In order to best protect the rights of the 6.7 billion people who already exist, we must deny the rights of sperm cells, egg cells, embryos, and fetuses by denying their right to develop into additional humans (AKA killing them).
There is simply no justification for allowing any more humans to be born in my opinion.
If I was an almighty dictator (which obviously I never will be) I would see to it that the human species went extinct. I would simply apply these 7 rules:
1) Sterilize everyone
2) Require abortions and even infanticide (to catch any non-compliance)
3) Issue the death penalty for males and females who conceive (to catch any non-compliance)
4) Outlaw industrial processes
5) Outlaw the use of existing industrial technologies
6) Outlaw globalization (trade between countries, migration between countries)
7) Outlaw post-industrial medical operations, facilities and technologies
That is because there is no historical example of any human cultures that have ever chosen to not exceed sustainable numbers.
The only time human numbers were sustainable (over 10,000 years ago) was when they lacked the technology to exceed sustainable numbers.
In short, the human species doesn't deserve to exist. They are hopeless. Humans have destroyed thousands of other species. The human species should be sterilized so that it will go extinct.
If we cannot sell a solution that would eliminate overpopulation, could we sell a solution that would at least reduce overpopulation? The more we can reduce, stop and reverse population growth, the better. If I was convinced that we could get quick results in the right direction by advocating an extremely passive baby-step measure such as a 5 child limit per person law which would at least stop people like Nadia Sulemon from breaking David Suzuki's record and slightly reduce the birth rate, then I would focus on that. But since even those efforts would be futile due to the media's undeniable control of public opinion and their dedication to growthism, I think I'll stick to advocating my honest opinion however extreme or unrealistic it may seem to the average person.
If you think I'm a "misanthrope", you are wrong. Think of what a paradise earth would be if there were only 1,000 humans worldwide. It is pro-human or humane to want a small human population because that would allow a large quality of life for each human. It is anti-human or inhumane to want a large population because that would only allow a small quality of life for each human.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A Perfect Example Of CBC's Growthist Bias
A Perfect Example Of CBC's Growthist Bias
The CBC Caters To The Corporate Elite
May 21, 2009, By: Brishen Hoff
The following is a perfect example of what I complained about to the CBC Ombudsman.
I have tape recorded and transcribed this outrageously dogmatic piece of growthist propaganda from CBC's Radio News on May 21, 12:00 PM read by Allison Dempster out of Sudbury, Ontario:
ALLISON DEMPSTER (CBC Sudbury News Reader for Northeastern Ontario):
"A new study says far fewer immigrants are coming to Northern Ontario. A professor at Ryerson University looked at census data and found most immigrants settle in Southern Ontario. The study says more should be done in small towns to attract newcomers. Chris MacInnes-Rae has this story:"
CHRIS MACINNES-RAE (CBC Sudbury Journalist):
"Professor John Shields says the trend isn't new, but when you break it down, the numbers are pretty shocking. His study found that fewer than 500 immigrants a year make the North their home. Down south: over 83,000. The study looked at over 10 years of immigration patterns, tracking how many people went to each city in the province. Shields says his research will help northern communities address this shortage:"
JOHN SHIELDS (Professor at Ryerson University):
"Given that we have this imbalance in terms of the distribution of newcomers, what can smaller communities begin to do in order to right this situation?"
CHRIS MACINNES-RAE (CBC Sudbury Journalist):
"Shields says the lack of immigrants could lead to labour shortages in the face of already aging populations. He says more must be done to attract newcomers. One way to do this is to go online. Timmins, Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie have partnered with Ontario Immigration to create websites to promote their cities abroad. Susan Beaulieu works for the city of Timmins. She says it puts her city on the map:"
SUSAN BEAULIEU (Timmins Economic Development Corporation's Immigration Co-ordinator):
"So we're up there when you go to Ontario Immigration which many immigrants are doing; they're going to that site to look for information and Timmins is right on the list with places like Toronto and other cities in the GTA."
CHRIS MACINNES-RAE (CBC Sudbury Journalist):
"Beaulieu says she hopes to attract more immigrants to a quality of life you can't find in larger cities. Chris MacInnes-Rae, CBC News, Sudbury."
Comments by Brishen Hoff:
Who actually benefits from this immigrant-driven population growth? Certainly not the average person in Northern Ontario! Only a small group of elite corporate executives profit from population growth. Mayors of North Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, and Timmins insatiably push for more population growth so that they can generate short-term revenue from property tax and building permit fees at the expense of current residents, who see their open spaces and quality of life destroyed by growth.
These CEOs don't care about the people or wildlife who already live in Northern Ontario. They don't care that population growth increases taxes, decreases wildlife, destroys farm land and open spaces, and lowers quality of life for residents.
The above story proves that the CBC, like the rest of the media, continues to serve the corporate elite by promoting their agenda of endless growth.
John Shields bio:
http://www.ryerson.ca/politics/facultyandstaff/bio_JohnSheilds.htm
Susan Beaulieu bio:
http://www.timminsedc.com/0team2.html
The CBC Caters To The Corporate Elite
May 21, 2009, By: Brishen Hoff
The following is a perfect example of what I complained about to the CBC Ombudsman.
I have tape recorded and transcribed this outrageously dogmatic piece of growthist propaganda from CBC's Radio News on May 21, 12:00 PM read by Allison Dempster out of Sudbury, Ontario:
ALLISON DEMPSTER (CBC Sudbury News Reader for Northeastern Ontario):
"A new study says far fewer immigrants are coming to Northern Ontario. A professor at Ryerson University looked at census data and found most immigrants settle in Southern Ontario. The study says more should be done in small towns to attract newcomers. Chris MacInnes-Rae has this story:"
CHRIS MACINNES-RAE (CBC Sudbury Journalist):
"Professor John Shields says the trend isn't new, but when you break it down, the numbers are pretty shocking. His study found that fewer than 500 immigrants a year make the North their home. Down south: over 83,000. The study looked at over 10 years of immigration patterns, tracking how many people went to each city in the province. Shields says his research will help northern communities address this shortage:"
JOHN SHIELDS (Professor at Ryerson University):
"Given that we have this imbalance in terms of the distribution of newcomers, what can smaller communities begin to do in order to right this situation?"
CHRIS MACINNES-RAE (CBC Sudbury Journalist):
"Shields says the lack of immigrants could lead to labour shortages in the face of already aging populations. He says more must be done to attract newcomers. One way to do this is to go online. Timmins, Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie have partnered with Ontario Immigration to create websites to promote their cities abroad. Susan Beaulieu works for the city of Timmins. She says it puts her city on the map:"
SUSAN BEAULIEU (Timmins Economic Development Corporation's Immigration Co-ordinator):
"So we're up there when you go to Ontario Immigration which many immigrants are doing; they're going to that site to look for information and Timmins is right on the list with places like Toronto and other cities in the GTA."
