Not at all ! I was referring to Tanton founding multiple groups who coincidentally all happen to publish articles and reports with the exact same slant, and who appear to be citing each other. In other words, IRL sock puppeting.
bonk, bonk MCFLY ?! HELLO ? ANYBODY HOME ? That bogus concern has already been shot down. More population does not imply more sprawl & destruction of wildlife.
Not reading the cite I made indeed:
BTW it is the Nativist Zukerman, (not an expert on the environment, no matter how much you illogically wanted to make it so) is not convincing anyone that that counts into dealing with immigration alone. Once again, population on the whole is not ignored.
All your other cites are not separating immigrants from the Population, the Pew cite concentrate on the immigrants, but not the environment.
And after your laughter you only showed that you avoided dealing with my cite. So for the second time the points of the environmentalist stands.
Chen019 is really just wanting all to believe in magic, it is like a peculiar forester manager that encounters a huge forest fire and it tells the firefighters to not do anything until we figure out how to separate the conifers from the deciduous trees.
So you concede the water issue? Then why can’t you bring yourself to consider restricting immigration to reduce population growth?
Again, it seems it must be a deep ideological commitment that prevents you and GIGObuster from considering this obvious policy option.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/earth/02drought.html
No need to create stawmen GIGObuster. I’m not saying that dealing with US population growth (which is largely driven by immigration) alone would be sufficient. However, it is an issue as demonstrated by the water issue above. Accordingly, I’m still baffled at how you think US environmentalists should ignore US population growth.
You said above Population control includes immigrants. However, you’ve also said that you don’t support open borders. Would you support any reduction in immigration?
Under what circumstances would you consider that population growth in the US was detrimental to the environment? Why do you think that it isn’t an issue in terms of water supply in the US?
Yup, sure seems that way. I’m probably hating freedom right now, too.
As for the water issue, to the extent that it is an actual issue it is still a local issue, whereas immigration control is a federal one unless I (once again) don’t understand how the US works. Just because town X is getting overcrowded doesn’t mean the whole country has to shut down the gates. It just means new immigrants should be encouraged to settle in town Y instead, at least until we setup better water recycling/desalinization routines and processes and get people to observe better water discipline.
It doesn’t have to shut its gates, but could perhaps reduce the number of people taken in to stabilize the population. Again, population stabilization was something the Clinton advisory council suggested.
Desalinization has it’s own environmental issues (see p121). The Southwest is particularly dependent on the Colorado River basin. In this report various water management strategies, including desalination are considered.
They comment on population growth and the impact of increasing demand:
Of course!
Obviously, too many people, overpopulation, ALWAYS! destroys the environment. If we had stopped immigration and held our population constant at 200 million people, or less, then we would have had much less pollution and less traffic, we would have much more trees and farms and fields, less crowding. Anyone who cannot see this does not understand anything.
Holding the population at 200 million? How would you accomplish that? I mean after we erected the 50-foot electrified wall around the entire country? Chinese-style ‘one child rule?’ Forced abortions? Death panels? Thunderdome every Friday night? What?
I’m sorry, but someone who can float the idea that all we need to do is to keep the population from growing at all, as though one could pass a law and that’s all it would take, can’t really be taken seriously in this, or pretty much any, debate.
If the United States had stopped immigration in the 1960’s, instead of increasing immigration, our population would be less than 200 million and declining. We would have more and more farms, fields, forests each year, less and less pollution, and less and less debt with less and less energy imports. We perhaps would have just half the people in our country that we had in 1965. Our hiways and biways would be totally uncongested, and there would be no unemployment.
If there is no immigration, the basic trend is for the population to decline. Even though the barn door has been left wide open since 1965, the best thing the USA could do today to help the environment is to immediately stop all immigration, and deport all 20 or30 illegals that are in the country to give an initial environmental bang .
Fwer and fewer people in the USA would do the most to improve our environment, we will become less crowded, less polluted, less strain on our fresh water supplies, less traffic, less energy imports, less welfare, less crime, less debt, more forests and more wildlife, cleaner lakes and streams, and a healthier and happier life style for everyone.
The solution to a better healthier cleaner environment in the USA is soooooo simple.
Population decline
A number of nations today are facing long term population decline, stretching from North Asia (Japan through to Eastern Europe through Russia including Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Germany, Hungary, and now Italy. Countries rapidly approaching long term population declines (but currently still growing, albeit slowly) include Greece, Spain, Cuba, Uruguay, Denmark, Finland, Austria and Lesotho.
Now you are even denying what I said, but that is clear to many others.
As noticed for the third time, you ignored what the environmentalists are actually saying, so I’m glad that you are conceding that.
