Overpopulation Honesty Missing on Earth Day
Brenda Walker, VDare
21 April 2010 @ 12:55 am
It’s sad to face another Earth Day now that the environmental giants have passed from the scene. By “giants” I mean persons of stature who truthfully made the connection between immigration, overpopulation and environmental damage — leaders like Senator Gaylord Nelson and Sierra Club President David Brower. These days, the Congress is filled with people who call themselves environmentalists but vote for open borders, and the Sierra Club has gone over to the dark side as completely as Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.
But back to Gaylord Nelson… In 2004, the University of Wisconsin presented the retired Senator with a Distinguished Alumni Award, which included a brief film about his life’s work:
Environmental scientist Leon Kolankiewitz wrote up an Earth Day remembrance of Senator Nelson as a reminder of how a real environmentalist acts.
Earth Day founder disappointed in followers for neglecting overpopulation,
Mother Nature Network
April 20, 2010
This month, America celebrates the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, founded in 1970 by the late U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.), one of our greatest environmental heroes of the 20th century. Yet few of the multitudinous articles, exhibits, parades and speeches will dare — or bother — to broach the one issue that worried Nelson perhaps more than any other: human overpopulation.
I know this because I collaborated closely with Nelson on several projects during the last decade of his life.
By the time he died in 2005 at the age of 89, Nelson had become deeply disappointed with the wholesale retreat of the environmental establishment from advocating limits to population growth. Rather, a new generation of more pragmatic (expedient?) campaigners preferred to prattle on about safer and sexier topics like tropical deforestation, overfishing, oil and water shortages, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, power plant pollution, toxic waste, marine “dead zones,” proliferating dams, roads and power lines, destruction of wildlife habitat, endangered species, and of course, climate change. Ironic when human reproduction and the population growth it produces are all about sex, eh?
Nelson and many other activists of his generation viewed these problems as symptoms of too many people consuming too many resources and generating too much waste. In an influential 1971 paper published in the journal Science, biologist Paul Ehrlich and physicist John Holdren (now President Obama’s science adviser) quantified this understanding by introducing the IPAT equation: Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology.
Environmentalists of that era largely endorsed this formulation, which explicitly included the population factor, and even wide segments of the broader American public were receptive to it. The outspoken Ehrlich appeared several times on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to hammer home his “zero population growth” message to millions. And for a variety of reasons, the fertility rate plummeted by about half from its baby boom high down to replacement level — 2.1 children per family — by the early ’70s.
After two centuries of continuous exponential expansion — from a puny 4 million in 1790 to a bulging 200 million in 1970 — America seemed poised to voluntarily and humanely halt population growth before it overwhelmed our environment. With U.S. population stabilization, our beleaguered environment could have begun to breathe a sigh of relief from ever-increasing demographic demands for land and resources.
Yet this hopeful vision did not come to pass. Instead of stabilizing, America has added more than 100 million new voracious consumers, each brainwashed daily by powerful commercial interests that through conspicuous consumption we can achieve nirvana, or at least keep up with the Joneses.
Americans now number 310 million, and the Census Bureau projects another 130 million by 2050, pushing us to 440 million. And we would still be growing rapidly with no end in sight! Under this crushing pressure, virtually every environmental goal becomes unattainable, from reducing our national ecological footprint and carbon emissions to rescuing endangered species and ecosystems. Achieving these will be mission impossible, as much a pipe dream as losing weight and getting fitter all while eating more and more.
And yet today’s environmentalist leaders are strangely silent in the face of this unfolding demographic disaster. Why? Because immigration, or “the i-word,” since environmental groups dare not utter it, is now pushing our population upward. Over 80 percent of the projected increase to 2050 will be due to directly and indirectly to immigration. Fearful of alienating progressive allies and growing numbers of Hispanics and Asians, and loath to be lumped (however unfairly) with repugnant xenophobes, the largely white, liberal, and yes, squeamish environmental establishment either opts to look the other way on population — or they insist it is a “global problem that needs global solutions,” thereby abrogating the need for any meaningful action on their part. Never mind that, on a planet dominated by sovereign nation-states, there are literally no realistic means available to work at a “global” scale.
But liberal, Democratic icon Gaylord Nelson did not flinch or look the other way or frame the problem so vaguely as to preclude national action. His many speeches on environmental sustainability continually highlighted the U.S. population problem. A newspaper article describing one Earth Day speech began: “Senator Gaylord Nelson spoke to a standing-room only audience advocating that the U.S. limit immigration before U.S. resources are depleted.” At a Washington press conference, Nelson bristled at the notion that limiting immigration is inherently racist.
In a March 2000 speech, Nelson warned that the U.S. could become as overpopulated as China and India. “With twice the population, will there be any wilderness left? Any quiet place? Any habitat for song birds? Waterfalls? Other wild creatures? Not much,” he said.
Chatting with Nelson before a 1998 news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, he startled me by announcing that when all was said and done, he considered himself a failure because the U.S. was moving away from, not toward, sustainability. And out-of-control population growth was a major reason why.
