Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt were the original conservationists, let us not forget.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0...HL1BN&smid=url-share

The earth is just one big cow pasture. Its resources are finite.

Every rancher worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture.

The only way to save the earth is to limit human expansion and population.

All else only affects the timeline.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The earth is just one big cow pasture. Its resources are finite.

Every rancher worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture.

The only way to save the earth is to limit human expansion and population.

All else only affects the timeline.

Correct, only affects the timeline. Carrying capacity is a real thing.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The earth is just one big cow pasture. Its resources are finite.

Every rancher worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture.

The only way to save the earth is to limit human expansion and population.

All else only affects the timeline.

Spoken like a true Nazis. Who chooses who gets to live on the living space?

Every rancher seeks to improve the herd through selective breeding and sterilizations. Thus, for ranchers and fascists, eugenics is the solution.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...he%20United%20States.

The politics of population: birth control and the eugenics movement

Population control referred to a large-scale social policy of limiting births throughout a whole society or in certain groups for the purpose of changing economic, ecological and/or political conditions. Population control ideas were dominated by eugenics and marred by racism and nativism in the United States.

Also:

https://www.cato.org/commentar...t-population-control

This is a cut & paste excerpt from the article. It shows that even greenies' proposed solutions have problems.

I couldn't link the article without creating an account or signing in. But you can find it.

PHYS.ORG

JANUARY 17, 2020

The burning issue of population control
by Beth Amato, Wits University

Celebrity environmentalists such as Jane Goodall and Sir David Attenborough are only some examples of people who have added their voices to the plea for greater population control to avoid the devastating freefall into ecological mayhem.

Thriving (selectively) together
As an ambassador for the Thriving Together campaign, led by the Margaret Pyke Trust, Goodall is at the forefront of advocating for the "removal of barriers to family planning" for the health of women, all humans and our fragile ecosystems. The trust is supported by 150 global organisations, including the United Nations.

"Women everywhere must be able to choose whether to have children, how many children, and the spacing between them. This is critical for their own wellbeing. But, they also need to be equipped with the knowledge as to how their choice affects the health of the planet and thus the future of their own children," says Goodall.

"The Thriving Together statement demonstrates the widespread support and attention that this issue is finally beginning to receive from both the conservation and reproductive health communities."

While women and girls should have autonomy over their bodies and have access to reproductive health services, Goodall has been criticised for not necessarily and primarily being motivated by women's freedom and justice.

UK columnist Ella Whelan wryly asserts that "Thriving Together is prioritising beetles over black people … There is something deeply unpleasant about white environmentalists like Dr. Jane Goodall and Sir David Attenborough fronting these campaigns to strongly discourage women in developing countries from giving birth to 'too many' children."

While the world's resources are certainly limited, highlighting the link between climate change and fertility rates in poor countries fails to confront the deep systemic issues that have driven mass ecological damage, says Distinguished Professor of Public Health and Medical Anthropology at Wits University, Lenore Manderson.

The World Economic Forum, and data analysis organisation Our World in Data, both show that North America, home to five percent of the world's population, is responsible for 18 percent of carbon emissions. On the other hand, Africa—with 16 percent of the world's population—emits only four percent of the total carbon dioxide (CO2). The top 10 richest countries in the world are responsible for 75 percent of the world's CO2 emissions, and 100 countries emit just three percent.

Also, stating that the sum of the problem is too many people seems just wrong to me.

For people making such claim, does that mean there is no point in, it's useless, to take actions on environmental issues broad scale?

One could reach that conclusion by looking at what republicans do. They support gutting the EPA, eliminating the Clean Waters Act, deny climate change and shun mitigation of damages, shun renewables - the list is long.

Over-population could have been avoided but was not. Destruction of entire ecosystems could be avoided but is not. Denial of the fact of overpopulation, like calling those who do recognize the problem "Nazis", is hardly helpful.
Should humans make some attempt to minimize their impact on the planet? Of course they should, and limiting population growth is a good step in that direction. The difficulty lies in recognition of the segments of the population which are most contributory to population growth. The poor, the third world, religious groups who still live by the Old Testament instruction to "be fruitful and multiply". Like most of our problems, it has taken us a hundred years to screw things up and it won't be fixed overnight. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:
Correct, only affects the timeline. Carrying capacity is a real thing.

Late 60s, an ex-army member of the draft board was explaining to me why warfare was good for population control. He did not mention whether I was among the ones that needed culled...

quote:

Over-population could have been avoided but was not. Destruction of entire ecosystems could be avoided but is not. Denial of the fact of overpopulation, like calling those who do recognize the problem "Nazis", is hardly helpful.

"hardly helpful" - hummm. Is that like tough love?

I think over-population is generally accepted as a huge problem. Does destruction or damage to ecosystems necessarily run parallel? Stating that over-population is the singular problem is a way of thinking, an attitude. Much can be correctly inferred from that especially with related factors.

What Rightists are really against is being told what to do, what is correct, such as empowering the EPA, legislation such as the clean water act, promoting renewable energy, and much more. The fact is they would rather be on the team telling others what to do, and what to ignore, and who to hate - such as greenies.

Insofar as ecosystems - Rightists over the years have been consistently against protections of tracts of land, such as Nat'l parks, wilderness designations, Nat'l monuments, wildlife corridors, etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38311093

Obama's 'historic' conservation legacy beats Teddy Roosevelt

Published 4 January 2017

Elephants, sharks, and toads have one thing in common. All of them have benefited, in some way, from the presidency of Barack Obama.

One of the lesser known legacies of the US president is his record as a conservationist.

During his eight years in office, he has placed 548 million acres of habitat under protection. This spans Arctic tundra, mountain woodland, and coral reefs with as much biodiversity as rainforests. The outgoing president created the two largest marine reserves on earth and the world's second largest desert reserve.

