Ron Paul’s phony populism

[CaseyJones]

????

What world do you live in?

I'll take that as a no.

 

[ThaG]

Let's start with these:

Kitzes J, Wackernagel M, Loh J, Peller A, Goldfinger S, Cheng D, Tea K. (2008). Shrink and share: humanity's present and future Ecological Footprint. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363(1491):467-75

Wackernagel M, Schulz NB, Deumling D, Linares AC, Jenkins M, Kapos V, Monfreda C, Loh J, Myers N, Norgaard R, Randers J. (2002) Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 99(14):9266-71.

They're short and straightforward to read (for people with short attention spans) and are not behind a paywall.

 

[CaseyJones]

Let's start with these:

Kitzes J, Wackernagel M, Loh J, Peller A, Goldfinger S, Cheng D, Tea K. (2008). Shrink and share: humanity's present and future Ecological Footprint. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363(1491):467-75

Wackernagel M, Schulz NB, Deumling D, Linares AC, Jenkins M, Kapos V, Monfreda C, Loh J, Myers N, Norgaard R, Randers J. (2002) Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 99(14):9266-71.

They're short and straightforward to read (for people with short attention spans) and are not behind a paywall.

Neither article make any claim or mention of overpopulation, human reproduction, contraception, birthrate, or anything of the ilk.

 

[ThaG]

Sigh...

Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP. (1971) Impact of population growth. Science. 171(3977):1212-7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_PAT

 

[CaseyJones]

Resources are not fixed. We cannot predict when they will run out. So much so, that none of the brilliant articles, equations, or pie charts you posted even attempted to address this little (HUGE) variable. I don't have to be Pythagoras to know that eventually, you gotta plug some numbers into those equations in order to test them. Where are the numbers?

The very definition of resources is constantly evolving (SEE: Coal vs Uranium, Paper vs Computers/RAM/ROM, Turntables vs SERATO, etc.) It is evolving now faster than ever, while population is on the verge of contraction.

Even as population growth begins to peak, resource production has still managed to produce surplus for basic necessities. Life expectancy doubled and quality of life went up in the 20th century.

Human potential is the variable that makes your "science" an epic schoolboy failure.

Now, if you'll excuse me Malthus, I'm gonna go sit in Mein Kampfy chair and watch a movie.

View attachment 108612

 

[SFC I-Side]

He wants government intervention for population control at home and abroad, BACK TO EUROPE JACKASS!!!!

USA USA USA!!!!!

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

I assume that the best data is compiled by the UN. They made no assertions about overpopulation in the summary or anywhere in their extensive analysis.

So you openly admit that the chart YOU provided, has ZERO relevance to overpopulation...can we move on now please?

 

[CaseyJones]

So you openly admit that the chart YOU provided, has ZERO relevance to overpopulation...can we move on now please?

At least it wasn't filled with hollow platitudes.

 

[ThaG]

It contained nothing else but that

 

[CaseyJones]

It contained nothing else but that

So you read the UNDP report? It was filled with hollow platitudes like your pseudo-scientific doomsday cult propaganda?

I don't think so.

 

[SFC I-Side]

CLOSE THREAD its a god damm wildfire in here

 

[Mac Jesus]

Quotes from the UNDP report:

This report presents projections of world population, and even of the populations of individual countries, over the next 300 years. Given the inherent impossibility of such an exercise, these projections have a special character. They are not forecasts. They do not say that population is expected to reach the projected levels. Rather, they are extrapolations of current trends. They give what paths population would follow if, and only if, historical trends and trends previously forecast up to 2050 continue. Of course one cannot expect these trends to continue as is…

[That the report looks at long term implications of short term trends] should not be taken to imply that these trends are actually expected to continue. To some extent, the reverse is true. The projected long-range path for population is reported partly to facilitate thinking about how to prepare for it, but also to encourage action to modify this path, to make it more favourable…

The truth is that much about the future of demographic trends a century (or three centuries) from now is unknowable, and quite literally so. None of us has any way of detecting whether fertility rates over the coming century will be lower or higher than at present, nor whether erratic/unstable or fluctuate in some stable and predictable way.

[They] can be understood only as hypothetical scenarios, and not as forecasts. The word scenario (from the Latin scaenarium, a place for erecting stages) is defined as “a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially: an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events” In contrast, “forecast” has a far stronger assurance of plausibility, of predicting future events on the basis of credible information…

Even with proper warnings, I think that both projections and forecasts are often interpreted as predictions of the future in the mind of the average listener. Furthermore, most people are unlikely to notice anything more than the “medium variant,” which they see as a professional’s “best guess” concerning future demographic trends. Although some may take note of the uncertainty implied by presenting multiple variants, I believe from experience that even the most sophisticated consumers of such information do not see demographic projections and forecasts as mere illustrations of possible future paths for the world’s population – in other words, at best they view them as predictions with a degree of uncertainty. Perhaps this issue could have been addressed most effectively by choosing a different title for the report and then stating clearly the motivation behind this unusual exercise…

At no point in that report do I get the feeling that any of the authors of the included 12 essays are claiming or concluding to have debunked the problem of over-population. Have you read the report Casey Jones?

