The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Bernie Sanders in Climate Change 'Population Control' Uproar"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the BBC:

Bernie Sanders in climate change ‘population control’ uproar
6 hours ago

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been criticised after arguing population control should be part of tackling climate change.

The Vermont senator told a TV debate that women “in poor countries” should have access to birth control.

Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.

The UN forecasts the Earth’s population will rise to 11 billion by 2100.

On social media on Thursday, Mr Sanders was likened to a Marvel movie villain.

Senator Ted Cruz said the Democratic White House hopeful’s remarks evoked Thanos, the Avengers baddie who kills half the world’s population with a snap of his fingers. …

The population control issue was raised during a CNN climate town hall event in New York City on Wednesday night during a question from an audience member.

Martha Readyoff, a teacher, said the topic was “poisonous for politicians, but it’s crucial to face”.

“Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact,” she began. “Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”

Mr Sanders .. replied: “Well, Martha, the answer is yes.

“The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies, and make reproductive decisions.

“The Mexico City Agreement which denies American aid to those organisations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.

“So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.”

The Mexico City Policy is a US government rule to ban overseas organisations that receive federal aid from performing abortions, even with other funding.

The measure was rescinded under Democratic President Barack Obama, and reactivated in January 2017 by Mr Trump, a Republican. …

Mr Sanders is not the first Democrat to raise population control as a tool for tackling climate change.

In his 1992 book, former US Vice-President Al Gore wrote: “No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilising human population.”

Research indicates that babies in wealthier nations tend to have higher carbon footprints than those in still-developing countries.

According to a World Bank study, for example, Americans produce 16.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita every year.

By comparison, only 0.1 tonnes of the greenhouse gas is generated in Ethiopia per inhabitant.

So there! Case closed.

But what if the Ethiopian moves to the United States?

What? Are asking about … immigration? What could immigration possibly have to do with climate change?

anyway, and here’s Bernie indulging his often sensible instincts back in 2015:

 
Hide 155 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tiny Duck says:

    Nobody wants open borders. This is a republican talking point. I sound reject every racist white from South Africa fleeing “persecution”

    With that said I believe that open border would be great if applied on global scale, but I don’t think it could be applied by only one country

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @nymom
  2. Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.

    Uh, no. Conservatives did not say that. WHo did?

  3. Anon7 says:

    “The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies, and make reproductive decisions…”

    Good job pandering to American women, Mr. Sanders. But we’re talking about African women!

    You see, Nigerian women say that an ideal family would have 10 children, but on average have only 7 children per family. Would they be offered IVF and other technologies to boost their fertility? Or don’t you respect their reproductive decisions?

  4. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    But what if the Ethiopian moves to the United States?

    I think the Democratic view is that those Ethiopian and other immigrants aren’t going to consume at traditional suburban middle class levels. At the same time, they’re more likely to support the Democratic Party and consequently the Democratic Party’s more centralized economic and environmental policies, like the Green New Deal. By contrast, American citizens are used to traditional suburban middle class consumption levels, and a decline from those levels will cause a political backlash, like voting in someone like Trump. Furthermore, a significant element of the citizenry is reflexively hostile to the federal government and centralized economic and social policies, and it is strongly attached to guns. Hence the Democratic Party’s drive to replace the citizenry with immigrants who aren’t acclimated to middle class consumption levels and who’ll support highly centralized economic and climate policies.

  5. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    Bernie actually has the least white support among the leading Democratic candidates:

  6. guest says:

    Population control: good.
    Abortion: good
    Population control via abortion to avoid/fix Climate Change:
    good
    Population control as applied specifically to groups with a lot of Pokemon points so as to avoid/fix Climate Whatever: bad?

    Would anyone care if Burnie promoted increased abortion in Russia?

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
  7. BenKenobi says:

    After Bernie gets squeezed out of the nomination, Trump should offer him the VP slot for the election.

    Tesseract-D Chess.

    • LOL: jim jones
  8. istevefan says:
    @ben tillman

    Conservatives siding with the world’s most important graph to own the libs.

  9. gutta percha [AKA "gp"] says:

    “the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.”

    I’m going to hell for writing this, but I’m fine with that.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  10. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    —-According to a World Bank study, for example, Americans produce 16.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita every year.—-

    Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It’s a key part of the earth’s atmosphere. The plant life requires it.

    Humans exhale carbon dioxide. The eco tyrants want to pathologize it in order to pave the way for a breath tax.

    Globalism = demonic wonkery

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @Hypnotoad666
    , @c matt
    , @MB
  11. gutta percha [AKA "gp"] says:
    @ben tillman

    A lot of nominal conservatives are joining the “anti-racism” parade now. They think that will make PoCs hate them less, or something. Even the despised Orange Man is probably anti-racist, not that he gets any credit for it. I don’t think he even notices race, myself.

  12. Wilkey says:

    “Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.”

    Real conservatives would have no problem supporting policies that help the Third World get its birth rates under contol. I don’t know who these so-called conservatives are.

  13. of course Bernie wants to murder half of humanity – hello?? he’s a communist; it’s who they are… (see Stalin or Mao)

    • Replies: @jej
  14. By comparison, only 0.1 tonnes of the greenhouse gas is generated in Ethiopia per inhabitant.

    A mere 200 pounds? Each inhabitant would generate more than six times that amount per year just by exhaling. These numbers are not only inaccurate, they’re not even fact-checked for common sense. That goes for pretty much every number coming out of either the climate change camp or anything involving the UN and Africa.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  15. Research indicates that babies in wealthier nations tend to have higher carbon footprints

    I wasn’t aware babies had footprints at all. What do they do, rub charcoal on the tiny soles, then press them in a scrapbook?

    women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies

    That’s not what his fellow senators thought in 2016, when they voted to extend Selective Service registration to women. Bernie courageously cast “no vote”:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s98

  16. Anonymous[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @ben tillman

    Literally everyone replying to this:

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  17. Mr. Anon says:
    @ben tillman

    Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.

    Uh, no. Conservatives did not say that. WHo did?

    I haven’t paid attention to this particular covfeffe, but I’d be surprised if there weren’t prominent Republicans who said such a thing. It fits in with the whole (useless and naive) DR3 tactic.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  18. Anonymous[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey

    • Replies: @El Dato
  19. @Wilkey

    Real conservatives would have no problem supporting policies that help the Third World get its birth rates under contol. I don’t know who these so-called conservatives are.

    “Supporting” how? With tax dollars?

    Where does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to buy condoms for big men in Africa?

    Let alone send troops there to ensure those are put to use…

    • Replies: @Fun
  20. Senator Ted Cruz said the Democratic White House hopeful’s remarks evoked Thanos, the Avengers baddie who kills half the world’s population with a snap of his fingers. …

    Hearing cuckservatives is political equivalent of flicking on the tube and seeing some fags making out.

    Utter and complete disgust.

    I am so sick of these grubby little worms. They are not conserving anything.

  21. Mr. Anon says:

    Does Bernie Sanders ever NOT sound angry? I expect him to start peppering his stump speeches with loud interjections of “Serenity Now!” or “Bernie is gettin’ upset!”.

