Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You never answered my question either so I will pose it again. How does life without parole have anything to do with the environment? .
Criminals need to be taken out of society to promote migration back into the cities. 300 million people living on 1/2 acre land each is much more damaging that 300 million living on 1000 sq.ft. each.
Spread out prevents effective mass transit. Mass transit is good for the environment.
Given a constant number of people, high density living is greener and affords more green programs.
Before you make the false claim that punishing crime doesn't lower it, review what happened in Singapore when laws were back with harsh punishments. Or ask yourself why so many people drive 5mph over the limit, but a lot less go 25mph over. Punishments work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvinbama
I agree that overpopulation is the foremost environmental concern, but limiting immigration to the usa will do nothing to limit population growth in the countries that contribute the most new mouths to feed every year.
Lame excuse. If a country is overpopulated, it is time to stop artificially increasing the population via immigration. Especially if that country is among the top consumming in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvinbama
China is now focusing on gdp/unit of energy consumption, and we should do the same here
China is also focusing on reducing population. So far we've seen China and Japan used as examples, yet both have strict immigration policy.
I don't think you can call immigration an artificial population increase. It is more like a transfer. The global population stays the same when someone immigrates from one country to the other. If that immigrant came from a high birth rate country like Nigeria to a low one like say Sweden then you could reasonably expect global population to be lower due to a lower birth rate of the in-migrant in europe than it would have been in Africa. This applies to subsequent generations as well.
Saying that locking more criminals up will bring people back to the city is also an incorrect assumption. Most people flee the cities after they have children in order to access better schools, and to have more space for their growing family. I guess you would lock up poor test takers too in order to improve inner-city schools to bring back suburbanites. I like the fact that you think beyond the obvious on these issues, but your prescribed medicines only create more immediate detrimental side effects
I don't think you can call immigration an artificial population increase. It is more like a transfer. The global population stays the same when someone immigrates from one country to the other. If that immigrant came from a high birth rate country like Nigeria to a low one like say Sweden then you could reasonably expect global population to be lower due to a lower birth rate of the in-migrant in europe than it would have been in Africa. This applies to subsequent generations as well.
Saying that locking more criminals up will bring people back to the city is also an incorrect assumption. Most people flee the cities after they have children in order to access better schools, and to have more space for their growing family. I guess you would lock up poor test takers too in order to improve inner-city schools to bring back suburbanites. I like the fact that you think beyond the obvious on these issues, but your prescribed medicines only create more immediate detrimental side effects
I understand that 90% follow their political ideology regarding protecting the environment. As long as the policy is known as a "liberal" one, it is acceptable, but if it isn't than it can't be done.
Without the change in immigration policy in the 1960's US population would be 30 million less. That is a massive difference in consumption and urban sprawl. While liberal eco people are terrified of anything that involves thinking outside the box, there are some more intelligent people that want to see the real problems addressed.
Yawn.... More misleading statements about crime. You eliminate the crime and you eliminate many other problems. The worst schools are in high crime areas, why? People that have worth leave, and everything degrades when only trash values are left behind.
If you think crime isn't a massive social issue that assists in driving numerous other issues you're in a state of denial. I suggest you read up on how Singapore moved from 3rd world to 1st world. One of the first steps was to eliminate crime, after that it was easy to get th eschools and mass transit and high density housing on track.
Republicans tried in the early 1990's. As soon as norplant came out they called it the "vaccine for poverty". Democrats, the ACLU and NAACP didn't support it.
It's been said that if the average fuel economy on cars driven now was 40mpg, in 5-7 years we would be consuming the exact same amount of fuel as now.
The population growth will always overtake any environmental gains.
to the first point - i'd have to see info on that to believe it. unless that's before the pro-lifers helped overtake the party.
to the second point - yes, population growth limits the benefits of the gains. but without the gains, we'd be far worse off. the point is...there's no reason to be only at 40mpg now. my computer science teacher said once that if the combustion engine evolved at the same rate as the microchip, we'd be driving 300 miles on a thimble of gasoline...that was around 14 years ago that he made that statement. lol
What I'm getting at is that post "green" people seem to lack the critical thinking to truly address environmental issues. They "think" what they are told to think and stay within a political ideology.
While you don't seem to grasp that overpopulation is the driver to environmental issues, nearly all environmental scientists do. There are reports out there that show IF the US lowered consumption to the lowest consuming western society we would still be overpopulated.
While you won't understand how social issues and environmental ones are closely related until a specific political leader tells you, there are people that can think on their own and realize this.
I've explained how high crime encourages migration out of cities that leads to suburban sprawl. And suburban sprawl is bad for the environment on so many different levels. If the crime rate of Detroit was that of Podunk, Iowa it could easily see people migrating to the city and the growth and use of mass transit (which requires high density living to be affordable).
I'm well aware that the "green" people won't likely change their minds. They will wonder why people don't jump on board and do everything green by a specific political ideology and continue to see nothing done.
Anyone else care to answer the questions honestly?
camn you please post something backing up your argument that the US is overpopulated?
I'm not saying 100% are that way. But at least 90% that I've met are.
Why so many of you are hung up on the fact that 90% of the people I've talked to are that way and 100% of the ones that have answered so far is beyond comprehension. Maybe it a stage of denial?
