It's easier to blame someone trying to
> improve their lifestyle.
Ah, but above, you claim that they aren't improving their lifestyle, and
that's why they aren't increasing their per-capita resource consumption when
they come to the US?. which is it? You cannot make both claims simultaneously.
Pick one.
> It's thinly disguised racism -- that's all.
This is total bullshit. Don't ever make this argument to me if you want to be
given any consideration at all.
> An old guy
> on the Sierra Club Population Committee told me "The wrong people are
> reproducing". There you have it!
I have nothing, other than you making an idiot out of yourself on the global
internet.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
> .So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
> .irrelevant.
> No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other people
> for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in the uS.
We already did that. By 1972, native-born Americans had voluntarily
achieved replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) -
www.NumbersUSA.com .
Therefore you are implying that in order to sustain our current high
immigration levels and still stabilize U.S. population, all Americans
today will have to reduce fertility. How many Americans do you think
will elect to have one kid instead of two just so that we can import
more cheap foreign workers for greedy corporate interests?
> What is "mass immigration", as opposed to "immigration"?
A six-fold increase in overall immigrations after 1965.
For an excellent explantion, go to www.NumbersUSA.com and browse the
items on the right side of the home page. Also, here's a good
explanation of the numbers.
> .You note that U.S. consumption is part of the problem and it must be
> .reduced. Ok, let's say that by forceful legislation, government
> .incentives, and general decline of American earning power, U.S.
> .consumption is decreased by 20% so that the nation consumes at 80% of
> .its current level.
>
> We consume something like 17 times as much as people in Kerala, India. A 20%
> reduction is NOTHING.
Conceptually, yes. In this market-oriented, consumerist society, do
you really think you will get people to consume 20% less? Do you
realize what that would do to the economy?
Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly support such efforts to achieve
sustainability. Here's one of my web pages on the subject:
http://www.ecofuture.org/pk/pkar9506.html .
But again, you are saying that Americans should reduce their
consumption, just so we can import more foreign workers. It doesn't
make sense. Better to help foreign workers in their own countries.
> You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as much as
> residents.
So people migrate here from other countries in order to consume at the
same levels as they did in their own countries? I don't think so.
They come here for the American Dream - to own a house, car, TV,
stereo, etc., and in general, for a higher standard of living.
We've been accepting immigrants (usually at sustainable levels) for a
few hundred years. I can't think of one group of immigrants who have
elected not to buy in to the American lifestyle.
> But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced US
> consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
1) Yes, I have. Both consumption and population must be reduced and
stabilized in order to the U.S. to achieve sustainability.
2) I have addressed fertility. See my note above that we voluntarily
achieved replacement level fertility in 1972.
and 3) Immigration will be responsible for 90% of U.S. population
doubling within the lifetimes of children born today.
Those are the facts.
> .And you think it will be preserved through the next doubling of U.S.
> .population, with all the commensurate demands for land, natural
> .resources, and recreational opportunities?
>
> Those are "wishes", not "demands".
I sense some cognitive dissonance here. You want to preserve some
natural areas and at the same time you do not object to doubling U.S.
population. You want to double U.S. population by continuing high
levels of immigration yet contend that all Americans, including
immigrants, must lower their levels of consumption so that we can
accept large numbers of immigrants.
Perhaps a more consistent approach would be preserving some natural
areas, lowering consumption, and stabilizing population.
> .Look at what's happening right *now* to our southern National Wildlife
> .Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests:
> .www.DesertInvasion.us
>
> It sounds like those are drug traffickers, not illegal immigrants. Illegal
> immigrants would die in that desert.
Read the articles on the website. No need to comment until you become
informed on the issue.
Fred Elbel
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
> .On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:22:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
> .wrote:
> .
> .
> .> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
> .> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
> .> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
> .
> .
> .> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
> .
> .So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
> .irrelevant.
>
> No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other people
> for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in the uS.
The reproductive rate for US-born dropped to zero-growth in 1972, and in about
1992 the reproductive rate for US-born had dropped below the replacement rate.
If not for immigration -- legal and otherwise -- the US population would be
decreasing on its own. We have already done enough to lower our birth-rate.
See http://www.census.gov/ for more FACTS before you suggest that we do what
has already been done.
>
> The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double
> .this century and will keep on growing; 90% of this doubling will be
> .caused by mass immigration.
>
> What is "mass immigration", as opposed to "immigration"?
Millions per year.
>
> .You note that U.S. consumption is part of the problem and it must be
> .reduced. Ok, let's say that by forceful legislation, government
> .incentives, and general decline of American earning power, U.S.
