You are here

CBC Discussion On Overpopulation Has Ego-Socialists In A Fit

No sooner did Madeline Weld finish her CBC interview about human overpopulation, when the Green-Left brigade swung into action trying to douse the flames ignited by truth. But this time they were too late. The truth got out.

This is a podcast of the 20 minute discussion (and debate) between Madeline Weld and Robert Engleman.
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2011-2012/qq-2011-10-29_04.mp3

While I was not impressed by Engleman's dismissive and somewhat condescending tone----or with his arguments for that matter---- for an exercise in pure denial try this response from Canada's very own Ian Angus, who is allied with fellow ego-socialists like Australian Simon Butler of The Green-Left weekly and Derek Wall of the Green Party of England and Wales http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=5707 . Having just published a 'population-is-a-red-herring--and--old---Malthusian--myth' book and conducted a misinformation tour of Australia, these folks are in fever-pitch to fight off reality wherever it turns its ugly head.

Angus must be kicking himself though, because this time, it appears he and his smear network were asleep at the switch when the CBC invited Madeline to their show. Normally they are vigilant about upcoming media interviews with Malthusians and immigration-reformers and are quick to forewarn the producers, editors and journalists that we are racist, anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-people and apologists for the rich and greedy. That's why we often find that the interview or op-ed that was promised to us has been cancelled without credible reasons given. This time, however, we slipped through before the blacklist could be made operational. This might prove that Angus might have a life after all. Maybe he was distracted by important things------ who knows. But he clearly let his side down on this one. Some Grand Inquistor he is. Writing a letter to the producer AFTER the fact is like closing the barn door after the horse has got away.

Ian, if you are going to fill Joe McCarthy's shoes you are going to have to put all you have into it. Silencing the population debate must be a full-time job. Letting us in the door to exercise our freedom of speech is simply unacceptable. What kind of blacklister are you, any way? I'll bet Betsy Hartman won't even speak to you now.

Never mind, its too late now. The damage has been done. Madeline Weld has spoken the truth and 500,000 Canadians heard it. At last.

Tim Murray

PS Mr. Angus thinks population concerns are purely ideological and without scientific merit. What one wonders then, is what exactly is scientific about his assertion that population numbers are irrelevant. I think he needs to visit an optometrist. He seems to have trouble seeing elephants at close quarters.

AttachmentSize
Image icon Magoo.jpg3.09 KB
Image icon Magoo-elephant.jpg11.53 KB

Comments

Re/Madeline Weld, “Feeding The Raging Monster...” Weld asserts that increased living standards are fertility stimulants. Without statistics to support this claim, it is no more than anecdotal and apocryphal. Also, if higher living standards of international migrants can lead to increased fecundity, so too can regional migration. If migration from Nova Scotia to Quebec might lead to increased birth rates, why not proscribe such migration?

If the fecundity of international migrants is the raging monster, why is futile border control the favored response over the proven efficacy of education, family planning, reproductive health, and women's empowerment? If population growth is the concern, how can we be silent on the reckless and contributory birth practices of the many major indigenous religious and cultural groups which promote large families?

If lower migrant population is the goal, a specific plan should be proposed for migration control. How much will it cost to implement, what will be the source of funds, and where/when has this approach been used successfully and in a sustainable way in the past?

Interdiction of migrants at national borders or by fiat has proven as successful as controlling migration of Canada geese and butterflies. Lacking a detailed plan to present to the authorities, Weld risks the accusation that she is doing little more than “preaching to the choir.” Hard facts, data, and realistic action proposals are needed here before Weld can begin to be taken seriously.

Needed:
Living standards vs fertility...statistics needed
Regional vs international migration....a consistent policy needed
Border control vs family planning...favored policy needed
Fecundity of domestic groups vs immigrants...consistency needed
A specific border control plan needed

I listened to that interview about a month ago and was impressed with Madeline Weld. This is what I wrote to an academic in the field at the time.

"...Engelmann seemed to want to pick out small points of difference between himself and Ms. Weld for some reason or attribute ideas to her which she did not hold.

In terms of "fertility opportunity theory"-..... -there was an obvious paradox or maybe one could say contradiction- that development is the pathway to constraint in family size and Engelmann was saying undeveloped countries wanted to develop and consume at the same level as the wealthy countries. He said - something like this - all the world's population has the right to do this and that consumption needed to be modified so that it had less of an environmental impact (have your cake and eat it?)

