Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools

I’m treading back into GD territory, temporarily. Just thought I add this little gem: Mexico’s population growth has slowed down considerably. In 1960, the fertility rate was like 6.0+. Now it’s down to 2.1 (World Bank). Call it what you want, but Mexico’s Baby Boom is over. And I have to ask this question: In 20 years, will Mexican immigration (legal/illegal) be that big an issue?

Please resume your skewering

I would think so, but that is if we let the politicians supported by unsavory groups continue to do what they are actually doing, and that is: doing nothing about the carbon footprint.

So, by controlling CO2 emissions, that is one of the main priorities for environmentalists nowadays, we should see less immigrants thanks to that and thanks to reduced fertility rates in places like Mexico.

What is stupid is thinking it is an either/or question. You can be concerned about the global environment and the US environment. Perhaps you think Lester Brown isn’t an environmentalist. Good luck with that.

As mentioned before, just by the article, there is a focus on the whole US population and the carbon emissions.

And by looking at his book, World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse the only mention of immigration is referring to all migration, that also includes domestic migration into Colorado.

http://www.city-data.com/states/Colorado-Migration.html

The task is clearer now, we should round up all future domestic migrants and send them to exile as they **are **the biggest problem!

Not holding my breath for that solution coming from the nativists. As pointed out before, Chen is like the climate change deniers when in desperation to claim that they have a valid point have to cite scientists that in reality do not quite follow all the ideas of the deniers.

They may sympathize, but at the end of the day, things like future foreign immigration are not a priority when domestic migrants are also included. It is really interesting to notice that in his book Lester Brown recommends all to check the blog Climate Progress.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/10/13/206859/immigration-the-environment-myths/

Immigration is a significant factor driving US population growth. And it is easier to reduce immigration than to impose population control methods like China’s One Child Policy.

Makes sense.

Domestic immigration you mean. :slight_smile:

And what I have noticed is that Brown knows where the priorities are.

http://www.odemagazine.com/exchange/1066/lester_brown_launches_plan_b_3_0

And he is worried about what CO2 will do to the issue of migration in the future:

http://inspirationgreen.org/climate-refugees.html?start=80

As I said, it’s not an either/or situation.

So as the best person the Chen could produce showed what environmentalists are mainly worrying about, one also needs to note that Brown has joined with Al Gore and many other progressives in their efforts to spread the word.

AS for Gore: he has also noticed who we need to also pressure for change:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/22/250926/al-gore-slams-obama-media-merchants-of-poison-pro-wrestling-referees/

As much as he is maligned, Gore is an environmental activist and knows politics, he also learned from theorist Roger Revelle about global warming in 1969. Yep, Gore did not invent it. :slight_smile:

Words are cheap, if you were really aware of the global warming issue you would had known most of this already. “the proliferation of carbon dioxide in the environment as the single greatest threat to mankind” -Lester Brown.

What politicians that are supported by nativists do is to ignore that.

What this shows is that either you are the king of the dupes, or lying about your Global Warming concerns.

The groups you follow do not care about the environment.

But he really did invent the Internet, to the extent such a thing can ever be said of a public official acting as such; and he never actually claimed the distinction.

I know, it would be better if there was action on both population stabilization and carbon emissions globally.

Then make sure you never support any candidate or organization that is unsound on the latter, even if they take a hard line on U.S. immigration.

Am I, pray tell, allowed to donate to my local Save the Bay organization without first seeing how much of their time they spend fighting global warming?

That’s bullshit. Unlike some, I can sign on with those taking positive environmental steps because they are positive in their own right. I don’t have to see if they have signed on to some larger doctrine. Please.

Then don’t do it on a shrinking doctrine either. Really, the best non nativist examples from Chen in reality do not help his or your case. They got worse if you have not noticed.

Not following you on the “shrinking doctrine”. Do you mean one in which the population of the U.S. declines? Something else?

Just do enough research first to make sure “Save the Bay” is not some fucking corporate-astroturf front that’s really in the AGW-denial business. Which it might well be, nowadays.

Thanks GIGO

Turns out that the Colorado water example repeated to dead by Chen does refer to domestic immigrants (As in coming from other **American **States), foreign ones and the present population, the local projections for the future are based on that, and when one looks at the numbers, it turns out that the biggest migrant contributor to the population are the domestic migrants x6.

Good luck on controlling the future movement of those. As mentioned before, there are no specific recommendations to just deal with (future) immigrants in the report, and much less for future foreign immigrants.

Concentrating on the ecological impact of future foreign immigrants on that locality is an even less important issue than it was implied by Chen. The focus remains the whole local population, water and global warming.

But then again, I warned you before about relying on Chen for cites that are not from the nativists, he usually has to misrepresent them or he gets the wrong conclusion from them. Not that you used to do better. :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t have time to go look at that now, but it is not surprising at all that when looking at the sustainability of a specific region, that you’d look into how that population might increase and consider people moving into that region from the rest of the country. You seemed to be excited about this 6X. I don’t know the validity of the number, but it is not surprising in the least that people would be moving into the Southwest from other parts of the country. Does it surprise you?

So, when looking at the Colorado River basin i makes sense to take into account the trend of people moving into the region from the U.S. Right? You seem to agree with that. Well, if that makes sense, why doesn’t it make sense that someone looking at sustainability in the U.S., nationally, also look to how the sustainability equation is affected by people moving into the area? It’s basically the same thing. It’s just that in the latter case these people are coming from other countries.