> .consumption is decreased by 20% so that the nation consumes at 80% of
> .its current level.
>
> We consume something like 17 times as much as people in Kerala, India.
They're dirt poor in Kerala. Are you suggesting that the US should be
dirt-poor?
> A 20%
> reduction is NOTHING.
>
> .But wait a minute - U.S. population will double within the lifetimes
> .of today's children. Not just grow by 20%, which would negate all
> .that consumption savings, but by 100% - 5 times that amount. The end
> .result will be a country of twice as many people with total
> .consumption at a drastically higher level than today.
>
> You don't reason well. You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as much as
> residents.
I see lots of them riding around in brand-new SUV, so I'd say that's a
reasonable assumption.
>
> .Consumption *and* population must be reduced and stabilized to realize
> .any significant gain. Got it?
> .
> .
> .> It's easier to blame someone trying to
> .> improve their lifestyle. It's thinly disguised racism
> .
> .Cut that bullshit right now. I'm not blaming anyone (other than
> .Congress, who refuses to listen to the wishes of the vast majority of
> .Americans). I'm not blaming immigrants for coming here any more than
> .I am blaming babies for being born. Yet both contribute to U.S.
> .overpopulation.
>
> But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced US
> consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
There IS NO NEED to reduce the US birth-rates! We are _already_ at below
replacement-level birth rates.
As for improving efficiency, leading to reduced consumption, this is one thing
for which the US is famous. Also, recycling is very widespread.
>
> .We currently have a national immigration policy that takes in about 1
> .million legal and 500,000 - 700,000 illegal each year. Modifying the
> .overall number admitted under this national policy is not racist, even
> .by the greatest leap of imaginative powers. So put a sock in it.
>
> That's the natural conclusion, when you ask Mexicans to change, but not US
> citizens.
No, we're not asking Mexicans -- or any other nation which is a major exporter
of our illegal aliens -- to change. Where did you get _that_ from? We need to
exclude _all_ illegal aliens and we need to consider reducing the number of
legally-admitted immigrants.
>
> .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> .> humans ("pure habitat").
> .
> .And you think it will be preserved through the next doubling of U.S.
> .population, with all the commensurate demands for land, natural
> .resources, and recreational opportunities?
>
> Those are "wishes", not "demands".
No, they are _demands_ since Water must be supplied, or people will die of
thirst. Drinking-water lakes must be placed offlimits to recreation and
naturalist uses, you know. People must be fed, or they will die of hunger, and
that means more lands have to be converted to agricultural use. People must
have housing, and that means more forests cut, more stone excavated, more
bricks fired, etc etc.
These are _demands_ and not wishes, because without these things, people will
die.
>
> .Look at what's happening right *now* to our southern National Wildlife
> .Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests:
> .www.DesertInvasion.us
>
> It sounds like those are drug traffickers, not illegal immigrants. Illegal
> immigrants would die in that desert.
Actually, they're dying in droves. However, for each one that dies, probably
50 get through.
By the way, thanks for allowing us to help you remove all of your public
credibility.
You are, indeed, a genuine IDIOT.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> .It is also clear that immigrants come to the U.S. to *increase* their
> .quality of life and consumption levels.
>
> If so, where's the PROOF? You opinion is not PROOF.
I addressed this in another response to you today in this thread. If
you are so convinced that immigrants come here to maintain a low level
of consumption, then please post cites.
> So it's "realistic" to ask Mexicans to change, but not "realistic" to ask US
> citizens to change? You are hypocrite and probably a racist.
I have for years insisted that the U.S. change, both in levels of
consumption and population. You are uninformed and probably an
asshole. Look, dude, NO ONE is going to call me a racist and get away
with it.
> .I leave it to you to prove that doubling U.S. population within the
> .lifetimes of children born today will *not* harm the environment.
> .Ready... go!
>
> You are the one making that claim. Prove it!
Hmmm. See www.dieoff.org .
We have 287 million people in the U.S. today. We already are
depleting aquifers, clearcutting old-growth forests, paving farmland,
drawing down oil reserves of other nations, overfishing coastal areas.
Unless immigration is returned to traditional levels, we will double
U.S. population this century. Thus, with over half a billion people
in the U.S, at anywhere near the current levels of consumption, the
impact will be greater.
If, by chance, we can drastically reduce consumption levels, then
perhaps - just perhaps - we can accomodate half a billion with about
the same impace as today, which is already unsustainable.
> Environmentalists consume less. That's why the Republicans hate us.
