« Olbermann Manages to Blame Bush For Virginia Tech Massacre | Main | Some Are Learning From Virginia Tech Massacre »

Well, where's your commitment, gentlemen? Like the Jones Gang in '78, or the comet watchers of just a few years ago, genuinely committed folks with the courage of their convictions, why aren't you offing yourselves willy-nilly?

Oh, I get it -- you have to be here to supervise the extinction of all of the rest of us mere peons, to make sure that the necessary 50% (or 90%) of the "unnecessary" masses are eliminated, so that you, among the elite, might live on in complete harmony with Mother Nature.

How silly of me to have forgotten that you're "special" because you are "environmentally aware," while the rest of us are mere pawns in your perfect little alternative universe. Now, I do agree with you that we could do better with somewhat fewer humans upon the planet, and I think you need to reconsider your decision to stick around with us -- demonstrate for all of the true environmentalists in the world to note; show them the path to salvation!

Come on, it's easy: just pick up that can of Drano and knock it back, maybe with a beer chaser. I, like many on this over-crowded planet, will applaud your display of intestinal fortitude (pun intentional), and perhaps many more of your bretheren will follow your lead.

Drano-drinking Gaia-ists of the world, unite!

I love your blog, your perspective, your wit. I agree with almost everything on this blog. I disagree with you here. Human beings leave a big wake. pop growth is explosive. We should be able to live in a prosperous way. The earth can not handle the consumption of 6 billion Al Gores. A sensible population control effort is perhaps the only reasonable environmentalist position. Interestingly, industrialization and affluence lead to negative population growth. This is consistent with conservative thinking.

for expeienced traveller: I had 57 relatives not come out of the camps during the Holocaust. Is this something you support? Let me know, then bare knuckles are in order.

It's a mark of the phoniness of the environmental movement that none of them advocate stronger immigration controls in the US. Even though they claim the southwest is already over-populated and even though they claim that Americans consume too much (i.e. the lower classes live too well), they don't object to the mass illegal immigration that drives US population increase.

If they cared about the environment for reasons other than political correctness, they'd want illegals to stay in their own countries, where they would produce less pollution.

Dear jc14: Say what? You write that ‘Interestingly, industrialization and affluence lead to negative population growth.’ Not so. The greatest growth in world population came from the Industrial Revolution which led to a tremendous and wide-spread increase in wealth. And remember that the wealthiest society---that would be the US of A---is also experiencing a positive population growth. It is Europe that is in decline, a slow-motion suicide that is the result of a turning away from Christianity and not the result of the obvious wealth of that continent. The environmentalists practice a false creed, thus their love with death and extinction---rather like the followers of Moloch of old.

Seriously? Do you not think it's slightly outrageous to the 6 million people who died in Nazi concentration camps during WWII to compare the holocaust with calls for sensible restrictions on the number of people living on this planet? None of those people you've cited above advocate killing people to achieve their objectives.

This is probably one of the most shameful posts that I've seen on this blog. As if you actually used a picture of the victims of the holocaust as well.

Mark, do you consider what the enviro-Nazis are proposing in some cases ... i.e. the development of '12 Monkeys' style bio-weapons for mass exterminations ... a "sensible restriction on the number of people living on this planet?" Because that is exactly what some of the enviro-kooks are proposing.

Also, the notion that governments should set limits on human population itself is, at a minimum, the ultimate in government intrusion into personal choice. Funny how lefties get all hysterical when the government listens in on terrorists phone calls to save lives... but they see nothing wrong with governments "sensibly restricting" who is allowed to have children and how many.

Maybe Mark admires the Chinese methods of forced abortions, throwing unwanted babies down a well to die, and killing Down's Syndrome babies in the delivery room as "sensible restrictions."

Frankly, it makes me smile when I see families with 4, 5, or more kids in my church. If we can keep it up for a generation or two while the moonbats voluntarily extinct themselves, we may yet save Western Civilization.

Look I don't have any particularly strong opinion regarding the amount of people on this earth. I do however have an objection to you lambasting the discussion of this subject as Nazism, because not only is it a horribly overused cliché (Godwin's Law), it also does a grave injustice to the suffering of millions of people across Europe during WWII. It's also completely irrelevant to this debate.

Limiting population size doesn't have to involve killing people, forced abortions or eugenics, of course, although I do think it says something about you that those are the first things that come into your head. A more likely method would be tax credits to encourage families to have only 2 or 3 children, rather than 4 or 5. That's how it could work in the Western, developed world, anyway.

The real area of population growth however is occurring in less economically developed countries, and the reason for this is simple: families have many children because child mortality is very high, and if they have several children hopefully a few of them will survive. The way to solve this is actually by substantially improving child mortality rates in the developing world, giving parents security in knowing that their 2 or 3 children will survive, which will lead them to have less children.

Genesis 9:1
So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."

Anyone who has ever flown coast to cast at 30,000 feet knows the Earth is nowhere near "full".

No, Mark - this isn't about saving the earth; it's about silencing the opposition with any means available.

put muslims in charge,they will take care of the population problem.

The real area of population growth however is occurring in less economically developed countries

Oh no! The heathen brown horde! Stop them before they aspire the lifestyle of Anglo-Europeans!

You're right, Mark. It's unfair to compare enviromental extremists to Nazis or communists — unfair to the Nazis and communists. They only wanted to rid the world of certain types of people. The envirokooks have it in for everyone.

Mike (Mike Austin): I think you were replying to dr.charlemagne, instead of to me.

