For thousands of years, population control meant violence. War, famine, disease, and genocide served as the primary powers that nature and the state could wield to limit the expansion of the world’s human footprint. However, medical and cultural advances, such as readily available birth control and women’s liberation significantly changed the conversation around not only the ethics of population expansion, but also the available means of curbing it.
Population Growth Fears
In his 1968 book, The Population Bomb, bioethicist Paul Ehrlich outlined a doomsday scenario with predictions that the world’s population would increase to a point where all natural resources would be consumed, causing massive upheaval across the globe. More recently, researcher Travis Rieder, at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, argues that humans have a moral responsibility to limit the birth of children to protect the environmental stability of our planet.
At NBC News, he writes,
I am certainly not arguing that we should shame parents, or even that we’re obligated to have a certain number of children. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think there is a tidy answer to the challenging questions of procreative ethics. But that does not mean we’re off the moral hook.”
Reider has effectively connected a subjective standard of morality to an individual’s right to use their bodies as they see fit. Scientific research is a means of testing and presenting evidence. Morality is a system of imperatives designed to govern human action. Several problems exist with this type of moral imperative associated with a scientific claim. Reider must not only prove his link beyond a shadow of a doubt – he must as prove that his solution is the only and moral one to follow.
Since 1950, the world’s repopulation rate has decreased.
For the past 40 years, the scientific community has waffled between the impact of global cooling and global warming as a doomsday scenario for our planet. While it is hard to argue that environmental changes have occurred over the course of many millennia, it is harder to link this change to specific human action. In direct rebuttal to Ehrlich’s and Rieder’s concern for a population bomb, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, since 1950, the world’s repopulation rate has decreased from an annual rate of 1.5 percent, below the necessary rate of population maintenance, to a projected 0.5 percent by 2050.
The alarmist attitude of researchers searching for a link between human repopulation rates and global impact is misguided and naive. In The Guardian, a different warning has been issued about declining birth rates in European countries. In 2015, Spain’s repopulation rate fell to 1.27 percent while the general repopulation rate for Europe is now teetering at 1.55 percent. For Rieder and Ehrlich, unless the total extermination of the human population is the ultimate method of achieving the least amount of carbon footprint, it would seem that not only are humans taking care of reducing our population voluntarily, but it brings up the question of who will decide the correct number of humans populating the earth.
Top-Down Population Restrictions
Policies such as China’s One Child mandate, phased out in 2015, have led to numerous unintended consequences including forced abortions and what is estimated as currently 30 million bachelors with too few eligible young women.
Top-down restrictions of human population growth have produced negative economic and societal results.
Genocides perpetrated in Europe during World War I and World War II, including the Holocaust and Stalin’s gulags, impacted the economic growth of countries such as Germany and Russia following these wars. Top-down restrictions of human population growth have, in every instance, produced negative results both economic and societal.
What Rieder and Ehrlich discount as a potential solution to environmental change is a reliance on human ingenuity and entrepreneurship to solve these problems. The use of horse-drawn carriages across the world was potentially the highest impact to global greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1910. The invention of the automobile solved this issue more effectively than any city ordinance about how and where to remove waste. Numerous examples exist including the invention of the light bulb, the electric car, and energy efficient technologies. Whenever the human race has faced a societal problem or designed a new invention that changes history entrepreneurs, not governments, have dealt most effectively with the implications of change.
Human reproduction is neither a problem environmentally, nor morally, if we seek to find new ways to reduce our carbon footprint through innovation. Stringing together a supposed and unverifiable set of causes that impact something as integral as human reproduction, while we restrict investment and research into alternative sources of energy, is a misguided approach to solving a small problem while ignoring larger more direct issues.
It’s important to allow humans to be free to reproduce, spurring entrepreneurs and scientists to find new ways to steward our planet wisely. Instead of relying on government to regulate growth we will produce a society with more moral and social responsibility, as we seek new ways to encourage the human race to flourish in a sustainable fashion.