What have you been smoking? Environmentalists have TVs and drive cars
in America, just like everyone else.
> .America is the highest-consuming country, is the third most populated
> .country on the planet (after China and India), and is the fastest
> .growing industrialized nation. On the whole, Americans do not live
> .very simply.
>
> Then there's the problem. Not Mexicans! DUH!
Exactly. Mexico has a lower standard of living than the U.S.,
although they have vast natural resources (as reported on this
newsgroup). It's simply that their political structure has not
favored development and distribution of wealth in the manner that
existed as the U.S. developed last century.
As Mexico "develops" industrially, they, too will encounter
sustainability issues, especially since their population is growing
rapidly.
Currently, Mexico's population policy is to export their poor masses
to the U.S., contributing to overpopulation in the U.S.
> .> What is reducing my quality of life is hearing racist BS from people like you.
> .
> .You uninformed misguided aspiring homunculus. Don't you EVER call me
> .a racist for wanting to stabilize America's population.
>
> Because you only want to do it by banning Mexicans, NOT by reducing the US birth
> rate. That is hypocritical and racist. And I am tired of you not listening to
> what I am saying. Goodbye.
Inform yourself, you unlearned fool.
1) The U.S. achieved replacement level fertility by 1972. Mass
immigration will cause U.S. population to double within the lifetimes
of children born today. See www.NumbersUSA.com for an excellent
presentation.
2) Since your premise is incorrect that U.S. fertility is higher than
replacement level, I presume that this invalidates your imprecation of
hypocracy and racism. Therefore, I will not call you an asshole.
3) What's this crap about Mexico? I don't want to ban Mexicans any
more than I want to ban Austrians. The problem is allowing too many
people, no matter what their nationality, into this country.
4) Of course, I listened to what you were saying. It doesn't make
sense, as I pointed out, for Americans to have only one kid per family
just so we can import high numbers of foreign workers and still
stabilize our population. Hell, there are four billion people at
lower standards of living who would come here if given the chance.
5) Both consumption and population levels must be reduced and
stabilized in order to achieve sustainability within the U.S. We
ignore this at the peril of our environment and the legacy we are
leaving for future generations.
Fred Elbel
EcoFuture (TM) environmental references:
http://www.ecofuture.org/
Jeff Strickland
Mikes agenda is that bicycles are the primary reason why we have habitat
destruction. He repeatedly ignores the fact that boots, albeit lots of them,
are just as problematic as tires. There is a significant difference, I
realize, in the fact that a bike can go much further in a day and therefore
is capable of greater damage, but bikes in general are no worse than boots.
A bad pair of boots can inflict more pain that a good pair ot tires, but
Mike ignores the facts. He is unlikely to be swayed by your logic, let alone
your facts. Your facts do not fit his argument, therefore you must be a
liar.
"Fred Elbel" <fre...@spamless.net> wrote in message
news:81qfsuk5sf691gepn...@4ax.com...
Mike Vandeman
.Your theory is that the entire world is wrong, and you are the lone voice of
.reason. It doesn't work that way ...
.
.There very well may be reason to be concerned with loss of habitat, but
.bikes on the trail are not one of them. Making the trail is arguably a
.problem for the habitat, in this I would agree and we share common ground.
.But once the trail is made, simply using it is of no great consequence for
.the vast majority of the trail. After all, a mile long trail consumes only
..0004% of the a square mile. Even if the entire trail was an environmental
.wasteland, and it is never true that an entire trail is damaged habitat,
.then the impact to the environment is only .0004%. It would take another one
.hundred trails in the same square mile to consume under one half of one
.percent.
.
.Habitat loss is a large problem, but vehicle routes for recreational
.purposes is not the cause. Permanent development is a much more serious
.problem.
Did you say something?
Mike Vandeman
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:mcdesug69qnklg78l...@4ax.com...
.> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
.>
.> .On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:22:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.> .wrote:
.> .
.> .
.> .> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should
.be -- a
.> .> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely
.all
.> .> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
.> .
.> .
.> .> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
.> .
.> .So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
.> .irrelevant.
.>
.> No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other
.people
.> for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in
.the uS.
.>
.
.America's birth rate is already at or slightly below sustaining levels.
.Everybody that is in-the-know, except you, says that our growth rate today
.is due to immigration.
No, it's also because our growth rate isn't negative. Tell the truth!
.> .But wait a minute - U.S. population will double within the lifetimes
.> .of today's children. Not just grow by 20%, which would negate all
.> .that consumption savings, but by 100% - 5 times that amount. The end
.> .result will be a country of twice as many people with total
.> .consumption at a drastically higher level than today.