However, I can only agree with you that continental Europe (and the UK) are (somewhat rapidly, actually) committing "slow-motion suicide" by the uncontrolled immigration of unassimilated Muslim populations into their countries (read Bruce Bawer's "While Europe Slept"). And I see it happening right here in the good, ole' USA, as well, and I don't mean the already massive hordes of Mexicans and others from "south of the border" literally pouring into this country, unrestricted and unabated, which is a whole 'nother problem in itself (and one that every politician, of every stripe, save a very precious few, are ignoring completely, since they seem not to want to do a damn thing about it).

Indeed, it's seemed to me for the longest time that those of the leftist persuasion have a genuine "death wish," for themselves as well as pretty much everybody else -- that they actually want to exorcise their "guilt" by slowing, and they hope painlessly, just fading away.

Now, there are many of the "elite" Left that apparently think they'll just go on as before when the stronger, more robust, populations take over the planet; that they'll be fine, untouched by this phenomenon, maintaining their luxurious lifestyles as if nothing at all had changed -- just more living in a fantasy world for these people, who will one day (soon) be stunned to be led out to the block for their execution, asking (like Theo Van Gogh): "Can't we talk about this?," just prior to having their throats slit with a dull butter knife.

I find Mark's position to be not only mistaken but morally repugnant. To say that "None of those people you've cited above advocate killing people to achieve their objectives." and then advocate using taxes to force people to comply with what you believe to be right shows a complete lack of understanding what a free society and a free country are all about. The government of a free country is not your vehicle for imposing what you believe on other people, sir. That is what is referred to as tyranny. The purpose of creating a free country was to live free of tyranny. If you wish to have people conform to your beliefs then you will respect their freedom to live from being forced by you and your like-minded friends to conform to your wishes. You will convince them by arguments of reason and if they reject your arguments and see things differently then that is too bad for you.

Your mindset and your advocacy of tyranny are exactly what Moonbats are all about.

It is interesting that at the same time we have books like this one by Phillip Longman, who holds many positions that most would consider "liberal." In it, he claims that underpopulation (NOT over) will result in major problems. If Longman and others like him were to meet with these "overpopulation" people, would an interesting conversation develop? Or would they just get in an ugly, name-calling argument?

http://www.amazon.com/EMPTY-CRADLE-Birthrates-Threaten-Prosperity/dp/0465050506

Suggest the zero-pop folks try selling their agenda in China and India where 1/3 of the world population resides.
I'm guessing they don't have the cojones to do so.

A commenter above stated that the US is experiencing pop. growth--this is true, but it is entirely due to immigration. The US birthrate is only at the replacement level. (Look up the US birth rate if you don't believe me).

fellowes, that agenda has already accepted in China. I do agree that they would be scared to go to India where Muslims and Hindus aren't afraid to fight back if something seems to threaten their cultures(notice the Richard Gere kissing fiasco).

V the K: "Oh no! The heathen brown horde! Stop them before they aspire the lifestyle of Anglo-Europeans!"

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean when I said that we need to drastically improve child mortality rates in the third world... Really, how is doing that stopping them from aspiring to "the lifestyle of Anglo-Europeans"? Surely improving child mortality is doing the exact opposite? So now you've alleged me to be in favour of eugenics, forced abortions, murder, racism, and Nazism. What next? And do you actually think that simply saying those things means you win any kind of argument? Crazy...

kevin: "...advocate using taxes to force people to comply with what you believe to be right shows a complete lack of understanding what a free society and a free country are all about"

What, so presumably tax breaks for families are wrong? Child tax credits are wrong? Taxes on smoking and alcohol are wrong? Are tax breaks to companies also wrong? Moving on from tax breaks and extending your argument to its logical conclusion, presumably any law enacted by the government which bans something is wrong?

I'd go as far as to say that most taxes are wrong, period. But that's just me.

Taxzes and law are two different things. You cannot logically move from the position of "enforcing a social position with taxes is wrong" to "legislating against something is wrong". In an anglo-saxon system of common law, the government exancts laws in order to make things illegal, or to legalise things that were previously ruled illegal - repealing laws. That's what laws are designed for. That's what they're used for.

Taxes are not designed for that. Taxes are designed for raising revenue. When you start to blur that distinction and use taxes to enforce legislation you create moral ambiguity and allow the state to abuse its position. The use of tax as a moral sledghammer is already wrong simply because they so often miss the mark. Arguing that examples of the sledghammer already exist doesn't justify the use of more taxes to enforce moral positions. If you want to limit the population, you vote for someone who is willing to enact a law with that intent. You don't coerce people with the threat of extorting money if they fail to comply.

Hmm, typos. "taxes", "enacts" and a bunch of others. Go me. :)

"Eric Pianka, a professor at University of Texas, is shooting for 90%."

I seem to recall a fairly recent X- Men comic storyline in which the villain Apocalypse (A "Survival of the fittest" zealot who believes in the complete annihilation of those he sees as weak) made a similar threat. He confronted the UN and stated that unless the human race eliminated 90% of their population, he would release enough deadly viruses to kill 100% of the human population. Something tells me these eco- moonbats would hail Apocalypse as a hero.

Previously I had asked a poster to tell me what PRACTICAL things Lefties are suggesting to solve the world's problems.
Now I'm sorry I asked.

Dear jc14: Oops! Sorry. In all my cleverness I had not figured out Van Helsing’s comment method.

I have wanted to get Bawer’s book for some time but other books line my night stand awaiting their turn---Dangerous Nation for one. I will get around to it.

You are right about the Latin Americans, but I see their desire to get here however they can as a sign of the health of our ideology and political-economy. No one desires to move to a sick society unless they plan to conquer it.

And if you can figure out why no politico here in the US wants to do anything about all those illegals, I would love to hear about it. Really, I am perplexed.

Nice touch about our ‘idle left.’ They seem almost in a state of languor, believing if we only stopped emitting carbons, banned guns and aborted more children then all would be well with the world.