On Sep 22, 6:17*am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Iconoclast





wrote:
It doesn't take an "expert" to figure out that prosperous nations need
to develop a fortress mentality before they are overwhelmed by Third
World poor.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...d35fc4f8355e56....

Population growth driving climate change, poverty: experts
Sep 21 01:41 PM US/Eastern

Unchecked population growth is speeding climate change, damaging life-
nurturing ecosystems and dooming many countries to poverty, experts
concluded in a conference report released Monday.

Unless birth rates are lowered sharply through voluntary family-
planning programmes and easy access to contraceptives, the tally of
humans on Earth could swell to an unsustainable 11 billion by 2050,
they warned.

The UN currently projects that global population will rise from 6.8
billion today to between 8.0 and 10.5 billion by mid-century.

The researchers said that with one and a half million more humans
climbing aboard the planet every week, a recipe is looming for
ecological overload, famine and broken states.

"Continued rapid population growth in many of the least developed
countries could lead to hunger, a failure of education and conflict,"
said Malcolm Potts at the University of California in Berkeley, which
hosted the conference in February.

The papers, authored by 42 specialists in environmental science,
economics and demography, are published by the Royal Society,
Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.

"There is no doubt that the current rate of human population growth is
unsustainable," summarised Roger Short, a professor at the University
of Melbourne in Australia.

"The inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional
energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and global
warming and providing an increasing number of failed states where
civil unrest prevails."

Ninety-eight percent of the expected population growth will occur in
developing countries, especially in Africa, where numbers are set to
double to almost two billion by 2050.

"How Niger is going to feed a population growing from 11 million today
to 50 million in 2050 in a semi-arid country that may be facing
adverse climate (change) is unclear," said Adair Turner, a member of
Britain's House of Lords.

The population of Uganda was five million in 1950, is 25 million today
and could reach 127 million by 2050, Turner said.

Concern about population growth is not new.

It was most famously articulated by a British mathematician, Thomas
Malthus, who in 1798 -- when Earth was home to about one billion --
calculated that exponential growth would inevitably lead to famine.

Malthus's dire warning was widely taken seriously until the advent of
mechanised farming. The surge in food productivity, helped by the
Green Revolution of the 1960s, gave the impression that Earth's bounty
was limitless.

But relentlessly rising demand, diminishing farmland, depleted fish
stocks, falling water tables and the threat of climate change have in
recent years placed the Malthusian dilemma back on the table.

In their overview, the authors say that even though the burden of
excess population is clear, controversy and taboo stalk the question
of how to tackle it.

Some objections, such as the Roman Catholic Church's ban on birth
control, are religious.

But the question has been ignored or sidelined in the secular arena
too, the authors said.

Population control, for example, did not figure among the UN's eight
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, though it was added later
"as an afterthought," said Short.

One reason has been the family planning programmes in China and India
that critics say veered into forced sterilisations and coercive
abortions, breaching human rights.

The researchers acknowledged these problems but also pointed out that
without its "one-child" policy, China would have an extra 300 to 400
million mouths to feed today.

There would be double the number of young people, from 20 to 40
million, who enter the Chinese job market each year.

The researchers agreed with the widely held belief that improving
economic conditions generally lead to lower birth rates.

But, they argue, smaller families also lead to greater prosperity, and
this can be helped by programmes that are voluntary and inexpensive.

Some 80 million pregnancies -- nearly 40 percent of the total each
year -- are unplanned. More than half of those unwanted pregnancies
will result in abortion, with five million women suffering severe
complications or death.

"Much more emphasis need to be given to meeting the need for family
planning -- all women should be protected from unintended childbirth,"
they said in a collective editorial.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP

And Uncle Suckemoff keeps welcoming about 1 million legal immigrants
a year!!

ted

http://www.wvwnews.net/*Western Voices- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obama's next "push" will be amnesty for illegal aliens.

tt

Why would the rest of us want to live in a "fortress" with assholes
like you?

On Sep 25, 8:40*am, Robert of St Louis wrote:
Why would the rest of us want to live in a "fortress" with assholes
like you?

maybe you'd rather live someplace like mexico or africa, with an
abundance of third worlders

Trav

Just answer a couple of questions because inquiring minds want to know- Is
it ok for the people in the rich, developed world, i.e. Westerns Europe
(excluding of Portugal and probably Greece which are two undesirable
countries in your frame of reference I would imagine), the United States and
Canada (again excluding blacks, hispanics, native born indians, and
immigrants from Africa and Asia), Japan, and possibly South Africa (again
excluding anyone who is not of pure British or Afrikaner stock) to breed out
of control?

