October 18, 2009

Globaloney Pushback: It’s About Time

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:42 pm

This is the trailer for Phelim McAleer’s documentary, “Not Evil Just Wrong”:

McAleer is the journalist and filmmaker who challenged Al Gore in Wisconsin a week ago at a conference of environmental journalists. As noted here, Gore grievously dissembled in his response to McAleer about the nature of a British judge’s declaration that showing Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth documentary (as reported by ABC News) “violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom” unless it was accompanied by nine corrections to incorrect assertions in the film.

Gore claimed that “the ruling was in favor of the movie.”

Given the world depopulation goals of many enviros (here, here, and here, for starters), I’m not at all convinced that the using the word “evil” is out of line. Behold the compilation that follows:


To remove any doubt that greenies want you dead, let these environmentalists/monsters speak for themselves:

  • Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
  • John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
  • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
  • David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
  • David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
  • Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
  • Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
  • John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: “Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!”
  • Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
  • Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
  • Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
  • Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”


More eco-nonsense, not all relating to depopulation, is here.

The incomparable Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics George Reisman makes an important point about the enviros’ outrageous statements:

There is no negative reaction from the environmental movement (to statements advocation radical depopulation) because what such statements express is nothing other than the actual philosophy of the movement. This is what the movement believes in. It’s what it agrees with. It’s what it desires. Environmentalists are no more prepared to attack the advocacy of mass destruction and death than Austrian economists are prepared to attack the advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism and economic progress. Mass destruction and death is the goal of environmentalists, just as laissez-faire capitalism and economic progress is the goal of Austrian economists.

And this is why I call environmentalism evil. It’s evil to the core. In the environmental movement, contemplating the mass death of people in general is no more shocking than it was in the Communist and Nazi movements to contemplate the mass death of capitalists or Jews in particular. All three are philosophies of death. The only difference is that environmentalism aims at death on a much larger scale.

Despite still being far from possessing full power in any country, the environmentalists are already responsible for approximately 96 million deaths from malaria across the world. These deaths are the result of the environmentalist-led ban on the use of DDT, which could easily have prevented them and, before its ban, was on the verge of wiping out malaria. The environmentalists brought about the ban because they deemed the survival of a species of vultures, to whom DDT was apparently poisonous, more important than the lives of millions of human beings.

…. If and when the environmentalists take full power, and begin imposing and then progressively increasing the severity of such things as carbon taxes and carbon caps, in order to reach their goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent, the number of deaths that will result will rise into the billions, which is in accord with the movement’s openly professed agenda of large-scale depopulation.

As Reisman says, at some point “evil” is an apt descriptor. Who can say we’re not at that point?



  1. 1) Value is determined by supply and demand. A world in which human life is precious is a world in which human life is scarce.
    2) The Earth’s human population cannot grow without limit.
    3) The Earth’s human population will stop growing when either (a) the death rate rises to meet the birth rate or (b) the birth rate falls to meet the death rate.
    4) The Earth’s human population will stop growing as a result of (a) human agency or (b) other.
    5) Human agency is either (a) democratically determined or (b) other.
    6) Human behavioral traits are heritable.
    7) Voluntary programs for population control selectively breed non-compliant individuals.
    8) Misery is like heat. In the absence of barriers, it will flow until it is uniformly distributed.
    9) The Earth’s maximum possible instantaneous human population is greater than its maximum sustainable human population. Absent deliberate population control, expect a massive die-back in human numbers before the Earth’s human population stabilizes.
    10) The Earth’s maximum sustainable human population leaves little room for wild plcaes or wildlife. Absent deliberate human population control, expect a radical reduction in biodiversity.

    Your choices are limited.

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — October 19, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

  2. #1 —

    2. The world’s population is on track to level off in about 2050.
    9. No, it’s not, b/c of the previous item.

    That renders the rest of your commentary irrelevant.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 19, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

  3. Why expect the Earth’s population to stop growing (“level off”) without a die-back from resourse exhaustion or major loss of biodiversity? Projections which yield zero growth without either compulsory limits on reproduction or engineered increases in the death rate do not take evolution (points 6,7) into account.

