Environmentalism

Population Control Isn't the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is.

Discredited 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus still haunts the environmental debate.

|

HD Download

"We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth," said climate activist and Time magazine person-of-the-year Greta Thunberg before the United Nations in the summer of 2019. "How dare you!"

Some praised Thunberg's performance as a stinging rebuke to the rich and powerful for failing to put the survival of the planet above their own needs. Others saw the exploitation of a young woman with emotional problems for propagandistic ends.

There's no question that Thunberg's style of environmentalism—strident, urgent, and critical of global capitalism—has gained a strong foothold in contemporary politics.

A 2019 paper from the journal Bioscience, co-signed by more than 11,000 scientists, asserted that Earth's population "must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced." And some politicians have questioned the morality of having children at all.

Fears of overpopulation and ecological disaster are also beginning to manifest on the far right, mixed in with an anti-immigrant animus. This logic was expressed in its most dramatic and twisted form in the 2019 "ecofascist" manifestos of mass shooters in both New Zealand and Texas.

Whether contemporary proponents of these ideas know it or not, they are all the intellectual heirs of the misguided 18th-century thinker Robert Thomas Malthus, who believed that when human population increased, famine and environmental destruction would ensue.

Reason's science correspondent Ron Bailey, who is the author of the 2015 book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, says that Malthus failed to see that as human population increased, so too would livestock and crop populations with the help of ever-improving agricultural technology, which is why food availability steadily increased over the past two centuries, outpacing population growth.

"Basically, the Malthusian prescription turns out to be completely wrong," says Bailey.

In the contemporary world, Malthusianism was most famously expressed through the work of ecologist Paul Ehrlich, especially in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb, which predicted that through the 1970s and '80s "hundreds of millions would starve to death."

Ehrlich, who still holds an endowed professorship at Stanford, didn't respond to our interview request. But his proposed solutions at the time included taxing diapers, subsidizing vasectomies, and even spiking food aid and water supplies with sterilizing drugs and then holding a lottery for access to the antidote.

Ehrlich compared humanity to cancer, writing, "We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer."

Similarly, ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968 compared humanity to overbreeding cattle, writing, "The freedom to breed is intolerable."

Ehrlich turned out to be as wrongheaded as Malthus. In the half-century after Ehrlich made his dire prediction, calories available per capita steadily increased in just about every region of the world thanks largely to improved agricultural techniques and technology.

"Humans are not only consumers—we're also producers," says Bailey. "We're able to create new things to use resources in better and better ways over time."

And yet world hunger has yet to be eradicated, with the United Nations reporting that about 10 percent of the global population is undernourished. And perhaps it's true that past trends don't predict the future.

Karen Pitts, who is a member of the Sierra Club and ran a Northern California sub-committee on population growth, is concerned that the world won't be able to accommodate a population that's expected to peak at 11 billion by 2100. She became interested in the topic after a trip to China in 1996.

"As you flew over the country, every space was taken up by housing," says Pitts. "Whether or not they produce enough food is a big question and we really can't take the risk of being wrong."

Is it really possible that the world could run out of food?

While the International Food Policy Research Institute projects that farmers will have to produce 70 percent more food over the next 30 years to feed everyone on the planet, the technology already exists to accomplish that goal. Agronomist Paul Waggoner calculates that if all farmers became as efficient as today's U.S. corn growers, the world could feed 10 billion people today on half as much land.

As humanity continues moving into cities, the efficiency of food production will also grow and new opportunities for ecological protection will emerge because this allows for the restoration of forests and other ecosystems on the land that migrants leave behind, Bailey points out.

Today's Malthusians are most concerned about the disruptive effects of climate change. Citing global warming and habitat destruction, documentarian David Attenborough described humanity as a "plague upon the Earth."

Meanwhile, the Bioscience paper signed by 11,000 scientists projects total societal collapse if population isn't managed properly.

"I think that there's a kind of a catastrophizing, apocalyptic undercurrent," says Ted Nordhaus, founder of the Breakthrough Institute, which advocates technological solutions to environmental problems. He believes the environmental movement has long been hindered by its anti-growth paradigm.

"Conventional environmental ideology posits human development and environmental protection, oppositionally, and I have exactly the opposite view," he says.

Nordhaus says that the most effective way to deal with climate change is by promoting policies that accelerate economic growth.

Most of today's environmentalists don't openly advocate for the draconian population-control measures pushed by Ehrlich and other Malthusians in the 1970s.

Karen Pitts says she just wants more sex education and greater access to birth control in the developing world, pointing to a project she participated in with Tanzania's local population where the introduction of contraception drastically reduced unwanted pregnancies.

"And it was very easy to do, surprisingly easy," she says. "Those women wanted family planning."

Funding greater access to birth control and education for women in developing countries was also a recommendation of the Bioscience paper. It's also a policy agenda of the U.N. and many leading NGOs like the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation.

Nordhaus says such measures can help at the margins but ultimately miss the big picture, which is that as wealth increases, fertility rates naturally fall as families invest more resources in fewer children.

"The real drivers of longterm fertility decline and population stabilization around the world are just kind of garden variety economic development, which a lot of the same people signing those documents are actually saying is the problem not the solution," says Nordhaus.

The Biosciences paper argues that economic growth is driving overconsumption of resources and says "our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems."

"I don't think we're keeping up with population growth and increased consumption," says Pitts. "As soon as we find new ways to do it, our consumption increases. That's the problem.

Pitts is right that people in wealthier societies tend to consume resources and generate greenhouse gas at rates that are orders of magnitude higher than those in the third world.

But Nordhaus points out that when poor societies become wealthy there are more people positioned to help solve environmental problems in the only way that really works—with new technology.

"Wealthier, more developed societies are both better positioned to adapt to issues, to problems like climate change and climate impacts," says Nordhaus. "They are also better positioned to develop and deploy new technology."

And so Nordhaus advocates for greater reliance on clean, abundant energy like nuclear power to fuel advanced economies towards possibly innovating even lower impact alternatives.  But the third-world may still need to rely on traditional fossil fuels on its path to prosperity and population stabilization.

"When you get down to the bottom of it, it is just ultimately a question of how rapidly Africa develops economically," says Nordhaus.

Malthus wasn't completely wrong about the tendency of humans to deplete resources, says Bailey. But Malthus failed to see that new ways of organizing society would ameliorate the problem.

"The world understood the role of property rights, the rule of law," says Bailey. "And this dramatically changed the incentive structures that people had prior to that."

Bailey says environmentalists such as Naomi Klein, who argue that capitalism and the health of the planet are at war, have the formula backwards.

"[Klein] wants to replace it with some sort of communitarian socialism. I would suggest to you that doing that would exactly bring back the Malthusian conditions that we used to live in," says Bailey.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by John Osterhoudt, James Lee Marsh, and Meredith Bragg.

Music Credit: 'Illumination' by Kai Engel. 

Photo credits: Greta Thunberg in train station, Hansson Krister/ZUMA Press/Newscom; David Attenborough at conference, David Perry/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Greta Thunberg and others on stage at UN, Jacques Witt/SIPA/Newscom; Greta Thunberg speaking at UN, JEMAL COUNTESS/UPI/Newscom; Greta Thunberg smiling and listening at UN, Abaca Press/Roses Nicolas/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom; Starving baby, Nie Yunpeng Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; Starving kids' hands, Nie Yunpeng Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; Greta Thunberg speaking to crowd, Eric Demers/Polaris/Newscom. 

 

 

 

 

NEXT: Was Trump's Sin Acting "Like a Politician"?

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “”We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” said climate activist and Time magazine person-of-the-year Greta Thunberg before the United Nations in the summer of 2019. “How dare you!””

    Someone needs to explain to that spoiled piece of lefty offspring that the ‘wisdom’ of teenagers is NWS. It seems her parents aren’t up to it.

    1. “How dare you!”

      “How dare YOU?!”

      1. When asked that question, I always say that I dare just fine.

        1. OT: Seattle is letting people vote entirely by phone in an official election. A US first.

          https://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=22046

          No room for election fraud there.

          1. Wait.

            Isn’t that racist? I mean, leftists don’t believe that minorities can use phones and whatnot.

            https://fbwat.ch/1tJdriMmhJIG9YPo

    2. Her parents are actually the real villians here. Thunberg is nothing more than a developmentally disabled meat shield for the religion of Environmental Apocalypticism. She doesn’t even write the shit she posts on Facebook; a recent glitch showed that it was her dad and one of her handlers making those posts.

      According to her own parents, she’s hyper-autistic and had selective mutism for years until she glommed on, or was led to glom on, to the hysterical notion that climate change and fossil fuels (at least when used by the West) will destroy humanity. There’s a reason she’s basically a rhetorical missile that’s only being aimed at Western countries, and it’s because she’s just the latest in a long line of far-left charlatans going back to Rousseau, who lionize non-Western societies as inherently pure, while damning their own for not delivering utopia.

      1. Rhetorical missile was my nickname in Law School.

        Also great bad name!

        1. With their debut album Meat Shield.

      2. Or, as was said before, you know why Greta doesn’t attack China over climate change? Because they’re already communists.

        1. That and if Greta went to China to speak out against policy, she would be deported or never seen again.

        2. They would send her to ‘camp’. To continue her ‘education’. Just like Tom Tuttle from Tacoma.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ6UuF85ENA

      3. “And a little child shall lead them”.
        However, they neglected to say that the little child would be criminally insane.

        Communists claimed they would produce unlimited goods for all and the result was 100 million corpses. How deadly will a totalitarian system dedicated to stopping production be? This child is proposing communism on steroids.