I would bet what's left of my 401k that you only want anyone with white
skin, blond hair and blue eyes to breed like lemming so the world becomes
as "pure" as you want it to be, right? And lastly, do you take off your
jack boots and swastika at night or do you sleep with them on?
--
meport

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 6:17 am, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:17:59 -0700 (PDT), Iconoclast





wrote:
It doesn't take an "expert" to figure out that prosperous nations need
to develop a fortress mentality before they are overwhelmed by Third
World poor.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...d35fc4f8355e56...

Population growth driving climate change, poverty: experts
Sep 21 01:41 PM US/Eastern

Unchecked population growth is speeding climate change, damaging life-
nurturing ecosystems and dooming many countries to poverty, experts
concluded in a conference report released Monday.

Unless birth rates are lowered sharply through voluntary family-
planning programmes and easy access to contraceptives, the tally of
humans on Earth could swell to an unsustainable 11 billion by 2050,
they warned.

The UN currently projects that global population will rise from 6.8
billion today to between 8.0 and 10.5 billion by mid-century.

The researchers said that with one and a half million more humans
climbing aboard the planet every week, a recipe is looming for
ecological overload, famine and broken states.

"Continued rapid population growth in many of the least developed
countries could lead to hunger, a failure of education and conflict,"
said Malcolm Potts at the University of California in Berkeley, which
hosted the conference in February.

The papers, authored by 42 specialists in environmental science,
economics and demography, are published by the Royal Society,
Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.

"There is no doubt that the current rate of human population growth is
unsustainable," summarised Roger Short, a professor at the University
of Melbourne in Australia.

"The inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional
energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and global
warming and providing an increasing number of failed states where
civil unrest prevails."

Ninety-eight percent of the expected population growth will occur in
developing countries, especially in Africa, where numbers are set to
double to almost two billion by 2050.

"How Niger is going to feed a population growing from 11 million today
to 50 million in 2050 in a semi-arid country that may be facing
adverse climate (change) is unclear," said Adair Turner, a member of
Britain's House of Lords.

The population of Uganda was five million in 1950, is 25 million today
and could reach 127 million by 2050, Turner said.

Concern about population growth is not new.

It was most famously articulated by a British mathematician, Thomas
Malthus, who in 1798 -- when Earth was home to about one billion --
calculated that exponential growth would inevitably lead to famine.

Malthus's dire warning was widely taken seriously until the advent of
mechanised farming. The surge in food productivity, helped by the
Green Revolution of the 1960s, gave the impression that Earth's bounty
was limitless.

But relentlessly rising demand, diminishing farmland, depleted fish
stocks, falling water tables and the threat of climate change have in
recent years placed the Malthusian dilemma back on the table.

In their overview, the authors say that even though the burden of
excess population is clear, controversy and taboo stalk the question
of how to tackle it.

Some objections, such as the Roman Catholic Church's ban on birth
control, are religious.

But the question has been ignored or sidelined in the secular arena
too, the authors said.

Population control, for example, did not figure among the UN's eight
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, though it was added later
"as an afterthought," said Short.

One reason has been the family planning programmes in China and India
that critics say veered into forced sterilisations and coercive
abortions, breaching human rights.

The researchers acknowledged these problems but also pointed out that
without its "one-child" policy, China would have an extra 300 to 400
million mouths to feed today.

There would be double the number of young people, from 20 to 40
million, who enter the Chinese job market each year.

The researchers agreed with the widely held belief that improving
economic conditions generally lead to lower birth rates.

But, they argue, smaller families also lead to greater prosperity, and
this can be helped by programmes that are voluntary and inexpensive.

Some 80 million pregnancies -- nearly 40 percent of the total each
year -- are unplanned. More than half of those unwanted pregnancies
will result in abortion, with five million women suffering severe
complications or death.

"Much more emphasis need to be given to meeting the need for family
planning -- all women should be protected from unintended childbirth,"
they said in a collective editorial.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP

And Uncle Suckemoff keeps welcoming about 1 million legal immigrants
a year!!

ted

http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obama's next "push" will be amnesty for illegal aliens.

tt

Zombywoof wrote:

...those with the least resources do seem to replicate
much more frequently then those with the ability to care
for them do. *Perhaps it's because they have no other
form of entertainment.