Apneaman on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 5:58 pm
Foundation for Economic Education
The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a right-wing 501(c)3 educational foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia. FEE is an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN).[1]
Founded in 1946, FEE was the first modern think tank established in the United States specifically to promote, research and promulgate free market and libertarian ideas. It continues to do so through its monthly magazine, The Freeman, as well as through pamphlets, lectures, and academic sponsorship. It also publishes reprints of classic libertarian texts, and arranges seminars for American public figures. “Additionally, FEE supports and connects our alumni through the FEE Alumni Network, provides professional development opportunities through internships and networking, and recognizes our most extraordinary alumni leaders with the annual Leonard E. Read Distinguished Alumni Award.”[2]
Koch Wiki
The Koch brothers — David and Charles — are the right-wing billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries. As two of the richest people in the world, they are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on the Kochs include: Koch Brothers, Koch Industries, Americans for Prosperity, American Encore, and Freedom Partners.
Ties to the Koch Brothers
The Foundation for Economic Education is listed as a partner organization of the Charles Koch Institute.[3]
FEE has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation:
$31,000 in 2014
$7,000 in 2010
$15,767 in 2009
$8,000 in 2000
$5,000 in 1999
FEE has also received funding from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, “two funds that have been closely tied to the Kochs but which obscure the percentage of their grants coming from Koch money.[4]
$100,000 from Donors Capital Fund in 2014
$82,600 from DonorsTrust in 2014
$100,00 from Donors Capital Fund in 2013
$58,500 from DonorsTrust in 2013
State Policy Network
SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of July 2017, SPN’s membership totals 153. It is an $83 million right-wing empire as of the 2011 funding documents from SPN itself and each of its state “think tank” members. Although SPN’s member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy’s in-depth investigation, “EXPOSED: The State Policy Network — The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government,” reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.[5]
In response to CMD’s report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are “fiercely independent.” Later the same week, however, The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, “Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?,” the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp “compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA.” She reportedly said that SPN “would provide ‘the raw materials,’ along with the ‘services’ needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. ‘Pick what you need,’ she said, ‘and customize it for what works best for you.'” Not only that, but Sharp “also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. ‘The grants are driven by donor intent,’ she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, ‘the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'”[6]
A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members’ intent to change state laws and policies, referring to “advancing model legislation” and “candidate briefings.” These activities “arguably cross the line into lobbying,” The Guardian notes.[7]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Economic_Education
Fucking Cancers
Apneaman on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:02 pm
You Are Not So Smart
David McRaney January 30, 2017 – Podcast – 51 minutes
YANSS 094 – How motivated skepticism strengthens incorrect beliefs
“By now you’ve likely heard of confirmation bias. As a citizen of the internet the influence of this cognitive tendency is constant, and its allure is pervasive.
In short, when you have a hunch that you might already understand something, but don’t know for sure, you tend to go searching for information that will confirm your suspicions.
When you find that inevitable confirmation, satisfied you were correct all along, you stop searching. In some circles, the mental signal to end exploration once you feel like your position has sufficient external support is referred to as the wonderfully wordy “makes sense stopping rule” which basically states that once you believe you’ve made sense of something, you go about your business satisfied that you need not continue your efforts. In other words, just feeling correct is enough to stop your pursuit of new knowledge. We basically had to invent science to stop ourselves from trying to solve problems by thinking in this way.”
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/01/30/yanss-094-how-motivated-skepticism-strengthens-incorrect-beliefs/
Sissyfuss on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:10 pm
What is inhumane is the ruination of climate stability, the coming mass starvation of billions, and the 6th Mass Extinction. There are no rational arguments for population stabilization much less increase. But there are many religious and materialistic bozos out there that will postulate a position for greater human numbers. It’s too bad that we are f#&ked so regularly that in the end we are f#&ked completely.