  22. KunioKun says:

    All he has to do is repeat all of candidate Trump’s positions and he would crush everybody.

  23. Oh yes. Traditional conservatives are in favor of overpopulation anywhere, everywhere. Partly because liberals used to favor population control. And partly because “The Bible Says So.” And because of muh cheap labor and muh GDP and muh free trade, ad nauseam.

    Even here, where many of us like to think of ourselves as Alt-Enlightened, we have a major cohort who contend that the answer to five billion more brown babies is to have five billion more white babies.

    The environment is being raped from one corner of the globe to another, and population control has been needed for several decades. But, as you can see with the strident, hysterical responses to Bernie’s reasonable remarks, intelligent strategies require intelligent people.

    • Agree: nymom
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  24. Tell the brown wammin

    no more global warmin’

    cut down on the wombin

    no more baby boomin!

  25. global warming

    ehh..

    climate change

    eh..

    climate crisis!

    eh..

    climate CATASTROPHE!!!

    that’s the ticket!

  26. Not much of an “uproar” if you ask me.

  27. a CNN climate town hall event in New York City

    There haven’t been any towns in New York City since the revolution of 1898. There used to be about two dozen of them, plus a handful of cities, before that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_municipalities_in_New_York_City

    They used to call these dog-and-pony shows “town meetings”, till someone spilled the beans that at real town meetings, on get a vote, and it counts.

  28. Fun says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It’s a worthwhile investment to have a future with fewer wretched masses. Take it out of military aid to Israel or something (is that the U.S. Constitution?) It would be a better use of funds.

    And the goal should not just be more condoms, but improved access to a full range of contraceptives like IUDs and public education about how it all works. And yes, access to abortion.

    Fertility is declining in the developing world, partly because women can and will choose to have smaller families irrespective of what “big men” want. No troops needed.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  29. Steve, as a general policy, do you support abortion to keep the number of Africans down? I mean, you can post umpteen posts about The Most Dangerous Graph in the World, but Internet posts don’t fight that Graph.

    What do you actually propose? Imagine a world where you’re actually responsible for the decisions that get made. What decisions do you make?

    • Replies: @Bill B.
  30. @AnotherDad

    Has nothing to do with being a “cuckservative.” Many self-identifying conservatives, myself included, are pro-natalist. If the Africans are breeding, God bless them. God bless anyone who wants to reproduce the species. If you aren’t, then why not? Reproduce your own kind, and prodigiously, or admit that you’re part of the demographic problem you complain about.

  31. syonredux says:

    Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.

    …..Whereas current policy favors more brown babies….

    Research indicates that babies in wealthier nations tend to have higher carbon footprints than those in still-developing countries.

    According to a World Bank study, for example, Americans produce 16.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita every year.

    By comparison, only 0.1 tonnes of the greenhouse gas is generated in Ethiopia per inhabitant.

    …..Which means that keeping Ethiopians out of the USA is the best way to preserve their environmental virtue….

  32. eah says:

    Martha Readyoff … “The Mexico City Agreement which denies American aid to those organisations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd. …

    Actually, it’s one of the few non-totally absurd actions by/policies of the federal government, since a large fraction, if not a significant majority, of American taxpayers, while they may agree it should not be illegal, view abortion as wrong/immoral, and hence should not be forced to subsidize it via the coercive tax system — what is “totally absurd”, not to mention vile and hypocritical, is federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

    Ms Readyoff is the author of such modern essay classics as Gun Violence, Animal Abuse, and Carnism and The Virtue of Kvetching — and if you think she was just some random attendee who asked some random question, you need to have your head examined.

    The US is not a functioning polity because it is no longer a real country.

    • Replies: @Jesse
  33. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    And the hunt is on for Trump’s Low Information Voters.
    Sanders is off to a good, though cynical, start.

  34. Thanks. For me the post of the month; at least.

  35. Anon[732] • Disclaimer says:

    Before Bernie, French President Macron invoked a horrified gasp of ‘how dare you!’ from the BBC for suggesting to les Africains to stoppez-vous wiz all ze babies.
    But later the BBC kissed and made up with him when he regularly had a lot of white people in yellow vests gasping for breath.

    https://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-bbc-and-gilet-jaunes.html

    • Replies: @nymom
  36. Now, now. I believe we all need to sit down, take a breath, have a cup of tea, relax, calm ourselves, and think about what is really best for Israel.

    • Replies: @donvonburg
  37. Cortes says:

    Martha Readyoff has a name tailor made for Dmitry Orlov’s suggestion for proponents of population control:

    “Well, why don’t you just take one for the team?”

  38. JohnBeck says: • Website

    Ask a liberal who is concerned about climate change whether we should just stop immigration from low carbon footprint countries and see whether the alleged future of the planet is more or less important than not appearing racist.

  39. Tim says:

    This is a really bad thing.

    President Mugabe (or whatever), was a devote Catholic and was the only thing holding that country back from full-on ‘Kill-whitey’.

    It’s going to be full-on ‘Kill-whitey’ in both Zembabwe (or whatever) and South Africa from here on out.

  40. El Dato says:
    @houston 1992

    Well, you can’t deliver fast & free and still retain a gazillion dollars (and get tax breaks) without breaking a few eggs.

  41. Lot says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The say the third world isn’t generating a lot of pollution and environmental destruction, you have to be really careful with your examples.

    Some types of pollution associated with advanced industry is heavily first world of course. Relatively harmless CO2 is one. But the first world is not rapidly destroying its own natural spaces to accommodate a rapidly growing population. It also is rapidly converting to a mix of fairly clean-burning natural gas and wind and solar, and away from coal and oil. Meanwhile, the dirtiest sources of power, burning wood off grid and cheaply constructed coal plants, are prevalent in the third world.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  42. El Dato says:
    @Anonymous

    > Kamala 59% White Support

    Anyone who accuses Weimar Republic Germans of bad voting patterns should be re-educated.

  43. El Dato says:
    @Anonymous

    Feel the concept of “Too much of the good stuff is not good”

  44. El Dato says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m sure S.E. Cupp would like to have about 10 Nigerian Babies saved from ABORTION in his mansion.

    Also, when will people realize that EUGENICS is actually a good thing?

  45. @gutta percha

    I’m going to hell for writing this, but I’m fine with that.

    We’re all going to hell because way too few people are fine with it.

  46. Anonymous[564] • Disclaimer says:

    If Sanders had recommended the compulsory population curtailment of white people – and white people only – the Left/Economist axis would be praising him to the skies.

  47. @ben tillman

    It sounds like, in the context of discussing this “Mexico City agreement” (which I had never heard of), his reference to “birth control” could be interpreted as referring to “abortion.”So that just cued up the usual evangelical outrage.

    But I don’t see why “reproductive rights for Africans” should hurt him in the Dem primary.

    In fact, Kudos to Bernie for speaking common sense on third world population control. (And, to his former self, for common sense on immigration.)

    Personally, I mostly hate socialism. But somehow I like Bernie. I am not sure why. Maybe it’s only because I assume he could never win.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    , @bomag
  48. @Anonymous

    Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It’s a key part of the earth’s atmosphere. The plant life requires it.

