@ KA

 

1) The issue was not whether the one is more "important" than the other.  My point was that they are NOT "comparable" and, therefore, that you made an improper comparison between religious/philosophical beliefs (about judgement day) and secular beliefs (about presumed resource depletion).   

I am happy we agree that the "scientific method" must be applied to phenomena of the physical world.  The current article by Mr Verhulst on the Dutch part (Nederlands) of this website concerning the 'ideology of consensus' (regarding climate change claims) is very topical in this context.

2)  It is quite a long time ago that Western societies had to rely on "Malthusian checks" to survive in their present form.  And the fact that problems of "famine, disease and war" are still rampant in much of the Third World has nothing to do with a presumed need for "a quantum leap" in science and technology, but is rather the result of cultural behavior patterns and resulting 'politics' and governance.   In today's world, scientific knowledge can be transmitted in a few seconds, but changing human (cultural) behavior and particularly governance is quite another matter.   

3) It is ludicrous to claim that Western societies have to "rely on Malthusian checks" to preserve their borders.    All they need to preserve their borders is to bring forth the INTERNAL political will to preserve their borders, i.e. to make sensible laws AND then to enforce them.  This has nothing to do with science, nor is it 'hostage' to Malthusian conditions in the Third World.  It is purely a matter of how the internal 'culture wars' (left-right) proceed within western civilisation.    

I. I do not hold religious, philosophical or spiritual convictions to be more important than secular considerations with regards to doomsday scenarios for humanity, civilizations and/or Earth. However, I agree with you fully that the latter must be supported by the scientific method, though full consensus in the scientific community is difficult to achieve on any issue. With regards to contemporary secular risks to human civilizations including ecological (pollution and/or depletion) and demographic (overpopulation, dysgenics, mass migrations), adequate solutions are not yet available. Such solutions would require significant technological and scientific advances or a massive increase in the application or availability of existing science and technology. If today's human societies in general and Western ones in particular, are to avoid relying on the traditional Malthusian checks of famine, disease and war - or natural selection - in order to survive in their present forms, they require a quantum leap of the type that followed after Malthus' original predictions. Moreover, price signals are useful only to a degree and in specific contexts.

 

II. Because the aforementioned quantum leap has not yet occurred, Western civilization is forced to rely on traditional Malthusian checks to preserve its order. Preserving the lives of infants so they can live in misery or cross our borders is counter-productive unless their societies can be rendered "liveable." Third World migrants will come to the West either legally or illegally in any event, so while immigration policies can be viewed as treacherous or cowardly, supporters of these are taking a moral position against gunning down migrants on the beaches of Spain, France, Malta and Italy.

@Kapitein Andre

 

1) It is quite a foolish 'stretch' to compare (A) traditional religious beliefs about any possible "Judgement day" with (B) 'leftist' secular beliefs about "resource depletion". 

The former (A) is speculative in nature, about possible metaphysical consequences of human behavior, based on a 'core belief', or 'unbelief' (as the case may be), about the ultimate source and meaning/meaninglesness of human life.  As such, it is neither rational nor irrational, since it is beyond empirical verification.  Only to the extent that claims are made about an 'imminent' or "near" Judgement Day, could it be argued that such claims would be irrational.

By contrast, the latter (B) is concerned (limited) entirely with the physical world and, as such, can be verified by empirical observation supported by deductive reasoning.  In the past, numerous previous claims of coming "resource depletion" have been proven to have been bogus, and both economic theoretical reasoning as well as technological progress can explain why that is so.  Genuine prices reflect relative scarcities, and genuine 'price signals' will lead to adjustments/changes in human behavior.  

2) It is an even more foolish 'stretch' to equate, as you do, (A) "preventing access to modern medicine" with (B) immigration policies (or the lack thereof), national security policies, immigrant crime etc...   Actively "preventing access to modern medicine" is morally unacceptable.  That is a far cry from holding you, or anyone else, responsible for "Malthusian checks" in Africa.   Obviously, modern medicine cannot provide a 'solution' to destructive cultural behavior patterns.  And if Benelux politicians pursue foolish immigration policies (think of a naive sentimentalist as Bert Anciaux!), then you should hold them and their voters responsible, rather than "prevent" Africans access to modern medicine.  Let's not mix apples with oranges, please, if one wants to make a rational contribution to solving wordly problems.

