Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (Sustainable Population Australia suggests a maximum of two) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being. The average annual CO2 emission by an Australian individual is about 17 metric tons,4 including energy usage. As the biomass of trees in a mature forest sequesters about 6 metric tons of CO2 per hectare (104 m2) per year,4,5 each child born should be offset by planting 4 hectares of trees, to allow for the time they take to reach maturity, and attrition through crop losses, bushfires, dieback and so on. This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400–$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures, and probably much more now).So nutty I don't know where to begin really. I suggest reading this excellent response on Spiked though. It sums up brilliantly (a) the flaws in the figures, and more importantly (b) the anti-human nature driving such idiocy. The scary thing is that Australia just voted in the socialists, they'll probably try to implement it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The world just went more mad
Is it offical mental day today or something? First we have the Turkish lawyer who is upset that his team lost so he's suing Inter-Milan. Now we have some mad aussie doctor writing to the Medical Journal of Australia saying,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I think you may find that the medics are nutty survivalist tories whereas the new socialist government will be interested in growing the population. This is ridiculously low - constraining the home market - particularly as a large proportion of the economically active are pulling pints in Earls Court.
Just because an argument is "anti-human" doesn't make it wrong. Humankind are the exploiters of the environment and increasing population is the major problem. I should have thought Australia had a bit of spare space though
Yes that's right, we're just a cancer on the planet, the Matrix said so, and we should force abortions on people that have too many kids, or make them pay to procreate! :rollseyes:
So you don't think ever-increasing population is a potentially bad thing?
Yet another depressing, mechanistic, atheist view of humanity.
"... Humankind are the exploiters of the environment ..."
What does that mean when translated into English?
"I should have thought Australia had a bit of spare space though..."
That'd be the uninhabitable bit, then...?
I know, it's just too many syllables, isn't it? Get an adult to explain it to you.
"I think you may find that the medics are nutty survivalist tories whereas the new socialist government will be interested in growing the population..."
Will it? Just like NuLab have over the past 10 years? I think you'll find the term is more 'importing' than 'growing'...
"So you don't think ever-increasing population is a potentially bad thing?"
Anything could be potentially a bad thing, so the question is little weak. End of the day having Government population control policies is far worse.
If evil government won't, who will? Will populations control themselves naturally? I mean, that would be nice, but I'm skeptical. Especially as short-term economics call for growth which could screw us in the long term.
Why does someone have to control it? More importantly the answer to whether populations will naturally control themselves the answer is yes. There is ample vidence in natrue of population explosion in mammals leading to higher rate of homosexual activity for a start. The purpose of human life, in essence, is the procreation of the species. As population expand and resources shrink this little thing called natural selection kicks in.
Of course, if you don't believe in freedom or liberty then Government sponosred population control is perefctly acceptable. If you think that Government exists despite opf us rather than because of us, then I guess it fine. I'm not a social authoritarian though.
But will natural control only start happening when things get *really* bad? ie flooding, plagues, war over limited resources etc. Would it be preferable to step in before we reach that point.
Liberty is great, but there are big problems out there. It seems reasonable to me that we might have to accept sacrifices sometimes. It's not like I'm calling for the state to go around forcing abortions on people, but I think we need to encourage restraint in our spawning!
And government exists cos power abhors a vacuum, and there are certainly worse options to fill that vacuum. ;-)
1: The state has no right to tell people they can or cannot have children.
2: There is no global power that has the power to enforce anything anyway.
3: The notion that the population is going to grow out of control is based on a pure extrapolated assumption.
1: Maybe not, but it can try and encourage people one way or another. Anyway "rights" are whatever we decide they are. And desperate times might bring desperate decisions. (I hope that doesn't have to be the case!)
2: That's true.
3: It's already pretty huge. Imagine all of India and China consuming resources at a western level. Imagine them pumping out polution-per-head at western levels. Okay, that's unlikely so imagine just half of them doing that! That's still masses of people.
I guess if we could crack a source of cheap clean energy, a lot of these problems would be helped greatly. So just for the record I'd much prefer nuclear fusion over heavy-handed government intervention!
Pumping out pollution? Please don't tell me that you're talking about carbon dioxide when you say that.
What wrong with that? If anything it'll be very funny to watch being implemented, there rarely is anything amusing in the news nowadays.
To get into the spirit of things to come, I recommend you to read this wonderful book written in 1888:
The Book of Noodles Stories Of Simpletons; Or, Fools And Their Follies
http://www.mobilebooks.org/?etext=PG013032
Saw this earlier. Bizarre.
Has not the experience of the last 200 years shown that as economic wealth and political stability increases the desire for large families decreases, to the point where in western Europe (excluding immigration) birth rates are too low to replace the current population. There is no need for draconian government action to enforce what enough people are choosing to do of their own free will. The evidence seems to suggest that well spread economic growth supported by better technology is our best option. People know best not governments.
"Why does someone have to control it? More importantly the answer to whether populations will naturally control themselves the answer is yes. There is ample vidence in natrue of population explosion in mammals leading to higher rate of homosexual activity for a start. The purpose of human life, in essence, is the procreation of the species. As population expand and resources shrink this little thing called natural selection kicks in."
This is quite correct Dizzy. However in human terms population control means war and pestilence.
This issue really isn't about liberty, etc.
It's got to the point in Britain that it is stupid not to do something about our population.
"As population expand and resources shrink this little thing called natural selection kicks in."
Hopefully the global warm-mongers will die off first.
A completely barmy solution to a problem created by the snake-oil salesmen in the global warming industry.
If theses so-called climatologists are so concerned about the planet, how come they have all trolled off to Bali for a conference. Surely they could have all stopped at home and done the conference on the interweb. Flying halfway round the planet to talk complete bollocks and discuss ways of stopping people from flying halfway ound the planet unnecessarily strikes me as being ever so slightly hypocritical.
"It's got to the point in Britain that it is stupid not to do something about our population"
Agreed. The Australians all here on "holiday" could fuck off back home for a start.
Post a Comment