.>
.> You don't reason well. You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as
.much as
.> residents.
.>
.Won't they?
Why do yu ask? I thought you knew!
.> But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced
.US
.> consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
.>
.
.He, like almost everybody else, understands that the US birth rate is
.already at a level that barely sustains our population.
So why not make it negative?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
Mike Vandeman
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>
.> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 18:01:50 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
.> <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
.>
.> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
.> .>
.> .> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 15:20:53 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
.> .>
.> .> .On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:26:20 GMT, "David Eduardo"
.> .> .<amd...@pacbell.net> naively wrote:
.> .> .
.> .> .> Again, people anywhere on the planet use resources.
.> .> .
.> .> .People in different countries use resources disproportionately. In
.> .> .addition, countries have disproporationate rates of population growth.
.> .> .
.> .> .The U.S., as the world's worst offender of sustainability, needs to
.> .> .focus first and foremost on the twin causes of impact: population
.> .> .numbers and consumption levels.
.> .>
.> .> Then most logically, we should reduce our OWN population, rather than blaming
.> .> the people who consume a lot less, like Mexicans.
.> .
.> .This is exactly the problem, but you have got it backwards.
.> .
.> .When the people who are used to living with next-to-nothing -- and thus don't
.> .have that much impact on global resources, living off of mostly very-local
.> .resources -- come to the US, as they become upwardly mobile, the per-capita
.> .resource consumption balloons.
.>
.> The trouble is, you can't prove it. They have the choice of NOT doing that,
.> also, as many do.
.
.Yeah right. They all claim that they are coming to the US for a better life,
.and so of course their per-capital resource consumption balloons.
.
.Just the fact that they are riding a bus instead of walking shows that they're
.increasing their resource consumption.
.
.>
.> .When you say "we should reduce our own population", _we have been doing our
.> .best to do that since the mid-1970s_. Almost all of US population growth is
.> .due to immigration -- legal and otherwise -- and the children of the first
.> .generation of immigrants makes up for almost all of the rest. The population
.> .ballooned 15% in the last decade alone; that means that whatever was the US
.> .impact on the global ecology and resource-base, it was 115% of that in 2000.
.> .
.> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
.> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
.> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
.>
.> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
.
.Not at all. Immigration can't possibly be irrelevant, since it is occurring.
.
.> You just
.> refuse to lower your consumption rate. It's easier to blame someone trying to
.> improve their lifestyle.
.
.Ah, but above, you claim that they aren't improving their lifestyle, and
.that's why they aren't increasing their per-capita resource consumption when
.they come to the US?. which is it? You cannot make both claims simultaneously.
.Pick one.
.
.> It's thinly disguised racism -- that's all.
.
.This is total bullshit. Don't ever make this argument to me if you want to be
.given any consideration at all.
.
.> An old guy
.> on the Sierra Club Population Committee told me "The wrong people are
.> reproducing". There you have it!
.
.I have nothing, other than you making an idiot out of yourself on the global
.internet.
While hiding behind a pseudonym? Not likely.
Mike Vandeman
.On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 03:16:51 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.wrote:
.
.> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
.> .So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
.> .irrelevant.
.
.> No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other people
.> for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in the uS.
.
.We already did that. By 1972, native-born Americans had voluntarily
.achieved replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) -
.www.NumbersUSA.com .
Why not go further, and have a negative growth rate?
.Therefore you are implying that in order to sustain our current high
.immigration levels and still stabilize U.S. population, all Americans
.today will have to reduce fertility. How many Americans do you think
.will elect to have one kid instead of two just so that we can import
.more cheap foreign workers for greedy corporate interests?
See? that's your REAL motivation coming out: RACISM.
.> We consume something like 17 times as much as people in Kerala, India. A 20%
.> reduction is NOTHING.
.
.Conceptually, yes. In this market-oriented, consumerist society, do
.you really think you will get people to consume 20% less? Do you
.realize what that would do to the economy?
Fine. But NOT to reduce consumption is hypocrisy.
.Don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly support such efforts to achieve
.sustainability. Here's one of my web pages on the subject:
.http://www.ecofuture.org/pk/pkar9506.html .
.
.But again, you are saying that Americans should reduce their
.consumption, just so we can import more foreign workers.
I didn't say that last part. You made that up.
.> You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as much as
.> residents.
.
.So people migrate here from other countries in order to consume at the
.same levels as they did in their own countries? I don't think so.
.They come here for the American Dream - to own a house, car, TV,
.stereo, etc., and in general, for a higher standard of living.