The 3rd world areas were given advance medical tech,
but none of the other techs necessary to support the
increased population! It didn't develop that way
in the 1st world countries!
..
..
--

David P. wrote
Zombywoof wrote

...those with the least resources do seem to replicate
much more frequently then those with the ability to care
for them do. Perhaps it's because they have no other
form of entertainment.

The 3rd world areas were given advance medical tech,
but none of the other techs necessary to support the
increased population!

Mindlessly silly, most obviously with India and China which got those techs in spades.

It didn't develop that way in the 1st world countries!

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
David P. wrote

The 3rd world areas were given advance medical tech,
but none of the other techs necessary to support the
increased population!

Mindlessly silly, most obviously with India and China
which got those techs in spades.

Not even possible to have 1st world quality tech support,
so they'll stop overbreeding, he

CIA World Factbook - GDP per capita

Rank Country Int'l $
80 World 10,400
81 Brazil 10,100
82 S Africa 10,000
83 Dominica 9,900
84 Montenegro 9,700
85 Cuba 9,500
— Cook Islands 9,100
86 Azerbaijan 9,000
87 Macedonia 9,000
88 Colombia 8,900
89 Suriname 8,900
90 Angola 8,800
— Anguilla 8,800
91 Belize 8,600
92 Thailand 8,500
93 Peru 8,400
94 Dominican R 8,100
95 Palau 8,100
— Amer Samoa 8,000
96 Tunisia 7,900
97 Ecuador 7,500
98 Jamaica 7,400
99 Algeria 7,000
— St Pierre Miq7,000
100 Ukraine 6,900
101 Bosnia Herz 6,500
102 Armenia 6,400
103 El Salvador 6,200
104 Turkmenistan6,100
105 Albania 6,000
106 China 6,000
— Niue 5,800
107 Bhutan 5,600
108 Egypt 5,400
109 Namibia 5,400
110 Guatemala 5,200
111 Swaziland 5,100
112 Jordan 5,000
113 Maldives 5,000
114 Nauru 5,000
— Mayotte 4,900
115 Samoa 4,900
116 Syria 4,800
117 Georgia 4,700
118 Tonga 4,600
119 Vanuatu 4,600
120 Bolivia 4,500
121 Honduras 4,400
122 Sri Lanka 4,300
123 Paraguay 4,200
124 Rep of Congo4,000
125 Iraq 4,000
126 Morocco 4,000
127 Fiji 3,900
128 Guyana 3,900
129 Indonesia 3,900
130 Cape Verde 3,800
— WallisFutuna3,800
131 Djibouti 3,700
— Montserrat 3,400
132 Philippines 3,200
133 Kiribati 3,200
134 Mongolia 3,200
135 Nicaragua 2,900
— W Bank Gaza 2,900
136 India 2,800
137 Vietnam 2,800
138 Pakistan 2,600
139 Uzbekistan 2,600
140 Marshall I 2,500
141 Moldova 2,500
— St Helena 2,500
— W Sahara 2,500
142 Timor-Leste 2,400
143 Yemen 2,400
144 Cameroon 2,300
145 Kosovo 2,300
146 Nigeria 2,300
147 Micronesia 2,200
148 Papua N G 2,200
149 Sudan 2,200
150 Kyrgyzstan 2,100
151 Laos 2,100
152 Mauritania 2,100
153 Tajikistan 2,100
154 Cambodia 2,000
155 Solomon I 1,900
156 Ivory Coast 1,700
157 North Korea 1,700
158 Chad 1,600
159 Kenya 1,600
160 Lesotho 1,600
161 Senegal 1,600
162 Tuvalu 1,600
163 Bangladesh 1,500
164 Benin 1,500
165 Ghana 1,500
166 Zambia 1,500
167 Gambia 1,300
168 Haiti 1,300
169 São Tomé+Pr 1,300
170 Tanzania 1,300
171 Burkina Faso1,200
172 Burma 1,200
173 Mali 1,200
174 Guinea 1,100
175 Nepal 1,100
176 Uganda 1,100
177 Comoros 1,000
178 Madagascar 1,000
— Tokelau 1,000
179 Mozambique 900
180 Rwanda 900
181 Togo 900
182 Afghanistan 800
183 Ethiopia 800
184 Malawi 800
185 C Afr Rep 700
186 Eritrea 700
187 Niger 700
188 Sierra Leone700
189 Guinea-Biss 600
190 Somalia 600
191 Liberia 500
192 Burundi 400
193 D R of Congo300
194 Zimbabwe 200


It didn't develop that way in the 1st world countries!