    3. Maybe someone could start a gofundme page for a retroactive abortion for Greta.

      1. Greta’s not the problem; her parents and her handlers are for exploiting someone with severe developmental disorders in order to push their political agenda.

        1. Retroactively abort them too = Greta’s parents

    4. Except she is correct, we are in the midst of a mass extinction.

      I wonder who is the spoiled brat, maybe the one who is sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to listen to what the most learned people on the planet are saying. That seems more like what a spoiled brat would do.

      1. Keep lying and screeching it’s totally working.

        1. Like…I’m sold by the persuasiveness of Genie’s arguiment. Aren’t you? 🙂

      2. You’re fucking stupid.

      3. “Except she is correct, we are in the midst of a mass extinction.”
        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

      4. Learned people? All I hear from are intellectually bankrupt marxists, and phony ‘scientists’ on the dole to produce socialist friendly climate propaganda.

      5. Except she is correct, we are in the midst of a mass extinction.

        Mass extinctions affect upwards of 75% of all species; we aren’t even close to that. All that has happened so far is that extinction rates have increased over prehistoric backgrounds, but even at current rates, it would be a long time before we had a mass extinction.

        (Of course, it’s far from clear that a mass extinction event is even a bad thing.)

      6. Extinction is part of nature. Mankind is ALSO part of nature. Now please fuck off.

      7. For god’s sake she said we need to stop using fossil fuels immediately. Like today. Shut down all transportation and electrical grids. What the hell is wrong with you?

        1. “What the hell is wrong with you?”

          I remain unsure whether your brains must be missing to be a lefty, or whether once you decide you are a lefty, you have to vacuum them out.

          1. The latter, I think. It seems most people who are otherwise reasonable but are politically left turn completely retarded when the subject becomes political. Listening to Reason editors shows an extreme example
            They are supposedly libertarian, but consistently attack the right and defend the left. Even when the left has become openly socialist and they claim to be against socialism, they still smear freedom oriented righties and stretching find common ground with socialists

      8. “Except she is correct, we are in the midst of a mass extinction.”

        If you really believe this…why are you still alive?

        Your actions belie your claims.

    5. Her parents are the culprits.

      Her father is a douchebag if you ask me.

    6. author Zach Weissmueller’s bio shows he has no science background. He’s parroting Big Agriculture’s and climate change deniers idea that we can produce all food and water and energy we need. But we can’t produce all the clean water and energy we need at a low cost. Also since the world doesn’t run on solar and won’t for decades at best, as fossil fuels run out we won’t have the energy to produce enough food and de salinate enough water. Has he ever driven in a giant city like LA? What’s the opposition to population control? That normally comes from religions.

      1. Ever read the novel “Logan’s Run” . . ?

      2. “…as fossil fuels run out…”
        Please tell us when ‘peak oil’ and the watermelon ‘rapture’ are to occur; I really want to laugh at lefty fucking ignoramuses like you again.

        1. Most experts agree we are past peak oil. Fracking and shale extends oil reserves at massive damage levels and cost. Please tell us that fossil fuels will never run out and natural gas and oil costs the same that it cost in 1920 adjusted for inflation. Whats your degree and expererience in? You commited every logical fallacy. I thought Libertarians were educated and thoughtful?

          1. Pretty much everything you said is complete bullshit. And yes, given your comment, that is about the level of response warranted.

      3. It isn’t the lack of resources that are gonna determine when our ecosystem crashes and wont support us anymore, it is the waste.

        Anyone who has tried to maintain even a relatively simple closed system like a saltwater aquarium knows that technological advancements make all the resource parts easy. We are never gonna run out of water or oil (we already make oil in labs, it will just cost a bit more then sucking it out of the ground pre-made).

        Our problem will be when we the carbon cycle or nitrate cycle get out of whack. Of course, a nice pandemic could do wonders to reduce the load we generate.But ultimately I think the panic is unwarranted, and is likely more wolf crying. And carbon and nitrate sequestering can be done relatively simply with modern tech, it just requires planting trees, and then harvesting them and storing the lumber where it wont decay. The trick will be to try and sequester an equivalent amount of hydrocarbons as the fossil fuels we are extracting.

        But the thing nobody is talking about is how the reduction of fossil fuels will affect the water cycle.

        We are taught in elementary school that water stays h2o and just goes from solid to liquid to vapor and back over and over again, and that their is a set amount of water. This is of course utter bullshit. Most people aren’t aware of this, but when you burn a single gallon of gasoline (cleanly) in a car engine, it will exhaust 2 gallons of water in the form of vapor.

        So while our planet is releasing a whole bunch of carbon from hundreds of thousands of years ago, we are also releasing a hell of a lot of water that hasn’t been water in a long time. Has anyone actually studied what will happen to our precipitation if suddenly we aren’t forming rain clouds with our exhaust pipes anymore?

    7. Never met a teenager that didn’t think they knew it all. Never met an adult that didn’t think they were fools when they were teenagers.

  2. Ehrlich, who still holds an endowed professorship at Stanford, didn’t respond to our interview request.

    Because he had offed himself?

    1. Citing global warming and habitat destruction, documentarian David Attenborough described humanity as a “plague upon the Earth.”

      Attenborough then said he can at least do his part, and threw himself off a cliff.

      1. Will the lemmings follow?

    2. I swear, I still hear:
      ‘Well, he was wrong in some particulars, but right in general.’
      No, he was wrong in EVERY particular and wrong in general besides.

      1. What good is a nice planet if there is no one left to see it?

        1. I dunno. Maybe the striped owls will enjoy it.

    3. That guy needs to once and for all stop hiding like a coward behind the walls of academia and face the music and explain (if not account) his long record of missed prognostications.

      Declining to speak is lame and speaks volumes about his integrity.

      Come out to play Paul. Warriors….come out to playyyyy….

      1. He still gets ink in, at least, Sunday supplements. Maybe the NYT. Haven’t seen his byline in anything more serious than that in years, but he does get time or citation on CNN and MSNBC; tells you how interested those outlets are in ‘science’.

  3. One way to help control the population is to terminate children with defects.

    1. You’ll never hear about how the ancient Greeks who left their broken children on mountainsides had to deal with climate change.

      1. They should have at least buried the bodies to sequester the carbon.

      2. One of whom had swollen feet (literal meaning of Oedipus) who grew up to kill his father and marry his mother!

  4. This stupid girl is why kids are in school to learn things.

    Because overall, they are stupid about the World. Their entire lives involve what their parents download into their brains. This girl has been spoon fed Socialist garbage.

  5. Quit reading at the fifth paragraph the Texas and New Zealand shooters were not far right they are far left. Time to put Reason on another one week penalty hiatus.

    1. Be sure and take down the names of donors at the next donation drive so that you can thank them personally in the future.

      1. I for one am glad those people that contributed to unreason have less money to do more harm with it.

        They threw good money down the drain as unreason circles the drain.

    2. Yep. In the words of Frenchy the Clown “one more demerit, and it’s the paddle!”

  6. I would think the best evidence for the Malthusians would be slowing economic growth, increasing unemployment and poverty, and decreases in calorie production and consumption per capita, and that these effects would be measurable well before people start dying en masse.

    So, why do these people always demand we act “now!” before any of those measures seem to demand it?

    1. …because a frightened herd will stampede over the cliff…which is what they think mankind is, and how mankind will act.

  7. One of the simplest ways to stabilize the population is to empower women. Given the power, women will have only the number of children they can support.

    1. Why do you assume the population needs to be “stabilized”?

    2. “empower women” what does that even mean in this context?

      1. Surgically graft functioning testicles and penises (…penii?) onto females so they have total control over reproductive rights.

        Duh.

      2. It means allowing women to have a say in the number of children they produce. Educate women, allow them access to contraceptives and where necessary abortion. Some of the poorest countries in the world also have the youngest populations. These are often unstable countries that put pressure on the world as a whole. Assisting these counties to stabilize their populations and invest in each child will reduce pressure allowing development of a better standard of living and hopefully transitioning to lower carbon life styles. The article suggests transitioning to nuclear power, but ask yourself how comfortable would you be giving nuclear power to any of these really poor and unstable countries.

        1. “”It means allowing women to have a say in the number of children they produce.””

          They do now.

          1. Yeah what is this? Where are women forced to breed?

            1. Probably in the erotic fan fiction to which Moderation whacks it.

            2. If I had to guess: probably in shitty countries where women don’t really have rights, culturally and/or legally. The situation in India jumps to mind as a potential example.

            3. Sub Saharan Africa where the is little access to contraceptives.

        2. “Educate women, allow them access to contraceptives and where necessary abortion.”

          We have that here, and yet, the problem remains.

    3. Given the power, women will have only the number of children they can support.

      If that were the case we wouldn’t need your racist eugenics that have ended the potential lives of about 30 million black children since 1973.

      1. Great. We can drop WIC and welfare in general, right?

    4. One of the simplest ways to stabilize the population is to empower women. Given the power, women will have only the number of children they can support.

      Women have been empowered to have only the number of children they can support for a century.

      So, by your own reasoning, we should give women fewer government handouts so that they can support fewer children and therefore will choose to have fewer children, right? Because the only reason many single women can afford to have children is because the government finances it.

      1. “Women have been empowered to have only the number of children they can support for a century.”

        There is a very large world out there where women are poor, uneducated, and powerless. Do you think women in these poor countries get government subsidies. Are your so consumed by idea of someone getting something from the government that you can’t see the effect of poverty. You need to think bigger than your neighborhood you need to think the world.

