Monday, January 09, 2006
Pollution...
This week, we are going to break from tradition and I am going to look at a single issue. It is an issue I honestly thought was dead, but it reared its ugly head in a BBC peice this past week:
But what makes the appearance of this piece so truly extraordinary Was that two days prior Mark Steyn's amazing OpinionJounal piece appeared. In my commentary on Steyn's piece, I looked at his discussion of priorities in an age of plenty, but the data lying at the center of his discussion concerns precisely this issue. Turns out that Europe is shrinking from a population sense, at least a native population sense.
But there is something even more incidious about population as an environmental issue. What,precisely, is more fundamental to our existence than reproduction? Can ther be a more basic human right? And yet, to address this important issue, we must someehow stifle that right. You want a glimpse into that awful possibility you need look no farhter than China. Here is the "offical" take and despite their best efforts to put a nice face on it, it sounds hideous to me, and hereis a look at some of the awful realities.
This issue, population, more than any other, reveals "environmentalists" for what they really are - control freaks. In thier minds, they, and only they, know what is best and they are willing to go to incredible legths to enforce their conception of best on the rest of us. It is a religious zealotry worthy of the Islamofascists.
What's tuly amazing is that given the embarassment that was Erlich, this issue has come around again. I doubt, and I fervently hope, no one will pay much attention to this Beeb article, only trouble lies down its path.
Solving the Earth's environmental problems means addressing the size of its human population, says the head of the UK's Antarctic research agency.This mantra started back in the '60's with Paul Erlich who had predicted complete world catasprophe by the mid-1980's based on something called the "Population Bomb." Needless to say, because that man has been proven so abysmally wrong (we'll still here, eating and consuming more than ever), the idea has been buried very deep - where it belongs. Explaining this line from the Beeb piece
Professor Chris Rapley argues that the current global population of six billion is unsustainably high.
Even so, the issue of population is hardly ever discussed at environmental summits or raised by green lobby groups.When you have been this badly embarassed on an issue, it is generally a good idea to keep your mouth shut.
But what makes the appearance of this piece so truly extraordinary Was that two days prior Mark Steyn's amazing OpinionJounal piece appeared. In my commentary on Steyn's piece, I looked at his discussion of priorities in an age of plenty, but the data lying at the center of his discussion concerns precisely this issue. Turns out that Europe is shrinking from a population sense, at least a native population sense.
When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?Maybe this is why the issue is not discussed much?
But there is something even more incidious about population as an environmental issue. What,precisely, is more fundamental to our existence than reproduction? Can ther be a more basic human right? And yet, to address this important issue, we must someehow stifle that right. You want a glimpse into that awful possibility you need look no farhter than China. Here is the "offical" take and despite their best efforts to put a nice face on it, it sounds hideous to me, and hereis a look at some of the awful realities.
This issue, population, more than any other, reveals "environmentalists" for what they really are - control freaks. In thier minds, they, and only they, know what is best and they are willing to go to incredible legths to enforce their conception of best on the rest of us. It is a religious zealotry worthy of the Islamofascists.
What's tuly amazing is that given the embarassment that was Erlich, this issue has come around again. I doubt, and I fervently hope, no one will pay much attention to this Beeb article, only trouble lies down its path.
