Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools

The BBQ Pit
296

:confused: What?! You are STILL conflating the different issues?!?!?! Unbelievable. Let’s try this again. But first I will add that your infatuation with domestic immigration is an issue for Number 2 below—and only Number 2. PLease keep in mind that as far as domestic immigration and Number 2, no one disagrees with you. It just has nothing to do with #s 1 and 3.

  1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
  2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
  3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States
    For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases.

For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region in addition to issues concerning global warming. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions.

For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion:

A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment.

B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth.

C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration.

So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone.

And while we’re at it, again I will ask you: keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen? And, no, you haven’t answered this yet. Try being direct and not shooting off on tangents. Here you go:

[QUOTE=Chen019]

  1. Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).

  2. Immigration is a major driver of US population growth.

  3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth.
    Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom.
    [/QUOTE]