        1. This is a problem of culture, not female empowerment. Tribalism is the problem you need to solve first.

          Poverty, knowledge, and a respect for individual rights can only flourish when people live according to laws and customs that hold each person responsible for their own actions.

          1. The greatest tool to reduce tribalism is education. Educate people and they will move beyond tribalism.

            Check your last line are you suggesting poverty flourishes where we hold people responsible for their own actions?

        2. You said:

          One of the simplest ways to stabilize the population is to empower women. Given the power, women will have only the number of children they can support.

          Is this a true statement? We can look around the world at how empowerment and childbearing relate. Can we find a counterexample? Yes: easily. American women have been empowered, yet many are having far more children than they can afford. They do this by demanding and receiving government transfers. Therefore, your hypothesis is wrong.

          You need to think bigger than your neighborhood you need to think the world.

          In other words, your premise and prescription is wrong. In actual fact, the US/European model of female empowerment, based on special privileges and government transfers, actually creates a permanent underclass of poor, government dependent families. But rather than recognizing that and fixing it, you are hell bent on exporting it around the world. That’s progressivism for you: double down on failed, destructive policies.

          1. By and large women in the US and the EU have limited number of children and have a number they feel they can support and raise. The small percentage of women who maybe having children they can not support are likely to be poorer and less well educated. I stand by my statement. Educate and empower women and that will have a major effect on stabilizing world population. That will reduce resource demand and allow for the most sustainable use of the resources. And all of this can be done in a free market manner.

            1. I stand by my statement. Educate and empower women and that will have a major effect on stabilizing world population.

              Proof by repeated assertion, how nice. You have provided no evidence that it is actually “empowerment of women” that causes birth rates to drop, or that “empowerment of women” is even an independent variable at all.

              That will reduce resource demand and allow for the most sustainable use of the resources.

              And this is a desirable objective… why? “Sustainable” on what time scale? How do you “sustainably” use Uranium or oil? The only truly sustainable way of life we know is hunter-gathering. Do you want to go back to that?

              Human progress has been driven by unsustainability. That is, human populations hitting resource constraints and then figuring out ways around them. That’s how H. sapiens spread across the globe, developed agriculture and farming, urbanization, etc.

  8. At this point that little weirdo is just an underage dominatrix to the rich and powerful. She stands up and abuses the elite because that is what they want. Self loathing is a fetish for them.

    1. She’s just another child soldier, recruited to fight, under the thumb of the Gaia’s Resistance Army.

    2. You’re onto something. Catastrophic climate and inequality sadomasochism for billionaires.

      The latest is that Bloomberg (add Seyer, Soros) is now an economic populist on income, wealth inequality climate jihadi, with a promise to fully fund the Democratic nominee with his wealth. Lets say Sanders gets the nomination. Billionaires willing to take down the republic because Trump says mean things on twitter.

  9. more than 11,000 scientists, asserted that Earth’s population “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced.”

    You first. I’ll catch up, I promise.

    1. So……. when I encourage Tony, Pedo Jeffy, and Squirrelly to commit suicide, I’m just trying to save the planet.

  10. If Greta Thunberg were serious, she would be in China or India.
    I tend to ignore the ranting and whining of self centered children.

  11. You’re wrong. Population control would help a lot.

    If we can get lieberals to stop having kids and self-eliminate, climate change will disappear.

    1. They can prove they are correct, posthumously.

  12. The idiot child doesn’t understand that increasing prosperity correlates with decreasing birth rates.

    1. That’s why wealthy families have substantially fewer children then poor ones. Oh wait, that’s not the case at all and hasn’t been in the entire history of civilization.

      But hey, we know that fertility increases during economic depressions and declines during economic booms. Oh wait, that’s not the case at all and hasn’t been in the entire history of civilization.

      Well, uh, hmmmmm….

      1. Things have changed, homey. Throughout the entire history of civilization, you didn’t have the option of Wednesday night girls’ night out at the local winery. Kids put a damper on things like that.

        1. We’ve got 60 years of data since the pill that indicates there’s practically no correlation between economic wellbeing and fertility. It’s simply not true that wealthier people have fewer children. Western society has been in population decline for 30+ years. It just doesn’t correlate to financial outcomes in any meaningful way.

          1. “Western society has been in population decline for 30+ years. It just doesn’t correlate to financial outcomes in any meaningful way.”

            All the while, Western society has become progressively wealthier. Apparently, “correlate” does not mean what you think it does.

        2. Throughout the entire history of civilization, you didn’t have the option of Wednesday night girls’ night out at the local winery.

          No “homey” such things were actually quite common in ancient Rome.

      2. Wealthy families do have substantially fewer children than poor ones, or haven’t you noticed that?

        It also helps when you don’t need kids to work as your farm hands, or expect most of your kids to die from childhood diseases.

        Educated and fully employed people also tend to have, at most, enough children to keep the population stable. Myself and nearly everyone in my social circle have even less than that requisite 2.1.

    2. What you idiot children fail to understand is that your western European self-flaggelating nihilism that makes you despise your own fertility is a cultural artifact and not an economic one. When you finally succeed in equalizing the world’s bottom 3 quartiles into one giant morass of semi-impoverished wards of a supranational global state, the third world goat fuckers aren’t going to stop breeding like rabbits because they aren’t self-hating cucks like you are.

      1. Has your fertility ever know anything but hitting the soft, impenetrable wall of a crumpled up Kleenex?

        1. The last wad I blasted had a higher IQ than yours. You don’t need to prove that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

          1. Come on man, he’s going to opine about no one ever having Wednesday night wine parties before, that’s super useful.

  13. Population control is the only solution. Clingers are no longer allowed to have children. They may be able to get it back after their woke betters reprogram them “a clockwork orange” style. Then everyone will be in full agreement that global warming can only be solved with global socialism!

    (side thought: is it possible for grettas parents to have a 67th trimester abortion?)

    1. You need to retroactively abort your alter ego, Arthur I Kirkland. 🙂

  14. You know, in five or six years I’ll bet she’s gonna be smokin hot.

    1. In five or six years, climate change will have us all smoking hot. Have you not been listening?

    2. Yeah, but if you do anything consensual with her, she’ll still turn around two years later and accuse you of rape. Just because you’re a man.

  15. She’s a 17 year old twat that didn’t finish school and will probably never go to college or university since she found her niche on the world stage as an insufferable bag of gas.

    The proper response to her should be a large, collective: “Go to your fucking room and think about what you did.”

  16. These poor kids raised on climate hysteria (an illegal word in Germany now btw), will take a long time to adjust to reality.

    1. Eventually Germany’s gonna get around to outlawing itself. It’s just inevitable at this point.

      1. Eventually it’s going to become a vicious country.

        Making people feel nothing but shame about their history is not a long-term solution.

  17. “Basically, the Malthusian prescription turns out to be completely wrong,” says Bailey.

    Yet Ron nevertheless remains a wackbag proponent of population control, sterilization, and ”””””voluntary””””” eugenics.

  18. It’s not just Malthus haunting the debate, it goes back further to Thomas Aquinas and the idea that there are objective values to things rather than what should be obvious in trade – values are subjective or why would anybody ever have any incentive to trade one thing for another? Everything involves trade-offs and therefore subjective values and to claim that some things are so valuable that no price is too high a price to pay is simply nonsense. The neo-Malthusians are fine with erasing the past 10,000 years or so of civilization in the name of saving civilization, some of us think returning to a pre-agricultural society of hunter-gatherers is a price worth haggling over. I’m getting old and have a touch of the rheumatiz, I ain’t gonna go live in a fucking dark, clammy cave.

    1. This has nothing to do with going to a pre-agrarian society for them. The prescriptions and solutions they want in their mind will have no actual consequences or impacts on their lifestyles. It will mean those things to everyone else while they live the same way and continue to do the same things while having to not wait in the same lines. To these people and really most people energy and power is something that comes from the plug in the wall. Most of this amounts to these people social singling to their friends they are smart, but the actual real world consequence will never be suffered by them so they don’t care. Like most marxists they think they will be the ones deciding what’s fair and who gets what. Unlike most real revolutionary marxists though these people are already part of the gentry ruling class so they would have the most to lose. Sometimes I hope they get what they want good and hard but ultimately the schadenfreude probably wouldn’t be worth it. They want all of the stratified class structure of the feudal times with all of the bells and whistles of a capitalist society is that really too much to ask?

      1. The prescriptions and solutions they want in their mind will have no actual consequences or impacts on their lifestyles

        Oh, but they will, because the laws of economics don’t just suddenly stop operating because Greta wills them to. As a mentally ill, annoying little brat, she should count her lucky stars to have been born in present day Scandinavia; if we go back to the kind of society that the policies she advocates would create, people like her wouldn’t likely be left to starve.

    2. Malthus isn’t haunting the debate because there is some powerful/evil idea there.

      If there’s a Malthusian idea haunting the debate it is precisely because ‘capitalism’ (or more accurately neoliberalism/globalism based on marginalist economics) has created the fucking problem here re climate. It to date has absolutely no ideas for fixing it other than ‘when we get richer ideas will simply happen – trust us’. And if the only contribution ‘capitalism’ is even gonna make to the debate is a bit of ad hominem – oh look the evil Malthusians and autistic teens over there – well nature abhors a vacuum and it ain’t gonna be ‘capitalism’ that fills that vacuum.

      1. So only capitalist countries ever industrialized? What fucking planet are you talking about because on earth the goal of every communist country ever born was to industrialize as fast as possible.