MarcFrans: "The Kapitein seems to...have bought into the Al Gore-style media-hype of 'global environmentalism', more specifically into the scary nonsense about "resource depletion". Such predictions about 'depletions' are a recurring phenomenon in the 'leftist' western imagination, and the current dire predictions will prove to be as unfounded as the last previous major outbreak of 'Gore-itis' with the Club-of-Rome predictions about 25-30 years ago. This shows a lack of understanding of the power of markets and of price signals, as well as of the role of technological progress in economic history and economic development."

 

Pessimism about the future has little to do with "Leftism," an obsolete and simplistic term. Indeed, Christianity, both historical and contemporary (e.g. Evangelicals), has been marked by prophecies that Judgement Day was near. Though I am not pessimistic per se, I believe human societies on the cusp of a Malthusian trap, one expanded to include land, water, energy and other resources necessary to both socio-economic subsistence and development. The primary cause of this problem is overpopulation combined with industrialization, because as I noted in a previous post, underdeveloped societies generally do not impact the environment significantly even if they are teeming with hordes of people. Moreover, this view is shared by Paul M. Kennedy, although he is optimistic that advances in science and technology or expansion of land and resources (e.g. colonisation of the Moon and/or Mars) may provide a solution, not unlike those advances that rendered Malthus' predictions incorrect.

 

MarcFrans: "The Kapitein can be expected to be even more in agreement with the second (B-part) of Dchamil's statement, and rightly so!  But, his proposed solution for Africa of "to prevent Third World societies from accessing western medicine"  gives another indication of the current state of extreme moral relativism that pervades 'his' part of contemporary Western Europe.  It may well be that the Malthusian 'equilibrium' cannot be broken in parts of Africa and elsewhere for a long time to come, but actively "preventing" access to modern medicine is morally unacceptable."

 

Deliberately contributing to a world in which anarchy, crime, urban warfare and fierce competition for the necessities prevails is for me "morally unacceptable." If those deliberately tampering with natural Malthusian checks are prepared to ensure that these societies are livable, competitive, democratic, peaceful and prosperous then I have no problem with their "selflessness." However, if my children cannot live in their own cities because these are mere ruins inhabited by foreigners, or have to constantly defend themselves from robbery, rape and murder, or have to murder in order to secure food, water and shelter, or have to fortify their borders and open fire on crowds attempting to scale the walls, than I do have a problem. If it is between me and/or my family and migrants...well I'm sure you can read between the lines. I am certainly not going to deny myself having children or raise them in poverty because Africans, Arabs, South Asians, Chinese or Latin Americans are having more children than they or their societies can handle.

Dchamil is essentially correct.He made two very GENERAL statements...

 

Stop right there.That is the biggest  problem I have with his post.And,just like the Kapitein,you then go on to attempt to explain to  myself and others  what HE meant by those two 'general' statements.That's the trouble with  "general statements",they're just not specific enough  for my liking.Of course,dchamil could clarify his own position somewhat if HE were to present a follow up post expanding on HIS previous two general statements,wouldn't you agree?

 

Atlanticist911 is wrong,because he attacks an imaginary 'strawman'.There was NO mention of "too many CHILDREN" in Dchamil's original statement,only of too many PEOPLE...

 

True,dchamil didn't use the word 'children' he used the word 'people',and I was WRONG to replace dchamil's original word with the word Mark Steyn  uses in the column I quoted him from.(Although I must say that in the context of the discussion,this is largely a question of semantics).So,it's over to you dchamil.Let's get this matter put to bed once and for all shall we?

 

 

1) Dchamil is in essence correct.  He made two very GENERAL statements.  First, (A) that environmental problems stem from "too many people" and, second, (B) that immigration accounts for a "large share of population growth".   Both are correct.  But, the first statement must be related to 'lifestyle' and to income disposition, i.e. there are different population levels conceivable (or tolerable) with a given level of 'environmental purity', depending on life style and on share of (national) income devoted to combating 'pollution'.   And the second statement is certainly true for most western nations today, but not for many other parts of the globe.

2) Atlanticist911 is wrong, because he attacks an imaginary 'strawman'.  There was NO mention made of "too many CHILDREN" in Dchamil's original statement, only of too many PEOPLE.   Whether the one 'translates' into the other, depends on mortality rates AND, as already mentioned, on life style and on income disposition.

