web analytics

GO FORTH AND DO NOT FORNICATE..

By ATWadmin On February 1st, 2009

Hey, did you know that couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment? So says the government’s Green adviser!

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

I suggest Mr Porritt takes his interesting ideas and engages in dilaogue with Britain’s colourful and oh so fertile Muslims, who sorry to say are having many more than just two children. Once he’s won their hearts and minds, he can then use his contacts to stop the government’s IVF programme…then we can pay attention to him! In the meantime go forth and multiply…

70 Responses to “GO FORTH AND DO NOT FORNICATE..”

  1. At last, someone has finally said it! The ‘p’ word has become almost unacceptable to mention these days, yet it is our number one problem. Abortion should become more accessible and contraception too.

    David: The world does not revolve around the Muslims. They are not to blame for everything. There are other problems that need to be dealt with.

  2. Abortions to save the Planet – catchy slogan.

  3. Maybe the Muslim birthrate would fall if they followed the example of the ‘Perfect Man’ and had sex with corpses.

    A year or so ago Green Arrow wrote an article on the superstitious Muslim belief in the Torture of the Grave: http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/torture-of-grave-haunts-many-muslims.html

    Well, some more information has come to light on this topic due to the investigations of Father Zakaria Botros, a courageous Arabic-speaking Christian priest who the Muslims have nominated as ‘the most wanted infidel in the world’ with a fatwa worth $60M on his head.
    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/01/cair-issues-ummah-alert-on-father.html

    Mohammed had sex with the body of his dead aunt, in an attempt to spare her from the ‘torture of the grave’ . Well that was his story. Kuffars may be of the opinion that he was a filthy, sick, perverted Satanist.

    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/01/mohammed-necrophile.html

  4. Britain is not over populated. Our birth rate is below replacement level and if it falls much further we are going to be well and truly f***ed when the baby boom generation retires over the next 10 to 20 years. If anything our birthrate probably need to increase a bit.

    Globally there is not an overpopulation problem, estimates of peak population have been falling for decades. There is a potential problem in Africa and parts of the Middle East but that won’t be solved by halfwits like Porrit demonising people in the West who have more than 2 children.

  5. welcome to China

  6. Was there not another eco facist fundamentalist who wanted anyone who questioned the gospel of man made global warming prosecuted?

  7. NRG,

    "Was there not another eco facist fundamentalist who wanted anyone who questioned the gospel of man made global warming prosecuted?"

    Not that I know of. Who was it?

  8. you frank…lol

  9. Troll, try not to lie. And let NRG make up his own.

  10. ‘Britain is not over populated.’

    It clearly is. An Island the size of Britain’s cannot support its present population in the longterm. It is way over its carrying capacity. How do you think Britain can sustain a larger population is the future? I am going to take a guess, you don’t.

    ‘If anything our birthrate probably need to increase a bit.’

    Right … interesting. Does the recognition of realistic physical limits cross your mind at all?

    I see this is a ”feeling’ you have, not a logical or rational

  11. -y formed opinion!

  12. Britain is over-populated: that is fact. However the measures necessary to prevent further over-population don’t sit well with the left’s plan for rendering whites a minority as soon as possible.
    A good start would be henceforth (i.e.in 9 months’ time) to restrict child benefit to the first two children borne of any woman.

  13. "An Island the size of Britain’s cannot support its present population in the longterm. It is way over its carrying capacity. "

    So you aren’t merely claiming that we will be overpopulated but that we are right now! That is alamist Ehrlichesque drivel. Can we not produce enough food? No we are overproducing as it is. Are we going to run out of water? Not likely. Are we going to run out of energy, maybe but only because we aren’t building any power generation units. So even if there was no such thing as internation trade we aren’t anywhere near carrying capacity.

  14. Ross

    Most countries are overpopulated. It takes 10 calories of fossil fuels (yes Troll, oil is biological!) to make one calorie of food. That means, without oil or gas, we could make, maybe, 10% of the food we now make. Oil will peak in the next 10 to 15 years and gas, maybe, 10 years later.

    You tell me, how can we make enough food to feed all these people when fossil fuels begin to dry up?