CHRIS MACINNES-RAE (CBC Sudbury Journalist):
"Beaulieu says she hopes to attract more immigrants to a quality of life you can't find in larger cities. Chris MacInnes-Rae, CBC News, Sudbury."
Comments by Brishen Hoff:
Who actually benefits from this immigrant-driven population growth? Certainly not the average person in Northern Ontario! Only a small group of elite corporate executives profit from population growth. Mayors of North Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, and Timmins insatiably push for more population growth so that they can generate short-term revenue from property tax and building permit fees at the expense of current residents, who see their open spaces and quality of life destroyed by growth.
These CEOs don't care about the people or wildlife who already live in Northern Ontario. They don't care that population growth increases taxes, decreases wildlife, destroys farm land and open spaces, and lowers quality of life for residents.
The above story proves that the CBC, like the rest of the media, continues to serve the corporate elite by promoting their agenda of endless growth.
John Shields bio:
http://www.ryerson.ca/politics/facultyandstaff/bio_JohnSheilds.htm
Susan Beaulieu bio:
http://www.timminsedc.com/0team2.html
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Ottawa Citizen Publishes Ecological Economics Article
Ottawa Citizen publishes ecological economics article
I agree with Rick Shea's remarks:
*************************
Bigger isn't better
A return to booming economic growth would put the world back on the path to disaster -- it's time for a radical rethinking
These ideas were overthrown by experience and by the invention of modern macro economics by British economist, John Maynard Keynes. By the end of the Second World War, most western governments had adopted Keynesian economic policies designed to ensure that total expenditures were sufficient to maintain full employment.
Keynesian economists soon discovered that full employment today meant a bigger economy tomorrow because some of the investment expenditures required to keep unemployment down -- on infrastructure, buildings and equipment -- also expanded the productive capacity of the economy. So does an expanding population and labour force. Initially, governments pursued economic growth to meet the more pressing concern of maintaining full employment, but this soon changed. In the 1950s, economic growth became the No. 1 economic policy objective of governments and all others, such as productivity, innovation, free trade, competitiveness, immigration, even education, became a means to that end.
Until a year or so ago all seemed to be going reasonably well. Then came the breakdown in the financial sector followed quickly by a recession that, through globalization, spread farther and faster than swine flu. Now governments are congratulating themselves for acting together to stimulate spending to get their economies back on course, much as Keynes might have recommended.
But times have changed since his day. World population has increased almost three times, world economic output has increased 10 times and with this massive expansion of the human presence on earth, we are confronting limits to the availability of cheap energy, to fresh water, and to the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. At the same time we are destroying the habitat of numerous species of flora and fauna and the security of our own food supplies is threatened.
It is time to rethink the old idea that the solution to all our problems lies in the incessant expansion of the economy. Rich countries like Canada should explore alternatives, especially if poorer countries are to benefit from economic growth for a while in a world increasingly constrained by biophysical limits.
Some deny or simply ignore these limits and argue that economic growth in rich countries is necessary to stimulate growth in poorer ones. Others say that with "green" growth we can expand economic output as we reduce the demands we place on nature through more efficient production, better designed products, fewer goods and more services, compact urban forms, and organic agriculture.
While these measures may well help in a transition they are an unlikely prescription for the long term. What is required is a radical rethinking of our economies and their relation to the natural world.
Although no 21st-century Keynes has emerged to prepare the intellectual ground for such a change in thinking, we do have a body of knowledge built up over many decades and now thriving under the name of "ecological economics."
Ecological economists understand economies to be subsystems of the earth ecosystem, sustained by a flow of materials and energy from and back to the larger system in which they are embedded. It is understandable that when these flows were small relative to the earth they could be ignored, as they have been in much of mainstream economics. Economists are not alone in treating the economy as a self-contained, free standing system largely independent of its environmental setting. It is a widely held view that environmental protection is just one among multiple competing interests to be traded off against the economy.
And anyway, this mainstream perspective teaches that if resource and environmental constraints are encountered, scarcities will be signalled by increases in prices that will induce a variety of beneficial changes in behaviour and technology. Should this system of scarcity-price-response fail then economists can estimate "shadow" prices which can be imposed directly through taxes or used indirectly through policies based on cost-benefit analysis to fix the problem.
To ecological economists, this is an inadequate response to the myriad problems of resource depletion, environmental contamination and habitat destruction confronting humanity in the 21st century. They question the pursuit of endless economic growth and contemplate a very different kind of future.
In my own work, I have examined whether and under what conditions a country like Canada could have full employment, no poverty, much reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and maintain fiscal balance, without relying on economic growth. Using a comparatively simple model of the Canadian economy I have explored scenarios in which these objectives are met. The ingredients for success include a shorter work year to reduce unemployment yet retain the advantages of technological progress, a carbon price to discourage greenhouse gas emissions, and more generous anti-poverty programs.
In such an economy, success would not be judged by the rate of economic growth but by more meaningful measures of personal and community well-being. We would adjust to strict limits on our use of materials, energy, land and waste, guided by prices that provide more accurate information about real rather than contrived scarcities. We would enjoy more services and fewer but more durable and repairable products, and we would value use over status when deciding what to buy.
Rampant consumerism would be history, advertising would be more informative and less persuasive, and new technologies would be better screened to avoid problems to be fixed later, if at all. Infrastructure, buildings and equipment would be more efficient in their use of energy and we would think and act more locally and less globally. With more free time at our disposal we would educate ourselves and our children for life not just work.
Is all this simply wishful thinking of a sort that flourishes in troubled times? I think not. The undercurrent of discontent with modern life is rich with ideas for a better future, one that is not dependent on economic growth.
For example, in March of this year the U.K.'s Sustainable Development Commission delivered its report "Prosperity Without Growth?" to the British government endorsing and amplifying many of the ideas expressed here. The Centre for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy based in the United States has obtained more than 3,000 signatures on its position statement designed to help change the goal of the economy from growth to sustainability.
At the local level, Transition Towns have spread in less than four years from Britain to many countries including Canada, to raise awareness of sustainable living and to build local resilience in response to the combined threats of peak oil and climate change. Even mainstream economists are moving with the tide.
Nobel Laureate economist Robert Solow said last year: "It is possible that the U.S. and Europe will find that ... either continued growth will be too destructive to the environment and they are too dependent on scarce natural resources, or that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure." Let's add Canada to the list and go from there.
Economist Peter A. Victor is a professor of environmental studies at York University and author of Managing without Growth: Slower by Design, not Disaster.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
I agree with Rick Shea's remarks:
"A steady state economy would require that each person have proportionally less and less if population growth continues, thus reducing prosperity as time goes on. Given the many claims that we are already far into population overshoot, it appears as though the other half of a steady state economy is a steady state population at a much lower level than we have at present. In his departure from mainstream "growthist" thinking, Victor's article is a great starting point, but not sufficient for a sustainable human presence on this beleaguered planet."
