Cognitive dissonance at the U.K Guardian
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
J
jazzbox
Great newspaper - hands down the best out there without a paywall. The other good one is the Financial Times of London. I even pay to read that crazy as that seems...
I guess C-M is upset that a news source has multiple opinions on different topics and don't act like omnipotent law makers.
They are correct though. Growing population is bad for the environment (and some marriages) but good for the economy.
They are correct though. Growing population is bad for the environment (and some marriages) but good for the economy.
it's the same topic can't you read. tehy cosntantly contradicting themselves. there is no overpopulation. it's a myth invented in the 1960s and dooms day predictions never came true
Ecology and economics are the same topic? I know they both start with the same letters but they are different things.
As was stated by another poster, if you want the news to contain a single opinion, North Korea is your place.
And their views are correct. A significant population increase in the UK is bad for the environment, often bad for marriages, and good for the economy. Do you disagree with any of those points?
Only if the humans whose activities are determined by economics are somehow not part of the overall ecology. When we deforested Europe to increase the supply of cheap food a millennium or three back, we sure as hell altered the ecology. Just as we're doing now, running our economy on 'cheap' carbon-dumping fossil fuels.
Since you raised the question: They both derive their first two syllables from the same original Greek word for 'house', because they are sciences of the same environment: Ours.
Last edited:
yes i disagree. overpopulation is a scare mongering tactic invented by the crisis think tank the club of rome.
The worries of overpopulation are real, CM.
Fortunately the best solution is fairly easy and one I'm sure you'll back wholeheartedly.
Family planning and female empowerment.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question
Enjoy.
if overpopulation is real why do you and other depopulation advocates still advocate mass immigration which will increase the population of first world countries? you can't have it both ways you can't cry about overpopulation and at the same time support mass immigration into first world countries. most of the world's population live in big cities and urban centers
false dooms day predictions regarding overpopulation never happened
the washington post does not believe in the overpopulation hysteria
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9fe3a8-68a0-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html
After all, Western finger-waggers seem to have no compunction with traveling around the world to expand their families by any means necessary, pursuing anything from expensive (and no doubt resource-intensive) fertility treatments to surrogacy in the same countries where they urge citizens to contracept more fervently.
When the enlightened advocates among us hand down recommendations, one has the nagging feeling that they’re envisioning less themselves and their compatriots than more easily caricatured others — the poor, the black and the brown, those Third World women whose lives, they imagine, are sad and difficult anyway, who would probably welcome having one or two fewer children. It’s an ugly sort of paternalism, well-meant but fundamentally chilling. At its core, it denies the humanity of others.
many depopulation advocates where in the eugenics movement
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2982429/?page=1
Read the article posted above.
Birth rates in first world countries are lower, immigrants included.
And nobody is talking about 'mass immigration' here except you.
The cure for high birthrates is prosperity. We know that to be true 100%. Since the Third World and our activists are convinced that those people are incapable of achieving it, massive illegal and legal immigration is the solution. The road of the least resistance.