    Exactly. CO2 is like “diversity”for the air, it makes the earth more vibrant. End Nitrogen and Oxygen “supremacy.”

  49. Well, the bonehead “scientists” who first thought up the idea of overpopulation were right as far as they went. There are to many people. Duh. But they never got past vague generalization. Which is typical of “scientists.” Ramifications are for the peons. So who got the scientists message? Two groups. Educated American and ever more European white people. And then Chinese leaders. Meanwhile, everybody else kept on doing what they were doing. (Although I’ve heard now that American blacks are below replacement level. Howza bout dat. Another exact similarity between the superior American white and the inferior American black.) Such subtleties never cross the mind of high-minded theorist “scientists.” Ramifications are for the peons.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
  50. DH13 says:

    “No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilising human population.” Al Gore

    Anthropogenic Climate Change is a lie. Educate yourself: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
    I appreciate the concern by Mr. Sailer and others here about (African) population growth, but you are on the wrong track if you expect to justify population control based on “climate change”, like Gore is trying above.
    It is the other way around, folks like Gore want population control and have propped climate change as an indirect approach for it. Because if you talk directly about population control as an end in itself you will get, understandably, in trouble. Whose babies should be born and whose shouldn’t?
    On that regard Mr. Sailer and Gore are similar, and not very honest. And it is not going to work, as anything built on false premises.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  51. @For what it's worth

    Has nothing to do with being a “cuckservative.” Many self-identifying conservatives, myself included, are pro-natalist. If the Africans are breeding, God bless them. God bless anyone who wants to reproduce the species. If you aren’t, then why not? Reproduce your own kind, and prodigiously, or admit that you’re part of the demographic problem you complain about.

    Geez, no wonder i have to write so much, one must spell everything out.

    I was even going to preference my comment with “I’m a natalist, but …”

    This

    Reproduce your own kind, prodigiously.

    fine. I wouldn’t say prodigiously for all–i want a stable population–but for the smart and healthy–sure. You want eugenic fertility.

    But this …

    If the Africans are breeding, God bless them

    No. Absolutely not. They are overpopulated and growing fast. And having 4 billion–then how many the next century?–does not help anything. They are not a benefit even to their own nations, certainly not to the African enviroment, and they are actively trying to escape and dump their lack of productive ability and their excess fertility on us–the West.

    ~~

    Yes, smart, competent, healthy white people need to have more kids. As i’ve pointed out this will naturally come of its own accord if we stop immigration.

    But the world? I want eugenic fertility. Squawking at any thought of African population control is sheer and unadulterated stupidity.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  52. Once again, people confuse abortion with the much more effective technique of sterilization.

  53. Related

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/viktor-orban-trumpets-far-right-procreation-anti-immigration-policy

    “Procreate or face extinction: that’s the message from central European leaders to their shrinking populations, as across the region rightwing governments implement so-called “family first” policies to incentivise childbearing.

    Hungary’s government is holding an international summit on demography in Budapest this week, being attended by several regional leaders and delegations from dozens of countries in an attempt to trumpet their investment in family policies.

    The country’s nativist prime minister, Viktor Orbán, said it was conceivable that Hungary, with a population of just under 10 million that is shrinking due to low birthrates and emigration of Hungarians to EU states further west, could simply disappear.

    “It’s not hard to imagine that there would be one single last man who has to turn the lights out,” he said at the opening of the conference on Thursday.

    Orbán, who has based his political campaigns in recent years on anti-refugee and anti-migration sentiment, said other European politicians saw immigration as the solution, but he firmly rejected this, tapping into the far-right “great replacement” theory.

    If Europe is not going to be populated by Europeans in the future and we take this as given, then we are speaking about an exchange of populations, to replace the population of Europeans with others,” said Orbán. “There are political forces in Europe who want a replacement of population for ideological or other reasons.

    Orbán’s words were backed up by one of the guests of honour at the summit, the former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, who saluted the Hungarian leader for having “the political courage to defy political correctness”.

    Abbott said dying populations, not climate change, were the biggest threat to western civilisation, and lashed out at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle for recent remarks that they would not have more than two children due to the effects on the environment. “Having fewer children in western countries will hardly make the climate better when so many children are being born elsewhere,” said Abbott.”

    • Replies: @William D. Wall
  54. I’m going to go with Bernie on this one. Seriously, Conservatives and Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by opposing abortion. They should say a prayer of thanks that it has staved off their demise as a political party for at least a decade.

    You know Climate Change must be serious when it has Dems bleeding from the eyes.

  55. Jesse says:
    @For what it's worth

    If the Third World wants to breed like that, fine. But they’re paying their own way and they’re staying on their own Continent.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, YT will be expected to support them. Making of YT’s business.

    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  56. Jesse says:
    @DH13

    Oh. My. GAWD. The conservative insistence that climate change/global warming is a myth might be the stupidest tribal trait ever.

  57. Pericles says:
    @Tim

    Lol, is this the coldest boomer take or what?

  58. RobUK says:

    Bernie, what if African women WANT lots of children?

    A classic ‘liberal’, convinced that his natural ‘empathy’ means he will always understand African women because, well, ‘liberals’ are good people, right? And so believes they all want to go to college and study gender politics and own cats when they are 40, rather than have children. Has he ever considered that he may be wrong?

    • Agree: ben tillman
  59. DH13 says:
    @Jesse

    I am not a “conservative”.

  60. @BenKenobi

    Yeah. I think a lot of us were saying that last time.

  61. @Anonymous

    This is not a case of natural rage. It is trumped-up BS meant to bury his campaign, like the Syrian apologist BS about Tulsi Gabbard. Works with Dems!

  62. Gordo says:

    Go Bernie!

    Shtetl of mettle.

  63. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Ah yes, Israel, the Keith Richards of nations.

  64. Gabe Ruth says:
    @El Dato

    That’s giving crazy Bernie to much credit, population control by abortion would be at best neutral, possibly dysgenic (within a given population).

  65. @Tim

    I believe his successor has already been more pro-white and has done some limited reparations type things for whitey or at least floated the idea.

    the craziest thing I ever learned about Zimbabwe was that over half of the white farmers who get land grabbed bought their land post independence. Similar to bantus not being indigenous to SA it’s one of those hyper narrative contradicting facts.

  66. MarkinLA says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Nobody wants to hear or cares about what you say.

  67. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jesse

    Oh. My. GAWD. The conservative insistence that climate change/global warming is a myth might be the stupidest tribal trait ever.

    We know that climate change/global warming must be true because it’s being promoted by people we know we can trust. I mean how can anyone imagine that the UN or the media or Woke Capital (who make loads of money out of it) or politicians would lie to us? It’s unthinkable. If they would lie to us about climate change/global warming they would lie to us about other stuff, and we know they don’t do that.

    I know that climate change/global warming is true because the people on TV tell me it’s true.

  68. @Fun

    Un-American! The Statue of Liberty itself demands more wretched refuse!

  69. @obwandiyag

    Please use the doll to show where the scientist hurt you.

