patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas

Nice try... but there were more reasons as to why that plant shut down: Simply put it couldn't compete against cheap overseas competition using new factories and cheap labor. That was the bulk of the reason that they shut down. But either way, I'm sure you'lll pick a few more random examples but the truth of the matter is that most factories in the US shut down due to cheap competition fro overseas... not from regulations...

edvard2 says

Simply put it couldn't compete against cheap overseas competition using new factories and cheap labor.

whats there to compete about ? is it cheap labor or "dumping below costs"?

If we are to believe Labor costs are lower, than why dump below cost to produce ?

EU greenlights anti-dumping duties on Chinese light bulbs

LUXEMBOURG) - The European Union approved on Monday a one-year extension of anti-dumping duties running as high as 66 percent on Chinese-made, energy-saving light bulbs.

"The measures are aimed at addressing unfair competitive advantages resulting from the dumping of imports onto the (EU) market," the 27-nation bloc said in a statement issued at a foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg.

.

no....ya think??

edvard2 says

if in fact sea levels are rising, then what does that mean 100 years from now? Its not like we will wait for 100 years and then Bang! Instant 5 feet of water. It will happen gradually.

thomaswong.1986 says

whats there to compete about ? is it cheap labor or "dumping below costs"?

I'm glad you basically agreed with my response...

edvard2 says

I'm glad you basically agreed with my response...

You do understand what "Dumbing below Costs" to produce means ?

Dan8267 says

The 900 years figure is one guy being extremely conservative on the estimate. NASA figures 200 years max for a complete melting of the ice. However, the sea-level rise doesn't happen just at the last moment of melting. It happens the entire time.

Per Nasa.... happening across the Solar System. I guess you blame US for Ice Caps melting on Mars as well...

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/

August 7, 2003: It's not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.

thomaswong.1986 says

You do understand what "Dumbing below Costs" to produce means ?

Yes.... its nothing new. Japanese companies did it for years. But I digress... this debate has gotten off of track.

Dan8267 says

Already sea-level rises have made inhabited islands uninhabitable. Given that every time a new study comes out, it concludes that melting is happening faster than we expected, I'd be surprised if we don't see studies in the next few years revising the complete melting time down from 200 years to 40 years. NASA is a very conservative organization and tends to understate things in order to not rock the boat. The fact that it's speaking out about sea-level rises says a lot.

What islands have been made uninhabitable, pray tell? That's one of those widely repeated rumors that's completely untrue, just like the other big one that polar bear population is in decline.

Look up sea level rise on wikipedia, and you'll see that we're in a tapering off period after a massive sea level rise after the last ice age 18,000 years ago. Antarctica, on net, is actually gaining ice volume, but it's also changing structure a bit and it is indeed losing some of the ancient ice that sits on land. Floating ice loss doesn't matter to sea level, because floating ice melting doesn't change water level. Losing ice on land is bad, since that raises sea level.

I'm not too worried about flooding in my lifetime, or my kids' lifetimes, the science doesn't support it. This imminent ice shelf collapse prediction is made by geologists, and to them, "sudden" means a thousand years. We can't extrapolate out that far because be then the climate will be different due to natural reasons, man made reasons, and our technology will be entirely different.

The earth was both much warmer, and much cooler than it is today during the period that humans had writing. We had prime wine making land in the British Isles, and there are cave paintings of lakes and forests in the sahara. Mankind survived both those periods, we'll survive this.

myob says

The earth was both much warmer, and much cooler than it is today during the period that humans had writing. We had prime wine making land in the British Isles, and there are cave paintings of lakes and forests in the sahara. Mankind survived both those periods, we'll survive this.

Your not making a good argument to allow some folks for a govt handout.

Thats what Dan wants... free stuff... forget about any solution for the next 10 years.. just pay me $$$$$.

The way climate alarmists in here misinterpret painfully obvious sarcasm, it's clear I need to be more obviously insulting to counter the waves of left wing bullshit battering the Patrick coastline.

I actually read both sides of an issue, before forming an opinion, and when that comes to science, I leave it open ended.

