For comparison, England’s population is more than 51 million.
And are the English feeling crowded yet? (Serious question, I dunno.)
But the context was that locally the organizations (and the people elected with their help) that Chen promoted first, are lying. When it counts, environmentalism for them goes out of the window.
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=guilt_by_association
As the local Colorado water report mentions, global warming is going to be a big factor on the changes coming. The point here is that the best example (cherry picked to show something else) Chen has used, shows that even at the local level one can not ignore the big picture.
Remember that the real point of that thread is to complain that some wanna be environmentalist groups are butthurt for not being able to get the Sierra Club and others to convert.
And that gets us back to the perspective point, what I see in this conflict is really like creationists that are trying to get their perspective to be used in schools, even after they already lost were it counted.
The items the environmentalist groups deal with have moved, just like the science it consults has. When groups that in reality support climate change deniers try to change an organization that looks at science for guidelines, that organization can simple say: “That subset of the population issue is not in our scope now”. And priorities also change:
http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/global-warming/our-work/what-is-global-warming
The problem with stating this as a general principle is that it’s a statement that happens in a vacuum – and falls prey, ironically enough, to the same types of concerns that measures limiting carbon footprints do: the tradeoff.
We may agree as a general principle that it’s wise to limit carbon footprints, but reject the specific approach of immediately outlawing private automobiles and mandating bicycles and public transportation across the country… because we recognize that such a mandate, dramatic though its effect on carbon emissions would be, has a huge economic and social cost.
So, too, we may say that as a general principle, population stablization is a “sensible option” insofar as it will mitigate mankind’s deleterious effect on the environment… but if the specific measure is immigration control, other social and economic costs are implicated.
As the proponent of the plan, it’s for you to demonstrate those costs are acceptable.
That’s true, but as has been mentioned in the other thread, at least tangentially, limits on family size have even greater social costs. Hence (IIUC) the mention of the Chinese “one child” policy. The skies will fall before the US imposes limits on families. Limits on immigration, and especially limiting illegal immigration, is much more plausible.
What some seem to want to do in the other thread is to rule out discussion of immigration altogether. It seems plausible that this is what the large contributors wanted.
Regards,
Shodan
Not so, what you ignore is the point I’m making here, creationists could make the point, after failing to tell schools to teach creationism, to maybe teach it in a social studies lesson. Not that that solution would make many of the creationists happy, Nativist groups would be more sensible if they would tell themselves: **we should stick to our current organizations already in place and to not pretend to be environmentalists when there is no followup whatsoever in even looking at what the representatives we help elect (or are the representatives themselves) are doing with items that are the most important focus for the environmentalist groups nowadays. **
What the Nativist groups where doing was attempting to control a group that was changing, not only to deal with issues that are gaining a priority, but also to reach for the people most affected by pollution, (minorities usually, and most likely immigrants or their descendants) it is more plausible to think that there was an even more unsavory reason why some members of the Sierra Club aligned with the Navitist groups. They really did not like were this was going and so the clock needed to be turned back.
What we have have here are groups that need to do clean up their act to become more effective voices to deal with the immigrant issue, what they yearned for was for other groups that where suffering less baggage from their racist elements to be a voice for them.
In other words, like the creationists, they should stick to teach their followers in their churches and spread the word after cleaning up their act from people that caused more bad than good, for the creationists it was a huge amount of money wasted in the last case when they tried to have intelligence design in schools, if what I saw was correct, there was also a lot wasted in this effort to change an organization that has now even less to do with a part of the overall issue most environmentalists take also into account: the whole population.
Well, there’s the problem right there:
Do you really believe that approach would be more effective at spreading the creationist message? Well, no, of course you don’t, you’re not an idiot.
Nativists face a similar dilemma.
I am not sure what you are talking about.
It appears you don’t want any discussion about the topic of immigration, at least by non-approved groups, and have chosen ad hominem as your method to try to stop this. That won’t work, so the hell with that.
Immigration is a major source of population growth in the US, and population growth increases overall consumption and environmental impact. You want to equate that with creationism, go ahead, but it makes you look stupid.
Ad hominems, guilt by association, the genetic fallacy - you aren’t making your side look any too good.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, I thought so, you would like to deny that on top of other things their efforts are to change the scope of an environmentalist group.
So says the disingenuous that ignores perspective, the creationist are used as a metaphor, the point stands:
There are very pedantic reasons why immigration is not the main focus when environmentalism is the reason for being for a group.
What it is clear is that you assume that those groups are not racist, that is fine, the point here does not depend on the make up of the ones trying to change, but that what they are trying to do is to change the scope of a group that has depended also on science to establish that scope.
I should add that I’m also referring to the other point made in the OP:
It is clear that there are other groups that do not give a damn about immigration that are involved.
The politicians elected with the support by the groups that are butt-hurt for losing in their attempt at controlling the Sierra Club, are in the end climate change deniers.
It is not hard at all to see yet another reason why the would be new leaders of the environmentalist group wanted to gain control, it had to do with the current global warming focus of the Sierra Club.
Then why all the ad hominems?
Who gives a flying fuck about your scope? AFAICT you don’t want to talk about immigration. That’s dumb, because immigration is a major source of population growth in the US, and population growth increases overall consumption and environmental impact.
If it is a serious issue, then talk about it.
You spend a lot of time whining about how people deny global warming because of their ideology. Here you are denying the impact of immigration on the environmental future of the US because of your ideology, or scope, or whatever the hell you think you are talking about.
Regards,
Shodan
You have a problem with metaphors, they may be the Mother Teresa’s nuns and I still would tell them to stick to their organizations, stop trying to make others change their make up when they have other focuses and reasons for being.
The disingenuous part comes by denying that population on the whole also includes the immigrants. There is also the denial that environmentalists are not looking at population also.
Showing the ignorance of an opponent helps in this roast and it is the objective here also. 
I guess you also missed the cites in the other thread that shows that what the groups that want immigration to be the focus also ignore the big issue of the day, with even more disastrous results for their pet cause. There are academic papers reporting that immigration will get worse thanks to the displacements brought by global warming.
In other words, it is what we can expect for not doing anything about carbon emission controls.
If you want to insist those (in the end) denialist groups are sincere, just remember that the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
I sometimes wonder where the path paved with bad intentions leads . . .
[Moderating]Chen019, the large quote you included in post 71 is long enough that it runs afoul of our rules about copyright infringement. In the future, please restrict yourself to a short, summary quote followed by a link to the original material.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Skokie, Illinois.
This is not true. Not in the way “immigrants” is being used by Chen, Shodan, me, or any of the cites. And it may be part of the confusion. There are two different groups:
Group 1: “the population as a whole”, which does include those who have already emigrated to the U.S..
Group 2: there is the number of people who will—future tense—emigrate here. This latter group is what people are referring to in this discussion when referring to “immigrants” are those people who would be added through immigration.
Well yes, but that is a rather broad topic! The debate thread I started was in relation to why some environmentalists had done an about turn on population stabilization in the US (and immigration which is a significant driver of that).
They are advocates for the environment. If others wish to argue the economic or social reasons for ongoing population growth in the US they can, but it makes little sense from an environmental perspective.
Actually, it was mainly about an episode where the Sierra Club wouldn’t do an “about turn” on immigration, your way.
They are a classic example - they subordinated environmental advocacy to politics. Shameful.
You may want to check the OP. The incident about them being bought off by the rich guy in LA that caused them to do the “about turn” came later.