.
.We've been accepting immigrants (usually at sustainable levels) for a
.few hundred years. I can't think of one group of immigrants who have
.elected not to buy in to the American lifestyle.
Then change the American lifestyle. It needs to be done anyway.
.> But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced US
.> consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
.
.1) Yes, I have. Both consumption and population must be reduced and
.stabilized in order to the U.S. to achieve sustainability.
Good.
.2) I have addressed fertility. See my note above that we voluntarily
.achieved replacement level fertility in 1972.
Not enough.
.and 3) Immigration will be responsible for 90% of U.S. population
.doubling within the lifetimes of children born today.
Do yu think Americans should have the right to emigrate to Mexico?
.Fred Elbel
Mike Vandeman
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>
.> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
.>
.> .On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:22:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
.> .wrote:
.> .
.> .
.> .> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
.> .> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
.> .> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
.> .
.> .
.> .> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
.> .
.> .So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
.> .irrelevant.
.>
.> No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other people
.> for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in the uS.
.
.The reproductive rate for US-born dropped to zero-growth in 1972, and in about
.1992 the reproductive rate for US-born had dropped below the replacement rate.
.
.If not for immigration -- legal and otherwise -- the US population would be
.decreasing on its own. We have already done enough to lower our birth-rate.
WHY is that "enough"? I don't think it's enough.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
Jeff Strickland
We already have a birth rate that just barely sustains our native born
population at a steady leavel. This means that our growth rate is zero. Zero
growth will have an adverse affect if carried on for too long, therefore we
need a small increase in births. We do not need the rapid increases that we
have today, but those increases are due entirely (according to guys that
know way more than me) to immigrants. If immigrants were removed from the
picture, and we only looked at the population growth that results from
births, then we wouldn't be having the problems that we are having. Now, if
you believe that births and deaths are pretty much keeping pace and the
growth is near zero, then it follows that the population growth that results
from immigration is a huge problem.
Now, I happen to depart somewhat from the immigration reform crowd because I
think that taking steps in this country to keep immigrants at home are
ineffective, the solution is that the steps to be taken have to be taken in
the home country of the immigrants. America is the land of opportunity, and
is therefore a magnet that attracts the disadvantaged from around the globe.
When we offer more here than they can get at home, they will pack thier bags
and come here. We have to offer then more at home so that they have an
inducement to stay.
That notwithstanding, until something happens that keeps the immigrants at
home, we will have the threat, very real threat, of our population doubling
within the next few decades. If we are going experience a doubling in
population, then we had better be planning the needed infrastructure so that
we don't suffer needlessly fromk the lack of planning. We might need to look
at ways to build a road through a sensitive habitat, yet save the habitat to
the greatest extent possible. Even if we succeed with smart growth policies,
we still have decades of dumb growth that must be accomodated and included
in the plans.
Let's assume that we can cut the rate of immigration back 50%, we will still
have the doubling that is so problematic, it will just take a couple of
decades longer, and we still need to plan and build infrastructure.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 15:48:58 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
> .By 1972, native-born Americans had voluntarily
> .achieved replacement-level fertility (2.1 children per woman) -
> .www.NumbersUSA.com .
>
> Why not go further, and have a negative growth rate?
A number of scientists have suggested that the optimal carrying
capacity of the U.S. is 150 million or so.
We're now at 287 million and projected to double. However, had
immigration numbers been maintained at traditional 1925-1965 levels,
U.S. population would have peaked in a few decades, then slowly
decreased.
So the best we can do is to return immigration numbers to traditional
levels in order to try to achieve population stabilization as quickly
as possible.
But population momentum will keep population expanding even then.
That's because today's children will grow up to have their own
children while their parents are still alive. For a definition of
terms, see http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/terms.html
> .Therefore you are implying that in order to sustain our current high
> .immigration levels and still stabilize U.S. population, all Americans
> .today will have to reduce fertility. How many Americans do you think
> .will elect to have one kid instead of two just so that we can import
> .more cheap foreign workers for greedy corporate interests?
>
> See? that's your REAL motivation coming out: RACISM.
You are full of horse crap.
Clearly, Congress is responsive to the demands of greedy corporations
as opposed to the concerns of American citizens and concerns about the
future. Congress is reluctant to reduce immigration numbers because
corporate interests want an infinite supply of cheap labor (and there
is virtually an unlimited supply of it). Corporate interests rarely
think past the next quarterly earnings report and Congress hardly ever
thinks past the next election cycle. Thus, long-term sustainability
issues effectively are ignored.
Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically
superior to members of other races. There is nothing racist in what I
said, nor is there anything racist in working toward U.S. population
stabilization, which necessarily means achieving replacement-level
immigration.
I must say, though, that I do manifest prejudice against small, tiny
minds who, while unreceptive to the facts, consistenly respond with
the same old tired ad-hominem attacks as a means of diverting
attention from the issue of sustainability.
> Fine. But NOT to reduce consumption is hypocrisy.
Right.
> .But again, you are saying that Americans should reduce their
> .consumption, just so we can import more foreign workers.
>
> I didn't say that last part. You made that up.
Well, then. Specifically how many Americans do you believe we should
have? A precise number, please.
> .We've been accepting immigrants (usually at sustainable levels) for a
> .few hundred years. I can't think of one group of immigrants who have
> .elected not to buy in to the American lifestyle.
>
> Then change the American lifestyle. It needs to be done anyway.
Good. And also stabilize population. It needs to be done anyway, or
nature will do it for us.
> .2) I have addressed fertility. See my note above that we voluntarily
> .achieved replacement level fertility in 1972.
>
> Not enough.
You are saying that replacement level fertility is still too high,
impling that lower fertility is necessary. It is inconsistent, then,
for you to want high levels of immigration, which effectively nullify
any gains made from a reduction in fertility.
Ahhh - I see - you want to reduce the overall numbers of native-born
Americans, while allowing large numbers of immigrants to overwhelm any
efforts of achieving U.S. population stabilization. Adherence to that
agenda clearly identifies you as a racist.
> .Immigration will be responsible for 90% of U.S. population
> .doubling within the lifetimes of children born today.
>
> Do yu think Americans should have the right to emigrate to Mexico?
It depends on Mexican population and immigration policy. Although I
do not know the details of their current policy, I have read that
their southern border is closed to immigration. As well it should,
since Mexico's population is still growing. My opinion for Mexico is
the same as my opinion about all countries:
Every country has a right and responsbility to achieve population
stabilizion as quickly as possible. There are three methods to do so:
1. Increase mortality - the antithesis of the efforts of modern
societies and medical advancement.
2. Reduce fertility to, or below, replacement level.
3. Reduce immigration to, or below, replacement level.
Bye for now,
Fred Elbel
US Overpopulation and Long-term Sustainability:
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> .If not for immigration -- legal and otherwise -- the US population would be
> .decreasing on its own. We have already done enough to lower our birth-rate.
>
> WHY is that "enough"? I don't think it's enough.
So, Mike the wizard will achieve U.S. population stabilization by
reducing fertility of native-born Americans, while allowing
inordinately high levels of immigration.
What kind of agenda is this, anyway? Racist? Dissipation of American
culture? Of America? It clearly has nothing to do with long-term
sustainability of America, its environment, and its population
numbers.
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> Fred,
> Mikes agenda is that bicycles are the primary reason why we have habitat
> destruction. He repeatedly ignores the fact that boots, albeit lots of them,
> are just as problematic as tires. There is a significant difference, I
> realize, in the fact that a bike can go much further in a day and therefore
> is capable of greater damage, but bikes in general are no worse than boots.
> A bad pair of boots can inflict more pain that a good pair ot tires, but
> Mike ignores the facts. He is unlikely to be swayed by your logic, let alone
> your facts. Your facts do not fit his argument, therefore you must be a
> liar.
Jeff:
Sorry to hear that. I had hoped that he would be a rational person,
open to discussing - and learning - concepts pertaining to
sustainability. But judging from his posts yesterday and today, it is
clear that he wants to reduce numbers of native-born Americans while
allowing in high numbers of immigrants. There is clearly a hidden
agenda at play here, which does not stand up to the scrutiny of
rational examination.
As for the impact of boots versus bikes, it's kind of a moot point
since the overall impact of typical Americans is huge - see
http://www.ecofuture.org/pk/pkinfo.html#EFOOT
Jeff Strickland
I haven't the time to read all of this, but the main thrust seems to be that
we have much more serious issues to deal with than a few bikes on our trail
systems.
Mike wants to allow umlimited immigration while reducing Ameircan birth
rates, and limit recreational access to parks and forests to a burdgeoning
population. It would seem to me that if one was worried that too many people
want to visit our parks and forests, then the only solution would be to
reduce the number of people that might want to visit. Population reduction
is a requirement if we want to reduce visitors, yet Mike seems to support
more people on less space ...
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> We already have a birth rate that just barely sustains our native born
> population at a steady leavel. This means that our growth rate is zero. Zero
> growth will have an adverse affect if carried on for too long, therefore we
> need a small increase in births.