I began (years ago actually) stating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that humans make a LOT of it, that it contributes to global warming, and that warming has been increasing over at least a 25 year period. HOWEVER, the climate alarmist scientists, whose rings you are so willfully kissing, back in the late 1990's, had a real problem creating sufficient panic over the warming in order to profit from carbon credit schemes. The Medieval Warming Period, even if only relegated to the Northern Hemisphere, had far too high of both surface and atmospheric temperatures for CO2 alone to be the culprit. Scientists like Michael Mann (and I will not mince words here, because I now know I'm dealing with some diminished acumen in here) massaged the past temperatures into a flat line - which all know affectionately as the hockey stick graph. This is no longer conjecture. The proof of the poor statistics is why Dr. Mann has dropped so many of his legal, libel and slander suits in the past few years. He knows if he goes to court he'll be even more brutally exposed, if not as a poor scientist, then as a highly biased one. He continues to threaten legal action based on the use of his image and name, but being a public figure must prove actual malice to win the cases.

The curve is now a much more curvy affair showing a significant temperature decline after the Medieval Period but before our own warming. The computer models of the warmists are still based on the supposition that the climate has been largely unchanged for centuries upon centuries and so have been wildly inaccurate in predicting global surface OR atmospheric temperatures over the past fifteen years.

Please, please, please ask me to show you evidence of the climate model failures, because the predictions in temp rise were so overstated that they are virtually all wrong by significant margins. Unlike with real estate sales it's not convenient to blame their poor predictions on the weather, however, and so they instead resort to propaganda and fear mongering.

Remember, I believe the globe is warming, and I also believe humans contribute to it significantly. I am several thousand miles from being a republican (let alone a democrat), I put the onus on a candidates economic savvy rather than the color of his tie and voted rather evenly between the parties in the past few elections. Realize, please, that if I were a climate scientist, alarmists would be counting me in their 97% consensus. The science upon which we should panic is manipulated at best and wildly inaccurate at worst.

I dare you to read both sides. Investigate why a single lowly tree designated YAD06 was so wonderfully useful in exaggerating the end of the hockey stick and subsequently responsible for a decade and a half of dead wrong temperature predictions.

For the moment this is just fun for me to argue about, because I know that when the economic failures of the central banks become evident, you'll all throw Gore, Gaia, and Green politics out with the garbage.

Graphene research is probably a better center of r&d focus for the sake of the environment than most of the buzz word investments that are commonly thrown around, but the Fear Meisters don't know how to corner profit on carbon credits from it yet, so it gets no lip service. Typical.

thomaswong.1986 says

Per Nasa.... happening across the Solar System. I guess you blame US for Ice Caps melting on Mars as well...

Hey asshole, ultimately it does not matter who is responsible for all the damn pollution. The problem needs to be fixed now or we will fuck ourselves over big time. The economy will be ruined and all your precious stock will be worth shit. Mankind might even drive itself to extinction. So get off your "America can do no wrong" horse and think about how well off America will be without any humans populating it.

myob says

What islands have been made uninhabitable, pray tell? That's one of those widely repeated rumors that's completely untrue, just like the other big one that polar bear population is in decline.

In 2006: For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports

OK, now that I've proven that an inhabited island has disappeared due to rising sea levels, will you admit you were wrong?

And a lot more land is going underwater, including in the United States.

[J]ust a 1.5-foot rise in sea level would expose about $6 trillion worth of property to coastal flooding in the Baltimore, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Providence, R.I., areas. That raises huge questions about the fate of Boston Harbor, where developers have poured millions into construction projects. Planners are steeling for a future in which storm surges flood huge swaths of Boston. They have put together a climate action plan outlining how the city can better prepare for disaster.

socal2 says

There is no "cheap" corrective solution to this problem in the here and now.

Is a $6 trillion property loss just on the east coast of the U.S. "cheap"? And that doesn't even count lost productivity and indirect losses through economic downturn. Still think it's cheaper to pollute than to not?

thomaswong.1986 says

Thats what Dan wants... free stuff... forget about any solution for the next 10 years.. just pay me $$$$$.

Typical conservative lying bullshit. I have never asked for any "stuff" -- whatever the fuck that means -- from the government or anyone else.

The fact that you even attempted to turn wise planetary management into some bullshit argument about people trying to get free stuff shows that your opinion carries no weight.

What I want is for those making products to honestly count the full cost of their production in the price of their products instead of stealing from the rest of us to increase their profit margins. In other words, unlike you, I'm advocating free market economics. If a product costs too much, the free market says it should not be made; the free market does not say the maker of the product should steal from others to make the product cheap enough to be profitable.