Collectively, this array of land and sea encompass an area nine times the size of the United Kingdom.

Mr Obama has protected more natural habitat than any president in American history, exceeding the 290 million acres by the founder of US National Parks, President Theodore Roosevelt .

In all, Mr Obama has added 22 new parks to the US National Park system, far exceeding the six created by his predecessor, George W Bush.

=============================================

https://www.americanprogress.o...esident-u-s-history/

MAY 21, 2020
The Most Anti-Nature President in U.S. History
President Trump has removed protections from more U.S. lands than President Teddy Roosevelt protected as parks and monuments.

https://www.nytimes.com/intera...-rollbacks-list.html

The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.
By NADJA POPOVICH, LIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS UPDATED Jan. 20, 2021

https://www.motherjones.com/en...resident-in-history/

ENVIRONMENT
MAY 26, 2020
It’s Official: Trump Is the Most Anti-Conservation President in History
An analysis finds that the administration has worked to weaken safeguards for nearly 35 million acres.

There is a difference between conservation and preservation.

Obama’s biggest accomplishment as far as preserving space was to place a large ocean area as a sanctuary. He’s considered the biggest because he put miles of ocean under protection… if you restricted it to land, it’s a lot less. Also note, most of what he did to land was not putting new lands in, but just changing the designations.

While I think that putting ocean areas as a preserve was a reasonable idea, how he did it bothers me a bit.

It’s US public “land” but not really utilizable by the citizens.

I personally have issues with the government making something public land and then not allowing the citizens to enjoy it.

Instead of hiring professionals to cull animals at Yellowstone NP, they should allow hunting under strict quota rules, as an example.

The ocean area should be available for sport fishing similarly under strict quota. Given its location, I don’t know how practical it would be, but it should be usable by our citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The earth is just one big cow pasture. Its resources are finite.

Every rancher worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture.

The only way to save the earth is to limit human expansion and population.

All else only affects the timeline.

Spoken like a true Nazis. Who chooses who gets to live on the living space?

Historical population timelines are very interesting, where we got to 1 billion versus how fast we got to 7 billion.

Few positions exists in a vacuum.

The above coupled with Dr. Easter’s longing for a “superior” ethnicity and culture to govern such as the European Empires makes it very clear he believes in a superior “folk” to dominate resources.

He conveniently fights against the fact your those Euro empires inability and refusal to create sustainable home rule where ethnic majorities would take a leading role directly contributed to the national, social revolutions/revolts that played out from the 50-70s.

are resources limited? Yes.

Do we have some mandate to maximize those resources? Yes and no.

The balance from the United Stated perspective wo a major war is to balance resource production with accessibility cost. Those cost are both monetary (cost of commodities) and resource preservation/restoration.

I do not support the Green Deal does not give enough to the cost of the balance.

I do not support deep gutting environmental regulations upon resource development.

I certainly do not support that only my king has the right to govern the development or exploitation resources.

That is why the empires existed resources.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


That is why the empires existed resources.

Cue the Belgian Congo. This is undeniable.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There is a difference between conservation and preservation.

Preservation is conservation.

Conservation is not necessarily preservation, nor leads to sustainability, resource, ecological, or etc.

Also, there is a difference in the values judgments comparing liberal leaning people to conservative leaning people.

To a liberal leaning person, conservation/preservation has intrinsic moral value in itself. To a conservative leaning person, it's all about economic trade off and infringement.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There is a difference between conservation and preservation.

Preservation is conservation.

Conservation is not necessarily preservation, nor leads to sustainability, resource, ecological, or etc.

Also, there is a difference in the values judgments comparing liberal leaning people to conservative leaning people.

To a liberal leaning person, conservation/preservation has intrinsic moral value in itself. To a conservative leaning person, it's all about economic trade off and infringement.

To be fair, everything is a tradeoff. I help wealthy people get more wealthy for a living. I also like that Yellowstone is pristine as i own a home in Ennis. That is a tradeoff.

yellowstone NP is conservation. they try and keep it as close to natural but acknowedge its there for the American people.

hunting is conservation. Introducing removed predators and then letting whatever happens happen is preservation.

preservation is leaving it alone and removing any human activity.

leaving a old growth forest alone and letting it fall apart because of senescence rather than trying to maintain a healthy forest is preservation. Technically, if you have a forest fire in a preservation area, you do nothing.

Conservation would be to use best forestry practices and allow multiple uses including keeping live old growth timber.

Conservation is scientific management. Preservation (in wildlife management anyhow) is just removal of human interaction.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There is a difference between conservation and preservation.

Preservation is conservation.

Conservation is not necessarily preservation, nor leads to sustainability, resource, ecological, or etc.

Also, there is a difference in the values judgments comparing liberal leaning people to conservative leaning people.

To a liberal leaning person, conservation/preservation has intrinsic moral value in itself. To a conservative leaning person, it's all about economic trade off and infringement.

Preservation can be conversion. The debate wax had within President Rosevelt’s circle.

President Rosevelt famously said not to pick flowers in newly created national forest.

Things are complicated.

One of my favorite President Roosevelt quotes that seeks balance:

Other republics have fallen, because the citizens gradually grew to consider the interests of a class before the interests of the whole; for when such was the case it mattered little whether it was the poor who plundered the rich or the rich who exploited the poor; in either event the end of the republic was at hand.

This one really cuts the guts out of President Trump and his campaign.
Our country will never be safe until the time comes when it will be an insult to any man in public place to think it necessary to say that he is honest.

Regardless of the ME and Jeff5 slurs…what I said is reality.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Our country will never be safe until the time comes when it will be an insult to any man in public place to think it necessary to say that he is honest.

That one Rocks!