  70. Alan Tonelson asked some good questions about Bernie Sanders and his pandering flip flop in support of anti-worker mass immigration in July of 2015:

    But why, in this case, does Sanders (along with most other liberal and Democratic party trade critics) now favor immigration policies that also will take more jobs from Americans, and drive wages down? If trade deals that, among other failures, make many more very low-paid workers in the third world much more available to U.S.-based businesses have these effects, why would immigration policies that literally encourage such workers to come to America produce different results?

    https://alantonelson.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/im-politic-how-bernie-can-win/

    Tweet from 2015:

  71. c matt says:
    @Anonymous

    Banning Di-Hydrogen Monoxide is next!

  72. c matt says:
    @Jesse

    It’s not a myth, it’s a hoax. Two different things.

  73. @Mr McKenna

    Feel free to kill yourself any time now.

  74. @El Dato

    Also, when will people realize that EUGENICS is actually a good thing?

    I suspect many, if not most people are for eugenics. I could be wrong, but we might know when it’s cheap and easy (as easy as having a smartphone came to be) to precisely select traits one wants in their offspring (as in, more precisely than just having them with someone with said traits). Even getting a sperm donor with specific, coveted qualities does not appear to be very accessible, including in EU countries (from what I know).

    With a large population of children being specifically crafted, it will be easier to pinpoint what traits parents all around want their offspring to have (as if we didn’t already know).

    Regardless, people will likely still vehemently say they’re against eugenics.

  75. @AnotherDad

    No. Absolutely not. They are overpopulated and growing fast.

    No, they aren’t. The numbers coming from the UN’s population estimate and “the world’s most important graph” are completely phony. The only purpose behind these numbers is to get more “aid” money flowing to NGOs and African kleptocrats. It’s a racket.

    • Troll: Charon
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  76. Spangel says:

    Good for Bernie. This makes me want to vote for him.

    Trump does what he can to bar immigration from the third world, but realistically the amount of brown and black babies born from restricting abortion in this country would be more than the amount of illegal immigrants we are likely to see within the same period. So you’re better off keeping abortion and birth control readily available everywhere than restricting immigration if you have to do one of the two.

    And across the world, I support any successful effort to reduce Africa’s population growth. If it takes us based foreign aid, so be it.

  77. peterike says:

    “The Mexico City Agreement which denies American aid to those organisations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.”

    Why is it always and forever that if America doesn’t provide birth control funding to the turd world, than it doesn’t exist? For starters, birth control is pretty damn cheap. If India or Nigeria want to provide it in their nations, they have plenty of money to do so. Also, don’t the virtue signalling nations of Europe provide such aid? I expect they do. Don’t private organizations provide such aid? I expect they do. Indeed, I expect there is a veritable flood of such aid that mostly ends up padding the pockets of the local machers, like pretty much all foreign aid.

    But it’s always the same story from nitwits like Bernie: if the American tax payer isn’t paying, it must not exist!

    That said, I would happily take the entire budget for, say, HUD or the Dept. of Education and use that for third world birth control while shutting down those pernicious, make-nothing-but-trouble agencies that spend many billions of dollars every year doing active harm.

  78. Gordo says:
    @El Dato

    her

    I mean it’s 2019 and you’re getting pronouns wrong….

  79. Realist says:

    The Vermont senator told a TV debate that women “in poor countries” should have access to birth control.

    Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.

    I doubt that…that would be an intelligent statement.

  80. @Anon7

    You see, Nigerian women say that an ideal family would have 10 children, but on average have only 7 children per family. Would they be offered IVF and other technologies to boost their fertility? Or don’t you respect their reproductive decisions?

    How to get Africans not to want families with double digit numbers of children is probably the most important conundrum of the 21st Century.

    I doubt that offering birth control or abortions would make any impact whatsoever – children are a form of wealth in these cultures. One imagines that this is because Western notions of property are not well developed even after the colonial period, and children equate to “people whose excess production I can depend upon in old age so that I don’t starve.” It makes sense in a world without pensions, 401Ks and ownership of appreciating real estate.

    I suppose that in areas where tribal conflict risks flaring up, the mentality is that of a cradle race with the opposing tribe(s) as well.

  81. @Fun

    Why stop with abortion? Just kill the Africans outright. Fund their periodic wars and massacres.

    partly because women can and will choose to have smaller families irrespective of what “big men” want. No troops needed.

    A government exporting feminism to a weaker nation is virtually an act of war. Look what it did to us.

    You can always reach into your own pocket if you’re so big on this.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  82. This is all about abortion, pure and simple. The U.S. subsidizing abortions in other countries. It’s about liberals screaming about the Mexico City policy, which Trump revived after Obama killed it. If you belong to an abortion cargo cult (as many here seem to), you’ll be right on board with even more U.S. taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood.

    Bill Gates has been shoving millions at Africa to try to “educate” women there into not having children since the year one. That’s worked out well, hasn’t it?

    Having large numbers of children is an indicator of confidence in the future of one’s culture. Some groups have it, and other don’t. And the future belongs to those who show up. You might not like the groups that are likely to show up–Muslims, sub-Saharans, whatever–but they will be the future, like it or not, given the slow demographic suicide of the West thanks to a collapse of Western cultural self-confidence.

    If you don’t like the idea of exploding populations of people whose culture you don’t like, there is exactly one thing to do about it: Explode your own population. Quit bitching about Israel, Jared Kushner, divorce-thief women, or whatever, quit preening about how “enlightened” you are with population sensitivity, “one and done,” and so forth. Think about Charles Martel, defender of the West against Islam in 732. He had ten children. So should you.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    , @Spangel
    , @Herbert West
  83. Jesse says:
    @Charlotte Allen

    You know, considering that the SSA plan for feeding all these people is that YT will figure something out, it IS our business.

    And as for “exploding” our own populations, that’s trucon horseshit. They want to open borders to the cheap and recipients of their (taxpayer funded) largesse. And then they want to use it as a gun to the natives’ heads to force them to have litters they don’t want.

    And if you don’t want to live in Third World conditions with a gaggle of brats you never wanted, these same people will make mocking catcalls about “the culture of death” and how “childish” we all are.

    Newsflash: Women having 2-3 kids a piece would be GREAT. A stable population would be a godsend, especially in an age of automation. But that goes against the fundie tenets, so they have to bully normal people. That way, they get to prop up their membership with hordes of barbarians, get ever more taxpayer money to feed the poor they’ve imported/created, and either bring the native born people in line or feel like they deserved it when they die out.

    Christ. No wonder everyone hates you.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  84. @Lot

    With all due respect, we are not “rapidly converting away from coal and oil.” That is delusional.

    See BP’s annual statistical report on global energy use. Latest one published in June.

    • Replies: @Lot
  85. Spangel says:
    @Charlotte Allen

    There is actually nothing inherent or unchangeable about Africans that makes them insist on wanting 10 children each.

    Many black populations are at replacement- in Jamaica, in the us, even in some sub Saharan countries.

    Exploding our own population is not necessary and even if we were to do so, there is no reason we shouldn’t simultaneously aim to reduce their population.

    There is no example of a country anywhere today that has a tfr over 5 and has a decent standard of living. There are examples of countries where the black tfr is under control. I suggest living in reality and aiming for something we see is feasible- reducing black tfr worldwide.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  86. @Jesse

    Climate change has been taking place for four billion years. We aren’t going to stop it now.