How about a few more people give honest answers. Or are you afraid to pidgeonhole yourself?
wait, didn't I answer your questions and defy your logic? i don't think anyone else that answered backed up your logic either.
What I'm getting at is that post "green" people seem to lack the critical thinking to truly address environmental issues. They "think" what they are told to think and stay within a political ideology. Don't think so. I can't speak for all 'green' people, but I can speak from experience. Most of the people who grasp the severity of the problem we face with climate change, and many others who know and understand the importance of balance in our natural world are scientists, or have at least a B.S. in a physical or life science. The very nature of science teaches people critical thought. Critical thought is the most important thing in science, so I'm calling you on this one. You have it backwards........again.
While you don't seem to grasp that overpopulation is the driver to environmental issues, nearly all environmental scientists do. There are reports out there that show IF the US lowered consumption to the lowest consuming western society we would still be overpopulated. Disscussed this earlier. Most environmentalists grasp the importance of overpopulation because the grasp the concept of finite resources and carrying capacity.
While you won't understand how social issues and environmental ones are closely related until a specific political leader tells you, there are people that can think on their own and realize this. Argumentative, so I'm not responding.
I've explained how high crime encourages migration out of cities that leads to suburban sprawl. And suburban sprawl is bad for the environment on so many different levels. [color=#8b0000]Suburban sprawl is yesterday's fad. People are moving back to cities, and even encouraging city farming. Detroit, yes, I said Detroit is going gangbuster with city farms, local farming, and farmers' markets. Researching a topic before posting is helpful.
Detroit, community resilience, and the American dream | Grist
If the crime rate of Detroit was that of Podunk, Iowa it could easily see people migrating to the city and the growth and use of mass transit (which requires high density living to be affordable).
I've read where there is a shift where the lower income families will be stuck in the suburbs. I do think, however, we may be quite a few years away from that in most places.
I'm well aware that the "green" people won't likely change their minds. They will wonder why people don't jump on board and do everything green by a specific political ideology and continue to see nothing done. What's a 'green' person to you? What does a 'green' person look like? Where do they live? What do they eat? Who are their friends? Can you spot a 'green' person on the street if they walk past you?
Anyone else care to answer the questions honestly?
I believe people have been answering you honestly. They just aren't saying what you want them to say or what YOU believe.
wait, didn't I answer your questions and defy your logic? i don't think anyone else that answered backed up your logic either.
Actually you never just answered them like the other two people. Here's another chanceto answer yes/no questions:
Would you support the reducing of immigration to 5,000 people a year?
Would you support stripping illegals of all rights and deporting them when they are found?
(those two would significantly reduce our population growth and size in the next 5 year)
Would you support mandating birth control use for welfare recipients?
Would you support a program that gives women small amounts of cash (~$100/year) for going on long term birth control such as IUD's, depo provera or norplant?
Is the US overpopulated?
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of felonies on 3 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole?
Would you support a federal law mandating anyone convicted of violent felonies on 2 separate occasions will be put in prison for life with no chance of parole?
It's a standard view to deny overpopulation. After faced with proof the next stage of denial will be to fantasize about "new wonderful ways of living that don't consume".
If you prefer here's a paragraph from Wikipedia: Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. According to this theory, in order to achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States would have to reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population would have to be reduced by two-thirds.[84] Some groups (for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature[85][86] and Global Footprint Network[87]) have stated that the carrying capacity for the human population has been exceeded as measured using the Ecological Footprint. In 2006, WWF's "Living Planet Report" stated that in order for all humans to live with the current consumption patterns of Europeans, we would be spending three times more than what the planet can renew.[88] Humanity as a whole was using, by 2006, 40 percent more than what Earth can regenerate.[89]
Feel free to research the individual groups (as one part of denial is to shoot the messenger).
From the ACLU:
In 1991, 1992, and 1993, legislators in more than a dozen states introduced measures that, had they passed, would have encouraged women to use Norplant. Some of these bills would have offered financial incentives to women on welfare to induce them to use Norplant. Other legislation would have required women receiving public assistance either to use Norplant or lose their benefits. Some bills would have ordered women convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy to have Norplant implanted or face jail time.
Do some research and find out which states, as I'm busy now and already know the correct answer.
Randy is pretty full of himself, and is unwilling to accept anyone's comments as valid. This is why I don't debate politics with idealogues. The point is to reconcile and spread knowledge, not to constantly argue with no end in sight. The 90% statement that started this thread is bogus. Besides, I'd rather have 90% blindly following an environmental movement rather than 90% blindly following a status quo agenda when it comes to the environment.
I don't think you can call immigration an artificial population increase. It is more like a transfer. The global population stays the same when someone immigrates from one country to the other. If that immigrant came from a high birth rate country like Nigeria to a low one like say Sweden then you could reasonably expect global population to be lower due to a lower birth rate of the in-migrant in europe than it would have been in Africa. This applies to subsequent generations as well.
Saying that locking more criminals up will bring people back to the city is also an incorrect assumption. Most people flee the cities after they have children in order to access better schools, and to have more space for their growing family. I guess you would lock up poor test takers too in order to improve inner-city schools to bring back suburbanites. I like the fact that you think beyond the obvious on these issues, but your prescribed medicines only create more immediate detrimental side effects
i think randy has a point in that if cities were safer, people would stay in the cities. at least some would.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
