NYT Sad That Stubborn Americans Averse to Controls on 'Right to Bear Arms Or Children'
New York Times reporter Mireya Navarro in Tuesday’s edition wrote sympathetically about the struggle of an environmental group “breaking the taboo” of discussing overpopulation in “Breaking a Long Silence On Population Control.” Such groups had it easier in the 1970s, Navarro wrote, before the rise of “social conservatism” and America’s “aversion to anything perceived as restricting individual freedoms, be it the right to bear arms or children.” Unfortunately, "the notion that curbing births is an effective way to control emissions is not an easy sell."
Navarro is disturbed by the lack of population control in movies as well; she actually criticized the comedy “Knocked Up” in June 2007 for failing to hail abortion as an option in the plot and included this telling sentence: "Many conservative bloggers have claimed 'Knocked Up' as an anti-choice movie, in part because the movie never presents abortion as a serious option." Pro-life conservatives generally don’t go around using liberal lingo like “anti-choice.”
From her Tuesday story:
Major American environmental groups have dodged the subject of population control for decades, wary of getting caught up in the bruising politics of reproductive health.
Yet, virtually alone, the Center for Biological Diversity is breaking the taboo by directly tying population growth to environmental problems through efforts like giving away condoms in colorful packages depicting endangered animals. The idea is to start a debate about how overpopulation crowds out species and hastens climate change -- just when the world is welcoming Baby No. 7 Billion.
....
In the United States, the birth rate has fallen steadily since the baby boom, from 3.6 births per woman in 1960 to 2.0 today, or just under the replacement level, at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next. Yet even at that rate, demographers estimate, the country will grow from 311 million people now to 478 million by the end of the century, because of both births and immigration.
....
As recently as the 1970s, the subject of population control was less controversial, partly because the baby boom years had given rise to concerns about scarcity of resources, some population experts and environmentalists said. Then came China’s coercive one-child policy and a rise in social conservatism in the United States, combined with the country’s aversion to anything perceived as restricting individual freedoms, be it the right to bear arms or children.
Some groups also fear whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment and opposition to family planning. Immigration now accounts for about one-third of the growth rate in the United States.
....
A study published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed how slowing the country’s population growth rate to 1.5 births per woman from 2.0 could result in a 10 percent drop in greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury and a 33 percent drop by the end of the century.
But the notion that curbing births is an effective way to control emissions is not an easy sell.
When Oregon State University released a study two years ago calculating the extra carbon dioxide emissions a person helps generate by choosing to have children, the researchers received hate mail labeling them “eugenicists” and “Nazis.”
Navarro concluded:
Dr. Bongaarts described the inaction by environmental groups as a missed opportunity. “The global warming community is staying away from anything having to do with population,” he said, “and that’s frustrating.”
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
No Problem
Submitted by JustAl on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:55pm.
Sterilize all environmentalist, then the real problem will be largely solved in a generation or two.
Not to be believed......
Submitted by Herbster on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:58pm.
What a way to start a Wednesday. I've read some pretty sick (Leftist) stuff in my life, but nothing like this. Where does the NYT get writers like this - and the editors that give their stamp of approal?
"Restrict individual freedoms," Tying in the 2nd Ammendment with population control, etc. I've read all this type of thinking before while studying Germany in the 30's.
We live in dangerous times!
Population control? Murder more likely
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:00pm.
Any time I hear some wacko talk about "population control" makes me think they would rather see genocide.
These are the most cold-blooded people on the planet that rivals the cold-blooded reptiles. Hell, this kind of cold-bloodedness makes reptiles seem warm!
I won't go into how it's just a bunch of crap, I'll be preaching to the choir and the liberals will just ignore this or be wrong as usual.
But it is disturbing to no end that they think like this, and it's no different than it was with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, all who practiced forms of population control.
And I think I read somewhere a few years ago that some countries are already seeing declines in their own populations(one of the European countries, Sweden or Denmark or somewhere in that region) to the point that they were concerned about the country's sustainability. Can't remember why it was. Anyone else hear of this?