  87. “The Vermont senator told a TV debate that women “in poor countries” should have access to birth control.”

    Why not put the pedal to the metal and give them a top of the line computer with internet access too?

  88. Did anyone ever solve the mystery of who the funders of the Georgia Guidestones are?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

  89. @Charlotte Allen

    “If you don’t like the idea of exploding populations of people whose culture you don’t like, there is exactly one thing to do about it: Explode your own population.“

    Nah, I’m personally quite fine with exploding African populations. It is their reproductive increase I find less desirable.

  90. Recently the Amazon rainforest fires got heads of state talking about how what Brazil (and Venezuela, Colombia…) does to the forest is not only its own business, it’s the world’s business, due to climate change/global warming. Which is fair. What happens there does plausibly affect the entire planet. But whether Africa has 1 billion or 4 billion people is also not only Africa’s business, but the world’s, as it affects everyone and everything. Or would saying that be racist and colonialist?

  91. @El Dato

    She’s a gal, Dato – but I don’t know what size of cup.

  92. Sparkon says:
    @Jesse

    I know it may be difficult for you, but he specified “anthropogenic climate change” as opposed to “climate change.”

    Anthropogenic means man-made.

    Words have meaning. Ignore them at your peril.

  93. @Jesse

    Perhaps Reverend Malthus will step up to take care of things.

  94. @Jesse

    The myth is that it’s caused by humans and governments need total power to reverse it. That’s the myth which triggers resistance, not the fact that the climate is always changing.

  95. @Intelligent Dasein

    200 lb? Whoa, don’t sell those Ethiopians short, you raciss. That’s 220 lb, so now we’re talking some serious CO2.*

    Other than that wanna-be-Takimag-commenter remark, yes there is often nobody around anymore to ask DIMS. (Does It Make Sense?)

    .

    * Whaddya’ think, they just wrote “tonnes” like that just due to the usual British spelling stupidity?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  96. @Hypnotoad666

    Maybe it’s because Bernie’s not a socialist.(?)

  97. @DH13

    I agree with your first 2 paragraphs, DH13 and thanks for the wattsupwiththat link. I will defend Steve Sailer on this one, since it’s his sleepy time. I think Mr. Sailer gives some credence* to the man-made Global Climate Disruption(TM) business, or at least (same as J. Derb on the latter) that the global climate has definitely been warming up on the timeline of the alarmists. He is not a science guy himself (“wait, this is defending him?”)

    I don’t at all agree, just based on the basic point of there being NO WORKING MODEL OF THE EARTH’S CLIMATE, period. I have experience with math. modeling of scientific/engineering processes and, for all the goings-on in the entire planet’s climate (atmosphere of varying composition, varying land cover, ocean aborption, ocean current, cloud cover/albedo, shall I go on?), no it’s not happening.

    Al Gore is a lying sack of shit. He lives, since he left his 10,000 sq-ft mansion in Tennessee, in coastal California, jets around the world to conferences (exhausting C02, but more importantly tons, no wait, TONNES, of water vapor), and then told us we wouldn’t see snow anymore in America by ’15**.

    Steve Sailer is honest about it, based on his, IMO, slightly erroneous acceptance of some of this climate hoax.

    .

    * Speaking of Creedence and the advantage of a lower population, here is an obscure great tune from a time when America had not much more than 1/2 the population of today, and you could walk those ties and maybe not see a soul:

    ** Actually, on that one, he’s right, you know. Everyone is looking at phone screens and doesn’t even see that white stuff.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  98. Antonio_G says:

    Of course, everybody knew, or had to know, that Crazy Bernie was talking about Third World population control, because that’s the only population that is growing. The U.S., all of Europe, Russia, Japan and probably every other developed country in the world is either at or below replacement levels of live births. So, he couldn’t have been talking about those countries.

    Why are poor people and immigrants to America, who presumably would vote Democrat, okay with this insane idea? Don’t they realize that this is aimed at them?

  99. @For what it's worth

    God bless anyone who wants to reproduce the species. If you aren’t, then why not?

    One obvious (but incomplete) answer is that we’re being taxed to pay for the babies of others. It’s called parasitic castration, and we’re suffering from it like crazy.

  100. Wilkey says:
    @For what it's worth

    “If the Africans are breeding, God bless them.”

    They’re breeding, alright. Their population is up 50% – by over 400 million people – in just the last 20 years. Continue that kind of growth for another 60 years and they’ll have over 4 billion people.

    Of course that kind of growth won’t continue because it probably can’t. The manner in which it doesn’t continue – Famine? War? Disease? Mass migration into the West? – should be of great interest to all of us, because inevitably people will try to guilt us into helping them.

    Africa can’t even support the people it has now. How they’re going to support billions more is a mystery.

    • Replies: @notsaying
  101. @Anonymous

    I am shocked that nonwhites support the candidate running on the free stuff for all platform who is a lifelong sympathizer with mass murderers. So unlike them.

  102. @houston 1992

    This is just more–probably trial lawyer inspired–whining. Of course delivery vehicles kill people. Cars and trucks on the road kill people. Send your Christmas present to your niece … someone could end up dead. Jump in your car to go to the grocery … someone could end up dead.

    Amazon ships huge amounts of stuff so their deliveries must kill more people.

    However, they are also big enough to push forward with potential improvements like drone delivery which could take a lot of truck traffic off the road and make the “last mile” through your neighborhood quite a bit safer.

  103. bomag says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Personally, I mostly hate socialism. But somehow I like Bernie. I am not sure why. Maybe it’s only because I assume he could never win.

    Similar sentiments with me.

    Partly his energy and theatrics.

    Partly I’m not against a safety net, and in favor of push-back against excess; but when made an explicit political strategy, it doesn’t turn out well. So Bernie’s good to voice it, but not win.

  104. nymom says:

    Frankly this is the first thing Bernie Sanders ever said that I completely agree with…

  105. nymom says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Right like if we opened ‘every’ border in the world just as many people would be running into Iran, Syria and Russia as would be heading into Europe, Australia and the US…let’s get real please.

  106. MB says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    This is why Mad magazine went out of business.
    Reality finally trumped satire.

    Neither is that guy on the Wheaties box who you think he is.
    Nor is he who he thinks he is.

    But maybe our progressive liberal cognitive elite betters can be persuaded to stop breathing long enough for the carbon count to go down.
    Maybe not permanently, but enough for the moment.
    I’d be good with that.

  107. nymom says:
    @Anon

    I don’t understand what is taking those ‘yellow vests’ so long to get Macron out of office…they have been having a slow-moving revolt for 30 weeks now and he’s still out there publicly hosting conferences, news conferences, dinners, making comments about everything from immigration to the Iran deal…

    The French have really gone downhill in my opinion on their french revolutionary skills…

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  108. @Jesse

    I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m for open borders. But I gather that you don’t like Christians much.

    Why is it America’s job to keep other countries’ birth rates down?

    • Replies: @Jesse
  109. jej says:
    @Laurence Whelk

    you are a very very stupid child. may i recommend a film?

    Lawrence? Lawrence what… of Arabia?