I guess you really hate the free market.

deepcgi says

The way climate alarmists in here misinterpret painfully obvious sarcasm, it's clear I need to be more obviously insulting to counter the waves of left wing bullshit battering the Patrick coastline.

Climate change is a scientific fact. The very subject matter should be entirely science and engineering, not politics.

Furthermore, to call someone an alarmist for trying to fix a problem before its too late is just plain foolish. Are we alarmists for calling the Fire Department when our house is already on fire? Are we alarmists for calling 911 when a bank robbery is in progress? Are we alarmists for trying to stop Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons?

When shit is currently happening, like in climate change and sea-level rise, you should be pulling the alarm.

I live on the Florida coast. It's my fucking home that the conservatives have set on fire. Excuse me if I attempt to put the fire out before becoming homeless.

Dan8267 says

In 2006: For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports

OK, now that I've proven that an inhabited island has disappeared due to rising sea levels, will you admit you were wrong?

I googled the geology of that island. It's a delta island made from silt, and several factors are at play - dams have changed water flows and the silt isn't being replenished, so all the islands in the area are sinking (just like New Orleans). A rising water level would, of course, hasten the demise of such an island, but I could not find how much of its disappearance is due to rising sea level, and how much is due to sinking land.

I also came across an article about the endangered Solomon islands. they're sinking due to plate tectonics, but are also a sea level rise poster child:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threatened-by-more-than-just-rising-sea-levels-a-838675.html

(Note, I'm not denying that sea level change can force people off low lying land, I just think I can infer that from the island you listed for the reasons that I cited).

I'll repeat what I said before. The IPCC says the climate is changing (agreed), and we may be responsible for some of it (hard to disagree). Before taking any drastic actions which benefit some people to the detriment of others, which is accomplished at government gunpoint, I'd like to see more science, and some realistic scenarios of what would happen if we do nothing. I'd prefer to see the enormous resources that are proposed for curtailing countries' economic growth instead be put to developing new carbon neutral energy, if that is indeed the fix.

Imagine what a few hundred billion dollars could do for nuclear power, solar power and solar energy storage.

myob says

Before taking any drastic actions which benefit some people to the detriment of others, which is accomplished at government gunpoint, I'd like to see more science

Since when is not polluting a drastic action? And why can something as large as global climate change wait, but we couldn't wait after 9/11 before giving up all our human rights?

Dan8267 says

Since when is not polluting a drastic action? And why can something as large as global climate change wait, but we couldn't wait after 9/11 before giving up all our human rights?

We don't have the capability yet to drastically curtail CO2 production without keeping billions in poverty. The western world could, at various degrees of expense, reduce their CO2 footprint, for example, the Ivanpah solar facility that just opened removes about 400,000 tons of annual output. This electricity is very expensive and needs to be supplemented at night. We can afford to do that.

The people barely surviving, burning animal dung and wood, will do everything in their power to improve their lives. They will generate much more dirty energy than we can compensate for with clean energy. The drastic action is denying these people a shot at better quality of life to reduce CO2 emissions.

The best way would be to build out thorium based nuclear power, we've got enough thorium to last a long time. Unfortunately, clear nuclear power has a lot of resistance, even among the eco-crowd, because "nuclear" is a dirty word.

In my ideal world, we'd have nothing but clean energy, but the world first needs enough productive critical mass to afford it. I think we'll clean up, for sure, but not for a while.

Oh, and as for 9/11 leading up to giving up human rights, well, we shouldn't have done that either!

myob says

We don't have the capability yet to drastically curtail CO2 production without keeping billions in poverty.

Care to back up that assertion and compare it to the potential billions of climate change refugees anticipated?

Dan8267 says

Care to back up that assertion and compare it to the potential billions of climate change refugees anticipated?

"billions" of refugees is an overstatement with no basis. A warming earth will hurt some, it will help others in cold climates, and it might lead to some migration, but not billions.

I do not see how we can replace fossil fuels for the time being, maybe with the exception of nuclear power, which is politically impossible. We've already dammed all the rivers we can dam for hydroelectric, solar can't generate steady power so it's useless as base load generation because we don't have ways of storing it, as is wind, but it's even less predictable. Geothermal works well in a few places where it's possible. What other forms of CO2 free energy do we have? Power plants are easier than transportation. Even if we had scads of green electricity, you can't use that to power airplanes or many automobile applications either.