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim.

There's no precedent for a country developing to
1st world status (with the result of lower birth rate)
without acquiring all techs (including banking, civil society,
rule of law, democracy, equity markets, infrastructure,
etc) more or less equally!
..
..
--

David P. wrote
Rod Speed wrote
David P. wrote

The 3rd world areas were given advance medical
tech, but none of the other techs necessary to
support the increased population!

Mindlessly silly, most obviously with India
and China which got those techs in spades.

Not even possible to have 1st world quality tech
support, so they'll stop overbreeding, he

It wasnt 1st world quality tech support that stopped overbreeding in china, stupid.

reams of irrelevant crap flushed where it belongs

It didn't develop that way in the 1st world countries!

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim.

There's no precedent for a country developing to
1st world status (with the result of lower birth rate)
without acquiring all techs (including banking, civil
society, rule of law, democracy, equity markets,
infrastructure, etc) more or less equally!

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim.

Want a very interesting statistic? Western Europe, Japan, Russian, The good
'ol U S of A, Brazil and Canada, countries with a combined population of
less than than 1,000,000,000 people, use almost 2 TIMES more of every
natural resource, consume 3 TIMES more of the worlds production products,
produce 2 TIMES more pollution and cause 5 TIMES more environmental
degrogation than the rest of the world combined. In other words, 12% of the
worlds population, THAT'S US, YOU AND ME, NOT THEM, are the ones who are
causing the collapse of the world's biosystems.

So who do you think THEY blame? And then we go around wondering why they
hate US so much.

--
meport

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 07:53:52 -0400, "meport"
wrote:

Just answer a couple of questions because inquiring minds want to know- Is
it ok for the people in the rich, developed world, i.e. Westerns Europe
(excluding of Portugal and probably Greece which are two undesirable
countries in your frame of reference I would imagine), the United States
and
Canada (again excluding blacks, hispanics, native born indians, and
immigrants from Africa and Asia), Japan, and possibly South Africa (again
excluding anyone who is not of pure British or Afrikaner stock) to breed
out
of control?

I would bet what's left of my 401k that you only want anyone with white
skin, blond hair and blue eyes to breed like lemming so the world becomes
as "pure" as you want it to be, right? And lastly, do you take off your
jack boots and swastika at night or do you sleep with them on?

Well that may only be because of your biased views on the subject. For
whatever reason those with the least resources do seem to replicate
more of the same much more frequently then those with the ability to
care for them do. Perhaps it is simply because they have no other
form of entertainment.
--

Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be aisles in a
convenience store; not a Government agency!

"meport" wrote in message
...
Want a very interesting statistic? Western Europe, Japan, Russian, The
good 'ol U S of A, Brazil and Canada, countries with a combined population
of less than than 1,000,000,000 people, use almost 2 TIMES more of every
natural resource, consume 3 TIMES more of the worlds production products,
produce 2 TIMES more pollution and cause 5 TIMES more environmental
degrogation than the rest of the world combined. In other words, 12% of
the worlds population, THAT'S US, YOU AND ME, NOT THEM, are the ones who
are causing the collapse of the world's biosystems.

So who do you think THEY blame? And then we go around wondering why they
hate US so much.

--
meport

I sure know that when you see a video of a forest on fire for slash and burn
farming, hydraulic gold mining, and mercury being used for all sorts of
things, (and more), it ain't in the USA. Large third world cities with air
quality similar to "London Fog" of the Industrial Revolution. We flew over
what must have been a coal fired electric plant on our way to Mazatlan. I
thought the forest was on fire. The smoke went to the horizon. No tree
huggers in Mehico.

But seriously, folks, in case you didn't know, or slept through history
classes for decades, they hate us for interfering in their governments, and
in some cases installing brutal figurehead tyrants. We revolted in those
circumstances, and we didn't even have tyrants governing us who were
murdering thousands of civilians every year for entertainment, dissent, or
just because someone turned them in as "suspicious". That will create a
hatred that will last forever. It's in them history books. Read them.

What's that? You can't understand those big words and remember all those
facts?

sigh .....................

And how's that isolationist policy working so far, Sparky?

Steve