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Complaint To CBC Ombudsman On Subjective Economic Reporting
Complaint To CBC Ombudsman On Subjective Economic Reporting
By: Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
TO: ombudsman@cbc.ca
SUBJECT: Complaint To CBC Ombudsman On Subjective Economic Reporting
Dear CBC Ombudsman,
I have observed that CBC journalists continually present economic growth (GDP increase) as "optimistic, rosy, good news" and economic recession (GDP stability or decline) as "pessimistic, gloomy, bad news".
This is a very subjective opinion which I disagree with.
I propose that the CBC be objective in their presentation of the news.
If the CBC wants to say whether the GDP went up or down, that is fine but when CBC says that GDP increase is good news and GDP decrease is bad news they are being dogmatic.
The CBC has not allowed anyone to present the opposite opinion that economic growth is undesirable and that a negative-growth economy is essential for environmental sustainability.
In fact:
If the GDP/economy grows a lot, but the population grows even more, GDP per capita will decline and each person will see their standard of living decline.
If the GDP/economy declines a lot, but if the population declines even more, GDP per capita will increase and each person will see their standard of living increase.
Clearly, GDP growth is not good news for the average Canadian. All it means is that there are more people consuming more resources, which has a devastating impact on our environment.
So would you please officially agree to stop saying that economic growth is good and economic decline/recession is bad?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
Ontario, Canada
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:29:31 -0400
From: Ombudsman@CBC.CA
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
CC: Esther.Enkin@CBC.CA; Gino.Apponi@CBC.CA; Jennifer.McGuire@CBC.CA
Subject: Re: Complaint To CBC Ombudsman On Subjective Economic Reporting
Dear Brishen Hoff:
I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which I will bring to Vince Carlin's attention on his return to the office. I have also shared it with senior information programmers so that they will be aware of your concerns.
Sincerely,
Laura Marshall
Assistant to the CBC Ombudsman
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yours truly,
Vince Carlin
Ombudsman, CBC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Your message
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: July 6, 2009 1:05:09 PM
To: ombudsman@cbc.ca
Cc: esther.enkin@cbc.ca; gino.apponi@cbc.ca; jennifer.mcguire@cbc.ca
Bcc: sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Vince Carlin,
Here is a well-documented example of the growthist bias in the CBC that I am referring to:
A Perfect Example Of CBC's Growthist Bias
On a daily basis, the CBC inserts their opinion as if it were fact that:
a) economic/GDP growth is good for everyone
b) population growth is good for everyone
c) immigration levels are not an environmental issue in Canada
Lately, the most common example is that the CBC refers to the recession as a bad thing, which ignores this logic:
A Recession Could Be A Good Thing
I await your reply including your resolution to this problem and your rationale.
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Your message
From: CBC Ombudsman (Ombudsman@CBC.CA)
Sent: July 8, 2009 5:24:15 PM
To: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Cc: Amanda Pyle (Amanda.Pyle@CBC.CA); Bob Campbell (Bob.Campbell@CBC.CA); Esther Enkin (Esther.Enkin@CBC.CA); Gino Apponi (Gino.Apponi@CBC.CA); Jennifer McGuire (Jennifer.McGuire@CBC.CA)
Dear Mr. Hoff:
I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. I will ask Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, to address your concerns. If you are not satisfied with the response you receive you may ask me to review the matter.
Sincerely,
Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman
By: Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
TO: ombudsman@cbc.ca
SUBJECT: Complaint To CBC Ombudsman On Subjective Economic Reporting
Dear CBC Ombudsman,
I have observed that CBC journalists continually present economic growth (GDP increase) as "optimistic, rosy, good news" and economic recession (GDP stability or decline) as "pessimistic, gloomy, bad news".
This is a very subjective opinion which I disagree with.
I propose that the CBC be objective in their presentation of the news.
If the CBC wants to say whether the GDP went up or down, that is fine but when CBC says that GDP increase is good news and GDP decrease is bad news they are being dogmatic.
The CBC has not allowed anyone to present the opposite opinion that economic growth is undesirable and that a negative-growth economy is essential for environmental sustainability.
In fact:
If the GDP/economy grows a lot, but the population grows even more, GDP per capita will decline and each person will see their standard of living decline.
If the GDP/economy declines a lot, but if the population declines even more, GDP per capita will increase and each person will see their standard of living increase.
Clearly, GDP growth is not good news for the average Canadian. All it means is that there are more people consuming more resources, which has a devastating impact on our environment.
So would you please officially agree to stop saying that economic growth is good and economic decline/recession is bad?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
Ontario, Canada
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:29:31 -0400
From: Ombudsman@CBC.CA
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
CC: Esther.Enkin@CBC.CA; Gino.Apponi@CBC.CA; Jennifer.McGuire@CBC.CA
Subject: Re: Complaint To CBC Ombudsman On Subjective Economic Reporting
Dear Brishen Hoff:
I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which I will bring to Vince Carlin's attention on his return to the office. I have also shared it with senior information programmers so that they will be aware of your concerns.
Sincerely,
Laura Marshall
Assistant to the CBC Ombudsman
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:05:50 -0400
From: Ombudsman@CBC.CA
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
CC: Esther.Enkin@CBC.CA; Gino.Apponi@CBC.CA; Jennifer.McGuire@CBC.CA
Subject: Your message
From: Ombudsman@CBC.CA
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
CC: Esther.Enkin@CBC.CA; Gino.Apponi@CBC.CA; Jennifer.McGuire@CBC.CA
Subject: Your message
Dear Brishen Hoff:
I am responding to your phone message for my colleague, Laura Marshall.
Your original note was shared with the senior officials of CBC News. It contained an interesting analysis, but no specific examples of the faults you were alleging. As a result, I did not ask the programmers to respond, but to be aware of your general concerns as they made further editorial judgments.
Vince Carlin
Ombudsman, CBC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Your message
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: July 6, 2009 1:05:09 PM
To: ombudsman@cbc.ca
Cc: esther.enkin@cbc.ca; gino.apponi@cbc.ca; jennifer.mcguire@cbc.ca
Bcc: sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Vince Carlin,
Here is a well-documented example of the growthist bias in the CBC that I am referring to:
A Perfect Example Of CBC's Growthist Bias
On a daily basis, the CBC inserts their opinion as if it were fact that:
a) economic/GDP growth is good for everyone
b) population growth is good for everyone
c) immigration levels are not an environmental issue in Canada
Lately, the most common example is that the CBC refers to the recession as a bad thing, which ignores this logic:
A Recession Could Be A Good Thing
I await your reply including your resolution to this problem and your rationale.