        1. Get over the commie infatuation. The Cold War ended. We won. Everyone on the planet knows that. Your attempt to keep resurrecting it in order to keep the phantom demons going is why – it keeps persisting as a viable idea. It’s like you’re stuck in the 1950’s – and intellectually in the stupid version of the 19th century.

          Same sort of shit that happened re the immigration debate. Decade or two of people being called ‘racist’ merely because they ask valid questions about that. Soon enough, those perpetually called ‘racist’ double-down on the epithet – and actually move towards racist arguments.

          The environment (broadly defined) has been the ‘negative externality’ of ALL economic growth in every system that ignores land – which is both Marxism and marginalism/capitalism. Which also yes does happened to coincide with industrialization but only because that era was marked by a conflict between an old landed-elite and a new industrial elite and the new elites (both Marxist AND capitalist) created intellectual notions that got rid of the old elite by ignoring the economic factor most obviously important to the old. Well guess what – that economic factor is also at the core of everything environment/climate/etc.

          1. JFree
            January.23.2020 at 2:53 pm
            “Get over the commie infatuation…”

            Yeah, John, you called JFree on his bullshit and JFree said ‘you’re not allowed to do that!’

            1. You’re a complete moron as usual. ‘Communism’ as a driving factor in economic growth/activity around the world ceased to be relevant in 1990. All the changes re 1990 re ‘climate’ are solidly on ‘capitalist’ notions of growth. Even China which is politically commie but where govt spending is now far lower as a % of GDP than the US.

              1. Really? See the democrat party for refutation. As an exercise, compare their party platform to the ten pillars of communism.

                1. Well, to be fair, the Democratic party platform is even more similar to the NSDAP party platform.

      2. *re climate. It’s not a question of whether climate changes this has always been the case the question is really whether humans contribute to this change? if so how much? what are the net effects of this? is this something that largely a bad thing net? how could we mitigate this? Are the trade-offs for mitigating this worth the effort? These people have already decided in their mind they know the answer to all these questions. The level of hubris in not only assuming you understand the answers to these questions even with a doctorate of science and decades of studying environmental systems but then to be so certain you are right and all criticisms leveled at you are just knuckle dragging science deniers is frankly retarded. Just like the human meat shield they are currently using to try to brow beat us into cowing to.

      3. If there’s a Malthusian idea haunting the debate it is precisely because ‘capitalism’ (or more accurately neoliberalism/globalism based on marginalist economics) has created the fucking problem here re climate.

        What climate issue? Britain is supposed to be “siberian” this exact year, according to “settled science”.

      4. “If there’s a Malthusian idea haunting the debate it is precisely because ‘capitalism’ (or more accurately neoliberalism/globalism based on marginalist economics) has created the fucking problem here re climate. ”

        Name a single actually clean non-capitalist country. Ever.

        When the Berlin Wall came down, the pollution of E Germany dwarfed W Germany. S Korea is markedly cleaner than N Korea or China.

  19. These people are all so terrible. They do whatever they want, vacation whereever they want, travel whereever they want, drive whatever they want, live however they want. But there’s too many people in those spots and on the roads inconveniencing them. All the poors should either starve to death, be killed, or move to over top of the factories/restaurants they work and be relegated to public transit. To call these fucking narcisistic eco warriors communists is almost insulting to the that retarded ethos and idealogy. These people are the worst types of narcissistic Malthusians.

  20. Similarly, ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968 compared humanity to overbreeding cattle, writing, “The freedom to breed is intolerable.”

    Gentlemen, I present to you the first incel.

  21. Greta looks like a constipated Cabbage Patch Kid. Someone should market a doll like that to be given to problematic children. Could you imagine that glowering at you in your room at night in the dark?

    1. ^ best post ever! ^

    2. She is like an evil Veruca Salt. Imagine Varuca Salt would have been like had Charlie and the Chocolate Factory been written by Steven King and that is Greta.

    3. I smell a new horror movie franchise! Like a cross between ‘Child’s Play’, and ‘The Ring’. Where Greta’s internet presence haunts her victims ceaselessly with her incessant rhetorical climate drivel and emotional histrionics.

      That would be some scary shit.

    4. Evil offspring of Al Gore and Yoda?

  22. Actually, a little more capitalism would tend to limit population growth in the U.S. and other First World countries.

    Right now, we’ve got all sorts of taxpayer-funded benefits for people who procreate: dependent-child tax credits, free schooling, mandatory maternity coverage in ACA-compliant health-insurance policies, and much, much more. Moreover, our progressive brethren are determined to add to them, calling for a refundable earned-income credit, paid family leave, free child care, and a host of other goodies to incentivize spawning, particularly in the lower income levels.

    Eliminating or seriously cutting back on these would tend to mitigate the environmental impact of population growth. It’d have the strongest effect on society’s most vulnerable members—that is, the class that’s least likely to produce the scientists and engineers who’ll bring about the technological advances on which Weissmueller’s argument depends. And, rather than imposing a new burden on the taxpayer and/or adding to the national debt, as would so many of the Green New Deal policies, it’d reduce government spending and transfer payments.

  23. “11,000 scientists” I’d be curious to see what their definition of a scientist is.

    1. 90 percent of anything is crap.

      1. Well said, Mr. Sturgeon. More Killdozer, less Greta.

    2. People who agree with my position currently. They could care less about scientists if they weren’t useful tools in reinforcing their worldview or something to bludgeon their “unapologetically knuckle dragging” opponents with.

    1. Yeah. That’s what I’d post on a libertarian website.

  24. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,”

    I say we take her up on this. For the most part we can all go about things just as we were before, but get rid of the cell phones.

    A normal home phone will easily last you 10+ years. While cordless ones have batteries they aren’t required to last as long and they aren’t discarded and replaced after each year like phones are. The amount of mining for the metals needed in the construction of these phones is horrible for the environment.

    I’m sure if we make this argument all that are in favor of saving the climate will jump onboard. Right?

    1. “I’m sure if we make this argument all that are in favor of saving the climate will jump onboard. ”

      Why not just make phones that last as long as your typical stove, fridge, car or other appliance? What’s wrong with making things to last, and making them well? It may not be the Libertarian Way, but it’s the conservative way.

      1. “Why not just make phones that last as long as your typical stove, fridge, car or other appliance? What’s wrong with making things to last, and making them well? It may not be the Libertarian Way, but it’s the conservative way.”

        Poor, whiny, trueman: ‘Why can’t things be like they were, sob!’

        1. “‘Why can’t things be like they were, sob!’”

          Why not make make phones that last as long as your typical stove, fridge, car or other appliance? If that’s beyond you, stick to insulting Greta Thunberg and her family.

          1. For one thing a stove, fridge, and appliance doesn’t have a battery.

            For another, how long does the battery in your car last again? Probably about as long as your phone could last if you’d stop dropping in on concrete, into the toilet, or just buying a new one for no reason at all.

            This being said, everyone going the route Apple took with making sure a new battery is harder to install than buying a new device isn’t a great trend but phone technology is moving so fast having a long-lived device won’t help as much as you think it will.

            1. “This being said, everyone going the route Apple took with making sure a new battery is harder to install than buying a new device isn’t a great trend”

              It’s a horrible trend, it’s almost stomach turning.

              1. Why? The old battery still goes to the same place. You can buy cheap ass phones with no functionality that’ll last you a decade, you just don’t have any guarantee it’ll still connect to a network in ten years.

                You should become Amish. It’ll solve most of your stated problems.

                1. “you just don’t have any guarantee it’ll still connect to a network in ten years”

                  Not because of any insurmountable technical issues I’m familiar with.

          2. Business model along with the advancement of technology is the reason. I have a stove for 20 years maybe. I wish I could have a PC that lasts that long, but if I did it wouldn’t be able to play the games I want.

            The companies could make the phones last that long along with allowing replaceable batteries, but the people wouldn’t use them (I would, but I’m strange) because they would want new features. This is how they let others know how cool they are.

            1. “but if I did it wouldn’t be able to play the games I want.”

              I’ve heard people say they like Windows for the same frivolous reason.

              “This is how they let others know how cool they are.”

              There are other ways of making things cool without building in obsolescence. A Rolex Oyster watch is very cool, well made and built to be treasured and even passed down as an heirloom. Even electric watches, the idea of having to throw away an electric watch because the battery has run down is sickening.

              1. “There are other ways of making things cool without building in obsolescence.”

                This is true and it’s happening, but people fall prey to marketing. More people need to take the time to consider what needs bought and what doesn’t and more importantly for what reasons something needs to be replaced.

                I try to keep a PC for 7 years. A little over is my record. I’m a gamer. Went from NES to PC. Windows had/has the flight sims unlike the consoles. Windows has it’s flaws for sure, but you can get under the hood and correct a lot. My rule is best processor, best GPU, and max the RAM out. Replace GPU as needed along with things like HDD’s that shit the bed and only upgrade OS when you replace the PC. I’ve skipped a lot of Windows versions this way and still don’t have 10. I haven’t encountered a new game that I want to play that my version can’t run flawlessly.

                You and I agree. I still have and use my first smartphone. I’ve had 2 mp3 players in my life and still have and use both. I still have my first record player. I still have my first component DVD and CD player. My digital alarm clock is a Conair from 1986. I still have my rare Atari/Colecovision combo that they got sued over. (And it still works)

                I bought a Timex watch sometime in the 90’s. I changed the band 3 times, the battery more, and finally the sweat from my body corroded the metal and a band can’t be used. It’s a pocket watch now.

                I don’t pay attention to climate change too much. Maybe I should. I do know I leave less of an imprint than most that do pay attention. Maybe I’m fine where I’m at.