Hi Jeff:
Actually, that's not precisely correct. Let me clarify a bit, if I
may:
1. In 1972, Americans voluntarily achieved replacement level
fertility (2.1 children per woman). See data, an excellent
explanation, and graphs at www.NumbersUSA.com - click on the items on
the right side of the home page:
"What may surprise many people is that there was so much native
population growth (the green block) even though the fertility rate of
Americans has been below the replacement level ever since 1972.
How could that happen?
Well, it takes decades for a country's population to stabilize after
women adopt a family size that is on average 2.1 children. Their
children have to finish having their children. Those children have to
have their babies and the original mothers have to die off before full
stabilization occurs.
A country that wants to stabilize its population has to start around
70 years in advance if fertility drops only to the 2.1 replacement
level. Americans have had fertility since 1972 that is somewhat below
replacement level. So stabilization could occur a bit sooner."
Thus, U.S. population would have increased to about 255 million in
2020 and then would have gradually decreased. The term for continued
growth after replacement-level fertility has been achieved is
"population monentum". See terms:
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/terms.html
But because of mass immigration, we're current at 287 million and on
our way to doubling within the lifetimes of today's children.
2. > We do not need the rapid increases that we
> have today, but those increases are due entirely (according to guys that
> know way more than me) to immigrants.
Actually, the increases are due to high levels of immigration. In
other words, individual immigrants are not to blame, any more than
babies are to be blamed for being born. The issue is overall numbers,
not individuals.
3. > This means that our growth rate is zero.
No. The bottom line is that either with or without mass immigration,
our population is growing. Without mass immigration, population
momentum is the driving factor for several more decades. With mass
immigration factored in, there is virtually no end in sight (data at
www.census.gov shows U.S. population increasing through the end of
this century).
Thus, even though Americans achieved replacement level fertility, our
effective population growth rate is anything *but* zero.
4. > Zero growth will have an adverse affect if carried on for too
> long, therefore we need a small increase in births.
Not at all. Unlimited physical growth is impossible on a finite
planet. Thus, zero population growth must be attained in all
countries, including the U.S.
For the sake of argument, let's say that we foster an annual 1%
population growth rate. According to the Rule of 70, that will result
in a population doubling in 70 years! See explanation at
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html
The bitter truth is that either we stabilize population, period, or we
will be committing to unending population growth until nature corrects
our course ( www.dieoff.org ).
---------
Regarding the substance of your post:
> Now, I happen to depart somewhat from the immigration reform crowd because I
> think that taking steps in this country to keep immigrants at home are
> ineffective, the solution is that the steps to be taken have to be taken in
> the home country of the immigrants.
I agree, and in fact Mexico, for example, has made great progress in
reducing its fertility. But their fertility is still above
replacement level, and population momentum will cause Mexico's
population to continue to grow for a long time.
What is an affront to anyone concerned with population stability in
other countries is the insanity of the Bush regime to cut funding for
international family planning and health care assistance in order to
cater to the special interests of the religious right.
> If we are going experience a doubling in
> population, then we had better be planning the needed infrastructure so that
> we don't suffer needlessly fromk the lack of planning.
I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense given one accepts
the premise that U.S. population will double.
But that is a fatalistic approach and that demographic future does NOT
have to happen!
Cheers,
Fred
Joe User
<otter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>How many millions of acres of rainforest were cut down to provide beef for
>the Mexican restaurants in the U.S.?
>
>Not even 10 percent of the quantity of forest cut down to supply McDonald's
>and Burger King.
A better indicator would be how many acres of rainforest were cut down
to feed the surplus native population, which makes both McDonalds and
all other domestic restaurants consumption look like a joke.
Joe User
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:47:14 GMT, Fred Elbel <fre...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
>.On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:22:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net>
>.wrote:
>.
>.
>.> .Clearly, if the population in the US is to be reduced -- and it should be -- a
>.> .moratorium on most Legal Immigration should be held, and absolutely all
>.> .Illegal Immigration must be halted.
>.
>.
>.> BS. Simply reduce the US wasteful lifestyle. Immigration is irrelevant.
>.
>.So, Mike, you are saying that stabilizing U.S. population is
>.irrelevant.
>
>No, I'm saying that we should clean our own house, before blaming other people
>for our problems. Reduce the US population by reducing the birth rate in the uS.
The native population has for the most part reduced it's birth rate to
replacement levels, the higher echelons have below replacement levels,
to cut anymore would be stupid, it's letting the breeders take
advantage of other people's good behavior.