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — October 20, 2009 @ 6:11 am

  4. #3, my points in #2 don’t depend on a die-off occurring. They DO depend on continued industrialization and the spread of capitalism, which has been proven over 150 years to lead to lower birth rates and population level-offs.

    You’re inventing a problem that doesn’t exist, with an undertone of seeing people as parasitic liabilities instead of generally wonderful assets. Speak for yourself.

    You need a positivity injection.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 20, 2009 @ 7:37 am

  5. The often-cited inverse relation between aggregate wealth and aggregate fecundity cannot last (again, for reasons 6,7). Furthermore, it is empirically false in detail (in the US the individual wealth/fecundity plot is U-shaped; consider the Kennedys) and historically, over the longer term (Europe’s period of warm weather (Medieval Warm Period) generated an expansion of population, which reversed about 50 years before the advent of the Black Death when climate became cold and wet).

    Please read…
    Garret Hardin
    The Tragedy of the Commons
    Science, 1968-12-13 (13-Dec-1968).

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — October 20, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

  6. #5, the world has the capacity to support a population far in excess of the expected peak in any event.

    The tragedy of the commons is a myth. How appropriate that you bring it up.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 20, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

  7. a) What is the “expected” peak? Why express skepticism of climate models which predict human-induced global warming and accept population growth models which predict assymptotic approach to a finite, sustainable limit? Seems to me we have abundant historical and archaeological evidence for growth past a sustainable limit (e.g., Jared Diamond, Collapse).

    b) The Tragedy of the Commons is standard economic analysis which explains the superiority of market economies over command economies and the evolution of private property (privatization unites responsibility with incentives). The tragedy of the commons is an iterated, n-player Prisoner’s Dilemma with memory and large n (standard Game Theory). You saying Von Neuman and Morgenstern’s The Theory of Games and Economic Behvior promoted myths? You saying Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation promoted myths?

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — October 20, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

  8. From your link:…

    “Given the subsequent influence of Hardin’s essay, it’s shocking to realize that he provided no evidence at all to support his sweeping conclusions. He claimed that the “tragedy” was inevitable — but he didn’t show that it had happened even once.

    Hardin simply ignored what actually happens in a real commons: self-regulation by the communities involved. One such process was described years earlier in Friedrich Engels’ account of the “mark,” the form taken by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist Germany”.

    How appropriate that you cite Engles in support of your position.

    Maybe you should ask Anita Dunn for a date.

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — October 20, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

  9. The answer, of course, is that when communists and capitalists both recognize BS, you’re a very lonely person.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 20, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

  10. Customs evolve, if they have time. Time matters (see Axelrod). See also…
    Jack Hirschliefer
    “Anarchy and its Breakdown”
    Journal of Political Economy.

    Hirschliefer plots social systems (including those of non-human species) on a three-dimensional continuum: the degree to which resources are (a) concentrated, (b) defensible, and (c) predictible. The tragedy of the commons is a region of this continuum. Like I said, standard economic analysis.

    Contrary to your anti-tragedy article, instances of the tragedy of the commons are quite numerous. Most recorded human-indiced species extinctions or near extinctions are examples: the passenger pigeon, the American bison, the dodo, many whale species, the American Pleistocene megafauna (ground sloths, glyptodonts, etc.), the Wrangel island mini-mammoths, and many flightless birds of polynesia.

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — October 21, 2009 @ 12:06 am

  11. #11, oh please. You’ve gone from human depopulation to species survival.

    You’re not coherent, and you’re wasting my time.

    You want to see crappy environments? Look backward at Eastern Europe and Russia under the Soviets. Look forward at what will happen once we don’t have the resources thanks to enforced poverty and global tyranny to do the most basic clean-ups we’re all so accustomed to.

    This exchange only continues once you answer this question in a one-word comment. Your comment choices are “yes” or “no.”

    The question is “Do you agree that the original ban on DDT was a grievously costly mistake?”

    If you don’t answer as requested (one word, that’s all), this is over.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 21, 2009 @ 12:57 am

  12. #10, Good-bye sir. By not complying with a simple request and criticizing the host’s civility when no criticism was warranted in the comment I have chosen not to post, you have commented your way out of being a permitted guest here.

    I otherwise wish you well.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 21, 2009 @ 8:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.