Treaties like Kyoto or whatever will never work because they stifle economic progress. Some countries will sign these things, others wont, and those that do will cheat because the whole point of these things is to hold back your own people. No, the only real move towards green energy will happen when it's actually the better option. I don't see an alternative way of greening our economies that's politically feasible in the long term. Short term, sure, you can make some examples of some people and cause them to live with less energy, until they revolt.

myob says

"billions" of refugees is an overstatement with no basis. A warming earth will hurt some, it will help others in cold climates, and it might lead to some migration, but not billions.

Climate change could force 1 billion from their homes by 2050
Climate Refugees Could Number 1 Billion by 2050
1bn climate change refugees by 2050
HowStuffWorks: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that by 2080, 1.1 to 3.2 billion people will experience water scarcity due to climate change
how we are going to handle up to a billion climate change refugees

Fools prepare for the best case scenario. The wise prepare for the worst case scenario.

I'll await your apology for accusing me of pulling these estimates out of my ass. We'll probably have fixed climate change before you man up and apologize.

It may come as no surprise, but I think they're exaggerating. Thomas Malthus predicted we will all starve to death, and we didn't. More recently, Paul Ehrlich made similar predictions, and he was proven wrong.

Climate change is very politicized, and people behind these reports have foundations they'd like to build or organizations that need funding, so it's in their best interest to exaggerate, since moderation isn't heard.

I never claimed you pulled anything out of your ass, just that the numbers you cite are a kind of modern version of "the sky is falling!". I don't believe them.

Where are the 50 million predicted climate refugees that should have been displaced by 2010, according to a 2005 prediction from the UN?

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/

Is it at all even remotely possible that these predictions are wrong? My claim is that we simply have no way of knowing because we don't understand the climate well enough.

I will gladly support curtailing real pollutions - sulfur emission, soot, other toxins, since we can do this cost effectively and the benefits are immediately obvious, as are the harms.

CO2 is much more difficult, since it's the byproduct of all human economic activity (even farming). We can never go back to zero emissions, but how low can we go? Even that's not known. What's the cost of curtailing emissions? Also unknown, since green energy predictions are based on very optimistic costs of buildout which end up being far more expensive in practice.

Anyhow, I should stop trying to convince you, and you will not convince me of anything. I'm sure that all of this is just talk, politically, this is an intractable problem, and recent political solutions were only popular among people who wouldn't be affected by them or would receive credits from the large economies.

The way to attack global warming is via human reproduction.

A two-child policy.

And it can't be voluntary, because those most dedicated would reproduce at the lower rate, while the religious freaks who think the Invisible Man in the Sky will Fix All would continue to expand exponentially.

myob says

It may come as no surprise, but I think they're exaggerating. Thomas Malthus predicted we will all starve to death, and we didn't. More recently, Paul Ehrlich made similar predictions, and he was proven wrong.

Myob, the agricultural production possible today is driven by non-renewable oil both in the mechanization and the creation of fertilizer. The run-off, especially when modern ag meets hardscrabble soils better fitted for grazing, goes into the rivers and then the sea, causing acidification, which harms the fish population. The over-production of corn and soy cause more marginal land to go from grazing to agriculture, with the cattle penned in feedlotsand, instead of spreading beneficial manure all over a large area of grassland, it becomes dangerously concentrated in one place, and causes even more pollution of water.

Technological solutions work, until they themselves create more problems.

With a world population of 1 Billion, we would have plenty of people, human lives would be more valuable, less energy would be required making a clean shift easier, and there would be less taxation of the Earth's resources. We could "Re-wild" vast swaths of the Earth's land. There would be the same wealth for far fewer people; the quality of life would improve. Landlords and Churches wouldn't like it, however.

myob says

It may come as no surprise, but I think they're exaggerating.

In other words, no evidence will convince you because you have decided what you want to believe.

Dan8267 says

I'll await your apology for accusing me of pulling these estimates out of my ass. We'll probably have fixed climate change before you man up and apologize.

myob says

I never claimed you pulled anything out of your ass, just that the numbers you cite are a kind of modern version of "the sky is falling!"

Asserting that my statements are equivalent to "the sky is falling" is the same as saying my statements are unfounded. And you were simply wrong about that.

The face saving move would have been to say something like
Wow, I didn't know about those reports. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. I'll adjust my worldview accordingly.