Apneaman on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:11 pm
They want MORE. More economic freedom which means more and they want more stupid babies for customers and workers and cannon fodder.
This is what MORE has brought you.
Air pollution is associated with poorer quality sperm, finds study
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/air-pollution-sperm-quality-poor-study-fertility-problems-men-a8067476.html
Size and shape of men’s sperm alters when exposed to diesel fumes, reveals new study
New research from The Chinese University, Hong Kong, suggests sperm size and shape adversely affected by sooty smoke
While this may not necessarily impact fertility, researchers are still concerned
Men exposed to pollution were 26 per cent to have the poorest sperm shap
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5106985/Men-s-sperm-damaged-air-pollution-says-new-study.html
So what is the response from the Cock Bros propaganda dept?
“Modern Air Is a Little Too Clean”: The Rise of Air Pollution Denial
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/42708-modern-air-is-a-little-too-clean-the-rise-of-air-pollution-denial
One track mind cancer monkeys. It’s criminal.
Davy on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:11 pm
This article represents what is wrong with the world. We have in this article the blind belief in techno optimism and the belief markets will find sustainability through innovation to steward the planet. This is just one more of those many situations where we falsely believe we can have our cake and eat it. There is no suffering only flourishing happy humans in a fantasy world.
Boat on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:15 pm
Attack the rich, redistribution of resources to the poor is that socialist cry. Will that let you off the moral hook? No. The end result is more babies. Climate change will kill those babies. Government subsidies should be tied to no children. Worldwide.
onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:16 pm
Shut up, you right wing lunatics cancer monkeys
It is not enough we are destroying the habitability of this planet but you want to hasten it by adding more rich first worlders
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:17 pm
Right wingers always deny science. They deny peak oil, overpopulation, evolution, climate change, big bang. everything that doesn’t confirm to their worldview. Just wait till the oil starts to run out here in a few years. Right wingers will the first ones calling for mass genocide of others to save resources for themselves…
onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:19 pm
Spot on MM
Shortend on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:21 pm
Yeast,I imagine, feel the same way in a petri dish.
Like this is one issue that we are looking in the rear view mirror…so past of doing ANYTHING about…when fossil fuel decline, so will the human yeast…or rocket man pushing a nuke exchange.
Here is another take propaganda BS piece
Why you shouldn’t obsess about “overpopulation”
We can’t solve our climate-change problems by having fewer babies.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change
ut the truth is that overpopulation in the United States is not even close to a serious problem. Even globally, overpopulation is an overstated problem.
It’s simplest to start with just the United States. How many people can the country support? Because I am an agricultural economist by profession, my bias is to first think about food. One simple question is how many people can the United States feed? Well, our net agricultural exports account for about 25 percent of the physical volume of agricultural production, which suggests that if we redirected those exports internally, the US could probably support approximately 25 percent more people. That’s assuming current technology and current diets and current land use.
In short, we could feed more than 400 million people, total, merely by consuming locally what we now export.
See, all we need to do is tweek it.
onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:31 pm
Go back to school Shortend you have a lot to learn about current unsustainable agricultural practices. Not to mention lack of accounting for diminished food production from a degraded Earth and from the effects of Global warming
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:38 pm
Nothing is going to change except that the situation will get worse. Get rid of waste and there would be plenty to eat. Basic needs could be met. The world would not be dying.
Waste is the cause of ALL of humanity’s problems today. The waste is mostly concentrated in the Western, Capitalist countries and their wannabees. Time for them to fail and collapse into the 3rd world to level the playing field. We shall see how long it takes. The process is well under way.
Shortend on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:41 pm
Dude, learn how to read, OK?
I posted another BS recent article on the web as a spoof. Now go back and go FCK yourselfie
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:44 pm
Shortend, you are correct. It is all about $$$, not logical solutions or rethinking our food system. The world could feed at least 10 billion easily if the system was tweaked and capitalist profit/greed didn’t make the decisions.