                1. I have my own aesthetic/moral reasons for holding onto the things I buy and use, much like yourself. I think the tie-in to climate change is to make good things that last, and can be repaired, maintained and tinkered with. I think we know enough now about recycling to see that it is not the answer environmentalists hoped it would be.

          3. mtrueman
            January.23.2020 at 3:44 pm
            Why not make make phones that last as long as your typical stove, fridge, car or other appliance? If that’s beyond you, stick to insulting Greta Thunberg and her family.”

            Because the answer to that is obviously beyond you, meaning you are every bit as good a target for insult as that whiny kid and her family.
            In this case the answer requires some (obviously lacking) intelligence on your part which no cite can provide. Inform yourself, or remain an idiot; I care not which.

            1. Needs more Greta Thunberg insults.

      2. Why not just make phones that last as long as your typical stove, fridge, car or other appliance? What’s wrong with making things to last, and making them well?

        Engineering is tradeoffs. Durability costs money and weight. Furthermore, making cell phones durable is pointless because they will be obsolete within a few years and not be supported anymore.

        Stoves, fridges, and toasters generally don’t go obsolete quickly, so they can be made more durable.

        1. “Stoves, fridges, and toasters generally don’t go obsolete quickly, so they can be made more durable.”

          So when these appliances are fitted with enough computing power, we’ll be throwing them out and replacing them with the same frequency as our cell phones? No thank you. This rankles my innate conservatism. I treasure my property, I avoid debt and waste.

          1. How much computing power do you think a toaster needs, exactly?

            That being said, if you buy a ‘smart’ fringe you’ll probably be buying a new one sooner than someone that didn’t. Extra electronics are extra points of failure. Especially in devices that deal with water or high heat.

            1. “How much computing power do you think a toaster needs, exactly?”

              How much does a car need? None, exactly.


              1. How much does a car need? None, exactly.

                If you want things like emissions controls or power steering etc., a lot compared to how much a toaster needs. How’s your carburetor treating you these days, by the way?

                1. Even a little software needs updating, and better toasters need buying. You wouldn’t want to toast bread in something with unpatched security issues, would you?

                  1. “Even a little software needs updating, and better toasters need buying. You wouldn’t want to toast bread in something with unpatched security issues, would you?”
                    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                    “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

              2. How much does a car need? None, exactly.

                Your car needs massive amounts of computing power, among other things to meet modern safety and efficiency standards.

                Furthermore, as those standards get tightened, cars rapidly become obsolete and pose excess risks to both the environment and people. The reason you can still drive old clunkers is because society has decided to accept that excess risk and pollution.

                1. Treasure those memories. If this climate business is ever taken seriously, your car driving days are numbered. It’s the low hanging fruit of the climate change juggernaut, if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor.

                  1. “If this climate business is ever taken seriously, your car driving days are numbered.”

                    Yep, it’s been at least 20 years ago when Riverside Drive in NY was supposed to be underwater and no birds were living there.
                    Fucking watermelons never understand that science isn’t the process of making politically-favored predictions; it needs predictions proven by data.
                    trueman is confused by that requirement; he thinks posting his idiotic opinions has something to do with it.

                  2. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about me or my cars.

                    You made the remark that “cars need no computing power” and implied that they shouldn’t become quickly obsolete. I merely correct your really ignorant mistake.

                    1. Thanks for your input.

              3. “How much [computing power] does a car need? None, exactly.”
                I repeat myself:
                mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                Attending COMDEX some 30 years ago, I was invited to visit the Benz booth; quite large and elegant, and the theme was presented on a large sign at the entrance:
                ‘A Computer on Four Wheels’.
                Let me repeat that:
                mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

          2. So when these appliances are fitted with enough computing power, we’ll be throwing them out and replacing them with the same frequency as our cell phones?

            Some people will, others won’t. It’s a free country.

            No thank you.

            As I was saying: it’s a free country.

            1. ” it’s a free country”

              Freedom is not free.

              1. That comment applies to the need for military service and personal sacrifice. I don’t see how it applies here.

    2. And the same metals, plus more, even more toxic materials are required for all those electric cars these assholes insist upon. And in far greater quantity.

  25. The crisis in capitalism of 2008 was a time when global CO2 emissions into the atmosphere actually decreased. Every other period, when capitalism was thriving, CO2 emissions have risen. Encouraging Africans and the world’s poor to burn more fossil fuels will stoke more capitalism, but it will certainly continue to emit more CO2.

    I like Greta Thunberg’s idea of sinking more resources into improving literacy rates, especially for women, especially in poorer societies. There are so many benefits from improved education that it’s hard to list them all. Better health, longer, more rewarding lives, increased social and material wealth. I can’t think of a social aid policy that delivers more bang for the buck with marginal environmental impact.

    1. It’s not shocking that you would take your policy cues from a 16 year old high school dropout with zero accomplishments, aside from ranting and raving nonsensically to any fools who will listen.

      That is EXACTLY what I expect of you.

      1. Greta Thunberg is not the originator of the idea of promoting female literacy for the world’s poor. I probably first read about the idea before she was born, full disclosure, possibly in a Marxist publication. Where do you get your cues from?

        1. Greta Thunberg is not the originator of the idea of promoting female literacy for the world’s poor.

          And by “promote”, of course, you mean “send in the US military to kill civilians by the millions, in order to install enlightened Western puppet governments, followed by billions in taxpayer funding to have ineffective NGOs go in and pretend to teach people”.

          How about we stop messing in the affairs of other countries? How about they modernize at their own pace?

          1. “How about we stop messing in the affairs of other countries? ”

            What have you got against teaching literacy to young females? Aside from them coming from other countries?

            1. I have nothing against teaching literacy to young females (or old ones). If you want to go and do that, be my guest.

              I have something against the US government doing it, or paying people to do that because it usually has bad consequences on balance.

        2. mtrueman
          January.23.2020 at 5:21 pm
          “Greta Thunberg is not the originator of the idea of promoting female literacy for the world’s poor…”

          Not only is she ‘not the originator’, but not she’s done nothing other than lip service to the issue.
          But as a watermelon and an idiot, that didn’t occur to you, did it?

          1. ” but not she’s done nothing other than lip service to the issue.”

            More than you’ve done about the issue.

  26. Libertarians must deny AGW, because if it’s true, it destroys their entire ideology.

    Because the consequences are delayed long after the actions that caused them, people have no incentive to correct their behavior. Thus the main mechanism underpinning libertarianism fails.

    1. “it destroys their entire ideology”

      I’ve noticed there is never a ‘free market’ solution proposed. Communist China’s nuclear program, selling each other our sequestered carbon and other such schemes are as close as we come.

      1. Wrong, there are lots of free market solutions proposed, along with government solutions.

        It’s libertarians who cannot tolerate anything except for free market solutions.

        1. I don’t see any free market solutions offered. China’s nuclear plants are up to their eyeballs in government subsidies, and carbon sequestration is but a ponzi scheme. I believe if there were truly free market solutions, we’d be discussing them instead of telling each other how we feel about Greta Thunberg and her family.

          1. mtrueman
            January.23.2020 at 3:09 pm
            “I don’t see any free market solutions offered….”

            It’s not like you’re bright or observant, so there’s that.

          2. First off, what exactly do you mean by free market solutions? The free market is free to offer up and implement solutions right now with no government prompting, is it not? So where are these free market solutions that are organically stepping up to solve this problem?

            I mean really, if it’s truly a free market solution, we don’t even have to talk about it. It should be happening right now, the wonderful and all powerful and all knowing free market should be taking care of the problem without us saying a word. Where are you wonderful free market?

            1. “First off, what exactly do you mean by free market solutions?”

              I thought you had already worked that out for us.

              “Wrong, there are lots of free market solutions proposed”

              So you tell us. You claim to have it all worked out.

    2. Environmentalists must apply “fixes” to the climate now, because when the predictions inevitably don’t come true, it gets harder to implement the fixes later.

      1. See, you are proving my point really.

        But the facts are the predictions are already coming true, atmospheric temperatures are rising, ocean temperatures are rising, sea level is rising, glaciers worldwide are melting, nearly every year is hotter than the last, extreme weather events are increasing, mass extinction is underway.

        1. “See, you are proving my point really….”

          See,
          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          Really.

          1. Really, I’m fullofshit, and you are basing this on what exactly.

            Oh right, nothing at all, you just believe you are smarter than everyone! You know more than the world’s scientists!

            I’ll never understand the arrogance of person who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground saying he knows better than the vast majority of learned experts in a field. You are too stupid to know how stupid you look.

            1. Your statements are largely unsupported by verifiable facts, and to some degree, contradicted. Also, the overall trend of which you speak is indicative of the last fifty thousand years since the last ice age.

            2. “Really, I’m fullofshit, and you are basing this on what exactly.”

              You make this too easy:
              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.
              Based on your posts which show:
              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.
              Want more than that? Try getting some education and come back.
              Until then, well, you know the story.

        2. This just in: exiting an ice age involves rising temperatures.

          I notice you don’t mention the lull in hurricane activity or expanding Antarctic ice. I assume you also don’t notice that when a life form evolves into another life form, something just went extinct.

          Let me guess, you’re worried that Earth will become Venus in just a few years?

          I note that we can’t accurately predict weather a week in advance, but I’m sure we can predict the climate in 100 years.

          1. I’ll just address the Antarctic ice.

            You have to look at the world average, and on average ice on sea and on land is melting dramatically.

            1. Why does one need to look at world averages, exactly, do you think?

              Also what is the ‘proper’ rate of change in the climate?

              I’m assuming less than what caused the Chicxulub crater…?

