Saturday, March 13, 2010

The scary population control lobby

One argument that’s getting increasingly popular among environment Nazis is that the Earth is overpopulated, and that we need to control the population so our number doesn’t grow too fast.

Such a faulty claim seems awfully close to eugenics and is one of the scariest and most horrific thoughts out there. Worse still is it that this malevolent idea seems to be gaining momentum among powerful lobby organizations and among elitist groups of politics and science.

It’s worth asking what drives the population control and population reduction lobby. These people have been around for a few centuries and their arguments have changed over time. For one of the first population scaremongers, Thomas Malthus in the 18th century, the main problem was that if too many people were born, there wouldn’t be enough food. He vastly underestimated the ability of industrialized society to create more food.

In the early 20th century, population reduction arguments took on a racial and eugenic streak. Some claimed there were too many Africans and Asians, who might weaken the power of white European nations. More recently, the population control lobby has adopted the environmentalist’s arguments: Too many people are demanding too much of Mother Earth. Since the manmade global warming scam is getting more and more exposed for the fraud it is, this population control thingy seem to becoming the new chilling idea they want to sell to the public.

It always haft to be something. A reduction of the ozone layer will kill us all, we’re heading for a new ice-age, the millennium Y2K would destroy our way of life, cosmic rays will murder all of us, or global warming is about to knock off all Polar Bears. The scary scenarios never stop coming but such doomsday sayers are after your valet and wants to control your life. It has nothing to do with reality.

The argument frequently made by these Malthusians population control freaks is that there’s a fixed, finite amount of resources on this ball of gas and water we call Earth, and that if the human population reaches a certain number, those resources will be all used up. This is a deeply disingenuous depiction of what a resource is. There is little fixed about resources. The question of what is and isn’t a resource changes over time, depending on the level of development reached by any particular society.

The number of times the science community has argued that coal and oil will be finished a decade or two ahead is numerous. I remember that back in the 80’s it was popular to say that carbon-based fuel and energy would be nearing its end about now since the resources are scarce. It was not true then, and it is not true now.

It’s not true that the Earth is overpopulated, as you’ll hear Malthusians argue. Humans inhabit only tiny parts of this planet. Take Britain as an example. Lots of people describe Britain as overcrowded. In fact, only about seven to eight percent of Britain is “settled.” (By comparison, 46 percent of British land is used for agriculture and 11 or 12 percent of it is woodland.) Britain has plenty of space for more people. This planet isn’t remotely overcrowded.

An area the size of Iceland would give each of the 6.5 billion humans 185 square feet to themselves.

So seen to living space this planet can sustain 600-700 billion people, no problem.

But what about food? Only looking at the agricultural areas today used and if we used modern appliances and technology there’s no problem whatsoever to feed every person on this planet many times over. In fact, if we adopted a libertarian view on governance hunger would be no more and we could double or even triple our current population size and still feed everyone. And this today, with the know-how and technology we have at our disposal at this very moment and with the land used for crops today. Just think what we can do tomorrow.

Also, if we use gen-manipulation and start to grow crops in places we today don’t use there shouldn’t be any problem feeding a 100 billion people. And again, this is today, with today’s level of technology.

With this in mind I find it hilarious that people are starving by the millions and that tens of millions are on the brink of starvation in Africa. It shouldn’t be that way, but statism, fascist rulers and socialist organizations have seen to it that people are dying, completely unnecessary.

Speaking of 'hilarious'... Just imagine If these people got their way...

So what really drives the population control outlook? I’d say that what’s finite isn’t resources, but the Malthusians’ faith in humanity. It’s that which is running out and drying up. For them, a human being is never anything more than “another mouth to feed.” Yet humans aren’t simply the burping, biological users of resources; they’re the discoverers of resources, the creators of resources, the makers of communities, cities, history. A human being isn’t only a mouth that must be filled but a brain that can think and a pair of hands that can work.

But there are two other reasons for population control. Firstly population control is one of the biggest ways of keeping you under their thumb. If they control how many sperms that reach eggs each year, then they control pretty much everything about us. Secondly if we believe that resources are scarce and there’s too many of us, they can use this as an argument for why people are poor and starving. It is not the power- and wealth accumulation in the hands of the few that’s at fault, oh no, you people out there are too many…

I am guessing I’m not the only one that has noticed the increase in these sorts of argument? And believe me they will grow over time. This is most likely the next scare coming our way, and they will use mother Earth as their battering-ram.

Luckily for the environment Nazis and our elitist friends they have managed to create an financial calamity of unprecedented size and when our economies goes down the crapper so will poverty sky-rocket. Those tens of millions on the brink in Africa are most likely about to die, and perhaps they will also get a couple of more wars on the planet. The US killing millions of Muslims isn’t near enough the levels needed in the Malthusian mind.

Eurovision Again

The Swedish Eurovision final had its highs and lows. The contributions were probably better than last year and most of the performers are of good standard. The show is on a high level throughout (except for the ‘rock’ idiots towards the end...). The Swedish/Norwegian mix-up was also a good showcase. With the exceptions for some sleazy male ballad singers there’s not much to complain about…

But the voting process… oh my lord Beelzebub… Letting our future competitors vote!? WTF! And the so called “experts”… Idiots.

The winning contribution, ‘This is my life’ by Anna Bergendahl isn’t a real winner. Although I like the girl, loveable really, the song doesn’t have the ‘humph’ needed to win European hearts. Not good enough for a Swedish contribution I would say. I’m guessing on a 14th position in the final, and then I am in a positive mood.