    Private Gomer Pyle : Sir, no, sir.

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman : That name sounds like royalty. Are you royalty?

    Private Gomer Pyle : Sir, no, sir.

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman : Do you suck dicks?

    Private Gomer Pyle : Sir, no, sir.

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman : Bullshit. I bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

    Private Gomer Pyle : Sir, no, sir.

    Gunnery Sergeant Hartman : I don’t like the name Lawrence, only faggots and sailors are called Lawrence. From now on you’re Gomer Pyle.

    Private Gomer Pyle : Sir, yes, sir.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  110. @Spangel

    There’s no country in the industrialized world (with its “decent” standards of living) that has a replacement-level fertility rate among its non-immigrant population–except, possibly Israel, which seems to be just about making it. That’s a sobering thought, and it’s why European governments are desperately looking for ways to encourage their women to bear more babies.

    When fertility goes below replacement-level, there’s catastrophic demographic decline. That’s simple math. Demographic decline is the sure road to population extinction.

    Perhaps sub-Saharan women will decide they want to have one or zero kids apiece. Perhaps Muslims will decide that it’s cooler for their young women to be picking up guys in bars instead of marrying early. But right now, the demographic trends say otherwise–and all the Bill Gates-funded or U.S. government-funded “education” in the world isn’t going to change that.

    How are “we” supposed to “reduce” other countries’ populations?

  111. J.Ross says:
    @jej

    I am confused by this recitation of the jarhead’s universally memorized holy text, sir. Was your meaning that Bernie is a murderous yet cowardly little thug not because of blood-thirsty communism but because he has a vaguely gangstery first name? If that’s the case, what does that make Donald or Angela or Emmanuel or Vladimir*?
    *(actually no, Vladimir acts just like a Vladimir. But all the others are way off.)

  112. @Achmed E. Newman

    Global Climate Disruption

    It is a cargo cult.

    If you say it is real government and private wealth grants miraculously appear in your bank account or you get great job offers.

    So it must be real!

  113. Jesse says:
    @eah

    South Korea has a birthrate of 0.9 (yes, really) and half of their pregnancies are aborted. Turns out their hyper competitive and patriarchal society doesn’t work, huh? Not to mention the practise of selling off hundreds of thousands of their own babies.

    Japan has a birthrate of 1.4. China has a massively lower number of births than they expected after stopping the 1 child policy (which I actually sympathize with them over, but still). Yes, they have their own countries but they’re also willingly committing suicide. Let’s not look to them.

  114. Jesse says:
    @Charlotte Allen

    Because – and I will type this slowly because I know you can’t read gud – their entire plan for feeding them is that YT will figure it out. That makes it our business. Let Americans sort out American problems. Let Africa sort out Africa’s problems. That means we stop supporting them – and in fairness, we also atop taking their smart people – and they stay home.

    And no, I don’t like Christians. All through the West, their entire plan to respond to the collective middle finger they’re being given by native born whites is to replace them. They are treasonous snakes.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  115. Tony says:

    This is one of those rare cases when I’m “Feeling the Bern.”

  116. Totally with Sanders on this. Conservatards are absolutely brain dead when it comes to abortion. Ted Cruz and his fellow pro-life zealots need to wake the F up. If they love brown and black babies so much they can move to those countries. Until then, STFU.

  117. notsaying says:
    @Wilkey

    I agree that we and Europe will be on the hook if we don’t get the birth numbers in Africa down.

    If any big organization is trying to do that though, I don’t know who it is.

    We should be trying to get birth control in there no matter whether the providing organization supports abortions in the US or whether the countries being helped support abortions in Africa.

    Nobody is willing to speak the truth out loud which is that Africa is producing far more people than they can handle. What is the plan — for them or us — if the population doesn’t stabilize?

    Certainly migration here or to Europe isn’t going to help them; the First World people will shut their doors and keep them shut.

  118. notsaying says:

    The negative responses to Bernie Sanders explains why politicians won’t speak truthfully about “controversial” issues.

    Sanders has gotten all kinds of blowback for saying something simple and real: We should help provide birth control for women who need it in Africa. If we don’t there will be terrible consequences for them and for us from overpopulation and environmental degradation.

    I agree with and support Sanders on this. I think anyone who wants a better environment for future generations should support this; if they don’t they are kidding themselves that anything we do on the environment is going to mean much.

    • Replies: @Charon
  119. ‘The Vermont senator told a TV debate that women “in poor countries” should have access to birth control. Conservatives said the remark meant the self-described democratic socialist’s climate change policy was for fewer “brown babies”.’

    the usual twaddle. conservatives can only attack or defend when it’s with regard to some other protected group.

    oh, you want there to be less third worlders! we got you! don’t even try to say anything against Israel next, or we got you double!

    what useless asshattery.

  120. Charon says:
    @notsaying

    Yep to both of your posts. But as you can see in the comments here, there’s way too much stupidity around this topic, especially among the most self-righteous.

  121. @BenKenobi

    No. Bolshevik Bernie is in the 2020 race for one reason — to get paid by the eventual Dem nominee to campaign for him. Those vacation homes don’t buy themselves you know. And he can’t very well do that if he is Trump’s VP.

  122. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    A government exporting feminism to a weaker nation is virtually an act of war. Look what it did to us.

    Agreed. I can’t think of any nation or people that I hate so much that I’d want to impose feminism on them.

  123. @Tim

    There was an interview on TV last night with a South African playing on the Japanese national rugby team. He paused when explaining why he wanted to be in Japan even though he loved his homeland. One of those pregnant pauses. I can imagine he was thinking “the truth is, I want to live.”

  124. @Mr. Anon

    It fits in with the whole (useless and naive) DR3 tactic.

    It also fits in with our anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive stance of 125 years ago. Common to all civilized countries at the time.

    You Lambeth Conference people are the problem, not the solution.

    As for the “DR3 tactic”, I’ve suggested many times to shift to a “DR4”, or “DR3.5”, tactic. Democrats are racist because they know more than Republicans, and thus right. Don’t take a stand; force the other side to.

    If the races were equal, gun control would be unnecessary. As the northern states and the UK before the 20th century demonstrate.

    Make them answer– is gun control necessary, or are the races unequal?

  125. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.nouvelobs.com/politique/20190829.OBS17707/sarkozy-tacle-greta-thunberg-si-sympathique-si-souriante-tellement-originale-dans-sa-pensee.html

    Google Translate:

    Sarkozy tackles Greta Thunberg, “so friendly, so smiling, so original in her thinking”

    The former French president seemed to mock the teenager and her beliefs, at the origin of a global movement for the climate.

    The least that can be said is that Nicolas Sarkozy does not seem to wear Greta Thunberg – nor climate advocates in general – in his heart. Invited to the summer university of Medef on Thursday, August 29, to talk about the future of capitalism, the former president did not fail to attack the 16-year-old activist, who became the muse of the fight against terrorism. global warming.

    The former head of state was speaking to the members of Medef and the entrepreneurs gathered for this meeting at the racecourse of Longchamp. Greta Thunberg? “This young Swede, so friendly, so smiling, so original in her thinking,” said Nicolas Sarkozy, seeming to ignore the beliefs of the teenager, the origin of a global movement for the climate, while he was questioned about the global overpopulation.