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Your message
From: CBC Ombudsman (Ombudsman@CBC.CA)
Sent: July 8, 2009 5:24:15 PM
To: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Cc: Amanda Pyle (Amanda.Pyle@CBC.CA); Bob Campbell (Bob.Campbell@CBC.CA); Esther Enkin (Esther.Enkin@CBC.CA); Gino Apponi (Gino.Apponi@CBC.CA); Jennifer McGuire (Jennifer.McGuire@CBC.CA)
Dear Mr. Hoff:
I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. I will ask Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, to address your concerns. If you are not satisfied with the response you receive you may ask me to review the matter.
Sincerely,
Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman
TVO's The Agenda Promotes Growthism
"The Agenda" on Television Ontario (TVO) Promotes Growthism
By: Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
Here is my complaint regarding TVO The Agenda's upcoming May 14 show entitled: "Urban Planning and Density: Up, Out or Way Out?"
"What about a fourth option: "No growth" ?
We will soon reach the end of cheap oil. We have already reached peak oil. In Ontario there are 197 species at risk of extinction. Ontario is already way overpopulated.
Forget about growing "up", growing "out", or growing "way out"! How about not growing at all?
It is a myth that cramming people in dense urban housing reduces their individual environmental impact. They can't grow their own food, they can't use a clothes line, they can't use a staircase instead of an elevator, and they tend to travel on many vacations to get away from the urban pollution, often requiring a second home/cottage.
A no-growth model is as simple as denying building permits and if we care about the environment, it is absolutely essential.
If TVO's The Agenda does not round out the panel with a guest in support of a no-growth model, I think that will say a lot about the business-as-usual mentality of The Agenda's staff.
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First"
By: Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
Here is my complaint regarding TVO The Agenda's upcoming May 14 show entitled: "Urban Planning and Density: Up, Out or Way Out?"
"What about a fourth option: "No growth" ?
We will soon reach the end of cheap oil. We have already reached peak oil. In Ontario there are 197 species at risk of extinction. Ontario is already way overpopulated.
Forget about growing "up", growing "out", or growing "way out"! How about not growing at all?
It is a myth that cramming people in dense urban housing reduces their individual environmental impact. They can't grow their own food, they can't use a clothes line, they can't use a staircase instead of an elevator, and they tend to travel on many vacations to get away from the urban pollution, often requiring a second home/cottage.
A no-growth model is as simple as denying building permits and if we care about the environment, it is absolutely essential.
If TVO's The Agenda does not round out the panel with a guest in support of a no-growth model, I think that will say a lot about the business-as-usual mentality of The Agenda's staff.
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First"
My Latest Posts To CBC YourView
My Latest Posts To CBC YourView
By: Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/04/are_there_signs_out_there_that_1.html
CBC asks "Are there signs out there that the economy is getting better?"
MY REPLY:
"For the economy to get better, it would have to get a lot smaller. The economy is too big for the planet.
If there were fewer of us, the economy could get smaller and each one of us could consume more resources.
Fewer people, better lives. There is no sign yet of the economy getting better/smaller. Eventually nature will force our economy to shrink drastically when fossil fuels are exhausted. This is when humans will likely cut down every last tree for fuel."
++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/03/what_are_you_planning_to_do_fo.html
CBC asks "What are you planning to do for earth hour?"
MY REPLY:
"For earth hour, I educated others that there is no point in reducing per capita consumption until population growth is stopped.
Any personal sacrifice you make will just be used for population growth under our illusory democracy which is actually a growthist economy dependent on perpetual population growth and a media that convinces the public to want it."
++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/03/g20_summit_how_to_fight_the_ec.html
CBC Asks: "G20 Summit: How to fight the economic crisis. If you are a citizen of a G20 nation, we want to hear from you. What do you think is the most important thing governments can do? How can the well-being of both big and small nations be considered and appreciated? How have you been personally affected by the economic crisis?"
MY REPLY:
"The economic crisis is an environmental crisis caused by overpopulation. The economy is too big, not too small.
The only thing that will give us better lives is to drastically reduce the number of people. This idea won't make money for corporate CEOs, which is why it is ignored by the media."
By: Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/04/are_there_signs_out_there_that_1.html
CBC asks "Are there signs out there that the economy is getting better?"
MY REPLY:
"For the economy to get better, it would have to get a lot smaller. The economy is too big for the planet.
If there were fewer of us, the economy could get smaller and each one of us could consume more resources.
Fewer people, better lives. There is no sign yet of the economy getting better/smaller. Eventually nature will force our economy to shrink drastically when fossil fuels are exhausted. This is when humans will likely cut down every last tree for fuel."
++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/03/what_are_you_planning_to_do_fo.html
CBC asks "What are you planning to do for earth hour?"
MY REPLY:
"For earth hour, I educated others that there is no point in reducing per capita consumption until population growth is stopped.
Any personal sacrifice you make will just be used for population growth under our illusory democracy which is actually a growthist economy dependent on perpetual population growth and a media that convinces the public to want it."
++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/03/g20_summit_how_to_fight_the_ec.html
CBC Asks: "G20 Summit: How to fight the economic crisis. If you are a citizen of a G20 nation, we want to hear from you. What do you think is the most important thing governments can do? How can the well-being of both big and small nations be considered and appreciated? How have you been personally affected by the economic crisis?"
MY REPLY:
"The economic crisis is an environmental crisis caused by overpopulation. The economy is too big, not too small.
The only thing that will give us better lives is to drastically reduce the number of people. This idea won't make money for corporate CEOs, which is why it is ignored by the media."
Brishen Hoff's Debate With Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader of Canada)
Brishen Hoff's Debate With Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader of Canada)
E-mail correspondence published by Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
At 07:40 AM 08/05/2009, Brishen Hoff wrote:
Regarding your remark to Dan Murray of Immigration Watch Canada: "You are confusing population policy with immigration policy."
Dear Ms May:
1) Immigration is the main cause of population growth in Canada
2) Population growth is the main cause of environmental damage in Canada
3) Therefore immigration is the main cause of environmental damage in Canada
Are you disputing these principles?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:29:11 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: Re: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org
Dear Mr. Hoff,
Yes, respectfully, I do dispute your suggested "principles."
Population growth is a global problem and must be addressed. Migration within nations is a relatively minor issue (only 3% of the earth's population dies in a different country from their birth country and the vast majority of that movement is from developing country to developing country.) It is demonstrably false that either domestic population growth or immigration are the main causes of environmental damage in Canada. The vast damage to ecosystems and dumping of GHG into the atmosphere is driven by export markets and not local demand (the tar sands being a prime case in point).
The Greens globally and in Canada have committed to accepting more peoples in the class of environmental refugees (This view is widely supported by Global Greens, including by my friend, Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens mentioned by one of your colleagues in this thread). We can expect the need for humanitarian resettlement of vast numbers of the world's poor made refugees by the climate crisis (A crisis caused by over-consumption by the wealthy on this planet -- the 20% of us who cause 80% of the pollution). People in low-lying island states and low elevation coastal lands will lose their land base due to sea level rise and the climate crisis. Wealthy nations that caused them to become refugees will have to assist.
Elizabeth May, O.C.