Local production and use would eliminate a lot of waste and offset any climate changes for the foreseeable future. But, until the globalist system collapses, there will be no significant changes. Greed rules. Humans go extinct because we were too stupid/greedy to save ourselves.
Shortend on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:53 pm
Sure Make..Solent green will be tastey in the world you describe….like I STATED, as the use of fossil fuels decline, so will the number of humans….bye guys…been real
Duncan Idaho on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 7:11 pm
“Fucking Cancers”
Well, that sums it up nicely.
Apneaman on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 7:20 pm
Oh NO!
Investors are Fleeing Fossil Fuels in Droves
“The U.S. has been hammered by not one, not two, but three $100 billion dollar plus hurricanes. All of those storms were made worse by climate change and one — Harvey — was found to be three times more likely due to the heat trapping gasses fossil fuel based industry has collectively pumped into the world’s atmosphere. With the Thomas Fire threatening to burn down Santa Barbara in December, California is reeling from its worst fire season on record. And glaciers from Greenland to Antarctica are teetering at the brink — ready to inundate the world’s cities at rates far faster than previously expected with only just a bit more added fossil fuel trapped heat.”
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/12/15/investors-are-fleeing-fossil-fuels-in-droves/
three $100 billion dollar plus hurricanes.
breaking the bank
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 7:36 pm
Short, you probably don’t live in the 3rd world like I do. You have little to no experience with day to day survival like I see all around me. No one in the US does or has had to survive on their own for all of their life. Too many social safety nets. Welfare, food stamps, food kitchens, disability insurance, etc. Americans are mostly dumb, soft and fat and will go first.
Yes, there will be die-offs, but they will hit hardest in the ‘developed’ world, not not the ‘developing’ world. Sure, there will be die-offs there also, but they will be the Western wannabees living in the big cities and no survival skills aside form Facebook and Twitter. Mostly the younger snowflake types. A few million here. A few million there,but not like in the US or even Europe.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. Time will tell.
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 7:39 pm
Ap, the US has probably hit it’s Trillion Dollar Disaster Year, if the accounting was actually reported. I doubt next year will be any better. At what point do the insurance companies begin to fold?
Davy on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 7:41 pm
Shut up Mad Kat. You live in Makati, the financial center of Manila where the bankers hang out. You fantasize about the 3rd world as you pass by the bankers.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:07 pm
The last law of nature says: that any creature that despoils and outbreeds its natural habitat will be culled to bring its numbers under control and restore a stable environment.
Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food. Without petroleum we will not be able to feed the global population.
Professor Albert Bartlett PhD, University of Colorado, USA
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:15 pm
Mm, Amerocentric bullshit! The US does not feed the world. It does not even feed all of it’s own population. It export some grains and imports at least 20% of it’s food. As the climate changes, it will be in food deficit worse than most other countries as it has few real farmers and little fertile soil. You need to ref real sites tat can be checked. Not some over-educated professors name. He could be on the Big Ag payroll and probably is.
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:18 pm
Davy, you live in the trailer trash section of America and claim to be a big farmer with intelligence. Is that a fantasy?
To others here, you are just a 1%er brat that will be smacked down when the SHTF. Arrogance will get your face punched in, or worse. Get help.
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:39 pm
Madkat
We are the bread basket of the world. You will suffer and die once the oil starts to run out. And you will be CULLED! I PROMISE YOU!