    I know we are overproducing food at the moment. That is what is driving overpopulation. This food is being created by fossil fuels. We are drawing down on this infinite resource – a one off gift from nature.

    For those who are interested in humanity’s overshooting of our carrying capacity, here is a link to the Global Footprint Network report for the WWF

    Here is a talk by the Global Footprint Network Executive Director at Google It’s very interesting.

  15. From the WWF report, Britain’s footprint is between 100% and 150% greater than it’s biocapacity. It is in the worst category, along with Holland China, India and others.

    Ireland is a bit better, it’s footprint is between 0% and 50% greater than its biocapacity.

    Some countries, like Canada, Brazil and Russia have a footprint smaller than their biocapacity.

    When the proverbial hits the fan, as regards fossil fuel depletion and Global Warming, Britain will be amongst the worst hit. Canada and Brazil may well become the new superpowers.

  16. Guba,

    "This food is being created by fossil fuels. We are drawing down on this infinite resource "

    Well therein lies the problem – it’s not infinite (as you know). And as you say we are, almost literally, eating oil.

    Besides, a food crisis has already begun. It’s all very well for ideologues to say there shouldn’t be one but in reality there is one and reality isn’t about to change. It’s just going to get worse.

  17. ‘Well therein lies the problem – it’s not infinite (as you know). And as you say we are, almost literally, eating oil.’

    Crap, Frank, i meant finite resource !!

  18. Guba, that’s what I thought. Although perhaps you’d been persuaded by Troll’s learned thesis.

  19. Frank: It is certainly difficult to argue with, i will give him that; not because it is fact-based or even logical, but because it’s so completely crazy. If he posted some reputable sources, it may make him seem less like a kook. But i convinced that he is taking the piss!

  20. Guba:

    You could be right about the Troll. I mean to say he posted this on the "victory" in Iraq thread:

    "what ever the real cost of the war I would tripple it."

    Given that cost of the war is $3 trillion, and that’s a conservative estimate, where would Troll get $6 trillion more? Would he borrow it from the Jovians? He sure as hell won’t get it from us earthlings. The planet is almost bankrupt, thanks to GWB and his unwise adventure.

  21. Ross,

    "So you aren’t merely claiming that we will be overpopulated but that we are right now! "

    He said it was unsustainable longterm, and that’s hardly a lunatic theory. All of the items you listed are likely to come under severe pressure in course of this century.

  22. Troll likes to say crazy stuff to rile us normal people up. He has a heart of gold underneath it all.

  23. Porritt is 100% correct.

    The rate of increase in the human population of this planet dwarfs all other threats to the future, apart from nuclear war.

    When the oil runs out there will be mass starvation for decades, until the planet gets back to its carrying capacity of maybe 4 billion or so, that is less than half of the projected peak of 9 billion by 2050.

  24. "He said it was unsustainable longterm, and that’s hardly a lunatic theory. All of the items you listed are likely to come under severe pressure in course of this century."

    How so? Our birth rate is below replacement level so that it’s likely that our population will be declining by then and the peak population isn’t projected to be vastly higher than it is now. We aren’t short of water or arable land so that leaves energy which we won’t run out of unless the government refuses to create any more power generation facilities (be it nuclear, renewable or whatever).

  25. Ross,

    Even for food, arable land probably isn’t the limiting factor (see Liebig’s law of the minimum) and at present a lot of oil and fertliser is used to get food calories as Guba pointed out. Also people don’t just want food to eat, they want meat, and they also want to have a lifestyle more than basic survival.

    Also it’s one thing to say the UK can sustain this population now, but a lot of things are likely to be different by the end of the century, and it seems mostly not for the better.

  26. –they want meaT–

    Just as many Europeans are going veggie, the east Asians want more meat.

    Maybe there will be a turn to less meat per person. There are a lot of convincing sounding arguments to be made for that.

  27. Phantom,

    I think that’s quite likely or at least will be the first sign of things going bad. Meat will become even more of a luxury item than it is.

  28. Frank, Colm, Pete

    Check your e-mail

  29. The problem is that we are overshooting our carry capacity and drawing down on our fossil fuel resources; a one off, but finite boost to our carrying capacity.

    You can get more out of your carrying capacity in the short-term by overexploitation. This short-term boost will damage our permanent carrying capacity severally in the long-term.