              Yeah, I’m sure humans are a way bigger risk to the climate than a space body measuring a few km in diameter. Or even just regular old volcanic activity.

        3. But the facts are the predictions are already coming true, atmospheric temperatures are rising, ocean temperatures are rising, sea level is rising, glaciers worldwide are melting, nearly every year is hotter than the last, extreme weather events are increasing, mass extinction is underway.

          Mmmmno. Again, according to “settled science”, in 2004, it was declared that Britain would be “Siberian” by 2020.

          Here’s a careful, factual breakdown of climate predictions made in 2001… and how they fared in reality.

        4. That means it’s too late.

      2. Scientists have been predicting a warmer climate for decades now. They’ve been measuring and recording a warmer climate for just as long.

        1. “Scientists have been predicting a warmer climate for decades now. They’ve been measuring and recording a warmer climate for just as long.”

          Cite one (1) specific prediction which data confirmed.

          1. Warmer climates predicted, warmer climates observed and recorded.

            1. “Warmer climates predicted, warmer climates observed and recorded.”

              Missed “specific”, or just a fucking idiot?

              1. Find your own specifics if that’s what you want.

      3. “…because when the predictions inevitably don’t come true…”

        We double down on the fixes. Because it’s not about the environment. It never was.

        It’s about control. Control of energy, which is what a set of controls on carbon emission will equal, is control of everything. If Marxists can’t get the West to stop using capitalism through class consciousness guilt, they’ll try environmentalism.

        1. “…because when the predictions inevitably DO come true…”

          We simply conflate science with marxism. Problem solved.

          1. Call me when they do. So far, you people are batting 0.

        2. Yes, it is about control.

          You don’t like any kind of government control at all so if science discovers any problem which would require government control to address, you scream “MARXISM!!!” and accuse the scientists of colluding in some super seeekrit nefarious Marxist conspiracy.

          1. You don’t like any kind of government control at all so if science discovers any problem which would require government control to address

            Libertarians aren’t anarchists, and the argument that “addressing the problem requires government control” is begging the question on both ends.

          2. You wouldn’t know the scientific method if you’d studied for an undergraduate degree in it, you worthless Lysenkoite.

            Your ilk corrupts everything they touch. You make everything filthy, drab, and base. Your fellow travelers distort knowledge and traffic in lies—in every environment where they’ve been allowed to flourish. I’d rather talk to a random cat on the street about the climate. It wouldn’t understand the scientific method either, but it would do me the favor of not lying to me about it.

    3. False. Self-interest has no expiration date and people frequently choose to protect the future. That’s why we save for our children, plant trees, and initiate large projects that we’ll never reap the rewards of.

    4. And I think you’re selling a lot of people short.

      The thing that’s keeping people from adopting the Left’s “solutions” is that, whether the solution is a smaller one like a carbon tax or a more overarching takeover of the economy along the lines of the Green New Deal, there’s no evidence that the “solution” will actually fix the problem. We’re just supposed to take it on faith. I truly believe that people will make a sacrifice for posterity if they can see that the sacrifice will actually accomplish its goal.

      And the people who will end up in charge of our economy: are they some special, farsighted, superior breed? Why should we believe that?

      1. “We’re just supposed to take it on faith. I truly believe that people will make a sacrifice for posterity if they can see that the sacrifice will actually accomplish its goal.”

        Taking it on faith may be the best option. We might just have to trust our scientists and their predictions of the future. Unless time travel is realized, these predictions are the most reasonable.

        1. Take it on faith.

          So what if we had taken it on faith the Ehrlich and company were right? How many fucking lives would have been ruined, by following their recommendations?

          1. Oh, and faith is the primary principle on which science is based, so there is that!
            /Sarc off

            1. “Oh, and faith is the primary principle on which science is based”

              Some of the scientific pillars are based on faith. Conservation of matter and energy is one. It goes back to Aristotle, at least. He arrived at this through philosophical speculation, rather than rigorous observation and experimentation.

              1. January.23.2020 at 5:52 pm
                “Oh, and faith is the primary principle on which science is based”
                Some of the scientific pillars are based on faith. Conservation of matter and energy is one.”

                That is trueman’s claim, like all his bullshit, is provided with no support whatsoever. So in examination of such claim, let’s start with this:
                mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                Now, I have no doubt that trueman is indeed abysmally stupid enough to think that conservation has not been proven by *specific* data many times.
                But I also have no doubt that trueman is sophist enough that no details like that matter to him/her.
                I repeat:
                mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
                You.
                Are.
                Full.
                Of.
                Shit.

                1. “conservation has not been proven by *specific* data many times.”

                  In a closed system, sure. But that leaves open systems.

          2. Whose recommendations are you following? We’re at a stage now where there is more worldwide malnutrition than at the time Ehrlich made his notorious predictions. How many lives have been stunted by malnutrition? If you want to get worked up about ruined lives, work yourself up over real lives, not imaginary ones.

            1. We’re at a stage now where there is more worldwide malnutrition than at the time Ehrlich made his notorious predictions.

              So?

              1. Malnutrition causes suffering. It’s kinda like when you don’t get enough to eat, for a long while.

                1. There’s a lot of stuff that causes suffering. So what?


            2. We’re at a stage now where there is more worldwide malnutrition than at the time Ehrlich made his notorious predictions.

              This is a ‘fact’ without evidence. By every measure I’ve seen, the world is less hungry today than it was in the 70’s.

              1. Last time I checked there were supposed to be about a billion people suffering from malnutrition. It’s worth noting that Ehrlich was predicting food shortages causing food insecurity, but since the predictions food production has continued to grow as before. Even so, world malnutrition has increased since those days.

                1. That’s the second post of yours asserting that without a citation.

                  Malnutrition as a percentage of global population has _declined_ over the past half century:

                  https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment#long-term-decline-of-undernourishment

                  Globally, there is an overproduction of food. Most hunger in the world is caused by war and other political conflict, not lack of food.

                  1. “Most hunger in the world is caused by war and other political conflict, not lack of food.”

                    India has seen a large increase in malnutrition. Not because of war or political conflict. Indians have even earned plaudits from noteworthy economists of the wealthier nations for their adoption of ‘neo liberal’ pro market economic policies.

                    1. India does indeed have a terrible malnutrition and hunger problem which has increased in recent years. The causes of India’s hunger problem are complex and unrelated to political conflict, though that is likely a minor contributor in regions such a Kashmir.

                      Now, what about the other 75% or so of world hunger? For every hungry adult or wasting child in India, there are at least two in other parts of the world suffering malnutrition due to political conflicts – Yemen, Syria, areas formerly Sudan, Venezuela, many areas in sub-Saharan Africa effectively under the rule of warlords, and so on. You could argue that Zimbabwe is simply chronically mismanaged, but I would respond that the problems there are a lingering result of the decades old conflict which converted the “bread basket of Africa” into a horror show, followed by the subsequent political machinations of Mugabe and his ilk to solidify and retain the grip on power (and perhaps we’d have to just agree to disagree on examples like that – so be it). I commend you for being aware of the huge and worsening problem in India, but I’ll also remind you that I wrote “most”, not “all” nor even “nearly all”.

                    2. “Now, what about the other 75% or so of world hunger?”

                      It’s in Africa as you point out. Also in Mexico and most of the Americas. I don’t think Ehrlich would have been surprised at the numbers of malnourished, he predicted them after all. I think everyone would be surprised at these numbers in light of unprecedented food production and capitalist markets established the world over.

          3. “How many fucking lives would have been ruined, by following their recommendations?”

            Given that socialists slaughtered well over 100 million souls in the last century, it is a good bet that their enviro-socialist descendants brethren that now afflict us would improve upon that number if given a chance.

            As for faith, Ehrlich and the rest of his doomsaying ilk have never been right on any prediction they’ve ever made.

            Ever. They have a perfect track record of failure.

            And yet, mtrueman’s faith persists.

            Astounding, really. One can only hope he does not vote.

            1. That reminds me of another interesting point of faith at the heart of science: constants. I think this also goes back to ancient greek philosophy. The idea that something in nature never changes and remains true. Speed of light is a good example, even though changes like the period of several years in the 1930s have been observed and measured.

              1. Speed of light is a good example, even though changes like the period of several years in the 1930s have been observed and measured.

                Is that so?

                You wouldn’t happen to have a cite or two on hand showing observed and measured variances to the speed of light, would you?

                Do share.

                1. Have you checked the internet? Let me know what you come up with.

                  1. Have you checked the internet? Let me know what you come up with.

                    Oh, so I am to do research to substantiate your assertion then?

                    Apparently you’ve never heard of the ancient concept known as burden of proof. Why don’t you look it up, and actually learn something.

                    Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

                    1. “Oh, so I am to do research to substantiate your assertion then?”

                      Why not? If you’re interested in science or philosophy, I think you doing a bit of research is not too much to ask. If you want to believe that changes in the speed of light haven’t been observed and measured, you are free to do so, and the less you look into the question the better.

                    2. “Oh, so I am to do research to substantiate your assertion then?”

                      Yep, trueman is a lefty fucking ignoramus stupid enough to assume we, here, will take his/her word on subjects of which s/he is entirely ignorant.
                      Here’s a quote which will make the asshole’s position clear:
                      mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                      “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
                      Once you understand that, there is no reason to take any of the bullshit or sophistry posted by trueman as anything due your attention.

                  2. How about another debunking?

                    https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2014/09/17/confluence/index.html

                    In short, measurements made prior to the advent of laser interferometry lacked accuracy.

                    There are some actual VSL theories bouncing around, but they’re not accepted within mainstream physics.