And there's no guarantee that the population would "explode" as they say because who's to say there won't be any biological calamaties(or attacks) that kill people like the flu did back during World War I where more people died from that than in battle? Or that some terrorist group is going to set off some sort of attack in a high population center?
But to say it's about curbing CO2 emissions is one of the biggest lies of all.
-Jon
It was covered in my
Submitted by Bhaal on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:36pm.
It was covered in my Geography class. Europe and Russia are having population declines, especially Russia. Ukraine was listed as the worst with a 0.8 rate of natural increase. 2.1 is listed as the threshold to maintain a population and a matching birthrate and deathrate. Most of the population increases in Europe are from immigration. One line reads:
"Europe, and especially Western Europe, is experiencing a population implosion that will be a formidable challenge for decades to come."
"The World Today. Concepts and Regions in Geography." deBlij-Muller-WinklePrins
Fourth Edition
Short And Sweet
Submitted by rammingspeed on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:12pm.
These people are in-effing-sane.
So touchy about the right to
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:24pm.
So touchy about the right to bear children.
Wow. How selfish!
No one should actually live the way they want. Each generation's primary responsibility is to do without, to preserve the earth for the next generation, who in turn will do without, to preserve the earth for the next....and on and on....so who actually benefits? Does anyone ever get to enjoy anything?
My wife and I are enjoying
Submitted by vrwc13 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:01pm.
My wife and I are enjoying having lots of children!
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Another problem created by the government
Submitted by Chad B on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:18pm.
Our federal system rewards bad behavior, bad behavior has consequences, the complaint from the NYT should not be on an individual's personal freedom to exercise a decision to have children, but against a system that subsidizes people who otherwise can not afford to reproduce on their own.
The environmental angle is irrelevant. The real issue is the ever increasing demand on the (shrinking) productive population to pay for the (expanding) non-productive 'class'. The earth will continue long after we destroy ourselves.
HS in Plano TX
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:24pm.
Child's environmental class was just talking about the need for restricting population growth. I told her I wish I didn't listen to the c*&P growing up and would have more kids if I were to do it again. You can't help or influence the World all by yourself easily as with kids raised right. The class did not seem to mention the Muslim take over of the EU based on their projected birthrate. If we don't have kids, the face of the World will change, and NOT for the better IMO! Unless you love to submit to ISLAM.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Here's a solution
Submitted by greydawg on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:33pm.
If Navarro is so concerned about over-population, she could easily reduce the problem by one. A solution is near at hand for her. Might even be a better world.
The obvious flaw in this
Submitted by Keef Olbermann on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:21pm.
is that there's nothing special about Americans in particular that makes us contribute more to carbon emissions. Bangladesh has a population comparable to the United States and they emit far less greenhouse gases *because they are poorer*. Many live in rural backwaters that still haven't been electrified and very few own a car.
If America succeeds in reducing its birth rate, people still have to work in this country to keep it going. People who work here have to live here, and with a lower native population more will have to come from elsewhere. If you prevent 100 American births and import 100 "cleaner" Bangladeshis, those Bangladeshis will benefit from our economy and move into houses wired for electricity and fill them with energy-sucking appliances while buying cars. In other words, you just replace 100 Americans with 100 Americans.
(isn't it funny...
Submitted by Keef Olbermann on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:30pm.
...that when it comes to pollution, American exceptionalism is an article of faith with these people)
Do they really do less carbon?
Submitted by pockets64 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:49pm.
Third world countries tend to have high carbon output due to the fact of their cook fires. Also, if they do any metal working, their methods are a lot less efficient per pound of metal smelted.
Is it a trade-off? I've heard the argument go both ways on that.
Now this is not to suggest we should try to limit our output of a rare trace gas (CO2) that is essential to our biosphere.
I just saw an interesting
Submitted by ant on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:55am.
I just saw an interesting documentary about termites (not the house-dwelling type). Some of their habitat architecture is amazing. Some build thin structure colonies that rise above flood plains but are wide on the east and west sides to catch heat from the sun, some are massive underground sites, with 'exhaust pipes'. Most have one thing in common, they release CO2. That leaves that gnawing dilemma of reality that the lies of the left always, inconveniently, seem to have to answer to. So now, the question is...when do we start annihilating animal species in order to 'save the planet'?
