nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

Supposed Overpopulation Isn't Going To Kill Us

Von: B; O; N; Z; O (ilk@kli.com) [Profil]
Datum: 08.06.2010 04:54
Message-ID: <4c0db0f9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
Newsgroup: alt.conspiracy alt.politics.bush alt.energy.renewablesci.geo.meteorology sci.skeptic aus.politics sci.environment aus.invest



Population phobia is relatively recent in Australia, but it's been a staple
for decades among international panic merchants.



Overpopulation might be the greatest non-issue of the past 100 years, unless
you count that global warming caper.



Easy solution to supposed overpopulation worries: build more cities,
suburbs, roads and dams.

June 7 2010





QUOTE: Drop one whacko urban greenie into the massive Congo River Basin,
however, and he'll starve to death before his mobile is flat.



QUOTE: "When I was first becoming an adult it was Rachel Carson's Silent
Spring and all this anxiety about DDT and other chemicals, and how they were
going to cause an epidemic of cancer. Then it was the population scare. And
then it was the oil running out. And then it was acid rain. And then it was
the ebola virus. And then it was global warming. And on and on it goes."





NOT one single human being in the planet's history has ever died of
overpopulation.



Lots of people is never the problem.



Too little food and water, on the other hand, will kill you.



The two circumstances aren't related; availability of resources is dependent
on economic development rather than the number of people sharing a certain
space.



If things were otherwise, Sydney would be littered with scrawny corpses
while the sparse Tuareg nomads of Africa would be known as the Sahara
Lardarses.



Five million people packed into a former penal colony will thrive if they
have access to resources that can sustain five million people.



Drop one whacko urban greenie into the massive Congo River Basin, however,
and he'll starve to death before his mobile is flat.



Overpopulation might be the greatest non-issue of the past 100 years, unless
you count that global warming caper.



Yet we're only a few months away from a federal election in which
overpopulation in gigantic Australia, with a population of just 22 million,
is an issue.



Both major parties have sought to cash in on population fears.



In April, Tony Abbott vowed to keep our 2050 population below 36 million.



"Australia's large cities are choking on their traffic and Australia's
environment is under pressure everywhere," said the Liberal leader, who has
three daughters.



Easy solution to Abbott's worries: build more cities, suburbs, roads and
dams.



Development works.



It's worked elsewhere.



Australians scared about 36 million people should consider that the number
of Americans born between 1960 and 1970 is greater than Australia's entire
current population. In fact, the population of the US was larger in 1850
than ours is now.



So they simply added some new cities, including Miami (pop. 5.4 million) and
Las Vegas (pop. 1.8 million). Incidentally, even with a population of 300
million, only about 7 per cent of US land is developed.



The extent of development in Australia is considerably less. Our poor,
fragile ecosystem, Gaia, bless it, should be able to cope with a few more of
us.



KRudd - two sons, one daughter - is also alert to population panic.



Two months ago he appointed Tony Burke - three daughters - as Australia's
first Population Minister, due to "legitimate concerns" over population
growth. Rudd arrived at this decision via the usual Rudd method: a complete
180-degree flip. Last October, Rudd told The 7.30 Report he made "no apology
for believing in a big Australia ... I actually think it's good news that
our population is growing".



We'll take his subsequent appointment of a Population Minister as an
apology.



Still, you can understand the PM's concerns about a bigger Australia. The
fewer Australians there are, the fewer who can become crushingly
disillusioned in him.



Population phobia is relatively recent in Australia, but it's been a staple
for decades among international panic merchants.



I blame the New York Times, which in a previous era was a global
agenda-setter. Younger readers won't believe me, but this is how it worked:
the New York Times would print something and media everywhere would follow
their lead. We were duped by a meddling Manhattanocracy. Here's some Times
coverage of population issues over the years:



1923:

"L.L. Williams, MP, urges Britons to remain bachelors to cut overpopulation
and unemployment ... "



England's population was then just 35 million.

It's now above 61 million.



Brits evidently worked out that marriage wasn't required for breeding.



1924:

"The world eventually may have to come to birth control to prevent wars
caused by overpopulation and attempts to seize territory for the
accommodation of surplus populations ... "



Hasn't happened yet, unless territory seized in Queensland by fleeing Sydney
residents is considered warfare.



1936:

"Mass emigration as the solution of Poland's Jewish problem is advocated by
the Foreign Ministry."



The New York Times actually used the phrase "Jewish problem". Mass
emigration of a kind sadly followed.



1936:

"World population nearing peak ... scientists say AD2100 will see high point
of 2,645,500,000."



Right now we're at about 6,700,000,000. These blokes weren't even close.



1942:

"Overpopulation in Japan and other Axis countries [is] an obstacle to
permanent future peace ... "



Japan's population when it attacked Pearl Harbor was 73 million. They
haven't started a war since, despite a current population of 128 million.



1951:

"Scientists took stock here today of what science had wrought in the past
hundred years and visioned a dark outlook for the human race in the next
century.



"They linked this outlook to overpopulation ... "



Maybe the problem is too many scientists!



1969:

"A close adviser of President Nixon was told by scientists this weekend that
birth control would have to be made compulsory to avert the chaos of
threatened global overpopulation."



The global population has nearly doubled since 1969. Looks like we missed a
chance to sterilise millions of hippies.



1972:

"Thirty-three leading scientists warned today that to avoid a world
environmental catastrophe Britain must soon stop building roads, tax the use
of power and raw materials and eventually cut her population by half."



Not a bad idea, when you think about some of those born in Britain after
1972.



Yet still we've had no world environmental catastrophe. Nor are we likely
to, according to former science editor of The Economist Matt Ridley
(British, but born before 1972). Ridley's latest book The Rational Optimist:
How Prosperity Evolves is a stirring call to arms for all those not
convinced we're about to die.



"The imagining of imminent catastrophe is a routine habit and it's been
going on all my life," Ridley said in an interview published last week.

"When I was first becoming an adult it was Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and
all this anxiety about DDT and other chemicals, and how they were going to
cause an epidemic of cancer. Then it was the population scare. And then it
was the oil running out. And then it was acid rain. And then it was the
ebola virus. And then it was global warming. And on and on it goes."


And now we're worried in Australia about a few more people.



Bring them on.



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/too-many-people-isnt-going-to-kill-us/story-
e6frezz0-1225876147760





Warmest Regards



B0nz0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville



[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]

Antworten