                    1. “There are some actual VSL theories bouncing around, but they’re not accepted within mainstream physics.”

                      They wouldn’t have been accepted by the mainstream ancient greek philosophers, either. The notion of constants in nature predates laser interferometry by several millennia.

                    2. [Apparently there’s a maximum depth of replies. This is in response to the 24th Jan 12:32pm @mtrueman reply to me.]

                      “They wouldn’t have been accepted by the mainstream ancient greek philosophers, either.”

                      I’m failing to see the relevance. The classical Greek philosophers did not originate the concept of falsifiable hypotheses which lend themselves to experimental validation or refutation. Although Aristotle gave us the roots of empiricism, the scientific method as we know it today didn’t arise until much later, after logical positivism.

                      The reasons that VSL ideas have not achieved acceptance are largely based on the fact that the proponents have a _lot_ of work left to do to resolve fundamental conflicts with well-established physics.

                      “The notion of constants in nature predates laser interferometry by several millennia.”

                      The constancy of the speed of light is no longer a mere notion. We have fairly strong experimental evidence backing it up. Of course, seconds after I post this, there could be an announcement of some ground-breaking discovery which leads to an entirely new understanding of physics that eventually upends everything we thought we knew. Very unlikely, I think, but not impossible. That’s OK; that’s how science is supposed to work.

                    3. “I’m failing to see the relevance.”

                      People don’t like to let go of their ideas even in the face of evidence to the contrary. A few more anomalous results like the ones measured in the 30s might start to swing the balance.

                      In any case constants are a good example of something that started as a philosophical concept and made it into science. I agree with what you say here but I suspect that the dismissal of results that contradict current understanding is a little too cute. And I think it would be fun if our science got turned on its head.

                2. One more example, reason. Not the magazine, the faculty. Scientists have faith that reason will guide us to the truth. I think Descartes was concerned over the question of whether or not god was a malevolent force leading our minds astray. Maybe he was the last man of science to question reason.

                  1. Maybe you’re not anyone worthy of posting anything about reason or science:
                    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                    “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                    Go troll for hits on your blog elsewhere, scumbag.

        2. Taking it on faith may be the best option. We might just have to trust our scientists and their predictions of the future.

          Nah.

          1. You wish they were predicting nice things, I understand.

            1. I don’t really give a rip what they’re predicting.

              1. I know. You just want to maintain the status quo. I admire your forthrightness.

                1. Not at all. I’m perfectly happy with the climate changing. It’s the “scientists” who want to keep things how they are.

                  1. You’ll change your tune when they put your car on blocks.

                    1. I’ll fit right in with your hicklib buddies, then.

                2. “I know. You just want to maintain the status quo. I admire your forthrightness.”

                  You are too stupid to know what you propose. I despise your stupidity.

                  1. Are you angling for another spam flag? I’ll give you one if you keep boring me with these foolish and boring comments of yours.

    5. GeneS
      January.23.2020 at 2:27 pm
      “Libertarians must deny AGW, because if it’s true, it destroys their entire ideology….”

      Lefty ignoramuses must cling to any watermelon cause in the hopes of avoiding absolute irrelevance.
      You lose, loser

    6. Thus the main mechanism underpinning libertarianism fails.

      Libertarianism is about rights, not utilities or outcomes.

      Because the consequences are delayed long after the actions that caused them, people have no incentive to correct their behavior.

      You got it backwards. Free markets have no problem taking account costs that are a century in the future; they are priced in correctly. It is government that short circuits these mechanism and substitutes shortsighted policies for long term planning.

      Obama’s AGW policies themselves are an example: economically, Obama’s own report found that there was no justification for government action on AGW. Only by using unreasonable economic discount rates and apportioning global costs to the US did the Obama administration reach their politically desired conclusions.

  27. “and fairy tales of eternal economic growth”

    You really have to wonder how emotionally abusive her parents and teachers were for her to become so depressed and hopeless at such a young age. That “fairy tale” has been hard science for thousands of years.

    1. Gee, and here we are still starving on rock soup with lichen!

    2. But she’s right, we cannot have eternal economic growth. We live in a finite planet with finite resources. Sure, we can leverage our intellect to squeeze more and more out, but it can’t go on forever.

      Eventually things will start to give, surely you know this.

      1. Not true. We could extract resources from asteroids and other planets.
        People used to say there was nothing left to invent back in the 1800’s.
        There is no limit.

      2. “…but it can’t go on forever.”
        The whine of every Malthusian since Malthus, and the claim of every lefty economist: ‘if you have it, it must have been taken from me’.
        No, GeneS, you are a lefty ignoramus; resources are limited only in the limits of human knowledge.
        The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones, but progress might end because of idiots like you.

  28. Ehrlich’s “proposed solutions at the time included taxing diapers, subsidizing vasectomies, and even spiking food aid and water supplies with sterilizing drugs and then holding a lottery for access to the antidote.” Fucking sociopath probably touches himself every time he thinks about it.

  29. I find it’s easy to determine what science a RWer will accept.

    If they feel the science will give them something, they love it. If they feel it might take something from them, money, freedom, religion, they hate and deny it.

    This is their sole criteria for determining what science is valid.

    1. I find it’s easy to determine what science a LWer will accept.
      If they feel the science will take something away from the other guys, while allowing them to decide who the other guy is, they love it.

  30. Population isn’t even a legit solution.

    It’s eugenics by other means. It can even be genocide.

    Go see what governments in places like China, India and Peru have done to women in the name of population control.

  31. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” said climate activist and Time magazine person-of-the-year Greta Thunberg before the United Nations in the summer of 2019. “How dare you!”

    Ahhhhhhh shaaaadapppp.

    /Foghorn Leghorn.

  32. Karen’s views are the pits.

  33. What next? Human population elimination?

    1. That’s the goal. Somehow it’s never them that walk into the disintegrators though.

      They’re Utopians, and they’ll build the road to their perfect dreamland with the bones of everyone that dared to disagree.

    2. It worked for National Socialism and the Communist People’s Temple–for a while…

  34. Putting today’s population in Malthus’ technological world would likely result in few survivors. Energy saved us from those differential equations. The second derivative of population growth, a graph of which demolishes Zack’s fairy tale, only turned downward at about the time the LP formed. The real curve is far from flattened out and any number of easily possible events could lead to the death rates experienced in China as the American Civil War picked up speed.

  35. So to recap, this Weissmueller person with either too little or too much education writes anarchic nonsense in support of the plutocrats who own industry and refuse to bear all of the costs of their output. A new green deal would actually be an economic boon to new entrants, but the plutocrats don’t want new entrants. Reason authors don’t care that entrepreneurs get strangled in the cradle by oligopolists and monopsonists, they gotta pay their grocery bills. They claim to want a free market, but they don’t, they want to run the market.

    And as Weissmueller, Gillespie et al. whore for the plutocracy as the earth becomes less habitable for all of us, they politely request that we be chill in our comments.

    Fuck that, and fuck you. I am completely sincere in this sentiment, and do not care whether anyone else chooses to post a different, sincerely held belief or allows my post to stand as a lone dissent.

    1. Fuck you right back, shitlib.

    2. So you are going to substitute a less efficient fuel source for a more efficient..and expect living standards to rise? WE could just get rid of cars and go back to horse drawn carriages…try that given our current way of living including non dense housing..

      1. Opps….long day..I meant and more efficient (“fossil”) for less efficient “green”…long day at work…

      2. “try that given our current way of living including non dense housing..”

        Our current way of living is subject to change. Nothing in this universe is immutable, especially something as nebulous and economistical as living standards. I understand why old people want to cling so to the status quo. Any changes are unwelcome disruptions. I’m not advocating going back to horse drawn carriages, I have too much respect for our equine friends for that.

        My objection is that we can’t use the present as some kind of Procrustean Bed, (another ancient greek concept) an arbitrary standard which we expect all potential futures to conform to. It is not reasonable to expect alternative sources of fuel to match the capabilities of fossil fuels. Oil from sperm whales had a lovely fragrance and did wonders for dry skin, as well as lighting up the darkness. (Herman Melville, Moby Dick, page 342) We gradually dropped whale oil for stinky ‘toilet’ oil that irritates the skin.

        1. “(another ancient greek concept)”
          OH! OH! How thankful we are for your guidance!

          1. Procrustean Bed. I’ve been trying to work that in to a comment for weeks now. And you’ve given me my second opening!

            1. “Procrustean Bed. I’ve been trying to work that in to a comment for weeks now. And you’ve given me my second opening!”

              No, just more sophistry on your part.

    3. “…A new green deal would actually be an economic boon to new entrants,..”

      Folks, we have a new contender for the gold in “Watermelon Idiocy”.

  36. Anyone so stupid as to think that overpopulation is not a threat to our existence – especially when faced with the largest species die-off since the dinosaurs that is ongoing – is a fucking moron who should be one of the first that are culled.

    Regardless; all shitholes have high populations, and I’d rather live in a world that has lots of room and resources for everybody. There’s no reason to have more than a few billion humans.


    1. …is a fucking moron who should be one of the first that are culled.

      Can’t tell if this is sarcasm, but it’s nice to see someone be honest about who should be killed from a progressive perspective; anyone who disagrees with them.

      Overpopulation is such a threat that it hasn’t ended the planet in 40,000 years of human existence, after all.

      Don’t fret, though. Once we run out of anti-biotics modern medicine stops being a thing and you’ll see death counts in the millions.