But Nelson did not fail. His followers failed him … and the nation’s environment they purport to defend.
» » » » [VDare]
Concourt: ‘Overpopulation Honesty’ Missing in TRC Rainbow ZA?
White Refugee, Rant Rave
26 March 2010
The interviews show some evidence for the "spiral of silence" explanation: many interviewed reporters felt that population is a hot issue, better left unmentioned.... Thus a spiral of silence about population growth may be maintained by determined pronatalists, immigration advocates, and intimidated journalists. How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, Univ. of SW Louisiana
Johannesburg, South Africa (26/03/2010): An Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Application was filed today with the South African Constitutional Court, which alleges among others that Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and F.W de Klerk's 'TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt'.
The Amici Curiae application was filed in Constitutional Court Case # 23/10: The Citizen Newspaper vs. Robert John McBride.
Robert McBride was a member of the ANC's military wing MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe), and in that capacity planted a carbomb outside the popular Magoo's Bar / "Why Not" Restaurant in Durban in 1986, which killed 3 and injured 69. He was arrested, convicted and received the death penalty. He applied for and was granted Amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2001, and subsequently became a top Dept. of Foreign Affairs official and then the Chief of Police at Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.
Before he became the Chief of Police, the Citizen newspaper found out about his impending appointment and wrote a series of articles opposing his appointment referring to him as, among others a murderer.
McBride launched a civil suit for defamation against the Citizen, on the grounds that he had been given Amnesty, and hence his 'murder' conviction had been expunged and accordingly he could not be accused of being a murderer.
The High Court and Supreme Court ruled in McBride's favour. The Citizen filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court, on the grounds that the interpretation by the SCA, of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, meant that it required the media to participate in the falsification of history.
The 'TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt' Amici Curiae application is filed by Lara Johnstone, as a member of the Radical Honesty Religion and Culture. This is a religion/culture founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, an American 'Honesty in Politics' politician, psychologist and bestselling author of the 'Radical Honesty' series of books. Basically anyone can join the Radical Honesty Religion/Culture; the only pre-requisite being a commitment to Radical Honesty: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes; known as the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract; which is an excerpt from Dr. Brad Blanton's book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends
Her Radical Honesty Application basically states that both The Citizen, the Supreme Court Justices and McBride are all confused, because they all assume that 'TRC' Act meant what it said, and that 'Truth', Forgiveness and 'Reconciliation' actually occured; but it didn't.
She says among others that the TRC was a fraudulent PR stunt because:
It implied to SA's that it would provide closure to SA citizens anger. It didn't. The Act does not even define what it means by 'closure' or 'reconciliation'. She says the "TRC's Religious Circus" used victims and victimizers as a form of 'Circus Monkeys' on the world stage; to promote the SA elites fake two-faced hypocrisy Intellectual Forgiveness Rainbow Nation. She asks how anyone can think that 'closure' has occurred when victims and victimizers are still furious with each other. What kind of 'closure' is that?
Garet Hardin, author of the seminal Tragedy of the Commons
It also informed SA's it would make impartial enquiry to establish the truth about the motives for apartheid and why apartheid occurred, and to prevent Human rights abuses occuring again. But even though rapid population growth colliding with scarce resources is a major cause of resource wars, whether as crime, or political resource war violence; the TRC made absolutely zero effort to determine how much of Apartheid violence was a result of rapid population growth: overpopulation colliding with scarce resources.
She says the TRC raped SA citizens of their psychological integrity by demanding they all pretend that reconciliation and forgiveness had occurred, when it hadn't. The more everyone pretends they like each other, the more they grow to resent each other. She says the Citizen & McBride suffer from Battered TRC Fraud Syndrome, a cousin of Battered Wives and Battered Voters Syndrome; of people addicted to the Politics of Codependency Abuse.
The Explosion of Crime, racially motivated violence & corruption is a symptom of, among others TRC fraud. She says that a country winning the Crime and Rape Olympics, definitely has not been telling each other the truth, and forgiving each other. She also clarifies what a truly impartial Truth and Forgiveness Commission would have legislated and accomplished.
She asks if those who ran the TRC were interested in 'the truth' or the 'ANC's truth. For example, she asks: "If it is true that poor blacks, of all black tribes under Apartheid rule had the highest living standards of all poor blacks on the African continent; how is it that 'Apartheid' is considered 'evil'; and all the other Black African states whose poor blacks lived in horrific conditions were not 'evil' for suppressing their poor blacks, worse than 'evil Apartheid'? Is there a different standard of behaviour required for 'white' governments, than from black governments? If so, why?"
She predicts that if SA's Political Elite don't wake up quickly and end their Two-Faced Hypocrisy Rainbow Nation Charade, "the end result of how this Act was legislated, implemented, and subsequently politically and legally interpreted shall have disastrous consequences, like the 'Peace' Treaty of Versailles".
She concludes that it is important for the Constitutional Court to take her application seriously, because:(a) only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of South Africa's violent ridden society; and
(b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability.
Other organizations who intend filing Amicus Curiae Applications are: The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) and the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF).
» » » » [Rant Rave]