Instead, you have taken the position, I don't like those reports so I'll choose to reject them even though I'm no climate scientists and I've never done any work on the subject, and the actual climate scientists are backing up these reports with peer-reviewed work. Still, I'm sure my amateur gut reaction is more accurate than the scientific method.

myob says

Thomas Malthus predicted we will all starve to death, and we didn't. More recently, Paul Ehrlich made similar predictions, and he was proven wrong.

Following that philosophy, we should do nothing to prepare for or try to prevent another terrorist attack. After all, such security is inconvenient and costs a lot of money. And we don't know if there ever will be another terrorist attack. We can't be 100% sure of that. And even if it was, we don't know how significant it will be, so we can ignore it. And besides, some of our efforts to prevent terrorism might not be necessary and some might not work, so why try at all and why spend any money on anti-terrorism measures?

No matter what the estimates, there is one thing I'm damn sure of. Climate change will kill more people than terrorism. That is indisputable. As such, climate change should be treated at least as seriously as terrorism. And unlike the war against terrorism, the war against ecological collapse doesn't require killing innocent people including children, torturing, sexually assaulting people, and giving up our human and civil rights.

thunderlips11 says

The way to attack global warming is via human reproduction.

A two-child policy.

And it can't be voluntary, because those most dedicated would reproduce at the lower rate, while the religious freaks who think the Invisible Man in the Sky will Fix All would continue to expand exponentially.

Actually two children is greater than replacement, since generations can be pumped out faster than old people die. So couple XY reaches 23 years at which point they have two kids, and 23 years later they each have two more. Twenty-three years later these also have two. Now the original couple XY are 69 years old and their offspring number 14 people, bringing the total to 16 alive at one time from the original two.
That's why the Chinese policy was one child, not two. Keep in mind, during that period their population didn't appreciably shrink. It just stopped growing.

Has anyone read Dan Brown's latest novel? It ends with an involuntary population control device.

Quigley says

That's why the Chinese policy was one child, not two. Keep in mind, during that period their population didn't appreciably shrink. It just stopped growing.

Interesting Quigley - count me corrected. We're going to have to control population involuntarily, but my God the forces arranged against it.

We can choose to arrest and gradually lower our numbers, or we can experience the joys of being too many deer on too small an island.

thunderlips11 says

We can choose to arrest and gradually lower our numbers, or we can experience
the joys of being too many deer on too small an island.

That's the ticket! Nice little authoritarian impulse to save the earth. We can end up just like China with massive sex imbalance of too many dudes with too few women to marry and mellow out us animals in the male species. The massive glut of unmarriable Chinese males might make for some useful cannonfodder in China's military - so all is not lost. War can meet your desire of reducing population.

socal2 says

Nice little authoritarian impulse to save the earth.

Sometimes you have to be authoritarian. The US Army in WW2 was authoritarian. Washington hung deserters from the Continental Army and Militia.

I dislike authoritarianism, I'd do anything to prevent an authoritarian solution if there was any other solution, even a half-assed one, but there isn't.

The only, only alternative to this is to aggressively redistribute the wealth so that people don't want to have too many kids themselves - but that involves even more death and destruction. If it's even feasible because it would involve more environmental destruction to rush to bring wealth to fourth and third world areas with power, roads, etc.

It makes me sick to my stomach, but damn, it has to be done somehow.

We can restrain ourselves or we can die along with everything decent we and our ancestors have created in spectacular fashion after suffering Soylent Green/ApocalypseFUCK style hell.

thunder lips, last time someone did that, the storm troopers killed all tHe Jedi and the empire came into existence with Chancellor Palpatine as ruler

Heraclitusstudent has a great video at:
http://patrick.net/?p=1242509

I encourage all those who think we don't need to restrain population to watch it.

dodgerfanjohn says

thunder lips, last time someone did that, the storm troopers killed all tHe Jedi and the empire came into existence with Chancellor Palpatine as ruler

I don't consider the so-called Prequels to be legit history. :)

Now the original trilogy, on the other hand...

Science should be the answer. A birth control implant or better yet, a reversible virus, would be the best solution.
There's also a (potentially) reversible birth control option where stents are inserted (vaginally) into Fallopian tubes which scar shut. Boom! No more periods or pregnancies. I suppose they'd have to be removed surgically, and no idea if this would cause permanent reproductive harm. Probably.