Leader
Green Party of Canada .
++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 8, 2009 9:31:36 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org
Dear Elizabeth May,
You say: "It is demonstrably false that either domestic population growth or immigration are the main causes of environmental damage in Canada."
Could you please demonstrate?
Since you are disputing that immigration is the main cause of population growth in Canada, could you please provide your source to substantiate your claim?
If you believe that population growth is only a global problem, does that mean that you believe that a geographic region with unique species found nowhere else in the world could never become locally overpopulated (even if those unique species go extinct due to a large influx of people)?
You say: "Population growth is a global problem and must be addressed."
How do you propose that the global problem of population growth be addressed in the absence of a global government? Would you support making foreign aid conditional on birth rate reduction? Would you support a UN Kyoto-like summit to get each country to cut their population in half by a certain date? If so, do you think Canada should participate?
Do you acknowledge that peak oil has likely already occurred? Do you acknowledge that 90% of the oceans big fish stocks have vanished since 1950? Do you acknowledge that 50 or more species go extinct daily? Do you acknowledge that earth's natural forest cover has declined by 10% between 1970 and 1995 alone? (Source for all three stats: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-idea-for-canadian-geographic-in.html)
Do you acknowledge that the environment is in worse shape today than ever before even though we have more acres of protected land than ever before?
You seem to be in denial if you think that population growth is not a problem in Canada. Our population is on pace to double every 70 years and we clearly cannot support our present population without fossil fuels and we have already lost an unacceptable amount of biodiversity.
You seem to have a one-track mind on climate change. Climate change from man-made greenhouse gases is unproven and insignificant relative to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss which is proven. If CO2 based climate change is real, it would only be a symptom of overpopulation and not even the worst symptom. I have never heard you on TV or radio present any effective strategies for reducing overpopulation. You have never suggested that a steady state economy would be a good idea during the televised debate, even though it is so obviously required to stop the human footprint from expanding. You probably don't even acknowledge or understand that a steady state economy (GDP that does not grow) requires stopping population growth.
How blind can you be to not see the link between population policy and immigration policy? Canada's immigration policy is primarily what is growing our population.
Immigration enables maximum overpopulation by allowing humans to colonize new areas where they can consume more resources and have more children. Immigrants to Canada have more children than the Canadian average and the global average. (http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/CanadianEnvironmentalMyths.htm)
You seem to have sold-out Canada as the pressure-relief valve for overpopulated countries. Do you see Canada as a cornucopia of infinite resources that can accommodate an infinite population? If not, why do you claim to care about Canada's environment on one hand and on the other hand say that Canada should accept however many million refugees that want in?
Could you please provide me with a source of your stat that says that only 3% of people die in a country other than the one they were born?
In Canada, 20% of the population is foreign born. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2007/12/04/149121.aspx)
Could you also provide your source for your statement: "the vast majority of [migration] is from developing country to developing country."?
Do you think that the majority of migrants do not increase their standard of living (i.e. level of consumption) in their new country?
You say: "The vast damage to ecosystems and dumping of GHG into the atmosphere is driven by export markets and not local demand (the tar sands being a prime case in point)."
Did you know that four years of immigrants to Canada equal the greenhouse gas emissions of the tarsands? (http://candobetter.org/node/843)
So apparently you believe that the massive new subdivisions being built to accommodate recent immigrants near a place like Milton, Ontario do not damage Canada's ecosystems?
Or do you believe that the recent immigrants being stacked up in highrises in the GVA do not consume food, fuel, or water from Canadian places that could otherwise support wild ecosystems?
Don't you realize that the more people there are in Canada, the more of Canada's natural resources will have to be exported to provide all those new people with incomes?
You say: "The Greens globally and in Canada have committed to accepting more peoples in the class of environmental refugees".
Does this mean that you do not think that Canada is overpopulated? Does this mean that you think that Canada's land can provide a good life to 33+ million people even after fossil fuels are exhausted and without reducing Canada's biodiversity?
So you believe that Canada has no obligation to the immigrants who are already here? Don't you realize that you can't protect a good future for the immigrants who are already here if you plan to flood Canada with millions of environmental refugees?
So you also believe that Canada has no obligation to the reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds and fish who were here before humans and are already at risk of extinction? Do you really think that your land-use planning AKA "smart growth" can allow Canada to accommodate an ever-growing number of people without further marginalizing Canada's indigenous wildlife?
Do you dispute this formula:
Environmental Impact = Population X Per Capita Consumption
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Notes (May 12, 2009):
Four days after sending my latest reply, Elizabeth May is yet to respond.
Here is how this debate got started: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/05/elizabeth-mays-political-correctness.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:35:11 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org
Worldwide, international migrants number about 200 million. That is only about 3% of the world's population. Migration is rather painful for the migrants and their families. Therefore, migration is more an exception than a rule.
Hello,
Here are some acknowledged sources for the statements in previous messages.
We are not going to agree on the source of the greatest threat to Canada's and the planet's environment. You are your colleagues apparently do not understand the nature of the climate crisis. Human caused GHG emissions are the single largest threat to survival of our society. Please refer to the UN IPCC web site for further information.
The source:"the vast majority of [migration] is from developing country to developing country."?
Contrary to popular perception, most of these migrants are not living in the rich countries of the so-called “North”. Indeed nearly half of the migrants from the developing countries live in other developing countries. Such “South-South” migration is actually larger than the size of migration from developing countries to the high-income OECD countries.
Dilip Ratha
Lead Economist, Migration and Remittances Team, Development Prospects Group, World Bank
Mr. Ratha's research reflects a deep interest in financing development in the poor countries: leveraging remittances and migration for development; improving country risk ratings; innovative financing mechanisms; future-flow securitization and diaspora bonds; and South-South foreign direct investment. Prior to joining the World Bank, he worked as a regional economist for Asia at Credit Agricole Indosuez; as an assistant professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; and as an economist at the Policy Group, New Delhi. He has also worked as a visiting lecturer at the Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi and helped build a CGE model of the Indian economy.
I hope you will reconsider your views on the climate crisis.
Elizabeth
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 13, 2009 12:11:00 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Elizabeth May,
You have ignored most of my questions.
When you say that there are 200 million migrants worldwide, is a migrant defined as someone who moved to a different country recently or someone who was born in a different country? If the former, how recently? Where is your source?
Are you trying to downplay the massive amount of overdevelopment occurring in Canada to accommodate the quarter million immigrants annually?
Did you know that population growth only makes the extremely wealthy richer and everyone else poorer? Mass immigration to Canada is the master-plan for big corporations to grow the number of consumers and drive down salaries and wages for Canadians by flooding the labour force. Mass immigration is also used by governments to continue their foolish model of endless economic growth in a finite world. The Royal Bank of Canada has lobbied the government to raise Canada's immigration intake to 400,000 annually. (http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/20070628nixon_1.html) The David Suzuki Foundation is funded by the Royal Bank of Canada.