    We are, thus, facing two problems: firstly, we are quickly using up fossil fuels, which give us a phanthom carrying capacity. When this phanthom carrying capacity expires (within the next 20-30 years) we will have to, once again, depend on our permanent, much smaller, carrying capacity. What will happen? The ecological term for it is a die-off. Humans, on the top of the food-chain, will be hardest hit.

    The second problem that we face is that we are damaging the planets biocapacity through overexploitation and pollution. We are, thus, also damaging our permanent carrying capacity. The result? An even greater die-off.

    You think this is too far-fetched? You think that we wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually put our species in such mortal danger? Well, remember Easter Island. Humanity is more than capable of committing ecological suicide.

  30. I do not disagree.

    And there are likely other examples apart from Easter Island, as you would know.

  31. Easter Island, of course, is an extreme example, but an apt one. It was, like this planet, a single independent ecosystem. They had one island; they screwed it up. We have one p[anet and we are, sure as hell, screwing it up too!

    The Norse colony in Greenland and the Anasazi of the modern day USA.

    There are modern examples too, like Rwanda and Haiti. I would recommend you all to read Jared Diamond’s excellent book, ‘Collapse’. It is, i think, one of the most important books written in modern times and is a harbinger of what is to come.

  32. ‘The Norse colony in Greenland and the Anasazi of the modern day USA.’ are other examples of societs that committed ecological suicide.

  33. That was a great read Guba, as was his book "Guns Germs and Steel. Some don’t care for what I think is called enviromental determanism, but he made a great case.

  34. Yes Charles, i agree, it is a fantastic book. I have never actually read ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’, but saw the documentary on discovery i think. I hear, however, that it did not do the book justice.

    You may be interested in this book too Charles: Overshoot by Richard Catton. It is quite dry and academic, but is wonderfully informative. If you liked ‘Collapse’, then you have got to read it.

    This picture always stroke me. It is the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic on the Island of Hispaniola. Both these countries got independence at around the same time. Haiti was, initially, a great deal wealthier. Nowadays, Haiti, is, of course, a hellhole. The Dominican Republic, while still quite poor, is in a far better position. The primary reason is not Governance (both countries have suffered from horrible dictatorships), but there treatment of there environment. Haiti has cut down practically all of its forests, it has lost a huge number of species and its agricultural land has been eroded and denuded. Its farmers barely eke out a living. This is what we are doing to the entire planet. We are turning it into one big Haiti.

  35. It is William Catton, not Richard Catton who penned ‘Overshoot’.

  36. Guba

    Yes indeed.

    "Collapse" should be required reading for all politicians in all countries, and it should be a set text for all school pupils aged 16.

  37. Guba

    I think that Jared Diamond has a chapter of Haiti – Dominican Republic which is based on that photo from space in Collapse.

  38. Ya, that is where i remember it from. This is the photo that was in the book, i think. It is probably better and more stark.

  39. Thanks Guba, I like the books dry and academic!

  40. Crap! It’s the same photo, just closer in and black and white. Nevermind!

    ‘Thanks Guba, I like the books dry and academic!’

    That makes two of us!

  41. Nowadays, Haiti, is, of course, a hellhole. The Dominican Republic, while still quite poor, is in a far better position. The primary reason is not Governance (both countries have suffered from horrible dictatorships), but there treatment of there environment. Haiti has cut down practically all of its forests, it has lost a huge number of species and its agricultural land has been eroded and denuded. Its farmers barely eke out a living. This is what we are doing to the entire planet. We are turning it into one big Haiti.

    Sunday, February 1, 2009 at 10:49PM | GUBA

    No Guba. Why don’t you look at who constitute the respective populations? On one side, there are Africans, and on the other, there are non-Africans. On one side, there is the African outcome, and on the other……

  42. ‘Why don’t you look at who constitute the respective populations? ‘

    Humans i guess, or is one populated by lizard people?

    Dominicans are predominately of mixed race, while Haitians are black. Both countries have had very similar political backgrounds. The point i was making is that Haiti took a George Bush-like environmental direction and the Dominican Republic followed a more strict policy.