> The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double
>.this century and will keep on growing; 90% of this doubling will be
>.caused by mass immigration.
>
>What is "mass immigration", as opposed to "immigration"?
Allowing Millions of the world's surplus population to migrate to our
shores.
>.You note that U.S. consumption is part of the problem and it must be
>.reduced. Ok, let's say that by forceful legislation, government
>.incentives, and general decline of American earning power, U.S.
>.consumption is decreased by 20% so that the nation consumes at 80% of
>.its current level.
>
>We consume something like 17 times as much as people in Kerala, India. A 20%
>reduction is NOTHING.
India is a FAILED nation, the problem with all of the turd world is
they are absurdly over populated, if India's population was tied to
their GDP, they should would have a population of 15,000,000!
Why should the evolved developed peoples of the earth sacrifice for
the sake of the failed surplus peoples of the world? Makes zero
sense.
>.But wait a minute - U.S. population will double within the lifetimes
>.of today's children. Not just grow by 20%, which would negate all
>.that consumption savings, but by 100% - 5 times that amount. The end
>.result will be a country of twice as many people with total
>.consumption at a drastically higher level than today.
>
>You don't reason well. You are ASSUMING that immigrants will consume as much as
>residents.
Proven fact, they do, that's why the wastes of flesh immigrate, if
they stayed in their failed homelands, they are destined to a life of
poverty, given the opportunity, they will consume just as much as the
developed nations, and the resources of the earth can not sustain that
kind of demand. What is saving the planet is that the surplus
population of the earth does not have the opportunity for mass
consumption.
>.Consumption *and* population must be reduced and stabilized to realize
>.any significant gain. Got it?
OR Cut demand by pushing the surplus population out of the "game", the
planet's ecology can sustain 1 Million automobiles, it just can't
sustain 100,000,000 as a simple example.
>.
>.> It's easier to blame someone trying to
>.> improve their lifestyle. It's thinly disguised racism
It has nothing to do with race, has to do with ethnicisity, there is a
difference. The peoples of the turd world are dismal failures, their
culture promoted reproducing to the point the environment can not
sustain them at comfortable levels, the price of that historically has
been death. It just so happens that the majority of the third world
is non-white.
>.Cut that bullshit right now. I'm not blaming anyone (other than
>.Congress, who refuses to listen to the wishes of the vast majority of
>.Americans). I'm not blaming immigrants for coming here any more than
>.I am blaming babies for being born. Yet both contribute to U.S.
>.overpopulation.
>
>But you are being hypocritical, because yu haven't called for (1) reduced US
>consumption rates nor (2) US birth rate. You focus ONLY on immigration.
>
>.We currently have a national immigration policy that takes in about 1
>.million legal and 500,000 - 700,000 illegal each year. Modifying the
>.overall number admitted under this national policy is not racist, even
>.by the greatest leap of imaginative powers. So put a sock in it.
>
>That's the natural conclusion, when you ask Mexicans to change, but not US
>citizens.
The FACT is that America can sustain it's native population(excluding
immigrants) , Mexico can not, the US and Mexico are two different
societies with different problems, not that hard to understand.
>.> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>.> humans ("pure habitat").
Only an prosperous society that has it's population under control can
afford to do that, we can leave large amounts of land untouched for
the simple reason that we have so much resources, we don't need the
ones that are protected.
Even without immigration, humans keep expanding their domain since
their are not enough resources to go around for everyone, so instead
of asking for sacrifices to reward failure, it's much easier to just
push population down, there is an upper limit to the amount of stuff
any individual can consume, the trick is keeping your population below
a level that can sustain all forms of life in the environment they are
happiest with.
>.And you think it will be preserved through the next doubling of U.S.
>.population, with all the commensurate demands for land, natural
>.resources, and recreational opportunities?
>
>Those are "wishes", not "demands".
>
>.Look at what's happening right *now* to our southern National Wildlife
>.Refuges, National Monuments, and National Forests:
>.www.DesertInvasion.us
Again, the demand for resources is the cause of these problems, reduce
demand, the problem solves itself.
The NUMBER of humans is the problem, not how much each human consumes.
>It sounds like those are drug traffickers, not illegal immigrants. Illegal
>immigrants would die in that desert.
>It's US citizens that are doing the most damage. Be honest, Fred!
Look at Hati, no industrialization, just way too many people on a very
small island, totally devistated it, will take 10,000s of thousands of
years for the land to heal itself.
Again, it's not how much each person consumes, there is an upper
limit, what must be controlled is the number of humans.