(http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/environmental-emperor-suzuki-has-no-clothes/) This explains David Suzuki's silence on the devastating environmental impact of immigration-driven-population growth in Canada. Other environmental organizations have made similar arrangements.
Do you acknowledge that Canada is overpopulated? If so, don't you think we have a responsibility to reduce our numbers to a sustainable level?
Do you acknowledge that no human rights can survive in the face of population growth?
Do you acknowledge that no "protected" parks or acreages can survive in the face of population growth?
Do you acknowledge that no technological breakthrough can reduce our collective impact in the face of population growth?
Do you acknowledge that no per capita consumption reduction can reduce our collective impact in the face of population growth?
What do you think is an optimum world population that would enable a healthy balance between humans and other species in a post fossil fuel world?
Which has resulted in the most species extinctions: climate change or habitat loss? Do you acknowledge that if it weren't for overpopulation, we wouldn't have a problem with climate change or habitat loss?
First you say that the vast majority of migration is to developing countries, then you say that "nearly half of the migrants from the developing countries live in other developing countries". Which is it: "the vast majority" or "nearly half"?
Are you trying to downplay the footprint increase that occurs when people from the developing world move to North America, Europe or Australia?
If immigration was banned worldwide, do you agree that this would reduce world population growth?
If global trade was banned worldwide, do you agree that this would reduce world population growth?
Do you have a plan to reduce overpopulation? What is it?
Do you support reducing our economy/GDP to an environmentally sustainable size and then moving to a steady-state economic model? Do you acknowledge that a sustainable steady-state economy absolutely requires stopping and reversing population growth?
Do you intend to answer the questions in my previous e-mail?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
P.S. A transcript of our debate has been updated here: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/05/brishen-hoffs-debate-with-elizabeth-may.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:07:30 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Mr. Hoff,
I will have to assign a staff person to your file. You seem determined to miss the fundamental point that we are the ONLY party in Canada to agree that population growth is a threat to the planet. I am afraid I cannot keep up with your demands.
Elizabeth
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 14, 2009 12:48:43 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Elizabeth May,
Where have you publicly stated that population growth is a problem?
What do you propose is the solution?
Where have you publicly presented your solution?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:24:00 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
I guess you have not read our policy foundational documents. We have a whole section on Population in Vision Green. ( www.greenparty.ca) No other party even mentions it.
Elizabeth May, O.C.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 16, 2009 12:42:52 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Elizabeth May,
Your Vision Green Statement on global overpopulation states:
"It is well established that when poverty is alleviated and particularly when women and girls are educated, access to primary health care, political autonomy and economic power, fertility rates drop."
(http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfive#GlobalPopulationGrowth)
A dropping fertility rate isn't good enough to be sustainable. If we achieved a fertility rate of zero for at least 40 years (A moratorium on breeding with 100% compliance) we would still be unsustainably overpopulated. Did you know that if no babies were born for the next 40 years, the world population would be about 3.35 billion in 2049. A successful 40-year moratorium on breeding would probably not be a fast enough reduction to save us from a mass-human die-off in the billions. It certainly would not be a fast enough reduction to avoid hundreds of additional species extinctions. (http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/02/average-person-is-doomed.html)
The USA has a high level of affluence, female education, access to primary health care, political autonomy and economic power and yet there were more babies born in 2007 than any other year in their history. (www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-boomlet_N.htm)
My conclusion is that overpopulation must be addressed directly. (http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/12/overpopulation-must-be-directly.html)
Your idea to "make poverty history" in an overpopulated world is impossible. A tiny minority of the world's population is wealthy, so if you evenly distribute wealth, the average person will still be poor. There are only 5 acres of land per person worldwide (and that includes Antarctica) and per capita production of fossil fuels has been in decline for decades. It is impossible to make everyone wealthy in an overpopulated world because all wealth originates from our finite environment.
You say that forced sterilizations are "unacceptable" and "violate basic human rights". But what basic human right can survive overpopulation? I don't know of a single one.
The Philippines has a total fertility rate of 3.64 despite having 1.29 females in university for every male. (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=PH&indicatorid=0)
Here is one way to directly address overpopulation:
All countries must:
1) Pay people in exchange for not breeding.
2) Fine people for breeding.
3) Stop all immigration.
Once an optimum population is reached:
1) Pay people for not overbreeding.
2) Fine people for overbreeding.
3) Ensure that immigrants minus emigrants is less than or equal to zero.
If the above fails, sterilize the vast majority. There could be a lottery system for a small number of people to enter for a chance to avoid sterilization. I don’t see why the above wouldn’t work if the fines were high enough and it was illegal to employ any illegal immigrants.
Your ways of addressing overpopulation are vague and indirect. In fact, in your immigration section you are in favour of further population growth in Canada.
In your section on immigration you say: "Canada currently accepts about 300,000 new immigrants annually." (http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfour#_Toc180047641)
You also say: "Our national tradition of welcoming newcomers and embracing social and ethnic differences gives us a unique opportunity to exert a positive influence on the rest of the world."
How is it a positive influence to further exceed our carrying capacity while pushing more species into extinction?
All of your "Green Solutions" on immigration involve facilitating even more immigrant-driven-population-growth in Canada, which only benefits big businesses looking for more consumers and cheap labour. EG: "Support multicultural communities by assisting cultural organizations to obtain charitable status."
You do not say that you are planning to reduce this unsustainable population growth right here at home in Canada. Does that mean you are in denial that Canada is already overpopulated?
What do you believe is an optimum population for Canada that would allow a good quality of life for Canadians in a post-fossil fuel world?
Your acknowledgement of overpopulation globally and denial of overpopulation nationally in Canada is typical of growthist, hypocritical, technological optimist unwilling to admit their own problems if they involve stopping economic growth. Did you get money from The Royal Bank of Canada just like your friend, Dr Suzuki?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
E-mail correspondence published by Brishen Hoff, May 12, 2009
At 07:40 AM 08/05/2009, Brishen Hoff wrote:
Regarding your remark to Dan Murray of Immigration Watch Canada: "You are confusing population policy with immigration policy."
Dear Ms May:
1) Immigration is the main cause of population growth in Canada
2) Population growth is the main cause of environmental damage in Canada
3) Therefore immigration is the main cause of environmental damage in Canada
Are you disputing these principles?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:29:11 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: Re: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org
Dear Mr. Hoff,
Yes, respectfully, I do dispute your suggested "principles."
Population growth is a global problem and must be addressed. Migration within nations is a relatively minor issue (only 3% of the earth's population dies in a different country from their birth country and the vast majority of that movement is from developing country to developing country.) It is demonstrably false that either domestic population growth or immigration are the main causes of environmental damage in Canada. The vast damage to ecosystems and dumping of GHG into the atmosphere is driven by export markets and not local demand (the tar sands being a prime case in point).