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:40 pm
Democracy cannot survive overpopulation; Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation; Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation; As you put more and more people into the world, The value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
-Isaac Asimov
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:41 pm
Studies of mice populations indicate that when faced with overpopulation, many catastrophic events occurred. Such as the mothers abandoned their young, increased infant mortality, homosexuality, mass violence, cannibalism, and lack of maternal functions. Studies revealed as the mice population densities reached a tipping point. Once reached, the population began to suffer a “spiritual death” and went down a “behavioral sink”. (Calhoun, 1962)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2428&context=open_access_etds
Seen any of this around guys? lol
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 8:43 pm
DEMOCRACY CANNOT SURVIVE OVERPOPULATION
Professor Albert A. Bartlett, Phd
Department of Physics
University of Colorado
Article I of the Constitution of the United States, (1790) describes the House of Representatives, and says that “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand…” In the year 2000 there are over 600,000 persons per member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus in 210 years we have seen democracy at the national level being diluted by a factor of approximately 600,000 / 30,000 = 20. (Bartlett, 2000)
https://rewilding.org/rewildit/images/DemocracyOverpopulation.pdf
GregT on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 9:00 pm
“mothers abandoned their young, increased infant mortality, homosexuality, mass violence, cannibalism, and lack of maternal functions.”
Sounds eerily familiar……..
MASTERMIND on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 9:26 pm
GregT
Yes and if the mice had guns there would have been mass shootings..And mice share 99 percent of their genes with humans.
Makati1 on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 11:07 pm
Your brainwashing is showing MM. The US is NOT the breadbasket of anything. Russia exports more grain than the US. The US IMPORTS ~20% of it’s food. Read the labels on the stuff you eat.
“The US Department of Agriculture is expecting Russia to be the second largest wheat exporter in 2017 with 28 million metric tons, second to the United States with 28.17 million metric tons after coming first last year.”
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201705261054006464-russia-grain-export-forecast/
“Over 44 percent of U.S. agricultural imports are horticultural products: fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, wine, essential oils, nursery stock, cut flowers, and hops. Sugar and tropical products such as coffee, cocoa, and rubber comprised just over 20 percent of agricultural imports in 2015. Imports of vegetable oils, processed grain products, red meat, and dairy products have grown significantly in recent years.”
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-trade/
“The United States, being one of the world’s largest economies, imports a total of $133 billion USD worth of food and food products, followed by China at $105.26 billion USD, Germany at $98.90 billion USD, Japan at $68.86 billion USD, the United Kingdom at $66.54 billion USD, the Netherlands at $64.38 billion USD, France at $62.29 billion USD, Italy at $51.34 billion USD, Belgium at $40.87 billion USD, and the Russian Federation at $38.60 billion USD.” (That’s ~$450. per man, woman and child in the US, annually.)
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-countries-importing-the-most-food-in-the-world.html
My favorite candy, that is owned by Hershey, PA., comes from … Mexico! Read the labels, MM. Stop parroting propaganda bullshit.
onlooker on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 11:28 pm
Makati, just curious was Hershey bars being created in Pennsylvania or Mexico back when 3 Mile Island occurred ? I ask because I read that they could be contaminated by the radiation from that accident. You see I also loved Hershey bars yummy
Makati1 on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 12:35 am
At that time, I believe ALL Hershey products were made in Hershey, PA. I was not aware of any other location. I remember the chocolate smell when we visited the area at that time. It is a huge limestone building in the center of Hershey.
Theedrich on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 2:40 am
The Demonic party aims to negrify the nation. It is the only way to seize supreme power, and to this end it currently uses cultural wedge issues (“Whites hate Blacks, Homosexuals, Jews, Moslems,” etc., “Males prey sexually on unsuspecting, chaste females who are repulsed and traumatized by anything erotic and whose innocent wishdream is simply to dominate the evil testosterone-driven monsters”). In general, the insane legacy of Protestant Christianity with its subconscious demand that Whites commit genosuicide fuels this mental collapse and the civil war now ongoing in America.
While the creatures in the Negroid territories in Africa are proliferating like flies, and muds from every corner of the earth are swamping Whitelands, Whitey pretends not to notice. In Canada and Europe, anyone who notices too loudly is heavily fined or even thrown into prison. Thus the rot metastasizes and brings us ever closer to the wish of the Jesus freaks: that we all enjoy eternal happiness with “the Lord” in the cemetery.