    2. Ok, Thanos.

    3. There’s no reason to have more than a few billion humans.
      Nobody needs 27 kinds of deodorant either.

    4. Spookk
      January.23.2020 at 6:57 pm
      “Anyone so stupid as to think that overpopulation is not a threat to our existence – especially when faced with the largest species die-off since the dinosaurs that is ongoing – is a fucking moron who should be one of the first that are culled…”

      Anyone who posts this without committing suicide is, by definition, a hypocrite.

  37. I’m sorry, I do think population reduction can reduced greenhouse gases and be helpful. Therefore, I believe that people who think climate change or global warming is an existential threat should not have children. Government need have nothing to do with it. People who believe should act. It’s like the old Catholic thing of not eating meat of Friday. It was good for Catholics not to eat meat but everyone else could continue to eat meat on Friday. If you believe, demonstrate your beliefs but don’t force others who don’t believe to give up their rights.

    1. “If you believe, demonstrate your beliefs but don’t force others who don’t believe to give up their rights.”

      Mother Nature doesn’t care what we believe. Science is not magic.

      1. I’m not asking nature to do anything. I’m saying that if you believe that climate change is an existential threat, you should not bring new children into the world. I am a scientist and I do not believe that climate change is an existential threat. I also know that there are many solutions to the warming of the earth, most of which those that believe in the existential threat reject. That’s their right. Please do not bring children into the world if you believe that climate change in an existential threat.

        1. “you should not bring new children into the world”

          What business is it of yours? That’s between me, the good Lord, and my lady friend(s).

  38. I like to ask people that believe in this type of ‘population bomb’ nonsense on who exactly will decide who gets sterilized and who gets killed when we start in on their plan? Which human has the wisdom and perfect knowledge to cleanse the wrong-thinkers, and what stops them from being replaced by someone else who might want to cleanse a different group before we’re done cleansing the first?

    It seems like these types of people always have a lot of thoughts about who should be cleansed from Earth, and I’m always surprised how alive and well eugenics is in progressive circles.

  39. Economics (my major) is good for understanding many things but not so good to bad for prescriptive cures. Economist should stick to helping us understand the economic world and leave cures for the market place. As any objective observer will note the market has by and large done a much better job than have economists. Recall when we were lectured that the USA can’t drill its way to oil independence? What did the market think of that?

  40. So we are listening to a high school drop out who couldn’t pass basic chemistry or physics. Seriously? Such a typical of the liberal art leftie types who have to find a purpose in life (“saving the world” and forcing everyone else to live the way they think we should). Climate change happens…see the geological record. And given how complicated climate really is…all this human causing this or that really still is conjecture at best…complex nonlinear systems which can’t be tested in a laboratory but only through “modeling” is fraught with problems…I only wish Reason would hire a few physicists to look at the “evidence” before jumping on board of a bunch of wokes who have a visceral hatred of liberty..JC..stop being “cosmo” libertarians and become real ones…as for this young lady..call the truent officer and ship her back end into a military school which forces her to take a heavy load of math and hard science…come to think of it..Reason “Climate Experts” should all be forced pass differential equations and the usual physics sequence of any hard science BS major..if not..just shut up…

    1. “…Such a typical of the liberal art leftie types who have to find a purpose in life (“saving the world” and forcing everyone else to live the way they think we should)…”
      Steyer is running on exactly that platform; he is claiming he will “save the world!”.
      Pretty sure that alone will sink him.

  41. “I like to ask people that believe in this type of ‘population bomb’ nonsense on who exactly will decide who gets sterilized and who gets killed when we start in on their plan? ”

    I can’t think of anyone better than the mother, the father, a skilled and experienced medical practitioner, and anyone else she wants to consult. That’s why I keep harping on about spreading female literacy.

    1. Oh, isn’t that wonderful!
      Thank you, Mr Obviousman! How would we get along without you?

    2. BTW, In the past, I’ve pointed out (with cites) that you posted only bullshit and sophistry. Recently, I see you’ve added ‘trivial’ and ‘obvious’ statements to your repertoire.
      Is that in the hopes your inability to support any of your bogus claims might be taken as other than bullshit?

  42. Would be good to see a future where some of the original ecology is re-established in many parts of the world and where some interesting bits (beaches, Everest, art galleries…) aren’t so crowded.

    1. You’re welcome to buy a million acres somewhere and “re-establish the original ecology” there. With your own money.

    2. Per NOYB2, you are welcome to your fantasies, on your dime. And then, you get to pick the ‘original ecology’ you desire, iregardless of the idiocy of that statement. Watermelons aren’t noted for intelligence; see the whiny teenager and Ehrlich.

  43. Anyone who actually believes this Malthusian bullshit and doesn’t off themselves has no moral basis to criticize anyone else.

    -jcr

  44. Global population is leveling off, and will start declining within the next two generations. The driving factor is urbanization in China and India, which leads to birth rate decline. China of course seriously fucked themselves with that “one child policy”, which is about as stupid as that time that Mao decided he wanted them to kill all the sparrows.

    -jcr

    1. The one child policy was opposed by Mao and didn’t come into its own until Deng was in power.

  45. Every generation has it’s version of “Apocalypse now”. The difference with the climate change religion is that the inference is rapid depopulation to “save the planet”. Let that sink in………

  46. We are constantly told that oil is a finite resource, to the point we all believe it. Consider this – oil is by nature organic material, under tectonic pressure it became oil. If you take the time to read oil engineering papers you will find that there is a constant circulation, due to subduction of tectonic plates, of organic material. It replenishes. Example, many Texas wells that went dry over 70 years ago now have oil in them again. That discussion is nowhere to be found in the MSM. We are herded from one crisis to another like sheep.

  47. Why do climate alarmists only believe all the impacts of a warming. How about places where crops can grow, more fresh water, more plant growth.

  48. “Karen Pitts, who is a member of the Sierra Club and ran a Northern California sub-committee on population growth, is concerned that the world won’t be able to accommodate a population that’s expected to peak at 11 billion by 2100. She became interested in the topic after a trip to China in 1996.”
    and
    “Karen Pitts says she just wants more sex education and greater access to birth control in the developing world, pointing to a project she participated in with Tanzania’s local population where the introduction of contraception drastically reduced unwanted pregnancies.”

    These two quotes remind me of something the great P.J. O’Rourke once wrote. I don’t recall the exact quote, so I’ll paraphrase: Concern about overpopulation is just a way for leftists to be racist without appearing overtly so. After all, when they envision these “too many babies” being born, they’re not picturing the pink skinned, hay haired, milk fed kind.

    1. Black people (even Tanzanian black people) should also have access to education, medical care and birth control. There is nothing racist about this. You haven’t thought this through adequately. And PJ voted for Hillary, anyways.

      1. She wants fewer Asians and sub-Saharan Africans to be born, but is silent concerning those of European decent. Note that she only mentions sex ed. and birth control. She says nothing of medical care or literacy. I’ve thought it through plenty. Leftists can be quite racist.

        1. “She wants fewer Asians and sub-Saharan Africans to be born”

          This is precisely the point of increasing female literacy: more autonomy, less dependence. You seriously can’t believe that female literacy would lead to anything but smaller families. As for Europeans, like many wealthy nations, they have female literacy already and their birthrate is at or below replacement level. I don’t know where you’re getting this idiotic racism from.

          As I mentioned earlier I’ve been discussing female literacy for longer than Greta’s been alive. You’re the first to claim female literacy is racist. News for you, moron, female is not a race, but a sex. If you made the case for sexist, I just might get a chuckle at the idea. Make America Goofy Again!

      2. Also, you split an infinitive and “anyways” is not a word.

        1. I have no problem with these. I reject your prescriptivist revisionism.

  49. Well get on it capitalism, there’s no more time to waste!

  50. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here…..
    >>>>>> Click it Here <<<<<<

  51. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> https://www.Money34.com

  52. The article makes the assumption that climate change is a problem, even if something short of a crisis. an assumption that itself deserves question. Certainly humans are altering the arrangements of all that is non-living around us, in ways and amounts that other life forms do not and that go far beyond the bounds of simply living as savages. Yet the changes we introduce can be beneficial as well as harmful. Self interest based on depoliticized fact will ultimately guide us in embracing the beneficial and scuttle the harmful, else we no longer remain free. Abandoning freedom for trust in elitists bearing answers is the worst thing we can do. Those answers will nearly always prove inferior to the spontaneous order resulting from free markets and free people cooperating peacefully as individuals each acting in their own self interest.

  53. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust in howdirect it was once I attempted it out.This is my essential concern.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…. Click it here  

  54. “If you believe, demonstrate your beliefs but don’t force others who don’t believe to give up their rights.”
    Mother Nature doesn’t care what we believe. Science is not magic.
    Check out the link for the Biography Of celebrities

  55. Malthus’ reason for limiting population was a fear of running out of food. Completely different from climate change, which posits that each human contributes to poisoning the earth.

    If that theory of climate change is not utter bs, then population control is CERTAINLY one way to deal with it – and a good one considering a quarter of the world lives in poverty.

    For a publication calling itself, “Reason,” there sure seems to be an awful lot of emotionalism.

  56. The global population is already set to shrink–just look at a list of countries by fertility rate. Half the world’s countries have fertility rates below replacement, and rates continue to drop everywhere. Check out the book Empty Planet:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPTaV-RcQ

  57. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust in howdirect it was once I attempted it out.This is my essential concern.for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…… Read more

  58. Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i’m a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors…2020 news
    HERE? Online Home work

    >>=====>>> OnlinE WorK

  59. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour====►► Click it here  

  60. I made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m aade such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve mabout it. Here’s what I’ve been doing===►► Click it here  

Please to post comments