But if people's situations started to look more abundant, more materially secure and with increasing surplus to allow 1st world level consumption, then would they not perceive an increasingly abundant future and be inclined to have more children (all other things being equal)?

I guess this is the perennial contradiction but it is rarely if ever mentioned....."

re statistics- one could look at 2 parameters all over the world e.g. standard of living (defined as you wish) and fertility but no matter how strong the correlation (in either direction) you would not have a way forward because there are other factors which need to be accounted for and a change in one of the chosen parameters does not necessarily cause a change in the other even if there is a strong correlation.

On December 7th, 2011 Evan Jones (not verified) wrote:

Re/Madeline Weld, “Feeding The Raging Monster...” Weld asserts that increased living standards are fertility stimulants. Without statistics to support this claim, it is no more than anecdotal and apocryphal.

SHEILA: Virginia Abernethy's fertility opportunity tested this in "Not Tonight, Sweetie; No Energy". She is a well-known population anthropologist with a profound knowledge of demographic rules.

Also, if higher living standards of international migrants can lead to increased fecundity, so too can regional migration. If migration from Nova Scotia to Quebec might lead to increased birth rates, why not proscribe such migration?

SHEILA: The answer here is to have locally imposed limits on building permits in line with democratic (rather than commercially speculative) views that seek to keep local populations within the bounds of local water catchments, soil arability etc. In reality this is what local communities have always done. Immigration that is beyond the control of local communities is always imposed undemocratically and generally by people in power who stand to benefit from that immigration, which costs the local community control and security over resources and rights. So, increase citizens rights and local self-government.

If the fecundity of international migrants is the raging monster, why is futile border control the favored response over the proven efficacy of education, family planning, reproductive health, and women's empowerment? If population growth is the concern, how can we be silent on the reckless and contributory birth practices of the many major indigenous religious and cultural groups which promote large families?

SHEILA: The "efficacity of education, family planning, reproductive health, and women's empowerment" is not 'proven'. These are conditions which co-exist with other conditions, which may be part of the story. For instance, as the Great Depression bit, birthrates dropped in Western countries - Australia, France, America. Why? Because people could see that they could not afford to have children. At the same time education for women and women's rights as well as public education, access to contraception, housing shortages and laws against child labour were also increasing. Probably laws against child labour, along with access to contraception and the perception that bad times are settling in, plus limited housing, are the major disincentives to productive unions/marriage/families. See Doepke's theory on how Korea managed to cut down its birth rate when it enforced laws against child labour compared to Brazil, which allowed child labour. Poor people only have their labour to sell and their children's. If they cannot make money out of children then it does not make sense for them to have many. If they have to educate those children before they can get work, those children will become too expensive. There are other very strong factors in population stability, in different systems of land-tenure and inheritance laws, but I will save these for some other day.

If lower migrant population is the goal, a specific plan should be proposed for migration control. How much will it cost to implement, what will be the source of funds, and where/when has this approach been used successfully and in a sustainable way in the past?

Migration control was part and parcel of every local community in the past. In countries with strong democracies, such as those in Europe, where citizens actually have real rights, their rights to housing and income take precedence over those of potential new citizens. In those countries private power is still less than the state and makes it difficult for moguls to increase their capital by increasing demand for assets and resources that they own through influencing high immigration policies.

Interdiction of migrants at national borders or by fiat has proven as successful as controlling migration of Canada geese and butterflies. Lacking a detailed plan to present to the authorities, Weld risks the accusation that she is doing little more than “preaching to the choir.” Hard facts, data, and realistic action proposals are needed here before Weld can begin to be taken seriously.

In Europe those with power are citizens. Legal immigrants have some rights but not the same ones as citizens. Local communities (through prefectures etc) control the granting of work permits, accommodation and public order and building permits. The communities and government have the power to enforce policing of illegal work. Although there is a lot of illegal immigration, it does not get the same permanent foothold as in the US and Canada because it is so difficult to compete with citizens to survive well. For instance, in Europe where all education, including university education, is free, illegal immigrants cannot obtain this - so it becomes very difficult for them to remain for generations. My feeling is that all peoples need to have systems that grant strong rights to citizens and lesser rights to capital. We all need to relocalise power and to focus on local feedback as the priority when considering having children and emigrating. Communities must have the right to self-government, including limiting building permits as they agree democratically.