3) The Kapitein seems to agree with the first (A-part) of Dchamil's statement, and makes interesting comments on that subject.  But, he also seems to have bought into the Al Gore-style media-hype of 'global environmentalism', more specifically into the scary nonsense about "resource depletion". Such predictions about 'depletions' are a recurring phenomenon in the 'leftist' western imagination, and the current dire predictions will prove to be as unfounded as the last previous major outbreak of 'Gore-itis' with the Club-of-Rome predictions about 25-30 years ago.  This shows a lack of understanding of the power of markets and of price signals, as well as of the role of technological progress in economic history and economic development.

The Kapitein can be expected to be even more in agreement with the second (B-part) of Dchamil's statement, and rightly so!  But, his proposed solution for Africa of "to prevent Third World societies from accessing western medicine"  gives another indication of the current state of extreme moral relativism that pervades 'his' part of contemporary Western Europe.  It may well be that the Malthusian 'equilibrium' cannot be broken in parts of Africa and elsewhere for a long time to come, but actively "preventing" access to modern medicine is morally unacceptable.   

Sorry Kapitein but I stand by my initial comment with regard to dchamil's original post.He clearly states that in HIS opinion,"environmental problems stem from TOO MANY CHILDREN".(emphasis added),while you parse this statement to mean,"transplanting non-Western populations into the West,from a strictly environmental standpoint will be counter productive for the West".If HE had made the latter statement I would have agreed with him,but HE didn't,so I don't.

dchamil: "At the root of the matter, environmental problems stem from having too many people. Nations who want to stop the worsening of environmental problems must stop the immigration of foreigners, since they account for a large share of population growth."

 

Partial agreement here. Certainly it has been argued that the full industrialization of India, China and ostensibly Brazil would cause greater environmental destruction than that of Western Europe, Japan (and the NIEs) and North America due to the sheer size of their populations and projections for future growth. However, the argument here is not so much about populations as lifestyles: Africa's rapidly expanding population does little to impact the environment (in spite of its squalor, famine, disease and war), in comparison to the declining populations of East-Central Europe or the West. Basically, the point is about production and consumption, and the resulting pollution, scarification and resource depletion involved. Essentially, the entire human population cannot achieve a 'Western' lifestyle without exhausting Earth's resources and rendering the planet inhospitable to a great extent (primarily for us). So does the West become more austere and hope that India and China will follow suit? Or does the West prevent non-Western societies to impact it in terms of pollution, resource scarcity, etc.?

 

However, transplanting non-Western populations into the West, from a strictly environmental standpoint will be counter-productive for the West.

Atlanticist911: "So how far are the ecochondriacs prepared to take things? In London last week,the Optimum Population Trust called for Britons to have "one child less "because the United Kingdom's "high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change,which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have"
"Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet",says prof. John Guillebaud."We're nearing the point of no return...".As the professor sees it,...the best thing we can do for our children is not to have them."

 

The solution is not to have less children, but to prevent Third World societies from accessing Western medicine which is responsible for their exploding populations after 1945. This has resulted in: (a) famine in Africa due to the erosion of 1950s agricultural surpluses; and (b) political instability due to overpopulation and socio-economic tensions (e.g. "a"). Natural selection maintained Third World populations until Doctors Without Borders decided to save people but not to guarantee them: (a) jobs, (b) food, (c) opportunities to compete for Western lifestyles, etc.

True socialists already know how badly their philosophy compares next to a small-govt w/free enterprise model, so naturally their solution is: eliminate the comparisons!

If they screw up the entire world at the same time, who's to know?

 

At the root of the matter,environmental problems stem from having too many people.

 

Personal comment: B*ll*cks !!!

Quote:

 

So how far are the ecochondriacs prepared to take things? In London last week,the Optimum Population Trust called for Britons to have "one child less "because the United Kingdom's "high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change,which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have"

"Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet",says prof. John Guillebaud."We're nearing the point of no return...".As the professor sees it,...the best thing we can do for our children is not to have them.

Title: A Habitable World? Mark (Steyn).

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/58455

 

  

At the root of the matter, environmental problems stem from having too many people. Nations who want to stop the worsening of environmental problems must stop the immigration of foreigners, since they account for a large share of population growth.