The 20th century's greatest
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:21pm.
The 20th century's greatest enviro-birth gun control advocates agree with you Mireya, Adolph, Joe, Pol and the chairman.
We are all for "controlling
Submitted by Edhenry on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:44pm.
We are all for "controlling births"
Just do it without killing babies
the left loved eugenics in
Submitted by UndercoverConse... on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 4:49pm.
the left loved eugenics in the late 30's until the Nazis gave it a "bad name". Same with antisemitism. Now both are back, from the same folk that accuse OTHERS of being slime
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
"Proportional Response leads to Perpetual War"
"Remember, Remember the 2nd of November!"
How can this be?
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 4:52pm.
How can this be? .......................
"In the United States, the birth rate has fallen steadily since the baby boom, from 3.6 births per woman in 1960 to 2.0 today, or just under the replacement level, at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next. Yet even at that rate, demographers estimate, the country will grow from 311 million people now to 478 million by the end of the century, because of both births and immigration.
How can the population of the US be growing by births, if what the article says is true, then the US has fallen under the threshold of replacement then it isn't births that are contributing to the population growth but really and truly its purely IMMIGRATION that is making the population grow. Heres why I say that if it requires 1000 births to maintain a population at the same level (No growth but just at the same level) then if there are 998 births the next year we didn't meet the replacement level then the next year we say have 996 so in 20 years when those children are having children any population growth would be fueled not by replacement but solely by immigration. We need to address the immigration problem NOW before we lose what we have.
So, what's up with that?
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 5:08pm.
"Yet, virtually alone, the Center for Biological Diversity is breaking the taboo by directly tying population growth to environmental problems through efforts like giving away condoms in colorful packages depicting endangered animals."
No doubt they are spending some Federal grant money on this waste of effort.
Hawk the condoms down in Mexico City or Cairo. That's where overpopulation is happening.
There should be a picture of
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 6:14pm.
There should be a picture of a baby on those condoms, considering the attitudes of people like this writer. It make humans an 'endangered animal'. So much concern with the Nations environment and population. Stop the perversion of the 14th Amendment and maybe, you'll shut off the anchor-baby syndrome. Secure the border and you'll see a decline in the rarely mentioned increases in auto traffic, the sanitation problem of 15 to a house illegal sanctuaries, and the never mentioned knee-high miles of trash left at our Southern border.
After that, maybe we could focus on not turning into another Northern Europe, or Britain, as Muslim immigrants begin to outnumber the residents and procreate their way to a personal army. In the south part of my city is a larger, and getting larger, Muslim segment and to see the amount of children that pour out the doorway of one house requires a calculator sometimes. Every other home is a Muhammedan Brady Bunch.
It is the foolish and impressionable youth of American suburbia and the middle-class that bought into the feminist meme of 'you don't need marriage, a partner, or children..blah,blah,blah..'. Don't think it wasn't planned, they never cared about woman or helping them "break the glass ceiling". It was to discourage offspring of the typical American working and middle-classes.
Those are liberal talking
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:22pm.
Those are liberal talking points. How does this crap help our country? "Get rid of guns & children. I want more, more, more!" It's easier to get rid of liberals.
Three bogus nasty evils in one disgusting theory
Submitted by pockets64 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:28pm.
All of this lib BS make my heart sink. It's not that these things are realistic, but once this trash is in the air, it's going to have a life and spread amongst the gullible.
What Kind of Controls On Children Being Born Does He Want?
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 5:37pm.
The God father of Populatio Control The Rev. Malthus provided the justification for the English Corn Laws which were responsible for the Irish vamine.
People can not claim to be ignorant of what happens when you apply enviromentalism. We can only assume that they intend to kill millions.
What?
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 5:50pm.
The Irish had a potatoe famine, which led to a whole lot of Irish police in NYC..which led to, well you know. But I don't see what it has to do with environmentalism.