    So, blacks pay as much heed to these enviro-wackos as you do. Does that mean that they are more civilized than your beloved mulattoes?

  43. You may as well blame the French or Spanish systems of colonization.

    Bush is unfairly blamed though. He set aside a great amt of the Pacific as a no fish, no go area.

  44. Charles

    Absolutely correct – that vast area off Hawaii was declared a reserve when I was in Hawaii, and it was big news there.

    But most here or in most places never heard of this move, and give him zero credit for it if they did

  45. Good point Charles.

    Bush has an appalling record on environmental protection – he was generally against it. But the Pacific reserve may offset that in the years to come, so long as it is properly policed and enforced.

  46. ‘Bush is unfairly blamed though.’

    I do not think that he is blamed nearly enough. Bush is the reason that action on Global Warming has been nearly stagnant for a decade. That is the big environmental issue of the modern world.

    Non-American’s may not have heard about it, because it is not big news. Less than 3% of the seas are protected. It is literally, but a drop in the ocean. We would have heard and applauded him if he had made large investments in solar and wind technology or introduce stricter CAFE standards. He was not a friend of the environment. It is as simple as that.

  47. Guba

    The Bush hatred is stupid

    The Kyoto treaty was informally and unanimously rejected by the US Senate. And Bill Clinton did not say boo.

    You may say that Bush did not lead, but neither did his predecessor, and neither did the legislative branch. Some of the fiercest opponents of any environmental legislation have come over the decades from the Michigan and midwest Democratic legislators

  48. Indeed Phanton. Guba, at least give Bush credit where it is due.

  49. Phanthom:

    That may be true, but it peeves me off when i think that Al Gore could have (should have) been President. Whatever you think of him, he would have taken a lead on this issue. He was, after all, one of the founders of the modern environmental movement. If Gore had been President, the CO2 problem may well have turned out like the Ozone problem; largely dealt with.

    Bush’s party holds contempt for the environment. People like Inhofe and Palin are either genuinely stupid or downright evil. It is not just Bush, i hate, nut his whole party.

  50. nut = but !

  51. –largely dealt with–

    Don’t know. China and Russia were openly hostile to bearing any burdens. And without them, there was no deal worth signing.

  52. ‘Don’t know. China and Russia were openly hostile to bearing any burdens.’

    If the US, Europe and japan got behind a deal, China and Russia would have been pressurized to agree to stricter regulation. The deal certainly would have been worth signing.

    Most American cars would be illegal in China, because China’s emission laws are a good deal stricter than most American states. China knows very well the environmental problems it faces and is tackling them.

  53. You’d never know it by walking around Beijing.

  54. ‘You’d never know it by walking around Beijing.’

    I’ve never been, but they are new regulations and i imagine that it will take sometime before it has a real effect.

  55. I was there in 2007. The air was filthy. You could taste the coal emission in the Beijing air.

  56. If Gore had been President, the CO2 problem may well have turned out like the Ozone problem; largely dealt with.

    Way too optimistic Guba.

    The CO2 problem (assuming there is one) will take decades to solve. I’m very pessimistic for this century.

  57. "You’d never know it by walking around Beijing."

    Mostly because it’s completely Untrue.

  58. In fact when I say untrue that doesn’t go far enough, it isn’t simply not correct, it is the precise opposite of reality:

    "It’s been more than three years since Chinese auto makers first sent chills down Detroit’s spine with plans to sell cars in the United States beginning last year. China, now the world’s second-largest automobile producer, was already selling low-cost vehicles in dozens of countries around the world at the time – with jarring success.

    But with 2008 nearing an end, not a single Chinese-made car sits in a U.S. showroom – nor is there likely to be one anytime soon. China’s ambitious plans to crack the U.S. market are woefully behind schedule. The reason: the country’s cars still haven’t met the emissions and safety standards necessary to export to the United States."

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/autos/china_cars.fortune/index.htm

    So Chinese emissions standards are more lax than American ones.

  59. Ross;

    It takes time for the emission standards to be meet, but they have introduced these new standards in in 2008. Just Google it, for god sake. I am not even going to bother posting links.

  60. Ross

    Superb homework.

    I’ve always been of the opinion that the Chinese government at all levels could care less about environmental issues.