    “When I was born, it was not so long ago, there were 2.5 billion people,” said Nicolas Sarkozy. And to add: “At the end of the century, we will be 11 billion. But it’s done. Whatever we decide, it’s done. ”

    Because, according to the former President of the Republic, “the shock is not a climatic shock, to which we must provide an answer, but the biggest global shock is the demographic shock.”

    “Climate disruption, the world has experienced, which led some to the disappearance of 80% of species of life,” says Nicolas Sarkozy. “But a demographic shock like the one we are experiencing, the world has never known. A shock that will cause a crisis, according to the former head of state:

    “In thirty years, Nigeria will have more inhabitants than the United States of America. I say that the migration crisis has not started. She is coming.”

    Moreover, according to Nicolas Sarkozy, there is a link between population and pollution. “This is the first source of pollution. For wanting to promote sustainable development without asking the question of the explosion of global demography, that is a question. ”

    “Lagos today is 22 million people. If you think that with the sorting, one will solve the problems of Lagos. Twenty-two million people who consume well, it hurts more than a million people who consume badly.”

    For Nicolas Sakorzy, the real question is this: “How many human beings can live on this planet at the same time? And then also: “But do we see that all the species of the living one day are destined to disappear by overpopulation or impoverishment of resources? And do we think that for us, humans, it will not arise? ” The former head of state is in any case ” quite fascinated to see the discussion on climate and embarrassment when we discuss the evolution of global demography . ” And to advocate for a global organization that would follow the evolution of the population. But without Greta Thunberg.

    • Replies: @Charon
    , @notsaying
  126. @Achmed E. Newman

    You’re right, of course. I was only going for approximate values, trusting that my intended readership would be savvy enough to elide the distinction. But certainly one should not introduce errors into one’s work, no matter how irrelevant, lest they provide grist for those who would seize upon them wherewith to invalidate your larger point.

  127. @Charlotte Allen

    Don’t let your gainsayers get you down. You’re trying to talk sense in front of a bunch of HBD nitwits and Heartiste bootlicking incels. They don’t want to hear it. They like their echo chambers.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  128. @Charlotte Allen

    When fertility goes below replacement-level, there’s catastrophic demographic decline. That’s simple math.

    No, it’s not. It’s not *any* math. It’s a silly (and false) extrapolation.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  129. @For what it's worth

    Yours is a stone-age mentality. It is beautifully expressed in the Bible’s imperative: Be fruitful and multiply! But this part of the stone-age mentality has wrong consequences in our times because getting pregnant now is not happening in the stone-age any longer. (cf. Being and Time/M. Heidegger). – That’s why the number of surviving babies is so high now. Scientific and social progress and stone-age mentality yield those four African billions at the end our century, which might well be too much.

  130. Mr. Anon says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Don’t let your gainsayers get you down. You’re trying to talk sense in front of a bunch of HBD nitwits and Heartiste bootlicking incels. They don’t want to hear it. They like their echo chambers.

    To judge from your site-stats, nobody much likes your echo chamber.

    • Agree: Charon, HammerJack
  131. @Jesse

    I can’t read gud–what is “YT”? The Urban Dictionary says “YouTube.”

  132. @ben tillman

    Not in Germany. Hence Mutter Merkel’s welcome mat for “Syrians.”

  133. Lot says:
    @Johnny Rico

    Coal use in the USA is dropping very fast.

    By oil I meant specifically for utility power plants. It was never a big source of electricity but it went down rapidly too and is now 1% of power produced and 3% of capacity. I agree oil for transportation fuel isn’t going to change much.

  134. Charon says:
    @Anonymous

    Sarkozy sounds like he has his head on straight. Can you imagine the planet with only 2.5 billion people? It must have been heaven.

  135. @YetAnotherAnon

    “Orbán, who has based his political campaigns in recent years on anti-refugee and anti-migration sentiment, said other European politicians saw immigration as the solution, but he firmly rejected this, tapping into the far-right “great replacement” theory.”

    Let’s parse this statement out into elements.

    >European populations are shrinking
    >Europeans are trying to figure out ways to fix it.
    >anti-refugee/anti-migration sentiment exists in some countries (which we can imply is bad because of the source)
    >Some Europeans think policies designed to grow their own fertility levels are the way to go
    >Some Europeans think policies designed to increase immigration are the way to go
    >”Great replacement theory” is a far-right idea (typically characterized as a conspiracy theory)

    Do they not realize when they type this shit out what they are saying?

  136. notsaying says:
    @Anonymous

    I am glad to see one of the EU leaders is talking about overpopulation and its consequences.

    Population and its control was one of the big topics of the 1970s and now everybody’s afraid to talk about it. It’s one of those things where we’ve gone backward, not forward, through the years.

    I wonder if the African themselves talk about it or have any plans about doing something about it. I have never heard anything about that. They have so many current problems it’s hard for them to focus on the future but without taking steps about overpopulation they have no future.

  137. notsaying says:
    @Charlotte Allen

    Demographic decline is the sure road to population extinction.

    I would like to see you prove that. You are claiming that if a group of people — or of animals, I assume the same forces would apply to them — doesn’t increase that they die out. That seems wrong on its face. There is no reason that

    The US was doing its best at around 200 million people, maybe even less. Now we are around 325 million and our population is rapidly expanding due to immigration. Our own native born people often don’t feel they can have the second or third child they really want. It would seem to me that we should consider aiming for a slowly declining population that eventually stabilizes so that there are enough resources for all and that our native born people feel free to have the children they want.

    The world is under environmental strain and yet you insist everyone has to keep on expanding their populations or the human population of 7.5 billion will somehow disappear. I look forward to seeing you back this up with some facts.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  138. @Chrisnonymous

    I doubt that Africa’s actual population numbers any more than 300 million, and most of that is in the Maghreb. Outside of the large colonial cities, sub-Saharan Africa is practically empty. There would already be mass starvation and misery everywhere were this not the case.

    • Replies: @notsaying
  139. Bill B. says:
    @For what it's worth

    What do you actually propose?

    (Doing about the World’s Most Important graph).

    Assuming you are not a troll. Our host has indicated with crystal clarity that the West needs to enact a strong borders policy with extreme urgency or risk being utterly ruined by an African tsunami.

    Hanging in the air is the thought that Africa is facing utter disaster from an exploding population that no imaginable exodus will avert. I was talking recently to a Bangladeshi diplomat who pointed out that by promoting the idea that parents should invest in the heath and education of their children his country has brought the Total Fertility Rate down from seven per female to 2.1 or mere replacement level.

    If African leaders are at all concerned by the approaching Armageddon it is not obvious.

    Why in the name of God does the argument about birth control and abortion not focus on what is good for Africans in Africa?

  140. @notsaying

    My proof: Germany. When there’s no replacement-level fertility in the native population, it will decline: It’s like compound interest: a dwindling population without replacement-level fertility means even more dwindling in the second generation.