The Greens globally and in Canada have committed to accepting more peoples in the class of environmental refugees (This view is widely supported by Global Greens, including by my friend, Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens mentioned by one of your colleagues in this thread). We can expect the need for humanitarian resettlement of vast numbers of the world's poor made refugees by the climate crisis (A crisis caused by over-consumption by the wealthy on this planet -- the 20% of us who cause 80% of the pollution). People in low-lying island states and low elevation coastal lands will lose their land base due to sea level rise and the climate crisis. Wealthy nations that caused them to become refugees will have to assist.
Elizabeth May, O.C.
Leader
Green Party of Canada .
++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 8, 2009 9:31:36 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org
Dear Elizabeth May,
You say: "It is demonstrably false that either domestic population growth or immigration are the main causes of environmental damage in Canada."
Could you please demonstrate?
Since you are disputing that immigration is the main cause of population growth in Canada, could you please provide your source to substantiate your claim?
If you believe that population growth is only a global problem, does that mean that you believe that a geographic region with unique species found nowhere else in the world could never become locally overpopulated (even if those unique species go extinct due to a large influx of people)?
You say: "Population growth is a global problem and must be addressed."
How do you propose that the global problem of population growth be addressed in the absence of a global government? Would you support making foreign aid conditional on birth rate reduction? Would you support a UN Kyoto-like summit to get each country to cut their population in half by a certain date? If so, do you think Canada should participate?
Do you acknowledge that peak oil has likely already occurred? Do you acknowledge that 90% of the oceans big fish stocks have vanished since 1950? Do you acknowledge that 50 or more species go extinct daily? Do you acknowledge that earth's natural forest cover has declined by 10% between 1970 and 1995 alone? (Source for all three stats: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-idea-for-canadian-geographic-in.html)
Do you acknowledge that the environment is in worse shape today than ever before even though we have more acres of protected land than ever before?
You seem to be in denial if you think that population growth is not a problem in Canada. Our population is on pace to double every 70 years and we clearly cannot support our present population without fossil fuels and we have already lost an unacceptable amount of biodiversity.
You seem to have a one-track mind on climate change. Climate change from man-made greenhouse gases is unproven and insignificant relative to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss which is proven. If CO2 based climate change is real, it would only be a symptom of overpopulation and not even the worst symptom. I have never heard you on TV or radio present any effective strategies for reducing overpopulation. You have never suggested that a steady state economy would be a good idea during the televised debate, even though it is so obviously required to stop the human footprint from expanding. You probably don't even acknowledge or understand that a steady state economy (GDP that does not grow) requires stopping population growth.
How blind can you be to not see the link between population policy and immigration policy? Canada's immigration policy is primarily what is growing our population.
Immigration enables maximum overpopulation by allowing humans to colonize new areas where they can consume more resources and have more children. Immigrants to Canada have more children than the Canadian average and the global average. (http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/CanadianEnvironmentalMyths.htm)
You seem to have sold-out Canada as the pressure-relief valve for overpopulated countries. Do you see Canada as a cornucopia of infinite resources that can accommodate an infinite population? If not, why do you claim to care about Canada's environment on one hand and on the other hand say that Canada should accept however many million refugees that want in?
Could you please provide me with a source of your stat that says that only 3% of people die in a country other than the one they were born?
In Canada, 20% of the population is foreign born. (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2007/12/04/149121.aspx)
Could you also provide your source for your statement: "the vast majority of [migration] is from developing country to developing country."?
Do you think that the majority of migrants do not increase their standard of living (i.e. level of consumption) in their new country?
You say: "The vast damage to ecosystems and dumping of GHG into the atmosphere is driven by export markets and not local demand (the tar sands being a prime case in point)."
Did you know that four years of immigrants to Canada equal the greenhouse gas emissions of the tarsands? (http://candobetter.org/node/843)
So apparently you believe that the massive new subdivisions being built to accommodate recent immigrants near a place like Milton, Ontario do not damage Canada's ecosystems?
Or do you believe that the recent immigrants being stacked up in highrises in the GVA do not consume food, fuel, or water from Canadian places that could otherwise support wild ecosystems?
Don't you realize that the more people there are in Canada, the more of Canada's natural resources will have to be exported to provide all those new people with incomes?
You say: "The Greens globally and in Canada have committed to accepting more peoples in the class of environmental refugees".
Does this mean that you do not think that Canada is overpopulated? Does this mean that you think that Canada's land can provide a good life to 33+ million people even after fossil fuels are exhausted and without reducing Canada's biodiversity?
So you believe that Canada has no obligation to the immigrants who are already here? Don't you realize that you can't protect a good future for the immigrants who are already here if you plan to flood Canada with millions of environmental refugees?
So you also believe that Canada has no obligation to the reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds and fish who were here before humans and are already at risk of extinction? Do you really think that your land-use planning AKA "smart growth" can allow Canada to accommodate an ever-growing number of people without further marginalizing Canada's indigenous wildlife?
Do you dispute this formula:
Environmental Impact = Population X Per Capita Consumption
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Notes (May 12, 2009):
Four days after sending my latest reply, Elizabeth May is yet to respond.
Here is how this debate got started: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/05/elizabeth-mays-political-correctness.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 21:35:11 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org
Worldwide, international migrants number about 200 million. That is only about 3% of the world's population. Migration is rather painful for the migrants and their families. Therefore, migration is more an exception than a rule.
Hello,
Here are some acknowledged sources for the statements in previous messages.
We are not going to agree on the source of the greatest threat to Canada's and the planet's environment. You are your colleagues apparently do not understand the nature of the climate crisis. Human caused GHG emissions are the single largest threat to survival of our society. Please refer to the UN IPCC web site for further information.
The source:"the vast majority of [migration] is from developing country to developing country."?
Contrary to popular perception, most of these migrants are not living in the rich countries of the so-called “North”. Indeed nearly half of the migrants from the developing countries live in other developing countries. Such “South-South” migration is actually larger than the size of migration from developing countries to the high-income OECD countries.
Dilip Ratha
Lead Economist, Migration and Remittances Team, Development Prospects Group, World Bank
Mr. Ratha's research reflects a deep interest in financing development in the poor countries: leveraging remittances and migration for development; improving country risk ratings; innovative financing mechanisms; future-flow securitization and diaspora bonds; and South-South foreign direct investment. Prior to joining the World Bank, he worked as a regional economist for Asia at Credit Agricole Indosuez; as an assistant professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; and as an economist at the Policy Group, New Delhi. He has also worked as a visiting lecturer at the Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi and helped build a CGE model of the Indian economy.
I hope you will reconsider your views on the climate crisis.
Elizabeth
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 13, 2009 12:11:00 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Elizabeth May,
You have ignored most of my questions.
When you say that there are 200 million migrants worldwide, is a migrant defined as someone who moved to a different country recently or someone who was born in a different country? If the former, how recently? Where is your source?