    I have a Chinese friend who travels to Beijing and Shanghai every 2-3 months to deal with big corporations there, and he absolutely is of that opinion. Those guys don’t even want to talk about these things.

    Individual Chinese citizens are very concerned, but any serious commitment to the issue on the part of the Chinese government or corporations is a very recent thing indeed –and a a nice cash envelope will ensure that any and all new rules will not be enforced.

    I only went to Beijing and Xian, but again I know others who have been to all the big manufacturing areas – and the pollution in all those places are way off the charts, way more than you see in Korea, Japan, the old Eastern Europe, anywhere on earth.

    They see concern for the environment as a western luxury, and since they were so far behind other countries, they preferred to industrialize as rapidly as possible, and put pollution control way, way way down on the list, somewhere behind waxing the company cars twice a year.

    Guba, I will suspect that any 2008 regulations were eyewash in connection with the Beijing Olympics. Lets see what the followup is.

    They claimed that they could not afford to deal with pollution in the boom years. Think that they’ll want to spend the money now, with the Olympics a distant memory?

  61. "At last, someone has finally said it! The ‘p’ word has become almost unacceptable to mention these days, yet it is our number one problem. Abortion should become more accessible and contraception too."

    Hitler removed 10 Million "polluters" from the world and all their descendents. Hitler, finally a force for good in the world.

  62. Oh dear! I want a sustainable planet, knit my own yoghurt sandals, and all the rest of it…

    But why is it that when I hear Porrit, Gore or Monbiot (the latter actually sounds like one of those Pro-Activa bowel drinks) I want to say – with the late John Osborne – ‘fuck the planet’?

  63. Phanthom;

    Of course we will have to wait and see. It can take years for such regulation to have any effect. People, particularly in China, do not buy new cars every year!

    At least they are introducing the regulation, many US states are not.

    Seamus:

    Funny. But, alas, you are wrong. You can call whatever you want human, that does not mean that you are right.

    ‘I want to say – with the late John Osborne – ‘fuck the planet’?’

    Because you are an idiot? That is the only explanation i can think of. Do you have a better one?

  64. "Funny. But, alas, you are wrong. You can call whatever you want human, that does not mean that you are right."

    That was Hitler’s argument as well. It is a tactic shared by the Pro-Abortion lobby with the Nazis. Justificaiton by dehumanisation. Say that the people that you are butchering aren’t human and there is no moral dilema. The Jews became less than Human in the eyes of the Nazis and many Germans and thus the Holocaust was deemed acceptable by them. Similarly, the unborn child has became less than Human in the eyes of the Pro-Abortionists and thus their killing has been deemed acceptable.

    Seig Heil, Guba. Seig Heil.

  65. Seamus:

    Ya, Pro-abortionists are Nazis. I suppose you support the killing of abortion doctors too?

    Abortion is not the killing of a human and fundie cafflicks like you will never convince me that it is. It simply does not make any sense to me. Go off to Westboro Baptist church and inbreed, you would be happier there.

    Abortions for some, miniture american flags for others!

  66. Guba

    Did you get snow in Ireland yesterday?

  67. Phanthom:

    It very rarely snows here. It might snow once or twice a year. It did snow for a few hours alright, but it was very light. It didn’t stay on the ground. It is damn cold though.

  68. "Abortion is not the killing of a human and fundie cafflicks like you will never convince me that it is."

    In your opinion. In the opinion of auld Adolf the Holocaust wasn’t the killing of humans.

    "Go off to Westboro Baptist church and inbreed, you would be happier there."

    Considering that I am a Catholic, I don’t think I would be welcome in the Westboro Baptist Church.

    "Ya, Pro-abortionists are Nazis. I suppose you support the killing of abortion doctors too?"

    No, unlike you, I don’t support the murder of anyone.

  69. Seamus,

    "Funny. But, alas, you are wrong. You can call whatever you want human, that does not mean that you are right."

    That was Hitler’s argument as well."

    It’s everyone’s argument because everybody says that something isn’t a human being. So do you.

  70. Exactly, Frank. Who decides who is right and who is wrong? Who decided that an unborn child is not a human being and thus killing it is not murder yet decided that Jews were human beings and killing them was murder? Who decides these things?