BTW just concentrating on water it is really clear that you are acting like a climate change denier. The article referred in the New York times from the university does not talk about immigration.
Later studies still point at Global Warming as the most likely reason why water shortages are coming in the west.
The pedantic reason why even the department of the interior does not deal much with immigration regarding water is that
http://www.usbr.gov/research/science-and-tech/proposals/evaluation/social.html
And that brings us back to the issue at hand, once again, population, all population needs to be controlled, unfortunately for the inhumane proponents, it is mostly a thing that will have to be imposed voluntary. However, once again, the fake environmentalists demonstrate that they are not interested in doing anything about the carbon footprint.
Is not that simple and that solution of yours is not even mentioned by any cite that is not a nativist one, simply because it would still ignore most of the descendants… that are already American citizens.
“Shot down” in your own mind. The water issue is real. People require X gallons of water a day. The Colorado river basin, for instance, provides Y gallons of water. Only so many people can be sustained. As far as your “sprawl”, it’s not so much that people must live in sprawl, but that greater numbers mean more land must be used to sustain them. More land for farming. More land for ranching. And these activities place additional strains on the environment. Then, yes, there is also the land people have to live on. We can build upward, but that means more construction, using more resources, and then having to transport more goods to those cities from afar. So, no, nothing has been “shot down”.
Another thing that hasn’t been done is you answering the questions I asked in Post 123:
You responded to this by pointing to Belgium and Switzerland, but never answered the questions. Would you?
If it is valid to, as you say, look at the population as a whole, is it also valid in your mind to look at ways in which that population might spike?
In that area.
No. The US is nowhere near its peak food production, exports far more than it consumes and (just like Europe) even subsidies farmers to destroy the crops they’ve raised so as not to tank crop prices. Try again.
Ah yes, I would see how building a 2 story building would require more materials and resources than 2x1 story ones.
Wait, actually no, that’s a stupid argument.
In fact, this whole line or argument of yours is the opposite of truth, since concentrated housing centralizes things like water distribution, heating, power, food distribution etc… instead of doubling up on them and multiplying the waste exponentially.
I did, akshully. I gave you an arbitrary 1.5 billion ballpark figure, which in my mind is still far from a point of great stress, though I suppose it also depends on what you define as “great stress”.
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong. – H.L. Mencken
Yes, as mentioned many times, I guess the best way to drive the missed point is to ask this:
How does that assumption work, that dealing with population as a whole means that automatically, as some in this discussion continue to say, the immigrants will not inconvenienced too?
Because that is the inevitable conclusion one has to reach if one continues this silly line of discussion.
It is only by assuming that immigrants have magical powers that the immigrants that are already here and their descendants will not have to deal with the restrictions and changes of behavior that will be needed to control the population (And I’m already on the record with relatives that we should stop having many babies).
As it is, economics are also helping demonstrate how immigrants can not use magic to avoid current issues, on the news it was mentioned that the recession has discouraged ideas to sprawl further as new residential construction and improvements are now going to the city centers. Also when things like a carbon tax are in place it would be really silly to assume that immigrants will not have to deal with that.
Thanks for this response. But while I understand what you say here and have little problem with it, you didn’t actually answer what I was asking. My question was:
If it is valid to, as you say, look at the population as a whole, is it also valid in your mind to look at ways in which that population might spike?
I was trying to understand if you though it was valid to look at ways how the population might spike.
Yeah. And that area is vast. The basin supplies water to upwards over 25 million people. It is not, as you said a few posts up, a “local” issue. It comprises the entire Southwest. And there are other vast water basins that take up a big chunk of the country and supply water to similarly large swaths of people. The amount of people a water basin can sustain is finite. And there are finite water sources.
What the hell do you mean by “no”. What part of what I wrote is incorrect:
Please point to the specific points you think are wrong and explain why.
Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t make it. So you simply responded to a stupid argument that no one made. ::shrug::
You might be interested to know that an “argument” is not measured by “truth”. Facts are measured by truth. Arguments are measured by validity. and what you wrote does not counter my point. So, as you say, try again.
Okay. Is this based on any science, or just your opinion. It’s fine if it’s just an opinion. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. What level of confidence do you have that your arbitrary number is sustainable? Do you have any evidence to support it? Have you taken into account the amount of water needed for people? The additional farmland needed? The amount of water needed to irrigate this additional farmland? The impact of increasing the amount of food and other essential goods by 500%? The amount of extra fuel required. How many more roads and bridges will have to be built, or how much more often they will need to be repaired? The degree the air quality in cities will be worsened by increasing their density? The effects on the oceans lakes and rivers as we put greater demands on them for food? Etc.?