Sources of the Warmabomber's Bright Ideas

Comment

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 3, 2010 at 3:26pm

Actually, I think Joel got us off-track when he noted that more people will produce more pollution. True enough, but is that a problem?

If those people are poor and cannot afford modern sanitation and other contemporary waste-disposal methods/technologies, then yes. Among the largest environmental/public health problems in pre-automotive American cities were diseases borne by vermin in horse urine and feces (and from carcasses). Cars -- even those without catalytic converters -- were a boon to the environment.

But if they're not poor ...

Which takes us back to the wealthy-is-healthy point I initally made. The planet's "carrying capacity" is much larger if people are allowed to live at above bare subsistence incomes, keep what they earn, and build wealth. And economic freedom -- which the left-wing funders and foundations typically work against -- helps poor people gain self-sufficiency.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on September 3, 2010 at 2:49pm

Educate yourself and then get back to us.

Just as soon as you tell me where you see high birth rates and an absence of poverty. ;)

Seriously though, all this time we've been talking about birth rates, their (inverse) correlation with economic prosperity, and the influence governmental and civil institutions have on both. I'm not sure why you are trying to drag it into the realm of ..... well, whatever point you're trying to make.

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 3, 2010 at 2:31pm

Marcotte,

If you want to learn about the "freedom movement" (broadly speaking) and its critique of mainstream environmentalism, there are plenty of resources available from Heartland, Cato, Reason, Heritage, Julian Simon's work is one place to start. Educate yourself and then get back to us.

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 3, 2010 at 2:29pm

[remind me why I ever enter these how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussions with Marcotte]

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on September 3, 2010 at 1:29pm

a few of the major ones are tied to statist policy objectives
Even if that is true (can you give some concrete examples, because I'm not seeing it), what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Paul's thesis is that the genesis of Lee's philosophy "that the number of humans must be reduced, if not eradicated, to accomplish environmental goals" comes from the grant policies of a wide variety of charitable foundations. Perusing a few of the sites he gives as evidence, what I see on the population side is a series of grants to promote access to family planning (i.e. birth control) and pre-natal and other health services.

You said that population growth is good as long as institutions allow for productivity and creativity. I agree, but point out that those don't exist where birth rates are highest, which also coincides where these grants are looking to have the most impact (the Ford Foundation isn't spending most of it's money devoted to family planning etc. in the West).

Paul's arguing (ineffectually, in my opinion), that these foundations are spreading a message of "humans-are-pollution" by support both better access to health care and family planning and programs to foster sustainable development. He's going further out on a limb (quite irresponsibly I think) and implying that they are the cause of Lee's psychosis.

If you are making the argument that the work of these foundations is retarding the economic development of the countries in which they work, fine. But that's quite a bit different than what we've been discussing up to this point.

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 3, 2010 at 12:24pm

I think the foundations Paul lists in the original post are, for the most part, looking to do both of those things

Perhaps that's their stated goal, but a few of the major ones are tied to statist policy objectives (from aid programs that discourage property rights to outright advocacy of bureaucracy and leftism). So the donors may have pure intentions (I'm being generous here), in practice they advocate a political worldview that IMO discourages economic self-sufficiency and encourages dependence on the state.

That's a fundamental philosophical disagreement.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on September 3, 2010 at 11:11am

If social and political institutions allow those hands to be productive and those brains to be creative, then a larger population is a benefit for humanity and the planet.
I agree with your original statement. It seems clear to me (does it to you?) that these institutions are not present (or at least not as prevalent) in most countries with high birth rates, especially in Africa and Central Asia. Therefore, it seems prudent for those countries to investigate ways to empower their citizens to both become more productive (i.e. build the social and political institutions) while at the same time empowering their citizens to better control their birth rates (e.g. through better access to birth control methods). I think the foundations Paul lists in the original post are, for the most part, looking to do both of those things.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on September 3, 2010 at 11:04am

So the U.S. serves as one example of my hypothesis, and one where we have reliable data.
Which hypothesis, exactly?

Are you saying that there is an direct correlation in general (meaning in most economies) between birth rates and economic health, and citing USA as one example of that?

If so, I think you are parsing the data to finely. If you look at the trend over the 20th century, there has been a dramatic decrease in birth rate and a dramatic increase in GDP per capita.

Here's the graph, using your data and GDP per capita (real 2005$) from here.

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 3, 2010 at 10:43am

Look at U.S. birthrates over the 20th century. The pattern roughly goes like this: During times of expansion (1910s-20s), the birthrate was healthy. It fell during the Depression and through the end of WWII. Then rebounded nicely from 1950 through the Vietnam Era (war, social upheaval, the rise of feminism may be contributors here). It bounced back very slightly in the 1970s and '80s, but was still at a lower level than pre-1965. And it recovered again in the early '90s (tech boom?).

I imagine the Latino immigration boom propped up birth rates somewhat. But this growth of migration took place during a time of prosperity. (Which is why we need more legal immigration, but I digress.)

So the U.S. serves as one example of my hypothesis, and one where we have reliable data.

Then there's this little factoid: Recession may have pushed U.S. birthrate to record low

Comment by Rick Henderson on September 3, 2010 at 10:34am

Marcotte,

Read earlier post very carefully.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page