It would have been better if the ladies of Timotej had won. They sang a great little catchy tune named “kom” which with my loosely translation means “Come here”, and they are four semi-sexy blondish women, 30 points extra for that alone. Although their performance can get a lot better. Maybe a change of wardrobe as well… But looking at YouTube the different postings have together by far exceeded 120 000 views, and that’s a high number on a new song by an unknown group. I’m guessing they are already gaining fans, so it is a shame they didn’t win.

Well, this is my choice:

And then the winner:

Just for that we need a great song to finish this post. This is the Serbian song and Winner performed by Marija Serifovic on Eurovision Song Contest in Helsinki – 2007. Without a doubt one of the best winners and songs ever performed in this contest. I don’t understand a word, but the power of this translates over any barrier. Fantastic.

Acolytes of constipation

In yet another bold move to save humanity from the evilness of this world such as fat, tobacco, breast implants at airports and non-matching socks our elitist friends of the Swedish political opposition has now solemnly declared that they will impose a law that will force companies to have a equal gender mix.

Apparently the lack of ovaries in boardrooms leads to global warming and to babies getting devoured by lions or something of the sort.

I’ve never even understood the quotas madness. There are simply not any reason for it, none. Rationally and logically speaking the best people should run a company or a government, no matter gender, color of the skin and so forth. We know this isn’t always the case since we hardly have any capitalism hence very little competition, but ideally.

However, the person or persons owning a corporation is also in their full right to decide who they want running things. If this means flat-chested ugly women in sandals or hairy men in high heels isn’t anyone’s business other than the owners. They can hire feces-throwing apes to make financial decision is they want, and looking around at this world’s central banks, this is already being done.

In order to actually follow through on such a law it hast to come with some sort of penalty for not obeying. I haven’t checked the different solution to what’s being suggested, and frankly I don’t care, anything that involves the almighty power of the stat to force people to do something is inherently immoral. We’re probably not talking jail time, at least not at first, but if for some reason privately own business don’t comply prison will sooner or later be a fact.

Whatever the penalty the law will be imposed from the barrel of a gun - guns are always behind any law. The lefties are going to force people to comply to yet another virtuous control function. That is what this is about you know. Has nothing to do with rationality or that they like women, it’s about making good use of cohesion and force the public into obedience. Obey or else…

And of course anyone opposing this will be a manschauvinist pig, a rapist and probably a smoker, because we all know how evil smokers are.

This combination of threats and name-calling is very effective. If you don’t comply you get punished and called any number of horrific things. If you are a good little citizen however you don’t need to worry about armed thugs taking your company and you may even end up in the news as a good example of corporate collaboration.

This is how they rule, with fear and coercion.

Another consequence of such a law is of course more resentment in society. Just as when we use quota to force companies and public entities to hire immigrants, refugees or a decent number of black people, the result in this case will be that we get a lot of people pissed off.

It can be because they feel their entitled seat have been stolen away, or that females/black/Jews/Muslims/immigrants don’t need to do as much and work as hard to get somewhere. This in turn might lower production or the willingness to work. If you get a seat no matter what you do, why even try?

Sometimes it seems that all any such oppressed, poor, underprivileged, minority group need to do is to run to the government and cry a little and presto, they get a seat in the boardroom.

In all fairness there are also examples of the hateful racist pigs the lefties want us to think everyone is, but those are actually a rare bread. Contrary to what we’re taught racists and pure idiots that hates women isn’t behind every corner and they don’t crawl up from every puddle.

There is also another reason why quotas generally are a very bad idea. This is something we shouldn’t speak about and anyone doing so is malevolent to the core. But in reality there are actually biological differences between sexes... Oh, I can hear the roaring sound of the never-shaved feminists right now…

It is however true.

Men are better suited for physical labor because we have more and generally stronger muscles. I would also argue that females probably are better suited for the boardroom intrigues and flexible decisions making then men are.

Sometimes this biological difference matter, sometimes it don’t, but you can bet your life on that once they start to impose quotas on a larger scale it’s just a matter of time before the fire department, the police and the army should be 50/50.
I wonder how they are going to solve the lack of men within the school and pre-school areas. Well, all men are pedophiles and rapists so those jobs will probably be the exceptions.

But maybe the most serious consequence is the lack of consistency.

I mean what kind of women and how many should we have in the boardroom? Is it enough to have one Muslim refugee of a single woman with one child? Does a black woman count twice? Both woman and black. Is being Chinese as serious as being black? How about gay people? Transvestites? If we have an immigrated black single lesbian Muslim woman with a child to support sitting in a wheelchair who like to dress like a man that has a bunch of serious illnesses, how do we count her? Only once? And if we cannot contribute such an individual with several of the requirements, isn’t it necessary to address the lack of such attributes?

Is gender the only attribute that matters? No? So what more? Race? Color? Age? Penis size?

And how big company are we talking about? Does the company need x-number of employees to end up under this law? To be consistent it should apply everyone, right? If so, it can be fun time for small business.

If we draw this further along we reach the conclusion that each board should consist of 9.4 million Swedes. How else could all citizens be represented in a fair and equal way?

If we are to be consistent, this is where we end up.

And finally we have the cost. Recruitment cost money, learning processes cost money, replace males with women costs money, and it can even be so bad that if females get seats by political decision they might lower productivity. It can go the other way too of course, but what is most likely when you get politically appointed personnel and compared them with employees whose merit got them there?

And the cost of having yet another area of our lives controlled by government shouldn’t be underestimated.