Obama, Ehrlich, and health care

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Laphroaig10, Aug 19, 2009.

  1. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts

    So, it's pretty clear that, even as we stand on the precipice of a global depopulation crisis, Obama still believes in the discredited nonsense of "over population" as evidenced by the fact that he's put Ehrlich disciples in high end "science" positions.

    Does anybody else have a hard time trust somebody who, against all evidence, believes there are too many people trying to play a major role in reshaping our health care system?
  2. BigWill

    BigWill 2,500+ Posts

    not me.
  3. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    I don't think I need to really elaborate much on my feelings with regards to Obama's policy positions.
  4. MaduroUTMB

    MaduroUTMB 2,500+ Posts

  5. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts

  6. zork

    zork 2,500+ Posts

    Maduro, read about that guy. He is pretty scary given he is in a position to formulate policy.

    Have you seen 'Logan's run'? An exaggeration to be sure but the principle is there.
  7. washparkhorn

    washparkhorn 2,500+ Posts

    Politically, the scare tactics work. Citizens will cede control when they believe "scholars" like Ehrlich have reached a "consensus" from scientific perspective.

    Most don't realize there are charlatans in science who probe the edges of populist and progressive fervor and feed the hunger of "we've got to do something."

    Erlich's "Population Bomb" was bad science, but it did raise awareness, Awareness led to a political base. The base provided political power.

    I am not surprised to find Erlich's disciples in positions of power. They aren't really scientists - there are mutation of activism and science. And they don't hide their value to those who want to change policy.

    The Population Bomb was written by Erlich at the request of the Sierra Club. It taught Erlich that there was money to be made by throwing out improbable worst case scenarios. It taught activists that they could get the masses to rush to their side if they had a "scientific dude" warning about the catastrophes. The snake oil salesman still makes a lot of money in this country off a lot of people who should know better, but just don't take or have the time to sort through the Sham-Wow claims.
  8. JohnnyM

    JohnnyM 2,500+ Posts

  9. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts

    So much misinformation, so little time.

    Paul Erhlich wasn't wrong about the population issue. He was wrong about some of the details. The green revolution bought us time, but that time is being squandered.

    The consequences of over-population are being increasingly felt. We have too little water. Our natural resources are disappearing at an alarming rate. We're facing ecological catastrophy as we pump massive ammounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Stick your head in the sand if you want, but over-population is occurring and the immediate and future consequences are dire.

    As for the fact that many European countries (and Japan, Australia, et al.) are beginning to show population declines. It's no accident that these positive trends are occurring in very limited regions. The rest of the world is still reproducing at well above the break-even point ( see Figure 7 inThe Link )

    Over-population underlies most of the critical issues that man faces today. Disease, hunger, water shortage, war, and so much more are driven by too many people competing for too few resources. May our children forgive us our stupidity.

  10. kgp

    kgp 1,000+ Posts

  11. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts

  12. HornInCanton

    HornInCanton 250+ Posts

  13. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts

  14. washparkhorn

    washparkhorn 2,500+ Posts

  15. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts

    BTW, GT, in case you're wondering, England is still there.

    Washpark, the last time we had a POTUS that wanted a health care overhaul, his HHS secretary thought that AIDS might "wipe us all out" and bought into the hysteria saying that by 2000, 64 million Americans would have AIDS. He was off by a little over 63 million. I'm guessing that was a "detail" too.

    These people are ******* nuts, and we're even more nuts if we let them get their hands on our health care.
  16. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

  17. washparkhorn

    washparkhorn 2,500+ Posts

    And as for Ehrlich just using cold scientific fact, from the horse's mouth:

  18. HornInCanton

    HornInCanton 250+ Posts

  19. Laphroaig10

    Laphroaig10 1,000+ Posts

  20. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    I think it is hilarious that the existence of war is being blamed on overpopulation. People have been fighting and killing each since the dawn of time. Cain must have thought "damn that Abel is going to eat up all my food" before he killed him.

    I know it is logical to believe that people will fight over resources as they become scarce and I agree. However, war is inherently human unfortunately.
  21. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

  22. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

  23. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

  24. GT WT

    GT WT 1,000+ Posts

    Interesting website WashParkHorn. On a different page of the the site (The Link ) they give the following rationale for opposing childcare

  25. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

  26. THEU

    THEU 2,500+ Posts

    ok, a couple thoughts here that I hope are rationale and sane.

    I don't think it can be denied that the population of the world is getting larger nad that that larger population increased demand on good, both raw and produced. There is an increased demand for housing, food, clothing etc. This isn't even about the increase in demand from increased standard of living either, but that plays into it as wel.
    The above doesn't change the fact that there is a need for a stable population in a given country. Some countries are dealing with hyper population increases. How will countries like China and India, and African countries deal with their ever increasing populations? Hard question, hard answers. Other countries in the world must ask the opposite question. In some European countries where the birthrate is extremely low the question is, how will we replace the current population to sustain our country and economy? The questoin of population is as often as not 'local' or 'national' as it is 'global.' For people on here to spout statistics on the one without talking about the reality of the other seems fool hardy to me.
    The reality depending on the country the problem might be different. The Ideal is a steadily growing and stable population that will enable growth, but not uncontrolable and unsustainable growth.
    I see real issues with some forms of artificial population growth, and I see some real issues with married couples choosing not to have any children. (the latter being mainly theological and NOT political or even necessarily moral).
    I just don't see what the back and forth on here is about. It seems to miss the point.
  27. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

    China has existed with sub-replacement fertility ratios since the early 1990s. It is a common misconception repeatedly stated here that they are in some sort of population boom.

    What should be debated, to GT WT's point, is the increased strain on resources that comes with third world citizenry suddenly affording and demanding 1st world Western lifestyles.

    How does a culture traditionally existing on land-efficient staple crops like rice suddenly start supporting enough cattle to keep the steakhouse customers happy.

    There are lots of interesting points on both sides of this debate. Any focus on humanity exploding in size is a bit beside the point.
  28. Michtex

    Michtex 1,000+ Posts

  29. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts


    There might be some near term momentum, sure, but the die is cast. The chart from the economist shows it best.
  30. DFWAg

    DFWAg 1,000+ Posts

    A more crude graph capturing some of the data from the United Nations population study.



    As you can see, (assuming the projections hold), then China will have roughly 1 working adult for every 4 non-working age citizens (and there are not many kids in there). Given the artificial cap on fertility, there population will likely hit a negative step function in the mid-century. This scenario dwarfs and near term momentum as you described above.

Share This Page