This corruption is nothing new. Hypocrisy is baked into the American pie. Appearing on October 16, 2017 on C-SPAN, Scott Shapiro and Oona A. Hathaway, authors of The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Outlawing of War 01:18 – 01:50, revealed that, in 1846, the U.S. went to war with Mexico in order to recoup about $6 million which Mexico owed American citizens and did not pay up, and so “manifest-destiny” America took over what is today the entire southwest of the U.S. Since that kind of action is today regarded as politically incorrect, the Swamplings now use proxy wars, bombing runs and smear campaigns to “regime-change” their prey and make it conform to American lusts.
The hysteria about overpopulation has only one goal: to get Cretin-Christian Whitey to turn over his entire legacy to the lower races and in the process go extinct. The White elites themselves salivate over the process. It is driven by their profound nihilism, which recognizes nothing but personal power for the Demonics — der Wille zur Macht for themselves alone. And the White masses must be crushed in order to allow this drive to succeed.
Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 2:46 am
“Your brainwashing is showing MM. The US is NOT the breadbasket of anything. Russia exports more grain than the US. The US IMPORTS ~20% of it’s food. Read the labels on the stuff you eat.”
Bull shit mad kat. Russia does not export more grain than the US. That is a flat ass lie. Show me the friggen numbers. Wheat is not the only grain. Wht about total grains of wheat, soy, and corn.
“The US IMPORTS ~20% of it’s food.”
The US imports food that is not vital to survival. It is a rich economy that consumes luxuries. The US started to be a net importer after WTO and NAFTA.
“In the realm of food, The United States remains at the top, unchallenged.[13] The United States has the position of being the largest producer and exporter of food”
https://tinyurl.com/yb5mjrsn
Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 2:47 am
Hershey products suck mad kat. I should have known you would like them obviously you don’t know quality.
Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 2:52 am
Another distortion from the board wacko.
“My favorite candy, that is owned by Hershey, PA., comes from … Mexico! Read the labels, MM. Stop parroting propaganda bullshit.”
“Hershey chocolate factory in São Roque, Brazil, was opened in August 2002. Hershey also has plants in Stuarts Draft, Virginia; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; Robinson, Illinois, and Guadalajara, Mexico.”
https://tinyurl.com/yce2qq5a
Cloggie on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 3:35 am
“In the realm of food, The United States remains at the top, unchallenged.[13] The United States has the position of being the largest producer and exporter of food”
With tiny Holland as a good second. Just saying.
😉
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2016/23/nederland-tweede-landbouwexporteur-ter-wereld
Way ahead of Russia.
And if I apply my geopolitical premonitions on the world of say 2025, Holland could become the largest agricultural exporter in the world (in money terms), provided the US balkanizes into ethnic components, like the USSR of former fame.
Makati1 on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 4:08 am
“Another distortion from the board wacko.” Ah, yes, we get a ton of them from the board wacko who lives in Missouri and plays with goats.
How is the FACT that my favorite candy comes from Mexico, which you prove with your comment, makes ME a wacko? It it you that needs help. Your stream of bullshit in the above comments prove it to any sane person.
Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 5:59 am
“How is the FACT that my favorite candy comes from Mexico, which you prove with your comment, makes ME a wacko? It it you that needs help. Your stream of bullshit in the above comments prove it to any sane person.”
Dumbass, they sell in Mexico too because Mexicans are human and like Hershey chocolate. What a fruit cake. Your comment made it sound like they don’t make chocolate in the PA anymore which is not true. You want it to sound like they only make it in Mexico. FRAUD
onlooker on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 6:36 am
Funny you guys. All I know is I am sad cause cannot eat Hershey. It’s a sad sad world
Makati1 on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 6:45 am
onlooker, why can’t you eat Hershey? It is safe and not too expensive. I eat several pounds per year in various forms and have for many years. Even after TMI in March 1979.