 

[SFC I-Side]

Casey Jones wrote the report, who cares, move on, Tha G laid out his point then every body mobbed CJ none of this really has to do with Ron Paul

 

[ThaG]

And yet, as I said above, the problem with those reports, even when they explicitly say these are projections, remains that they do not take resource depletion into account. They would be very very different if they did. Most people alive today would not even exist if the oil and natural gas to support them weren't available and the die off when global oil and gas production enter terminal decline is inevitable. On top of that we have all the other sustainability/limits to growth crises - soil degradaiton, fossil aquifer depletion, depletion of other non-renewable resources, general ecosystem collapse due to habitata destruction, pollution, overfishing, etc, and climate change. However, the UN can not afford to publish such a report for political reasons, and that is if the people who write these things actually understood the problems, which does not seem to be the case at all...

 

[ThaG]

Casey Jones wrote the report, who cares, move on, Tha G laid out his point then every body mobbed CJ none of this really has to do with Ron Paul

It has a lot to do with Ron Paul actually and a lot to do with libertarianism in general. It is one of the reason why libertarianism is such a monstrous stupidity that only completely scientifically and ecologically illiterate people can believe in.

 

[SFC I-Side]

I totally understand your point of libertarianism and endless consumption being tied together I get it great point and move on, your both filibustering like a motherfucker

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

It has a lot to do with Ron Paul actually and a lot to do with libertarianism in general. It is one of the reason why libertarianism is such a monstrous stupidity that only completely scientifically and ecologically illiterate people can believe in.

That's an ignorant comment. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs that might fall under the category of libertarianism.

Not to mention defining people by precise political definitions is really a task with inherent error.

For some libertarians protecting our environment is a top priority because the damage done by one has a negative impact on others.

 

[ThaG]

I have yet to see such libertarians

 

[ThaG]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change

Why libertarians must deny climate change, in one short take

Over the Christmas break I read what I believe is the most important environmental essay of the past 12 months. Though it begins with a mildly unfair criticism of a column of mine, I won't hold it against the author. In a simple and very short tract, Matt Bruenig presents a devastating challenge to those who call themselves libertarians, and explains why they have no choice but to deny climate change and other environmental problems.

Bruenig explains what is now the core argument used by conservatives and libertarians: the procedural justice account of property rights. In brief, this means that if the process by which property was acquired was just, those who have acquired it should be free to use it as they wish, without social restraints or obligations to other people.

Their property rights are absolute and cannot be intruded upon by the state or by anyone else. Any interference with, or damage to, the value of their property without their consent – even by taxation – is an unwarranted infringement. This, with local variations, is the basic philosophy of the Republican candidates, the Tea Party movement, the lobby groups that call themselves "free market thinktanks" and much of the new right in the UK.

It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power.

But, for the sake of argument, Bruenig says, let us accept it. Let us accept the idea that damage to the value of property without the owner's consent is an unwarranted intrusion upon the owner's freedoms. What this means is that as soon as libertarians encounter environmental issues, they're stuffed.

Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the physical beauty of the area surrounding people's homes (and therefore their value) – all these, if libertarians did not possess a shocking set of double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other people's property.

The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.

Nor have they – or airports, oil companies or car manufacturers – obtained the consent of all those it will affect to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, altering global temperatures and – through rising sea levels, droughts, storms and other impacts – damaging the property of many people. As Bruenig says:

"Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels, because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent – for honest libertarians – of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else's window."

So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is so often associated with climate change denial, and the playing down or dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people's property – including their bodies.

This is the point at which libertarianism smacks into the wall of gritty reality and crumples like a Coke can. Any honest and thorough application of this philosophy would run counter to its aim: which is to allow the owners of capital to expand their interests without taxation, regulation or recognition of the rights of other people.

Libertarianism becomes self-defeating as soon as it recognises the existence of environmental issues. So they must be denied.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climage-change

I believe you have posted that article before, but it's worthless because it's on a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Humans by design have negative impacts on the environment in which they live, it would be fatal experiment to try and live and not damage anything in the surrounding environment. Therefore, a certain level of damage must be permitted, but the level must not exceed the amount which the ecosystem can tolerate. We currently live way outside the range of what our ecosystem can tolerate.

If rather than taking the argument to the extreme and creating a false dichotomy where one either damages their environment and is false libertarian or one doesn't damage their environment at all and is a dead libertarian, I believe you will see that their is room to live as a libertarian who lives by means that allow them to survive but only produce negative impacts that are tolerable by the ecosystem. In other words, if I am living within those limits, leave me alone.