Are you trying to downplay the massive amount of overdevelopment occurring in Canada to accommodate the quarter million immigrants annually?
Did you know that population growth only makes the extremely wealthy richer and everyone else poorer? Mass immigration to Canada is the master-plan for big corporations to grow the number of consumers and drive down salaries and wages for Canadians by flooding the labour force. Mass immigration is also used by governments to continue their foolish model of endless economic growth in a finite world. The Royal Bank of Canada has lobbied the government to raise Canada's immigration intake to 400,000 annually. (http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/20070628nixon_1.html) The David Suzuki Foundation is funded by the Royal Bank of Canada.
(http://suzukiwatch.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/environmental-emperor-suzuki-has-no-clothes/) This explains David Suzuki's silence on the devastating environmental impact of immigration-driven-population growth in Canada. Other environmental organizations have made similar arrangements.
Do you acknowledge that Canada is overpopulated? If so, don't you think we have a responsibility to reduce our numbers to a sustainable level?
Do you acknowledge that no human rights can survive in the face of population growth?
Do you acknowledge that no "protected" parks or acreages can survive in the face of population growth?
Do you acknowledge that no technological breakthrough can reduce our collective impact in the face of population growth?
Do you acknowledge that no per capita consumption reduction can reduce our collective impact in the face of population growth?
What do you think is an optimum world population that would enable a healthy balance between humans and other species in a post fossil fuel world?
Which has resulted in the most species extinctions: climate change or habitat loss? Do you acknowledge that if it weren't for overpopulation, we wouldn't have a problem with climate change or habitat loss?
First you say that the vast majority of migration is to developing countries, then you say that "nearly half of the migrants from the developing countries live in other developing countries". Which is it: "the vast majority" or "nearly half"?
Are you trying to downplay the footprint increase that occurs when people from the developing world move to North America, Europe or Australia?
If immigration was banned worldwide, do you agree that this would reduce world population growth?
If global trade was banned worldwide, do you agree that this would reduce world population growth?
Do you have a plan to reduce overpopulation? What is it?
Do you support reducing our economy/GDP to an environmentally sustainable size and then moving to a steady-state economic model? Do you acknowledge that a sustainable steady-state economy absolutely requires stopping and reversing population growth?
Do you intend to answer the questions in my previous e-mail?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
P.S. A transcript of our debate has been updated here: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/05/brishen-hoffs-debate-with-elizabeth-may.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:07:30 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Mr. Hoff,
I will have to assign a staff person to your file. You seem determined to miss the fundamental point that we are the ONLY party in Canada to agree that population growth is a threat to the planet. I am afraid I cannot keep up with your demands.
Elizabeth
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 14, 2009 12:48:43 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Elizabeth May,
Where have you publicly stated that population growth is a problem?
What do you propose is the solution?
Where have you publicly presented your solution?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:24:00 -0400
To: brishen_hoff@hotmail.com
From: emay@magma.ca
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
CC: gloomndoom@telus.net; saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
I guess you have not read our policy foundational documents. We have a whole section on Population in Vision Green. ( www.greenparty.ca) No other party even mentions it.
Elizabeth May, O.C.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: RE: Question For Elizabeth May
From: Brishen Hoff (brishen_hoff@hotmail.com)
Sent: May 16, 2009 12:42:52 PM
To: emay@magma.ca
Cc: Tim Murray (gloomndoom@telus.net); saneimmigration@immigrationwatchcanada.org; sinkinglifeboat@topica.com
Dear Elizabeth May,
Your Vision Green Statement on global overpopulation states:
"It is well established that when poverty is alleviated and particularly when women and girls are educated, access to primary health care, political autonomy and economic power, fertility rates drop."
(http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfive#GlobalPopulationGrowth)
A dropping fertility rate isn't good enough to be sustainable. If we achieved a fertility rate of zero for at least 40 years (A moratorium on breeding with 100% compliance) we would still be unsustainably overpopulated. Did you know that if no babies were born for the next 40 years, the world population would be about 3.35 billion in 2049. A successful 40-year moratorium on breeding would probably not be a fast enough reduction to save us from a mass-human die-off in the billions. It certainly would not be a fast enough reduction to avoid hundreds of additional species extinctions. (http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2009/02/average-person-is-doomed.html)
The USA has a high level of affluence, female education, access to primary health care, political autonomy and economic power and yet there were more babies born in 2007 than any other year in their history. (www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-boomlet_N.htm)
My conclusion is that overpopulation must be addressed directly. (http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/12/overpopulation-must-be-directly.html)
Your idea to "make poverty history" in an overpopulated world is impossible. A tiny minority of the world's population is wealthy, so if you evenly distribute wealth, the average person will still be poor. There are only 5 acres of land per person worldwide (and that includes Antarctica) and per capita production of fossil fuels has been in decline for decades. It is impossible to make everyone wealthy in an overpopulated world because all wealth originates from our finite environment.
You say that forced sterilizations are "unacceptable" and "violate basic human rights". But what basic human right can survive overpopulation? I don't know of a single one.
The Philippines has a total fertility rate of 3.64 despite having 1.29 females in university for every male. (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/country.cfm?country=PH&indicatorid=0)
Here is one way to directly address overpopulation:
All countries must:
1) Pay people in exchange for not breeding.
2) Fine people for breeding.
3) Stop all immigration.
Once an optimum population is reached:
1) Pay people for not overbreeding.
2) Fine people for overbreeding.
3) Ensure that immigrants minus emigrants is less than or equal to zero.
If the above fails, sterilize the vast majority. There could be a lottery system for a small number of people to enter for a chance to avoid sterilization. I don’t see why the above wouldn’t work if the fines were high enough and it was illegal to employ any illegal immigrants.
Your ways of addressing overpopulation are vague and indirect. In fact, in your immigration section you are in favour of further population growth in Canada.
In your section on immigration you say: "Canada currently accepts about 300,000 new immigrants annually." (http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfour#_Toc180047641)
You also say: "Our national tradition of welcoming newcomers and embracing social and ethnic differences gives us a unique opportunity to exert a positive influence on the rest of the world."
How is it a positive influence to further exceed our carrying capacity while pushing more species into extinction?
All of your "Green Solutions" on immigration involve facilitating even more immigrant-driven-population-growth in Canada, which only benefits big businesses looking for more consumers and cheap labour. EG: "Support multicultural communities by assisting cultural organizations to obtain charitable status."
You do not say that you are planning to reduce this unsustainable population growth right here at home in Canada. Does that mean you are in denial that Canada is already overpopulated?
What do you believe is an optimum population for Canada that would allow a good quality of life for Canadians in a post-fossil fuel world?
Your acknowledgement of overpopulation globally and denial of overpopulation nationally in Canada is typical of growthist, hypocritical, technological optimist unwilling to admit their own problems if they involve stopping economic growth. Did you get money from The Royal Bank of Canada just like your friend, Dr Suzuki?
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