Oh noes, it's a war on women!!!
Quigley says

Science should be the answer. A birth control implant or better yet, a reversible virus, would be the best solution.

There's also a (potentially) reversible birth control option where stents are inserted (vaginally) into Fallopian tubes which scar shut. Boom! No more periods or pregnancies. I suppose they'd have to be removed surgically, and no idea if this would cause permanent reproductive harm. Probably.

There's another option: Pay people to be sterilized, both men and women.

It would increase wealth (wealthier people have less children, and the children that are born generally choose to have less children) and the process itself would prevent more population growth.

You would get a bit of money for a sterilization after child #2
Much more money for sterilization after the first child.
And a ton for not having any.

With a reverse incentive joined to it:
Increasing taxation for every child after the first or second.

We should also increase the subsidy and the tax based on the poverty level, criminal history and/or education level. So HS Dropouts with a felony conviction would make a small fortune by getting sterilized before they had a first child. This would also likely reduce the temptation to commit crimes. You don't need to rob the liquor store if you've just got a flat $250k, or you're getting $25k/year subsidy or somesuch

I practically feel the steam of anger arising from the Iron Age religious believers as I type this.

dodgerfanjohn says

thunder lips, last time someone did that, the storm troopers killed all tHe Jedi and the empire came into existence with Chancellor Palpatine as ruler

That was a long time ago in a galaxy far away. More recently and closer to home, stormtroopers did so for lebensraum right here on our planet.

thunderlips11 says

So HS Dropouts with a felony conviction would make a small fortune by getting sterilized before they had a first child. This would also likely reduce the temptation to commit crimes.

Or at least it might make them less tempted to re-commit crimes, after you've already given them an incredible incentive to commit the first one!

Paralithodes says

That was a long time ago in a galaxy far away. More recently and closer to home, stormtroopers did so for lebensraum right here on our planet.

The Nazis encouraged Germans to have more children, not less. The Lebensborn, or "Wellspring of Life" Program.

For decades, Germany’s birthrate was decreasing. Himmler’s goal was to reverse the decline and increase the Germanic/Nordic population of Germany to 120 million. Himmler encouraged SS and Wermacht officers to have children with Aryan women. He believed Lebensborn children would grow up to lead a Nazi-Aryan nation.

The purpose of this society (Registered Society Lebensborn - Lebensborn Eingetragener Verein) was to offer to young girls who were deemed “racially pure” the possibility to give birth to a child in secret. The child was then given to the SS organization which took charge in the child’s education and adoption. Both mother and father needed to pass a “racial purity” test. Blond hair and blue eyes were preferred, and family lineage had to be traced back at least three generations. Of all the women who applied, only 40 percent passed the racial purity test and were granted admission to the Lebensborn program. The majority of mothers were unmarried, 57.6 percent until 1939, and about 70 percent by 1940.

In the beginning, the Lebensborn were taken to SS nurseries. But in order to create a “super-race,” the SS transformed these nurseries into “meeting places” for “racially pure” German women who wanted to meet and have children with SS officers. The children born in the Lebensborn nurseries were then taken by the SS. Lebensborn provided support for expectant mothers, we or unwed, by providing a home and the means to have their children in safety and comfort.

Another article, this one about the children of the Lebensborn: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/europe/07nazi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Big difference between not killing people and encouraging people not to have children, and killing people and encouraging other people to fill up the killed people's lands with other people.

thunderlips11 says

I dislike authoritarianism, I'd do anything to prevent an authoritarian solution
if there was any other solution, even a half-assed one, but there isn't.

No need for liberal do-gooders to resort to authoritarianism.

Environmental constraints are already doing the job.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

socal2 says

Environmental constraints are already doing the job.

Yeah! Real Americans know its a lot more patriotic to have no constraints at all. We were a lot more free with leaded gasoline fumes. Then those annoying lib-rals came in and "ruieeened" it all!

edvard2 says

Yeah! Real Americans know its a lot more patriotic to have no constraints at
all. We were a lot more free with leaded gasoline fumes. Then those annoying
lib-rals came in and "ruieeened" it all!

"Constraints"?

I was responding to Thunderlips who is saying that the government should be fucking sterilizing people or forcing people to have abortions to save the environment.

Give Lib-rals have an inch, and their little Commie authoritarian impulses run wild.