Makati1 on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 6:52 am
Davy again you are rambling on and not making sense. What has Mexicans eating Hershey chocolate have to do with my comment? I never said that they don’t make some chocolate in Hershey.
Chocolate-based products -WIKI
1.1 Hershey’s chocolate bars
1.2 Hershey’s Symphony
1.3 Hershey’s Extra Extra Dark
1.4 Almond Joy
1.5 Mounds
1.6 100 Calorie Bar
1.7 Hershey’s Bliss
1.8 Hershey’s Drops
1.9 Hershey’s Miniatures
1.10 Hershey’s Pot of Gold
1.11 Kit Kat
1.12 Hershey’s Nuggets
1.13 Hershey’s Kisses
1.14 Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups
1.15 Pieces
1.16 Whoppers
1.17 York Peppermint Pattie
1.18 Others
1.19 Hershey Canada
1.20 Hershey Philippines
1.21 Cadbury Chocolates
I said that they make the candy I like in Mexico, not in Hershey. Get help. Your meds aren’t working.
onlooker on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:00 am
Well Mak isn’t ingesting radiation much worse than ambient exposure? So, presumably when Three Mile Island meltdown occurred it would have contaminated the main Hershey factory in Lancaster PA as it is very close to Three Mile Island
Davy on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:15 am
“My favorite candy, that is owned by Hershey, PA., comes from … Mexico! Read the labels, MM. Stop parroting propaganda bullshit.”
You deceptive fool. Go get a room with dutchy.
DerHundistlos on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:16 am
“Human reproduction is neither a problem environmentally, nor morally, if we seek to find new ways to reduce our carbon footprint through innovation.”
This statement demonstrates the writer’s total failure to comprehend the scope of prescient environmental calamities facing humanity.
When an ET species writes the final report for humanity it will read:
“Clever ape, although selfish, short-sighted, entirely lacking in wisdom.
Classification // Recommendation:
DO NOT REGENERATE // Maleficent Destroyer of Worlds
DerHundistlos on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:26 am
@ Shortend
It’s not at all clear your posting is a spoof. I thought the same as Onlooker. Have a nice day. 🙂
Aidan on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:49 am
The bit I really, really loved was the third-from-last paragraph where the article claims that the switch from horse-drawn to motorised vehicles reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. This seems to suggest that science has completely overlooked the fact – apparently obvious to these people – that horses are actually ruminants. Wow!
Shortend on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 10:56 am
DerHundistlos on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:26 am
@ Shortend
It’s not at all clear your posting is a spoof. I thought the same as Onlooker. Have a nice day.
Fair enough, too hard to understand
“DerHundistlos on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 7:26 am
Fair enough, so confusing..
Shortend on Sat, 16th Dec 2017 6:21 pm
Yeast,I imagine, feel the same way in a petri dish.
Like this is one issue that we are looking in the rear view mirror…so past of doing ANYTHING about…when fossil fuel decline, so will the human yeast…or rocket man pushing a nuke exchange.
Here is another take propaganda BS piece
Apneaman on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 11:34 am
How to Live As an Antinatalist
Antinatalism is a philosophy that holds the premise that pain and suffering are bad and that pleasure, while good, is not needed by those who don’t exist. New human lives will inevitably contain pain and suffering. Therefore, antinatalism concludes through philosophical reasoning that it is better for human beings not to be born. By not being born, a potential but as-yet-unborn person has avoided the suffering of life, all of which was preventable if the parents had not procreated and brought that person into existence.
https://www.wikihow.com/Live-As-an-Antinatalist
babies are dumb
Apneaman on Sun, 17th Dec 2017 11:37 am
“Would it matter if humans went extinct? In fact, wouldn’t this planet be better if it was rid of people and all the injustice and suffering that we cause? If this is a world view that doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable to you, you may too be an anti-natalist. “
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/antinatalism-people-think-world-earth-better-off-if-humans-not-exist-humankind-extinct-a7565591.html
babies are useless eaters