Skip to main content

View Diary: The charming racism of NumbersUSA (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Reagan administration? (0+ / 0-)

    Seems selective to just pick Reagan. There are so many cultural influences which, in my opinion, play a much bigger role than the president.

    In the 1970s you had movies like Soylent green predicting doomsday over-population. That didn't seem to be happening in the 1980s, so people assume the whole thing is BS. Also birthrates dropped off a cliff in most developed countries, and dropped in developing nations as well.

    A similar thing is already happening with global warming. People have been made so aware of its dangers, but those dangers are still years off and gradual. So when, in 2010, the world does not fall apart popular opinion begins shifting towards skepticism of global warming. It's already happening. Who are we supposed to blame that on - Obama? No. This is just the way the human mind works. Some blame can also be laid at the feet of the over the top global warming alarmists.

    You don't make people less extreme by refusing to talk with them...

    by The Progressive Majority on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:54:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  NumbersUSA proposes a Malthusianism (0+ / 0-)

      that is pretty convenient for its xenophobic goals. The best lies has something of truth. At the end population ends up adjusting to economic and other conditions (that's why the Malthusian catastrophe never happened) but in the short term high birth rates, especially among the poor, could lead to very hard living conditions. The tools that seem to have worked to best to address this part of the problem are contraception and education. One of the most dangerous angles of NumbersUSA is that it tries to sell the idea that persecuting illegal immigrants, 5% of the population, is a good substitute of pursuing better inner city schools, better sexual education and a reinforced EPA.
      On the other hand, my concerns with global warming are real but it is not enough what we can do alone. We need to put on the table a new Kyotto proposal that takes into account the effects China is going to have on the environment in the following decades.

    •  climate change is a red herring (0+ / 0-)

      Climate change is a red herring on both sides of the immigration issue, although I suspect that carbon emissions will be greater with a larger U.S. population. We don't, however, have the right to tell people they are not invited to our conspicuous consumption party because we don't have enough party favors. We do have the obligation to reduce our own carbon emissions.

      No one knows when we'll reach the tipping point on climate change. It could be 2010 or maybe 2100.

      To say that overpopulation is self-correcting through famine, disasters, etc., as Mr. Rueda Espejo suggests, is to offer a very dark future for our species and the world at large. The ravages of overpopulation shouldn't be a mechanism to reduce population.

      •  ps capacity (0+ / 0-)

        We do have a right to say that the building where we are holding the party is already beyond a reasonable occupancy level, so that we need to limit those who enter, mostly based on how many people are leaving. Zero net immigration.

        •  You have the right to say the the world if flat (0+ / 0-)

          but it doesn't make it so.
          You can introduce economic, environmental parameters to indirectly regulate immigration as a result of regulating population as a whole. That would be color blind, hardly considered xenophobia, but if you pretend to say that you will solve the environmental problem persecuting 5% of the population... Come on! Where the Jews guilty of the Treaty of Versailes too?

      •  Is that the best you got? (0+ / 0-)
        1. WHo is in charge of inviting people? YOu? I prefer to side with the American juridical tradition that made Alexander Hamilton, our most important immigrant, possible.
        1. As I have said repeatedly in the entry, you can indirectly regulate the effect of immigration on the environment introducing parameters like more sensible environmental regulation and, even better, a stronger EPA.
        1. Scapegoating immigrants is what witch-hunter did in the Middle Ages. You cannot expect seriously address growth population persecuting illegal immigrants 5% of the population.
        1. When I mention famine, epidemics, depressions, etc, I am mentioning historical events that discredit the Malthusian myth that is so dear to NumbersUSA. If you have read the entry you are criticizing, you will see that I propose sexual education, environmental friendly technologies and contraception as main ways to make population growth compatible with the environment. Do you pretend to prove me wrong misrepresenting the contents of my entry? Is that the best you have?
        1. What you are doing is using population, environment or whatever you think can be appealing to hunt witches.

        Read the entry, then criticize it and we all could get enriched by the experience.

      •  Wait a second... (0+ / 0-)

        You said "We don't, however, have the right to tell people they are not invited to our conspicuous consumption party because we don't have enough party favors." Wasn't it about population? Is now about deciding who can get into the United States and who can't?
        As a said, as soon as you admit your racism, those internal contradictions will disappear. The truth will make you free!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site