    I don’t “insist that everyone has to keep on expanding their population.” I’m saying that if the industrialized West doesn’t keep its fertility at replacement level or better, it will die. This is why most European countries lack the will to fight the demographic sweep of Islam. And we’re already in trouble in the U.S.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  141. notsaying says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I know that nothing I say will convince you but I just looked it up and Africa’s official population is 1.3 billion, which puts it a billion over your estimate, which is less than the current population of the US.

    There is plenty of misery in Africa already which is why so many of its people have left the countryside and headed to overcrowded cities full of shantytowns and why the lucky few who can afford to try to reach Europe in those ridiculously unseaworthy rubber boats. The problems of Africa are enormous and projected to get bigger, including its population. If they don’t stop having so many babies they will kill each other by the millions in never-ending fights over scarce resources and will ruin the land they are living on with environmental problems.

    God knows what will happen.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  142. @Charlotte Allen

    I don’t “insist that everyone has to keep on expanding their population.” I’m saying that if the industrialized West doesn’t keep its fertility at replacement level or better, it will die. This is why most European countries lack the will to fight the demographic sweep of Islam. And we’re already in trouble in the U.S.

    Charlotte,

    At the mathematical level there is no argument. One must ultimately end up at–averaging– replacement. Below that you eventually die, above that you eventually end up stacked up like cordwood.

    But at the sociological level, the argument is over:
    a) whether sub-replacement fertility is recoverable?
    and
    b) is sub-replacement fertility the driver of the West’s decline or is sub-replacement fertility driven by–or at least reinforced by–the decline

    I maintain the answer to a) is clearly “yes”. There’s no reason it’s a permanent condition. In fact, in terms of natural selection, if the environment is sufficient to support more people, then what clearly will happen is the “breeders”–their genetic and cultural traits–are selected for and become progressively larger shares of the population. As that happens, recovery–slow at first–becomes more rapid in each succeeding generation.

    My answer to b) is more complex. But i think reduced fertility is a “natural” by product of urbanization, industrialization, modern medicine, modernity. And then the birth control pill was sort of an “exogenous shock”–though obviously not really exogenous–on top of that.

    But i do not think sub-replacement fertility is responsible for the decline of the West. As noted, we’d “naturally” recover from these birth-control technological “shocks” through selection for “breeder” traits.

    Rather it’s clear to me that this ideology minoritarianism–minorities good, majorities bad and in particular hostility against white gentile nations–is the root of the West’s decline.

    It is designed to weaken white nations and make them penetrable and manipulable. It strips white nations of taking pride and meaning in their culture, their traditions, their religion, their history and their race. Thus piling onto to the challenges of modernity and the Pill, so that whites are stripped of any *reason* to reproduce.

    And then–the devastating weapon–immigrationism, “nation of immigrants”ism serves to completely balkanize nations, progressively destroying national race and culture–further undermining the goal of reproduction. While at the same time, the immigrant replacement population directly makes “family formation” unafforable, further suppressing native fertility.

    Basically immigrationism–by design–destroys the “natural” fertility recovery that nations will experience after the modernity “shock” as “breeder” traits are selected for. It is an intentionally genocidal ideology. When someone says “nation of immigrants”, he means “your people should be extinguished”.

    So in sum my answer is fixing white fertility is not the key–and in the absence of defeating minoritarianism/immigrationism probably can not be done.

    Rather the key is an immigration stop and completely defeating minoritarianism–pulling it out root and branch. Do that and white fertility will gradually, then dramatically recover as whites recover their sense of belonging–being linked to the past and future of their nations–and have reason to reproduce, and breeder whites are increasing portions of their nation’s populations.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  143. @notsaying

    What to do then? The folly of good intentions has helped to make Africa into a basket case. Prior to Western man’s sticking his nose in with foreign aid, Africa produced enough food on its own thru subsistence farming to keep its overpopulation in check. Sure, the infant mortality rate must have been high. And there must have been pestilence and famines. And wars also helped.

    But rich Westerners felt something had to be done for those poor war ravaged, fly-covered children in Biafra and Sudan, with pictures of distended bellies and sticks for arms and legs. Yes, looking at those dying children tears at ones heartstrings. But sympathetic Westerners providing help has made the overpopulation crisis. As a result, they are now, in great numbers, exporting their surplus population into the West. And no one in the fast-sinking Woke West seems to have any idea what to do about it.

    Two wise old sayings come to mind: Life is Tragic. And, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

  144. Spangel says:
    @Charlotte Allen

    We should reduce African populations by paying individual women to use long term birth control methods such as uterine implants and providing them with abortions (and giving them a free lunch and some hair braiding services while they get it).

    We should look into policies that have reduced black birth rates in third world nations as models. We can also offer African women make work jobs for small hourly wages so they don’t have any economic incentive to keep having babies.

    It is insane to believe the African population explosion is something the world can handle in the long term.

    As Africa’s population explodes, keeping that population in Africa requires a permanent and completely unanimous effort of non African nations to ban them from migrating. Once even one non African nation starts letting them in, they can keep bringing relatives there or easily cross borders into neighboring nations.

    The idea that there could be a permanent unanimous effort to keep Africans out is not reality. The best policy we can take is to aggressively try to reduce African fertility now.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  145. @Spangel

    Abortions, free lunches, hair-braiding lessons, and make-work jobs.

    Isn’t that the Democratic Party platform?

    Vote Democratic in 2020! You’ll have a huge choice of presidential candidates, every one of whom endorses the above.

    • Replies: @Rob
  146. Rob says:
    @Charlotte Allen

    Charlotte,

    How many of those 4,000 million Africans are you planning on taking in? They will strip Africa. First of wild animals. Then domestic animals. Then the plants. The forests will be turned to charcoal for cooking. The grasslands will be denuded by overgrazing. The winds will blow away the soil. Billions, maybe virtually all of them, will die of hunger and thirst. They can’t grow forever without crashing brutally. Encouraging African population growth is genocidal.

    The African population explosion is not even natural. It’s not driven by ingenious technology they’ve developed drastically raising the carrying capacity. They’re not having an industrial revolution. It’s driven by Western aid and high commodity prices from a booming China. There don’t seem to be any brakes that aren’t swamped by additional reproduction of other Africans. Drop the fertility in one village, and their neighbors will make up for it. Voluntary birth control probably won’t be enough, but it’s a start. We aren’t talking about a one child policy. Bernie just wants some of the aid we provide to go towards quality over quantity of children. A family with with three children is more likely to be able to afford school fees, and literally than that same family with nine more. If Africans can start climbing the development ladder, they might have a shot at development. Of meeting the middle of the century where Bangladesh was thirty years ago.

    • Replies: @Charlotte Allen
  147. @Rob

    I’m not planning on taking in any Africans. I don’t believe in open borders. Nor do I believe in spending my tax dollars on abortion, either here in the U.S. or anywhere else.

    But the Democrats love abortion–here, there, everywhere, right up to birth. If you want abortions galore in Africa at U.S. expense, vote Democratic.

  148. The single best way to lower CO2 emissions in the near future would be to switch electricity production from coal to nuclear, but Bernie Sanders considers that a “false solution”. Bernie has also gone back on reasonable stuff he used to say on immigration. His sole purpose is to convince us goys that we have meaningful choices in this controlled political system.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS