Patterico's Pontifications

9/6/2010

Taking Seriously Glenn Reynolds’s Column on Environmentalist “Eliminationist Rhetoric”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:03 pm



Yesterday I posted about Glenn Reynolds’s column advocating the the banishment of certain environmentalist sentiments from the realm of polite society. I wondered whether the column was serious or satire. I e-mailed him to ask.

In response, Glenn ran a poll on his site. The possible answers included “deadly serious,” “Swiftian satire,” “kidding on the square,” and unknown. The overwhelming majority of his readers say he was “deadly serious” (between 65%-69%, depending on the time the poll is accessed). (I voted “kidding on the square” — which is a phrase meaning that he was joking, but also really meant it.)

Prof. Reynolds won’t say whether his column was satire or not, but enough people took it seriously that I think it’s worthwhile for me to treat his point seriously.

My problem is that Prof. Reynolds is using a leftist tactic — the attempt to ban certain categories of speech from polite society — to suppress discussion of a problem that concerns conservatives like myself. Rather than dealing with these issues in the conservative way that I would advocate, which consists of debating issues straight up, Prof. Reynolds instead argues for a mode of “debate” that I believe is rooted in leftism: namely, slap a disparaging label on a viewpoint, link it with Nazism if at all possible, and pronounce it “unacceptable.”

I believe overpopulation is a problem that should concern conservatives. I am a conservative. I believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility — and controlling our borders. My work on immigration is at least partially rooted in my belief that opening up the borders to anyone who wants to cross over has a detrimental effect on our quality of life. Especially in the border states, our fundamental institutions are being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants. Our hospitals are overcrowded. Our freeways are overcrowded. Our schools, jails, and prisons are overcrowded — and this is in part a function of a population out of control. We did not design those institutions to deal with the millions of extra people that are currently burdening those systems. But we are nevertheless having to deal with those millions, thanks to our liberal betters.

Similarly, I believe that there is an overpopulation problem in the world at large. It reminds me of our national debt: it expands and expands and expands, and you can point to times when it expands slower than others, but it is still constantly expanding. We’re at close to 7 billion people now on Earth. We reached 2 billion, 3 billion, 4 billion, 5 billion, and 6 billion all in the 1900s. If aliens came down to Earth and silently observed this planet over the last 200 years, they would likely conclude that one species was spiraling out of control. They might conclude, quite reasonably, that humanity appears to be behaving like a cancer or a virus.

To the extent that I share such a view, I share it not out of contempt for humanity. I want humanity to survive. That’s why I am concerned by the population explosion of the last 100+ years. It’s not because I am worried about the planet per se, but because I am worried about the planet as a home for humans. Because they happen to be my favorite species. I don’t want us to kill the host, because if we do, it will kill us.

Now, to you don’t have to agree with me about this. I expect that many of you won’t. All I ask is that you recognize that these arguments I am making are good-faith arguments that are not founded in a hatred of the species, or a desire to see it destroyed. Quite the opposite.

But regardless of how you feel about overpopulation, I do want to secure your agreement on my larger point, which is that arguments such as these are worthy of discussion.

It seems to me that Prof. Reynolds is trying to take good-faith arguments like the one I just made, and deem them “unacceptable.” The fundamental goal of Prof. Reynolds’s column is to banish from polite society any analogy of human beings to viruses or cancers. He accomplishes this by using a tactic I associate with leftists — namely, taking arguments and branding them as Nazistic:

Likewise, references to particular ethnic or religious groups as “viruses” or “cancers” in need of extirpation are socially unacceptable, triggering immediate thoughts of genocide and mass murder.

Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

I don’t see why it should, and I don’t see why we should pretend — or allow others to pretend — that hate-filled rhetoric is somehow more acceptable when it’s delivered by those wearing green shirts instead of brown.

Here’s the problem with the analogy: Everyone who refers to Jews as a virus wants to see all Jews eliminated. Not everyone who refers to humanity’s population explosion as a virus or a cancer wants to see all humans eliminated. As I have already argued, it is possible to see the overpopulation explosion as a problem without holding humanity in contempt. It is possible to oppose overpopulation out of a love for humanity.

Now, I might agree with Prof. Reynolds that it’s over the top to be talking about humanity as a cancer that needs to be extirpated. If the only reason you are analogizing humanity to a cancer or a virus is to argue that humanity should be exterminated, then you are certainly not in my camp, and I have every right to distance myself from your rhetoric.

But later in his piece, Reynolds appears to expand the definition of “unacceptable” rhetoric to encompass anyone who analogizes humanity’s current population explosion to the behavior of a virus or cancer:

But biotechnology is getting more common and — thanks to folks ranging from Paul Ehrlich (Holdren’s coauthor) to Al Gore — so are apocalyptic environmental views that treat humans as a cancer upon the earth.

How common are these views? I typed “Humanity is a” into Google and the top three suggestions were “Humanity is a virus,” “Humanity is a disease,” and “Humanity is a cancer.”

With such views spreading, and with technology making it steadily easier for individual or small groups to try creating their own viruses or diseases to, in their mind, level the score, perhaps we need to hold the environmental movement responsible for its frequent use of eliminationist rhetoric.

Policing the science is likely to prove difficult. But policing the rhetoric — as American society has long done with expressions of racial hatred or genocidal sentiment — seems well within reach.

In this passage, Reynolds implies that there is an equivalence between analogizing humanity to a cancer or a virus, and arguing that humanity must be exterminated. I have already told you that these concepts are not equivocal in my mind — but let me expand my proof, to show that plenty of other people have made the analogy without calling for the extermination of the species.

Reynolds argues that if you type the phrase “Humanity is a” into Google, you get suggestions like “Humanity is a virus.” To my way of thinking, that’s a rather unpersuasive way of “demonstrating” the prevalence of a particular viewpoint. It’s especially unconvincing if you’re trying to demonstrate, as Reynolds is by implication, that the viewpoint calls for something as extreme as the extermination of all humankind. So let’s take that next step — the one Reynolds apparently did not take — and see what happens when you click on a search term like “Humanity is a virus.” We’ll put quotes around the phrase to increase accuracy, so we’re not pulling up results that just happen to talk about humanity and viruses together.

If you look at the top ten results. Surely at least nine of them will call for the extermination of the human race, right?

As it turns out, not so much.

The top entry is the Wikipedia entry for Agent Smith from the Matrix. He thinks humanity is a virus. He is an evil character.

The second entry is from a blog that discusses the concept of humanity as a virus and rejects it. That blog entry discusses the range of viewpoints held by people who believe humanity is a virus, from the innocuous (let’s not expand into space but rather confine our contamination to one planet) to the more extreme (the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which seeks not to kill humans, but rather secure a voluntary pledge from them not to reproduce).

The link to the third entry doesn’t work, but the cached version is some kind of unreadable personal outpouring that seems to have nothing to do with the current discussion.

I’ll stop with the examples now, but the fact is that you can perform the search and scroll and click to your heart’s content, and you’ll have a tough time locating that collection of seriously advanced writings that call for the destruction of humanity. I’m sure such hateful rhetoric exists. But are the majority of people discussing these analogies engaged in this “eliminationist rhetoric”? That is far from clear.

Reynolds seems to assume that any analogy between humanity and viruses or cancers is an action alert for the destruction of the human race. And that, I contend, is a faulty assumption, perhaps born of the unwillingness to actually click on Google’s suggestions.

And based on that faulty assumption, Reynolds now appears to want to squelch all talk of comparing humanity to a virus or cancer.

And this is what bothers me. His article is full of phrases like “policing the rhetoric” and discussions of whether certain ideas are “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” He wants to take the analogies I have discussed and slap the “unacceptable” label on them, as we do with pro-Nazi speech, or speech that stigmatizes minority groups.

No, he doesn’t want to “ban” speech in the legal sense. But he wants to take what I believe is a leftist approach to this speech: compare it to the Nazis, slap the “BAD” label on it, and put it up on a shelf, where polite people need not talk about it.

And this is where we get to the whole “is he serious” part. Because for those who have followed me this far, there is always the fallback argument: well, he isn’t really advocating labeling this speech unacceptable. He’s just holding the left to its own standards!

Look: if that is all he is doing — if he is truly rejecting the David Neiwert school of “blame the speaker for the violence of the nut case” — I am totally with him. But a good 65% of his readership think he is making the Neiwert point in reverse. Another 14% think (as I do) that he is “kidding on the square.” And make no mistake: when you’re “kidding on the square” you’re actually being serious. It’s like when someone pays the bill and “jokes” that you are a cheapskate. Ha, ha! They’re really just calling you a cheapskate, but doing it in a way that gives them a phony “out.” I see it as a way of having it both ways: you get to make your point — but if someone calls you on it, you can always claim you were kidding.

In any event, drawing a connection between rhetoric and violence — whether you do so in a “deadly serious” fashion or “kidding on the square” — requires one to accept the flawed Neiwert premise: that your passionate rhetoric can be deemed morally responsible for a murder committed by some crazy person. That is a flawed premise, and if we accept it to score a cheap rhetorical point against the environmentalists, we are playing the other side’s game. It is a game that allows them to ignore their own side’s violent rhetoric and treat people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as accomplices to murder.

This is a road we don’t want to go down, folks. Not even “kidding on the square.”

UPDATE: I condense the argument here, noting that Reynolds’s proposed tactic is the same thing leftists do when they (refuse to) debate “torture” with us — declare the whole topic taboo and Nazi-like, and end the discussion.

178 Responses to “Taking Seriously Glenn Reynolds’s Column on Environmentalist “Eliminationist Rhetoric””

  1. People declare all sorts of things taboo to talk about, at least in certain contexts, all the time.

    I would have no problem with engaging in a discussion with someone about population growth and whether, in a sense, humanity is a cancer or a virus.

    In reality, I expect we’re the vehicle to build high technology self-replicating “artificial” (but only artificial for a while) intelligence machines which will vastly, vastly outstrip our intellectual and physical capabilities in the very near future.

    Basically, I’m saying future generations of humans — hopefully not including our children and grandchildren — are screwed despite the fact that our population will stabilize (it does in developed countries) and our per capita energy use will fall (it is in USA).

    Moore’s law, and not overpopulation, is the great danger to humanity. And it may also be our purpose.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  2. It is a “typical” leftist point of argument/discussion/debate: They want to frame the discussion so that you cannot “blame” or “accuse” their points of discussion, yet they want to do the same to yours. You can’t make points which defeat their points if “they” say your points are “hate” or “radical” or “out of the mainstream” even if they can’t show they are, or, worse, if the majority disagrees with their points….

    And this does not apply only to violent rhetoric, but to nearly every discussion…

    The left does not want “open” debate, even if it is constructive, fair, reasonable, logical…because they can’t defend their points in those manners…

    reff (176333)

  3. I agree with you that things like unrestricted or illegal immigration can lead to situations where the US’s infrastructure can become overwhelmed. However, I see no evidence that the Earth has too many people. Why is 7 billion too much? Why not ten times that? I googled the population of birds on the Earth and it came back with estimates of 200 – 400 billion. Is that too many birds? Why or why not?

    I’m sure there are similar numbers for other species. What’s wrong with that? Why is a sparsely populated Earth preferable? Look at the vast expanses that are barely used: deserts mountains, etc. As we grow, we will make better use of these areas.

    Anon Y. Mous (5b05da)

  4. In the leftist mindset, certain opposing views of thought are so — well — unthinkable as to cause this sort of knee-jerk condemnation. The “your view is so wrong it’s evil” meme. Look at the GZM debate. Anyone opposed is deemed to be anti-1st amendment. You’re not just wrong, you’re Constitutionally wrong. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Somehow this gets translated into “anyone can build a house of worship anywhere they please”; but, just like the “settled science” of AGW, the issue is NOT up for debate. If you are opposed you are a hate-filled person, and not worthy of engaging in serious debate; that is all.

    You can see this attitude displayed by certain members of the once-banned-now-granted-amnesty clique. They use absolute terms, stereotyping, and otherwise categorize us as haters of vast groups of our fellow human beings. If someone wants to do something, and you are opposed, the reasons tend not to matter; you are a hater, pure and simple. In the “Imagine all the people sharing all the world” anything goes world of lefty libertarianism it pretty much isn’t cool to be against anything.

    It’s easy to win a debate, at least within one’s own mind, when you in-effect declare your opponent to be non compos mentis. It is patronizing, and cowardly to say the least.

    Icy Texan (1d82f6)

  5. If aliens came down to Earth and silently observed this planet over the last 200 years, they would likely conclude that one species was spiraling out of control. They might conclude, quite reasonably, that humanity appears to be behaving like a cancer or a virus.

    Humanity is not just “one species,” but that indeed is how the environmental extremists tend to look at us. And the overpopulation argument is based on the fallacious belief that Earth has a fixed capacity for humans. Progress in technology and living standards falsify that argument. That’s why Paul Ehrlich lost his famous bet to Julian Simon.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  6. ZOMG. PEAK OIL!!!!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  7. This Wired profile of Julian Simon nicely makes the point that a naive belief we’re overpopulating the planet and heading for a catastrophe doesn’t square with empirical evidence.

    The trends were the same for food supply. Rising population did not mean less food, just the opposite: instead of skyrocketing as predicted by the Malthusian theory, food prices, relative to wages, had declined historically. In the United States, for example, between 1800 and 1980, the price of wheat plummeted while the population grew from 5 million to 226 million. According to Malthus, all those people should have been long dead, the country reduced to a handful of fur trappers on the brink of starvation. In fact, there was a booming and flourishing populace, one that was better-fed, taller, healthier, more disease-free, with far less infant mortality and longer life expectancy than ever before in human history. Obesity, not starvation, was the major American food problem in 1980. Those were the facts.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  8. I agree with Brother Bradley and daleyrocks (and anyone else who made the same basic point) that there is little reason to think Homo sapiens will exceed Earth’s carrying capacity.

    Indeed, with birth control and energy saving devices, there is every reason to believe that both population and energy usage will stabilize and perhaps even slightly fall in several decades.

    Energy use want fall for a while, of course, because the rest of the world is playing catch up in standard of living. But it will probably fall and/or we’ll develop more efficient and cleaning ways of creating energy in the future.

    So while these are valid topics for discussion, I’m not worried about any of those being the downfall of humanity: On the contrary, our expanding population means we’re successful and energy makes a huge positive difference to our survival and to the quality of life for our children.

    I am concerned with the downfall of Homo sapiens, however.

    Why is Homo sapiens the leading species on our planet?

    It would be our intelligence.

    And drawing from a variety of sciences, we are creating computers and machines that will one day soon become far, far more intelligent than we are.

    Will we actually be able to control and master far more intelligent machines forever, year after year, decade after decade, century after century?

    With processing power and complexity increasing exponentially?

    We have world flying intelligent armed drones now, amidst a gazillion gadgets. A century ago it was horse and buggy. A century from now?

    Whatever it is, we’ll be lucky to control it. I wouldn’t bet on it.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  9. * Energy use won’t fall for a while, of course … .

    Christoph (8ec277)

  10. The fundamental goal of Prof. Reynolds’s column is to banish from polite society any analogy of human beings to viruses or cancers.

    Even devoid of any malignant intent, the analogy is wildly off-base. Viruses and cancers aren’t conscious entities that plan and invent technology to solve problems. Any aliens that observed Earth for 200 years and didn’t understand that rather basic point would have to have trouble with the empirical evidence, like Paul Erlich and other professional Terran doomsayers. (my emphasis):

    (Simon) always found it somewhat peculiar that neither the Science piece nor his public wager with Ehrlich nor anything else that he did, said, or wrote seemed to make much of a dent on the world at large. For some reason he could never comprehend, people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they’d been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  11. Even devoid of any malignant intent, the analogy is wildly off-base. Viruses and cancers aren’t conscious entities that plan and invent technology to solve problems

    That’s why it’s worth discussing: to raise as a problem to be solved.

    Of course, if you think 9, 10, 50, 200 billion people on the planet is no problem, then there’s no problem to solve. Me, I think it’s a problem, just like it is here in the U.S. because of illegals.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  12. Patterico, they have a few inventions now:

    Condoms.
    Birth control pills.
    Various fertility undermining surgeries.

    … and even my least favourite, abortion.

    In the developing world, population and energy use is expanding fast. In the developed world, population is generally falling (except in the more religious USA, and even there it isn’t rising fast, except for immigration). Per capita energy use is also falling in the United States.

    There won’t be 200 billion people on the planet. If there were, they need to eat, and they won’t get here until the planet can support them.

    So don’t be such a worry wart.

    Except for the intelligence of machines vastly outstripping human intelligence thing. Yeah, that’s almost inevitable.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  13. Patterico – Why would 9 or 10 billion people on the planet be such a bad thing?

    JD (8ded14)

  14. If there is some reason to believe it would end there, JD, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

    I doubt there is much reason to believe that.

    Of course, nobody seems to be discussing the real point of the piece, which is tactics used to squelch debate.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  15. “If there is some reason to believe it would end there, JD, it wouldn’t be the end of the world.”

    Patterico, you realize the most developed countries populations are falling … and one of the only exceptions is the United States, which is fairly religious, which seems to encourage reproduction (perhaps by discouraging abortion, although more likely by encouraging people to get together to reproduce and raise a family instead of birth-control aided sex for pleasure)?

    As the world develops and becomes more secular (both of which are a result of scientific advancement more than anything else), population rates will stabilize in country after country, and even fall.

    You may offer a counterargument about why that won’t happen (Islam taking over, for example: It’s religious and they reproduce). However, don’t say there isn’t “some reason to believe it”.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  16. In the developed world, population is generally falling

    Link?

    Population or rate of increase?

    I’d like to see a link that shows the population of developed nations is falling.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  17. That’s why it’s worth discussing: to raise as a problem to be solved.

    It’s a “problem” the evidence shows we’re handling quite well. But if people want to worry about it despite the evidence, they can go right ahead. I would just regard them as having a “problem” understanding facts. That’s not evil, just wrong.

    What I take issue with is when people put humans on the same moral plane as viruses or cancer, or who think humanity itself is a bad thing. As a (secular) humanist, my definition of good is that which helps people. I share many values with religious humanists, aside from that little matter of belief in a Deity.

    Conversely, those who purposefully harm or wish harm on people are bad. (The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is the apotheosis of evil.) So in my book, the human-haters are evil. They should be opposed and shunned by decent society.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  18. Patterico, UN report states:

    By contrast, the overall population of the more developed countries is likely to show little change over the next 41 years, remaining at about 1.2 billion. Fertility is below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in all 45 developed countries or areas, as well as in 28 developing countries including China. The population of developed regions is ageing and would actually decline were it not for migration. The populations of Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor states of the former Soviet Union are expected to be lower in 2050 than they are today.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. Me, I think it’s a problem, just like it is here in the U.S. because of illegals.

    Patterico, I don’t think that’s a valid comparison. Illegal immigrants by definition enable all sorts of crime, even though the majority are themselves are not professional criminals. And the illegal immigrants we get are mostly uneducated people from poor countries, who pose a disproportionate burden on our various social services.

    I support legal immigration, which enables us to plan for these drawbacks and provide benefits in a way that illegal immigration cannot.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  20. Here’s one such link:
    The End of the Fertility Transition in the Developed Worlde End of the Fertility Transition in the Developed World
    John Bongaarts
    Population and Development Review
    Volume 28, Issue 3, pages 419–443, September 2002

    Another:
    Study Shows Europe’s Population Falling
    Reiner Klingholz
    Berlin Institute for Population and Development

    There are many. It’s almost common knowledge. Read anything by Mark Steyn on European demographics.

    And remember, many developed countries have growing populations because of increasing immigration from developing nations, but their native self-replenishment rate is negative.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  21. Conversely, those who purposefully harm or wish harm on people are bad. (The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is the apotheosis of evil.)

    Huh? It sounds like you don’t understand what they advocate even though I said it in the post.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  22. Forgive the duplication typo in the title of the first link. I verified that the links do at least point to the correct places.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  23. SPQR:

    I don’t think thst says what was advertised.

    What does it say about developing nations?

    Patterico (a708e4)

  24. And remember, many developed countries have growing populations because of increasing immigration from developing nations, but their native self-replenishment rate is negative.

    It does not much matter where they come from. The population of (most) developed countries is rising, as is the world population.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  25. SPQR,

    Good point. Those who worry about overpopulation should want developing nations to industrialize to First World standards. Prosperous people tend to have fewer children because their children have more of a chance to live, and because they don’t need children as laborers to support them.

    But the population worriers tend to also be global warming worriers. They don’t like industrialization, because of its alleged harm to Earth. And so they encourage true overpopulation, Third World-style, by denying residents of impoverished countries the tools to improve their lives.

    That’s how the population and global warming zealots get to feel all moral and superior — by making the Third World pay for their prosperity guilt.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  26. Which one?

    There are other references showing that birth rates range from about 1.4 births per couple to 3.5, with about 2.1 needed to maintain a population at parity, and the U.S. being about 2.2 or so (going by memory: It could be a bit higher), most of Europe being lower.

    The point being that the more developed the nation, the greater the tendency for it to be be at a replacement level of births, and the least developed, the higher the level of births. There are more developing than developed nations at present.

    Here’s an excerpt of a relevant population growth and stabilization report by the World Bank. Chapter 3, page 19, has a map that will show you at a glance how the population growth rates differ from developed nation to developing nation.

    The key to slowing population growth is development, including producing sufficient energy.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  27. Huh? It sounds like you don’t understand what they advocate even though I said it in the post.

    I understand it perfectly well. I was just stating where I’m coming from.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  28. Patterico, my impression was that you were challenging someone’s statements that the developed nations were below replacement – “In the developed world, population is generally falling”.

    In general, those developed nations that are not seeing population decreases are increasing only because on immigration. That link was a summmation of data that is widely available – that developed nations’ fertility is below replacement rates.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. Anyway, I’m not imbued with overoptimism here, Patterico, I’m just looking at the numbers. That report has a good summary at the end of how and why population growth is expected to stabilize.

    But I still think we’re screwed: Because intelligence growth of machines (Moore’s Law, for now, but it’s not really a physical law, just an observation … however it will go beyond that as proper AI is developed) is not limited in the same way.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  30. In the developed world, population is generally falling

    Still waiting for the proof.

    Or maybe you want to amend your claim.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  31. SPQR stated it accurately and more precisely, Patterico. I was using shorthand in parts of the thread. That’s why, in comment 20, I said: “And remember, many developed countries have growing populations because of increasing immigration from developing nations, but their native self-replenishment rate is negative.”

    I am not saying that highly desirable, developed nations won’t have immigration problems. I am saying that, globally, the world population growth rate is declining and that trend is, as SPQR said, expected to continue until the world’s global population stabilizes at around 9-10 billion and from there, perhaps even beings to decline slightly.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  32. Bradley,

    You implied they “purposefully harm or wish harm on people” and they don’t. And how is deciding not to have children “evil”???

    Patterico (a708e4)

  33. Fertility rates by nation, it is generally accepted that 2.1 is replacement rate for population.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. Patterico, I happen to share Bradley’s belief that the goal of ending the human race – even if the actual means is merely voluntary – is “evil”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. Thanks, SPQR. Just take a look at the 6 countries with the lowest fertility rates:

    Japan 1.21
    Korea, South 1.21
    Taiwan 1.14
    Singapore 1.09
    Hong Kong 1.02
    Macau 0.91

    If you’ve been to any of them, you’ll be aware they’re massively developed. And their fertility rates are even less than Europe, which also has negative fertility.

    Now contrast them with the countries with the highest fertility rates:

    Niger 7.75
    Uganda 6.77
    Mali 6.62
    Somalia 6.52
    Burundi 6.33
    Burkina Faso 6.28
    Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.20

    The trend is clear, Patterico.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  36. Patterico,
    Here’s an amendment: “Fertility is falling to or below replacement level for most of the population in developed countries, not counting illegal immigration from poor countries.”

    The take-home point is that prosperity is inversely associated with birth rate. There are exceptions, but the overall trend is clearly in that direction. (China is a special case, due to its mandatory restrictions on family size). So if you want to reduce the population without coercion, encourage prosperity. People will have children when they want to, not as an economic necessity.

    Population decline in some developed countries, such as the United States is staved off to some degree only by illegal immigration from poor countries. But that only underscores that inverse relationship. And even in the U.S., we’re at 2.06 births per couple.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  37. Patterico, I happen to share Bradley’s belief that the goal of ending the human race – even if the actual means is merely voluntary – is “evil”.

    You made a little amendment there. I did notice it.

    Putting that aside, he implied they advocate something quite different.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  38. “People will have children when they want to, not as an economic necessity.”

    Not to mention they will both be educated on, and able to afford, birth control.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  39. I will make one more request for people to discuss the speech topic of the post.

    Then I will give up.

    Why am I at odds with Prof. Reynolds? Hint: it has nothing to do with overpopulation.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  40. Patterico, wasn’t intended as an “amendment” but simply stating my interpretation of, and reason for, despising them.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  41. Patterico,

    You implied they “purposefully harm or wish harm on people” and they don’t. And how is deciding not to have children “evil”???

    There’s nothing evil about deciding to have or not to have children on an individual level. People should make that choice to fit their personal circumstances.

    However, extinguishing the human race is inherently evil. There could be nothing more against the humanist (secular or religious) ethos. (And as a practical matter, I’d be skeptical that such a fanatical movement would be purely voluntary.)

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  42. Why am I at odds with Prof. Reynolds? Hint: it has nothing to do with overpopulation.

    We know: You don’t think we should be ruling a certain topic and the people who advocate it beyond the pale.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  43. “I will make one more request for people to discuss the speech topic of the post.

    “Then I will give up.”

    That’s why it’s worth discussing: to raise as a problem to be solved.

    Of course, if you think 9, 10, 50, 200 billion people on the planet is no problem, then there’s no problem to solve. Me, I think it’s a problem, just like it is here in the U.S. because of illegals.

    Comment by Patterico — 9/6/2010 @ 3:06 pm

    Is what we were discussing irrelevant?
     
     
    On the one hand, you and others believe there’s nothing that will stop our population from reaching 200 billion people. On the other hand, we’re offering evidence and reasoning as to why this is unlikely in the forseeable future. The facts seem to be directly relevant.
     
     
    Anyhow, I already said the first time you mentioned Reynolds’ post that I more or less agree with him: Any talk calling for mass sterilization or elimination (i.e., “eliminationist rhetoric”) of people is “evil”. I don’t believe in an absolutist, external form of evil, but certainly it would be very evil to the people being forcibly sterilized or eliminated, and also harmful to the character of the people of any society who would do such a thing.

    As extreme “solutions” have been evil in the past and damaging to the character of the people who implemented them. So if Reynolds wants to chastize and ridicule and declare as unworthy such people, so be it.

    If anyone doesn’t want to go along, great. They can open their mind, think for themselves, and say what they please.

    As far as anyone discussing non-evil forms of population control — for example, economic development and birth control — clearly that isn’t beyond the pale. And if a person wants to metaphorically refer to humans as a “virus” or a “cancer”, I don’t like such talk (I prefer to think of us as social primates or apes, both of which have the virtue of truth), but I don’t wish to see it made into a taboo on the same level as calling for sterilizing folks.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  44. Putting that aside, he implied they advocate something quite different.

    I sure do. The group’s slogan, “May we live long and die out,” is not to be taken at face value. It is self-contradictory. If humanity is so bad, why should humans live long? If human existence is evil, isn’t killing humans a good thing?

    I think the group is just trying to shield itself against the accusation of advocating humanicide.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  45. I have nothing against pointing out leftist hypocrisy by throwing their own mendoucheous standards right back in their face. I also do not think Insty was calling for the stifling the right of those people to voice their opinions.

    JD (8ded14)

  46. He was having it both ways.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  47. If you don’t like one half of the argument, it’s plausible deniability.

    I’ll pick up the check, you tightwad.

    Oh, come on. I was just kidding.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  48. I prefer the first, and will let someone else speak towards what they meant.

    JD (8ded14)

  49. With all due respect, Patterico, this is more Lilliput vs. Blefuscu style satire. The one thing that Glenn Reynolds is interested in most is personal freedom.

    He likes to hold up mirrors to see how people react.

    But hey, just my opinion.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  50. Let’s take a practical example then. Absent massive immigration (both legal and illegal) America’s population would be slowly declining.

    I’ve argued that America should stop all immigration, for the foreseeable future.

    Hands up everyone who thinks that this is an “eliminationist” policy with respect to the American people.

    Hands up everyone who things it is a racist pol.. oops, different thread. The point being, those who argue for a smaller population don’t need to advocate homicide, just patience and common sense. And they are not, for the most part, appealing for the human race to become extinct.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  51. Hey, when the left turns up their collective nose at us on aggressive interrogation and declares it torture and us Philistines, they’re not thereby “calling for the stifling [our] right… to voice [our] opinions.”. They’re just using a dishonest debate tactic.

    But I am repeating myself — a sure sign I’m wasting my time. If my already-articulated argument isn’t good enough to respond to, why should I waste time restating it?

    If anyone wants to respond to what I already said, I’ll be here.

    Patterico (a708e4)

  52. the world population growth rate is declining and that trend is, as SPQR said, expected to continue until the world’s global population stabilizes at around 9-10 billion

    Or 50% more than at present.

    Those who worry about overpopulation should want developing nations to industrialize to First World standards.

    I’d be happy, in a sense, if everyone in the world could live the upper-middle-class American life-style. Heck, I aspire to that myself.

    But they cannot. No amount of industrializing can make it so. For that matter, the First World has already shipped much of its manufacturing abroad, where its done by poor people for less money.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  53. No, Patterico, they want to stigmatize the speaker, and criminalize the behavior, as was the goal of
    the Levick Group, just like Ross Greenspan’s attacking oil companies that supposedly underwrote
    the climate skeptics

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  54. Well, if there’s no point in wasting time restating that argument, then you may be able to spare a moment to say, “Yes, I see now there is some evidence that developed countries’ natural, non-immigration populations increase very slowly, if at all. In many cases, their fertility rates are well below what they need to be to replace themselves. So, with continued development, the world’s population might well stabilize shy of the numbers I hypothesized about above.”

    Christoph (8ec277)

  55. “… the First World has already shipped much of its manufacturing abroad, where its done by poor people for less money.”

    So we could cut our costs and simultaneously they increase their wages. As a rule, this increases their economic standard of living compared to what it used to be. Which is the force that seems to also lower their population growth pressure.

    Seems like win-win-win.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  56. But they cannot. No amount of industrializing can make it so.
    How can you say that with such certitude, when we don’t know what technology will be available in the future? But if the past is any guide, the living standards of poor nations will rise as they industrialize.

    For that matter, the First World has already shipped much of its manufacturing abroad, where its done by poor people for less money.
    And that makes those poor people better off than they were before. Just compare China’s standard of living at the end of the Cultural Revolution to what it is today.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  57. No, Patterico, they want to stigmatize the speaker, and criminalize the behavior, as was the goal of the Levick Group, just like Ross Greenspan’s attacking oil companies that supposedly underwrote the climate skeptics

    And James Hansen’s grotesque call to put oil company execs on trial for “crimes against humanity.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  58. Christoph,

    I have no idea what will happen in the future.

    All I know is that every world population trend shows no sign of the world population slowing.

    Do developed countries reproduce less because of the massive immigration they attract? Do they develop more quickly on the backs of the less developed? I don’t know. Neither do you.

    But once again, you are dragging the discussion away from the main point I wanted to make, which was that Reynolds is using the “you are like a Nazi! Your speech is unacceptable!” card. And to those who want to simply declare that he is holding the other side to its own standards, I ask why they would make that declaration without responding to the argument I already made in response to that point, in the post.

    It’s as if I spent all that time writing it for nothing.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  59. Hey, maybe people will pay attention if I quote myself.

    If that is all he is doing — if he is truly rejecting the David Neiwert school of “blame the speaker for the violence of the nut case” — I am totally with him. But a good 65% of his readership think he is making the Neiwert point in reverse. Another 14% think (as I do) that he is “kidding on the square.” And make no mistake: when you’re “kidding on the square” you’re actually being serious. It’s like when someone pays the bill and “jokes” that you are a cheapskate. Ha, ha! They’re really just calling you a cheapskate, but doing it in a way that gives them a phony “out.” I see it as a way of having it both ways: you get to make your point — but if someone calls you on it, you can always claim you were kidding.

    In any event, drawing a connection between rhetoric and violence — whether you do so in a “deadly serious” fashion or “kidding on the square” — requires one to accept the flawed Neiwert premise: that your passionate rhetoric can be deemed morally responsible for a murder committed by some crazy person. That is a flawed premise, and if we accept it to score a cheap rhetorical point against the environmentalists, we are playing the other side’s game. It is a game that allows them to ignore their own side’s violent rhetoric and treat people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as accomplices to murder.

    This is a road we don’t want to go down, folks. Not even “kidding on the square.”

    Patterico (c218bd)

  60. They are already doing it, hence Neiwert, crying ‘eliminationist’ at a Coulter quip or a Palin tweet, while ignoring the cry for martyrdom from Riyadh or Amsterdam, et al. Have you seen much debate on the SRM about the toxic nature of the rhetoric that leads to the likes of Lee. No, in fact
    you here Cynthia Tucker, crying racism and intolerance at any critique of Obama’s policies. I know she is an exceedingly stupid but quite typical example

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  61. “All I know is that every world population trend shows no sign of the world population slowing.”

    The rate of world population growth is slowing, and several pieces of evidence for that have been presented in this thread: That’s just an objective fact.

    Yes, I see your point about Reynolds characterizing others’ speech as unacceptable. And I’ve replied to that and don’t have much else to say about that.

    However, the facts on population growth have been raised — you’ve engaged in that discussion yourself — and I don’t believe you’re accurately representing the current state of knowledge on this subject, as SPQR and Brother Bradley pointed out. Sure, I can’t predict the future and neither can you.

    Nonetheless you can’t just insist that, “… every world population trend shows no sign of the world population slowing,” when, in fact, it’s slowing, and expect that no one will reply to that.

    You said above that one of the reasons Reynold’s tactic is wrong is because talking about this subject is important and legitimate. I concur. It’s import and legitimate.

    So is acknowledging facts around it. The world’s population is still increasing, but the rate of increase is definitely slowing. I mean, if you say it’s not slowing, will you provide a link to that effect?

    Because I’ve provided several showing that it is.

    Here is another reference (just the top tthat showed up at Google: I didn’t have to look hard for it):

    From the U.S. Census Bureau: World population growth ‘falling’
    There is a convenient chart at the bottom showing how earlier in the century, population growth was increasing, but is now decreasing, and is projected by the Census Bureau to continue decreasing.

    You used the language:

    “… no sign of the world population slowing”

    That’s the equivalent of saying if you see a car once driving at 60 miles/hour going at 35 miles/hour a few seconds later with the break light on … isn’t “slowing” merely because it’s still moving.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  62. If anyone wants to respond to what I already said, I’ll be here.

    You said Reynolds’ column advocated clamping down on talk about overpopulation. But his references did not condemn such discussion per se, but only in the context of a viewpoint that humanity is inherently destructive. It’s that viewpoint he condemned.

    Reynolds provided specific examples of what he wants to make unspeakable: Where humanity itself is considered to be the problem, and where force is advocated to bring that problem under control, such as Holdren’s schemes for mandatory abortion and mass sterilization. You don’t advocate such policies, so his condemnation doesn’t apply to you.

    And Reynolds’ objection to the cancer or virus analogy was not to likening the claim overpopulation to such, but to likening humanity itself to such. Big difference.

    If I’m wrong, and Reynolds made a statement applying to your views, would you please provide it?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  63. I’m sorry. Did I say the rate of growth was not slowing?

    Let me check.

    No, I didn’t.

    Slowing was a bad word — I meant to be contrasting the fact that the population of the entire world is still growing, with your slicing it up into segments and then looking at only one segment (the developed world).

    My point is that WORLD population continues to increase. I accept that the rate of growth is slowing but I didn’t say otherwise that I can see.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  64. I should have said “shrinking” rather than slowing, to be perfectly clear.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  65. Brief version-
    I don’t think we as a society can hold someone morally responsible for the actions of a crazy (or not) person because of what they have said. But I do believe that individually people will need to give an account for every word they say, so if they say outlandish things which are not true, or even things that are true in a way intended to agitate others, they (I) will be asked, “Did you really need to say that?” On the other hand, true statements that agitate simply because they are true are a reality without guilt. IMO

    Painted Jaguar: MD asked me to weigh in as we are discussing whether did he really say what some say he said and are we talking about the subject at hand, which isn’t the subject at hand, or the rhetorical device employed in discussing it, which really is the matter at hand (the rhetorical device, I mean)., and if he really said it, did he mean it.
    (As an aside, MD posted something at the next thread, which sort of seemed it would be the active thread summarizing this thread, but no matter).

    Pay attention, there will be a quiz at the end. (My Mummy, ever so patient with me, but some here are not so, I think, says that quizzes promote active learning, which is far better, don’t you see).

    Some want to win arguments by controlling the discussion, whether their position is objectively correct or not. One way to do this is to limit discussion by marginalizing a topic, by calling it too absurd to be believed or too evil to consider or other such device. This is an Alinskyesque device, but anyone, not necessarily a Leftist, can do it. Our good friend Prof. Reynolds, in discussing the claims of the “Radical Environmentalists” (“RE’s”) (not to be confused with “Moderate Environmentalists”, like Republicans, who actually breathe air also) suggests that some terms of discussion should be avoided, as they may be inflammatory. He does not say that a terrorist is not responsible for his/her own actions, but the people with the rhetoric are, but he does suggest that inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t help, and if you use words meant to provoke strong reactions, don’t be surprised when there are strong actions. The question is whether Professor Reynolds means to use the “inflammatory rhetoric will lead to violence and you’re responsible so shut up already” tactic to marginalize the arguments of the RE’s and stifle them, as they would say “water boarding is torture and torture is bad so don’t do it”, or is he somehow “kidding on the square” or using sarcasm. P states that being serious or “kidding on the square” requires believing the “flawed Neiwert premise: that your passionate rhetoric can be deemed morally responsible for a murder committed by some crazy person”.

    I don’t know, as neither MD nor I ever took an English class above the 200 level, a literature class above the 300 level, or a philosophy class above the 500 level (which was not in episiotomy closure), and Prof. Reynolds is a liberal arts professor of some sort.

    I will say this, just because Neiwert’s premise is false doesn’t mean one is free (morally) to say whatever one wants. No person can calculate the summation of words and actions that build momentum for evil. Not every person who ever said something anti-Semitic in Europe somehow was responsible for the Holocaust, but then again, every person who said something anti-Semitic is responsible for what they said.

    Now this may be dodging what our host P wants to nail down, and I don’t mean to dodge, but I can only explain what I can understand. It is bad to be dishonest in a discussion, Neiwert is wrong as he has formulated his premise, not everything that can be said should be said (but it is not up to the government to decide which is which), and I think people who seriously analogize pathogenic bacteria and humans are very wrong and their views should be treated with contempt-not marginalized to avoid truth, but shown the contempt they are worthy of.

    Hopefully one or two enjoyed this post from the Dark, Turbid Waters of the Amazon, apologies (but no guilt) to those who were annoyed.

    Quiz question: How is a raven like a writing desk?;-)

    "Painted Jaguar" (3d3f72)

  66. All I know is that every world population trend shows no sign of the world population slowing.

    Every trend?

    Every trend?

    Every trend?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  67. Sorry, Patterico, I didn’t see your amendment.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  68. You said Reynolds’ column advocated clamping down on talk about overpopulation.

    No, I didn’t.

    But his references did not condemn such discussion per se, but only in the context of a viewpoint that humanity is inherently destructive. It’s that viewpoint he condemned.

    He condemned such discussion in the context of analogies between humans and cancer or viruses. In his piece, Reynolds appears to expand the definition of “unacceptable” rhetoric to encompass anyone who analogizes humanity’s current population explosion to the behavior of a virus or cancer:

    But biotechnology is getting more common and — thanks to folks ranging from Paul Ehrlich (Holdren’s coauthor) to Al Gore — so are apocalyptic environmental views that treat humans as a cancer upon the earth.

    How common are these views? I typed “Humanity is a” into Google and the top three suggestions were “Humanity is a virus,” “Humanity is a disease,” and “Humanity is a cancer.”

    With such views spreading, and with technology making it steadily easier for individual or small groups to try creating their own viruses or diseases to, in their mind, level the score, perhaps we need to hold the environmental movement responsible for its frequent use of eliminationist rhetoric.

    Policing the science is likely to prove difficult. But policing the rhetoric — as American society has long done with expressions of racial hatred or genocidal sentiment — seems well within reach.

    In this passage, Reynolds implies that there is an equivalence between analogizing humanity to a cancer or a virus, and arguing that humanity must be exterminated.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  69. Reynolds

    Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

    I don’t see why it should, and I don’t see why we should pretend — or allow others to pretend — that hate-filled rhetoric is somehow more acceptable when it’s delivered by those wearing green shirts instead of brown.

    Our leftist friends have told us for years that right-leaning public speakers must watch their language with exquisite care, or be held responsible for any violence that occurs. This degree of responsibility has had its effect — virtually all of the violence associated with the Tea Party movement, for example, has been perpetrated by leftists, while Tea Partiers have been remarkably restrained — but now it’s time to recognize that responsibility cuts both ways.

    Sure looks to me like he’s condoning the lefts constantly describing the Tea Party as racist neo-Nazis, and attributing the TP’s lack of violence to the lefts policing what people on the right can say. And then saying “so let us police what people on the left can say as well”.

    A) the universe will end before the left ever goes for that deal.

    B) he’s tacitly agreeing with the lefts “policing” what people on the right can say. And by “people on the right” I do not mean Nazis or neo-Nazis.

    I’d be happier if Reynolds and Pajamas Media stuck to just-the-facts-reporting and eschewed any desire to go into the business with the MSM of deciding what can and what cannot be said.

    I would not trust myself with that power. I’m sure Glenn and Rodger Simon are great guys, but I’m not going to trust them with it either.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  70. I feel that much of this debate will be settled over the next 100 years, when the next plague will be unleashed and we’ll lose approximately 1/3 of the total population. It’s happened before, and there are too many bacterium that have become resistant to our current antibiotics. Just one look at the spread of MERSA around the country makes for a chilling picture. And we don’t even need to go into the idiots who are refusing to vaccinate their children at all for unfounded fears of autism. An outbreak of measles was barely contained last year in San Diego, if memory serves.

    I’m sure Bradley and Eric have much more coherent thoughts on the matter.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  71. Patterico, well, fair enough. No one here has claimed the world’s population is shrinking. What we have claimed is all based on the reliable evidence, itself gathered by censuses, mostly:

    1) The rate of growth of the world’s population is slowing.

    2) The most developed nations have below-replacement fertility rates, which means that without immigration their population would be shrinking.

    3) The least developed countries have the highest fertility rates.

    Therefore, there is reason for optimism that as the world develops, its population in absolute numbers will — as projected by experts — stabilize (possibly at 9 to 10 billion, which seems to be about the most widely accepted projection at present). So while the experts could be wrong and the Earth could actually reach the higher population numbers you mentioned upthread: 50, 100, or 200 billion … when you gave your opinion that, “I doubt there is much reason to believe that [the world’s population will stabilize at 9 or 10 billion people],” that’s fine as far as it goes yet there are sound reasons why reasonable people such as JD, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the World Bank believe it most likely will.

    I’m presently a single guy. And I date women of various ages, including young ones. Any idea how many either don’t want kids at all, or are at least putting it off for quite a while?

    The answer is, “a lot”, and birth control makes it possible. Modern technology, both the ability to enjoy our lives in non-family ways and also simply birth control techniques, are major reasons why the world’s population growth stabilizes, then falls, in developed countries.

    And many countries are developing.

    So never fear. Population growth won’t get us; intelligent machines might. But fear is pointless, so just enjoy the ride.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  72. Patterico,
    You said Reynolds’ column advocated clamping down on talk about overpopulation.

    No, I didn’t.

    This is what you said:

    My problem is that Prof. Reynolds is using a leftist tactic — the attempt to ban certain categories of speech from polite society — to suppress discussion of a problem that concerns conservatives like myself.

    And that problem is …?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  73. In his piece, Reynolds appears to expand the definition of “unacceptable” rhetoric to encompass anyone who analogizes humanity’s current population explosion to the behavior of a virus or cancer:

    Where did Reynolds say that?

    In this passage, Reynolds implies that there is an equivalence between analogizing humanity to a cancer or a virus, and arguing that humanity must be exterminated.

    It is one thing to analogize a certain aspect of human behavior to a cancer or virus. Quite another to liken those things to humanity.

    Since you and other conservatives are not likening humanity to a cancer or virus, Reynolds is not trying to “suppress discussion of a problem that concerns conservatives like myself”.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  74. In full context, I was saying he advocated clamping down on a PARTICULAR TYPE of discussion of overpopulation: the kind using rhetoric that compares homanity’s growth to the spread of a virus or cancer.

    It is a misreading to claim that I was thereby claiming he was trying to squelch ALL talk about overpopulation. I didn’t claim that at all.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  75. policing the rhetoric — as American society has long done with expressions of racial hatred or genocidal sentiment — seems well within reach.

    Yeah, American society has done such a bang-up job of “policing the rhetoric .. of racial hatred or genocidal sentiment” that you can’t oppose illegal immigration without being called a Nazi who wants to ship people around in cattle-cars.

    Thing is, I was under the impression that this state of affairs was one which libertarians and conservatives (the free speech coalition) did not condone!

    So I’m a tad bemused to see an erstwhile libertarian law professor celebrating this state of affairs, and wanting to extend it further. Watching Renyolds getting misty-eyed at the joys of “policing the rhetoric” is disconcerting, to put it mildly. Maybe that’s why so many people are saying “Nah, he must be kidding”.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  76. Patterico, I accept your correction. I apologize for not reading more carefully.

    However, you haven’t still haven’t demonstrated that Reynolds was trying to suppress any analogy of human behavior to a cancer or virus. Do you have a quote from Reynolds to that effect?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  77. “Reynolds implies that there is an equivalence between analogizing humanity to a cancer or a virus, and arguing that humanity must be exterminated.”

    Isn’t that usually the goal? At least with cancer?

    For the sake of discussion, and not meaning to offend anyone, if I said blacks are like a cancer or a virus, what would you say? If I said Jews are like a cancer or a virus, what would you say? I’m part North American native. If I said Native Indians are like a cancer or a virus, what would you say?

    Why should I just have to accept that it’s perfectly okay to say humanity is like a cancer or a virus?

    Okay, I could see where a cancer or virus anology might be useful, but that isn’t the same thing as saying “people are a virus”. A lot has to do with the wording.

    If a person said, “Human population has expanded exponentially, and the population growth is now peaking. Incidentally, this is a growth pattern seen throughout nature even in, for example, virus cells and cancer cells where either it kills the host, or the host’s immune system responds successfully. Then the level of virus particles or cancer cells either stabilize, or even decline. Hopefully this is the pattern that human population follows as well, because otherwise it could grow so fast that we overstrip Earth’s ability to provide us with sustenance, and either go extinct or have a sudden worldwide crisis and population decline.”

    Okay, that’s an analogy not many people could object to.

    But, “Humans are a virus, a cancer on the Earth.”

    People should be legally allowed to say that, but must they be allowed to say that without severe criticism? Can I not pointing out they’re also referring to my loved ones, f—— them very much?

    Can’t I be a little conversationally intolerant to people telling me I, and my species, are viruses? To people who belong to organizations whose mission is for us to “live long and die out”?

    Christoph (8ec277)

  78. Watching Renyolds getting misty-eyed at the joys of “policing the rhetoric” is disconcerting, to put it mildly. Maybe that’s why so many people are saying “Nah, he must be kidding”.

    Upon reading that graf more closely, I think you’re right.

    And I agree with Patterico’s point that there’s nothing inherently evil with analogizing a certain aspect of human behavior to that of a cancer or virus. However, that analogy can easily turn malignant, so I personally wouldn’t use it.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  79. For the sake of discussion, and not meaning to offend anyone, if I said blacks are like a cancer or a virus, what would you say? If I said Jews are like a cancer or a virus, what would you say? I’m part North American native. If I said Native Indians are like a cancer or a virus, what would you say?

    Why should I just have to accept that it’s perfectly okay to say humanity is like a cancer or a virus?

    Here’s the problem with the analogy: Everyone who refers to Jews as a virus wants to see all Jews eliminated. Not everyone who refers to humanity’s population explosion as a virus or a cancer wants to see all humans eliminated. As I have already argued, it is possible to see the overpopulation explosion as a problem without holding humanity in contempt. It is possible to oppose overpopulation out of a love for humanity.

    Wow, I should have put that in the post.

    Oh — I did.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  80. So I’m a tad bemused to see an erstwhile libertarian law professor celebrating this state of affairs, and wanting to extend it further. Watching Renyolds getting misty-eyed at the joys of “policing the rhetoric” is disconcerting, to put it mildly. Maybe that’s why so many people are saying “Nah, he must be kidding”.

    Isn’t it great that he has that to fall back on?

    Here’s my argument.

    You like it? Good.

    You don’t? Hey, I was just kidding, man.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  81. Patterico,
    Not everyone who refers to humanity’s population explosion as a virus or a cancer wants to see all humans eliminated.

    And Christoph and I are not making that argument. In fact, he and I just said the analogy you said is not inherently evil. We are objecting to what Reynolds condemned — likening humanity to a cancer or a virus. You don’t appear to understand there’s a big difference.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  82. People should be legally allowed to say that, but must they be allowed to say that without severe criticism? Can I not pointing out they’re also referring to my loved ones, f—— them very much?

    Can’t I be a little conversationally intolerant to people telling me I, and my species, are viruses? To people who belong to organizations whose mission is for us to “live long and die out”?

    Did I claim the right to make my argument without criticism — even severe criticism? no.

    Did I say you can’t be a little “conversationally intolerant”? No.

    Am I arguing against a tactic that takes legitimate arguments and suggests we should dismiss them by comparing them to Nazism? Am I opposing a point of view that speaks glowingly of policing rhetoric and declaring certain (in my mind legitimate) arguments to unacceptable? Yes.

    So deal with my argument and not a redefinition of my argument.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  83. Isn’t it kind of BS to claim that he has that to fall back on when it is entirely reasonable that could have been his point?

    I agree that the folks that view humanity as a virus or a cancer don’t wall all of humanity exterminated, only the bad ones.

    JD (8ded14)

  84. I don’t see what the big deal is.

    Just about everything lefties, Dems, liberals and enviro-loons say is totally nuts.

    You just ignore that.

    If they start acting nuts and waving guns around, then you just shoot the bastards.

    Dave Surls (b8d824)

  85. “Here’s the problem with the analogy: Everyone who refers to Jews as a virus wants to see all Jews eliminated. Not everyone who refers to humanity’s population explosion as a virus or a cancer wants to see all humans eliminated. As I have already argued, it is possible to see the overpopulation explosion as a problem without holding humanity in contempt. It is possible to oppose overpopulation out of a love for humanity.”

    If language when applied to specific groups of people means the speaker wants to see those groups eliminated … can’t you see that a speaker using the exact same language applied to people in general … runs the risk of pissing people off or even setting off wingnuts?

    Sure, to the degree that the cancer or virus analogy is useful as a thinking tool to understand population growth and risks, it can be used, but perhaps with some circumspection in phrasing and only when relevant.

    Consider the war on cancer or the war on drugs. Americans like to call every plan, no matter how hair-brained, a war. But cancer cells, well, we WANT to kill those, and drugs are an inanimate object, and going further, few likes poverty, so declaring war on it ain’t bad.

    But if you were to talk about a war on population … well, that may make sense abstractly, and you may just mean things like birth control and such … yet population means people. And you’d have to be pretty daft to use that terminology, because it’s associated with killing.

    We kill invasive viruses and cancer when possible. So using those proxies to describe humans — proxies that we routinely devote a great deal of resources to killing and learning how to kill better — is a might troubling. I think that’s the point Reynolds was making.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  86. “Similarly, I believe that there is an overpopulation problem in the world at large. It reminds me of our national debt: it expands and expands and expands, and you can point to times when it expands slower than others, but it is still constantly expanding. We’re at close to 7 billion people now on Earth. We reached 2 billion, 3 billion, 4 billion, 5 billion, and 6 billion all in the 1900s. If aliens came down to Earth and silently observed this planet over the last 200 years, they would likely conclude that one species was spiraling out of control. They might conclude, quite reasonably, that humanity appears to be behaving like a cancer or a virus.”

    If you’re interested in demographic trends, I’m sure you’ve seen Bjorn Roslett’s work. If you have, you must be aware of the relationship between economic development and fertility rates, and, secondarily, between fertility rates and life expectancy.

    Since it is impossible to “control” anything, not prices, not population, not anything, then you should be interested in fostering economic development and personal income growth, together with the legal measures necessary to encourage that, everywhere, since that would leas to lower fertility rates.

    That said, the flip side of the coin is the problem of aging populations and the care of the elderly, exacerbated by the declining productivity of an aging population.

    It’s all about tradeoffs, isn’t it?

    Davesix (cdc770)

  87. Reynolds.

    So far, we’ve been pretty lucky that there aren’t more scientists who are also nuts. Though the “mad scientist” is a staple of literature, they’re fortunately pretty rare in real life.

    But biotechnology is getting more common and — thanks to folks ranging from Paul Ehrlich (Holdren’s coauthor) to Al Gore — so are apocalyptic environmental views that treat humans as a cancer upon the earth.

    He’s right about that, the “Twelve Monkeys” scenario. The thing is, I don’t see how “policing the rhetoric” solves the problem, it just drives it underground.The solution is more and better speech, to debunk the “humans are a virus which should be exterminated” argument. We were able to win the Cold War without ever banning pro-communist voices from the public square – they just lost the debate.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  88. Isn’t it kind of BS to claim that he has that to fall back on when it is entirely reasonable that could have been his point?

    No.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  89. Well, then I will just keep my opinions to myself, as they are entirely unreasonable and without merit.

    JD (8ded14)

  90. “Policing the rhetoric” makes my Libertarian bones shudder, but in fairness to Reynolds, he was urging environmentalists to police their own rhetoric.

    The environmental movement needs to bring its hate-filled rhetoric under control, before it’s too late. There are too many potential James Lees out there, and some of them may be more competent than Lee was. Don’t encourage them through over the top rhetoric.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  91. “Am I arguing against a tactic that takes legitimate arguments and suggests we should dismiss them by comparing them to Nazism? Am I opposing a point of view that speaks glowingly of policing rhetoric and declaring certain (in my mind legitimate) arguments to unacceptable?” Yes.

    K, I got you.

    If someone said humanity is a cancer or is a virus, then I’d be worried about that person and those he associates with because the logical things to do is to kill cancers and viruses. And I think calling humans cancer/viruses is extreme.

    If someone used an analogy that human population growth is similar to a virus and that, like a virus overwhelms its host, too many humans could overwhelm the Earth, I’d cut that person some slack and discuss it with them.

    Compare the following conversation between whomever and someone you love …

    WHOMEVER: Human population growth is similar to virus, spreading all over the world and jeopardizing the health of the Earth.

    SOMEONE YOU LOVE: Oh really?

    Contrast with …

    WHOMEVER: All humans are viruses on the Earth. You’re a virus. Actually, you’re cancer.

    SOMEONE YOU LOVE: Get the hell away from me.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  92. Bradley,

    You say:

    It is one thing to analogize a certain aspect of human behavior to a cancer or virus. Quite another to liken those things to humanity.

    In this context, I am doing both. I am saying, specifically, that BECAUSE of a certain aspect of human behavior, humanity itself can be likened to a virus or a cancer.

    But in my analogy, I am aligning my interest, not with the host per se, but with the cancer cells. That’s why Christoph is off the mark when he says:

    We kill invasive viruses and cancer when possible.

    Sure, because they are not us.

    But carry the analogy through. If you see your interests as aligned with the cancer cells, you might see that the short-term “good” of spreading your kind throughout the host might create a long-term bad, of killing the host. For purposes of sustaining us.

    People who say that the Earth will survive us miss the point. I don’t care about the earth other than as a place for humans to live. But if we are like a cancer or a virus, killing the host will kill US.

    And THAT is what I object to.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  93. @ Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 9/6/2010 @ 7:41 pm

    Good point.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  94. If language when applied to specific groups of people means the speaker wants to see those groups eliminated … can’t you see that a speaker using the exact same language applied to people in general … runs the risk of pissing people off or even setting off wingnuts?

    Not my problem. I don’t refrain from making arguments that I think are valid just because some people might misunderstand them and get pissed off. I don’t refrain from using passionate rhetoric because I am concerned some nut will take my words too seriously and engage in violent acts in response to them.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  95. Since it is impossible to “control” anything, not prices, not population, not anything, then you should be interested in fostering economic development and personal income growth, together with the legal measures necessary to encourage that, everywhere, since that would leas to lower fertility rates.

    The relationship is a bell curve. For much of the world, increasing development will actually fuel population growth for a time, because that’s where they are on the curve.

    Which is not to say it should not be done, just that it should be done (or attempted) with eyes open to the probable results.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  96. There is a certain dignity and restraint expected from the office of the presidency. I can’t remember Bush complaining about his critics; I remember him complaining about classified information being leaked, but nothing personal. And if any president would have been justified to complain about the personal attacks, well…

    Another troubling aspect of President Obama’s complaint is that as he again denigrates his critics – who are the American public – he continues to reinforce the polarization that has taken root in our country. If this were an isolated incident, it would be just that, but it isn’t isolated – it’s a habit.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  97. Well, then I will just keep my opinions to myself, as they are entirely unreasonable and without merit.

    I will not keep mine to myself, even if you think they are “kind of BS.”

    Patterico (c218bd)

  98. Did we really win the debate, that is not at all clear from the media and academic perspective, those crazy notions posited some 20 years ago, that I came to know through Hilton Kramer, an d Roger Kimball is now campus orthodoxy, Skip Gates being
    the most moderate wedge, How did we come to the point that this rhetoric became exceptable and speaking about the constitution is considered arcane

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  99. oops. Wrong thread.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  100. Humanity isn’t a cancer or virus — it’s a greedy, amoral parasite — the view from VHEMT
    We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.

    But they admit to mixed feelings about the loss of real parasites . . .
    Extinction of the couple dozen species which live only on humans is tragic, but unavoidable. Although our hearts might not go out to the crab louse, and few of us have ever seen any of the billions of mites and microbes which live on and in us, each is a unique lifeform contributing to the diversity of life on Earth.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  101. “Policing the rhetoric” makes my Libertarian bones shudder, but in fairness to Reynolds, he was urging environmentalists to police their own rhetoric.

    He was telling them to police it themselves, or we would have to do it for them.

    With such views spreading, and with technology making it steadily easier for individual or small groups to try creating their own viruses or diseases to, in their mind, level the score, perhaps we need to hold the environmental movement responsible for its frequent use of eliminationist rhetoric.

    Policing the science is likely to prove difficult. But policing the rhetoric — as American society has long done with expressions of racial hatred or genocidal sentiment — seems well within reach.

    The term “acceptable” or its opposite “unacceptable” appears three times in the piece.

    We have to decide: are we against these tactics? Or only when used by our opponents?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  102. Humanity isn’t a cancer or virus — it’s a greedy, amoral parasite — the view from VHEMT
    We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.

    Ah. So because they explicitly say they are NOT saying that, they are saying that.

    Look, I’m not a fan of these people. But distorting their opinions to declare them evil is not cool.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  103. For goodness sakes, Patterico, we can’t, as a society, decide we find certain expressions “unacceptable”?

    That just means we don’t accept it and we strongly disapprove. It doesn’t mean they can’t say it.

    There’s all sorts of things that are hugely socially inappropriate and “unacceptable” to say that you could say. We — liberal and conservative alike — use these “tactics” all the time. They are very human to use.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  104. Patterico,

    People who say that the Earth will survive us miss the point. I don’t care about the earth other than as a place for humans to live. But if we are like a cancer or a virus, killing the host will kill US.

    And THAT is what I object to.

    What is this “host” that will be killed? And just how will humanity itself be killed?

    Also, Reynolds is aiming his criticism at those who liken humans to viruses and cancer because other species will be harmed. He makes that link repeatedly. Your argument is that human population growth is bad because it will lead to human extinction. Nothing Reynolds says applies to that argument.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  105. My view of these voluntary extinction people is that they are goofy, not evil.

    They say explicitly that they don’t think they’re going to achieve extinction. I think ultimately they just want fewer people.

    Oh, which reminds me:

    Since it is impossible to “control” anything, not prices, not population, not anything, then you should be interested in fostering economic development and personal income growth, together with the legal measures necessary to encourage that, everywhere

    Who says I’m not?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  106. @ Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 9/6/2010 @ 8:01 pm

    Good point. Again.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  107. Although our hearts might not go out to the crab louse, and few of us have ever seen any of the billions of mites and microbes which live on and in us, each is a unique lifeform contributing to the diversity of life on Earth.

    I know the left was into “diversity”, but I never realized quite how much they are into it.

    So there you go, there’s your argument. Getting rid of humans is bad because that would also reduce diversity.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  108. we can’t, as a society, decide we find certain expressions “unacceptable”?

    I’m on board with society doing that.

    But as a general rule, people concerned with “policing the rhetoric” are more interested in smashing society and remaking it their own image than in speaking for it.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  109. Ah. So because they explicitly say they are NOT saying that, they are saying that.

    They ARE saying that. They just don’t think that is an expedient way to put it that way to the public. But they admit it elsewhere in their literature.

    Many cling to the quaint notion that we are still a part of Nature, and perhaps we are, depending on how “a part of” is defined.

    An established and balanced ecosystem functions in a dynamic symbiosis. All species interact with each other in three possible ways: mutualistic, communalistic, or parasitic. A mutualistic relationship helps both organisms. A communalistic relationship neither helps nor harms the interacting organisms. A parasitic relationship helps one and harms the other.

    Are we a part of Nature in the same way a timber company is a part of the forest? Or the same way a farmer is part of the farm? We could be part of nature the same way, say, an otter is: eating sea urchins and being eaten by sharks.

    We were once like the otter, part of the ecosystem. Then we developed agriculture, and have become parasitic, depending on exploitation of Nature for our survival, but giving nothing back.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  110. Bradley,

    My concern is that Reynolds’s rhetoric, such as this:

    How common are these views? I typed “Humanity is a” into Google and the top three suggestions were “Humanity is a virus,” “Humanity is a disease,” and “Humanity is a cancer.”

    With such views spreading . . .

    seems to suggest that anyone who argues that “humanity is a virus” falls into the category of human haters.

    If I started with “humanity is a virus” I might try to follow up by clarifying and explaining, but in Reynolds’s world I wouldn’t get the chance. My rhetoric would already have been deemed unacceptable.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  111. There was a big fuss earlier in the year, because of some possibly illconsidered remarks that RS McCain had made at some point, which were considered
    out of bound, I remember something about that

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  112. Bradley,

    You make a more effective case by quoting where they say they DO think that, rather than by quoting where they say they DON’T, and using that quote to claim they do.

    I still have yet to see anything backing up your implication that they “purposefully harm or wish harm on people.” Seems to me like they just want to persuade people to stop having babies.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  113. Patterico,
    They say explicitly that they don’t think they’re going to achieve extinction.

    That’s not an accurate way of describing what they say:
    We know we’ll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet. Ours is a long-range goal.
    So they hope it will happen, but don’t expect it to happen in their lifetimes.

    I think ultimately they just want fewer people.
    They say a minority are willing to settle for fewer people, most want extinction.
    Most Volunteers subscribe to the philosophy embodied in the motto “May we live long and die out”, but if someone doesn’t want to live long that’s their business. Really, the only action required for becoming a VHEMT Volunteer or Supporter is not adding another human being to the population. A couple could conceivably be expecting and decide to become VHEMT. That new human would be the last one they produced. VHEMT Supporters are not necessarily in favor of human extinction, but agree that no more of us should be created at this time.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  114. There was a big fuss earlier in the year, because of some possibly illconsidered remarks that RS McCain had made at some point, which were considered out of bound, I remember something about that

    I believed (and continue to believe) the remarks were racist. I’m not particularly interested in revisiting that discussion here. I will say this: I am not arguing that, if you think something is racist, or otherwise beyond the pale, you should be prevented from saying so.

    But charges of racism, and other forms of labeling arguments as otherwise unacceptable, should be made very, very carefully. Because otherwise you fall into a P.C. mode where legitimate topics can’t be debated.

    Some people disagreed with me about which side of the line McCain’s remarks fell on, and that’s fine. (I defended him against such charges in other contexts, not that anyone remembers that part.)

    My point is, I am not as enthusiastic as Reynolds about labeling entire categories of speech as “unacceptable” — especially when a good faith argument can be made that the speech in question is legitimate.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  115. Humans don’t exist in a vacuum, so, yes, outside influences — including those contained within the world of culture and politics — will affect pretty much everyone. I’m not sure why acknowledging that aspect of reality necessarily is of leftist or rightist bent.

    However, since liberals in general have a tendency to excuse the lousy behavior of the individual based on such behavior being somehow the responsibility of society-at-large (eg, “a lack of healthcare and welfare programs turned him into a criminal!!!” “We’re a violent nation not because of the existence of rotten people, but because of the existence of handguns!!!”), they do exploit the role of outside factors more than the right does.

    I know that if Glenn Reynolds were to raise a point about the outside influence of the judicial system in it forcing same-sex marriage onto our society, and its influence therefore altering rhetoric throughout the nation and the thinking of many people, I would take that at face value. To me it’s no more than saying that 2 plus 2 equals four.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  116. Here is the full quote:

    VHEMT Volunteers are realistic. We know we’ll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet. Ours is a long-range goal.

    It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none. The odds may be against preserving life on Earth, but the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one. Indeed, the likelihood of our failure to avoid the massive die off which humanity is engineering is a very good reason to not sentence another of us to life. The future isn’t what it used to be.

    Even if our chances of succeeding were only one in a hundred, we would have to try. Giving up and allowing humanity to take its course is unconscionable. There is far too much at stake.

    The Movement may be considered a success each time one more of us volunteers to breed no more.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  117. I still have yet to see anything backing up your implication that they “purposefully harm or wish harm on people.” Seems to me like they just want to persuade people to stop having babies.

    I concede that I can’t prove that. However, I think their goal of eliminating humanity, even if they don’t advocate violence, is itself evil. The group certainly thinks humanity deserves death. And I’m not going to give them any benefit of the doubt. Take a look a this chart.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  118. Patterico

    I agree, after traveling to Russia this summer someone on the cruise an economist from London pointed out to me the explosion of cars in several russian cities. In St Petersburg there was rarely a space to park a bike for all the personal vehicles such was the rapid advancement of this very large city.

    Consider Central and South America, their populations are undocmented, poorly managed and are a growing menace to this country by their shear numbers and proximity. Some questionably population estimates put the 4 largest cities in Central and South America alone to (in the foreseeable future) exceed the entire populace of North America.

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  119. “But if we are like a cancer or a virus, killing the host will kill US.”

    “They might conclude, quite reasonably, that humanity appears to be behaving like a cancer or a virus.”
    Patterico – You share the conclusion of the aliens.

    “People who say that the Earth will survive us miss the point.”

    Patterico – No, you do, repeatedly. Those people do not share your belief that overpopulation will kill the host. They may, however, believe, that mankind will die, just as other species have died over the life of this planet and that the host will continue surviving.

    This is not rocket science.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  120. Hear, hear, daleyrocks.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  121. Patterico,
    My concern is that Reynolds’s rhetoric, such as this:

    I agree with you that Googling “Humanity is a” is a poor way to prove his point.

    However, I see a great difference between one who says “Humanity is a virus” and one who “analogizes humanity’s current population explosion to the behavior of a virus or cancer.”

    The first is a statement about the essence of humanity itself.
    The second is a statement about a certain aspect of human behavior.

    See what I mean?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  122. I don’t refrain from making arguments that I think are valid just because some people might misunderstand them and get pissed off. I don’t refrain from using passionate rhetoric because I am concerned some nut will take my words too seriously and engage in violent acts in response to them.
    Comment by Patterico

    Fine and good.

    It sounds to me that you are stridently against the idea that someone can be seen as responsible for someone else’s act of violence because they said something the crazy person acted on. And since you are against that in principle, you don’t like it when someone who you usually are in agreement with uses that argument against others.

    Fine. I agree as that is stated.

    That said, I think there may be topics that are truly despicable, and rather debated should be marginalized. If someone says, “I think everybody with an IQ of less than 75 should be euthanized”, I’m not going to start a discussion over whether 70 or 80 would be a better cut-off.

    So then there is the question if such a dismissle is ever appropriate, when? And that goes into the validity of the concern. As I type this I don’t know who has been on the other thread to read my comparison of world population issues with tax policy. There are times when continuing a discussion seems to lend a legitimacy that should not exist.

    "Painted Jaguar" (3d3f72)

  123. “…the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one.”

    And, I encourage the loonier enviromentalists to make that decision…just in case there is a dopey gene.

    Dave Surls (b8d824)

  124. Painted Jaguar,

    Sure, some topics may be truly despicable — but the left loves to continually expand that list of topics and crimp our ability to debate important issues.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  125. However, I see a great difference between one who says “Humanity is a virus” and one who “analogizes humanity’s current population explosion to the behavior of a virus or cancer.”

    The first is a statement about the essence of humanity itself.
    The second is a statement about a certain aspect of human behavior.

    See what I mean?

    I see what you mean. However, I may choose to express the second concept with the words used in the first example.

    I’d like the ability to do so without having law professors try to convince people to shun me for how I expressed my sentiments.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  126. Mexico City – Approx 18,000,000
    Buenos Aires – approx 13,000,000
    Sao Paulo – approx 20,000,000
    Rio de Janeiro – approx 11,500,000
    Total – approx 62,500,000

    North America – Numbers range from 350,000,000 to 400,000,000. I used the entire metro area numbers to be as generous as possible. So, to categorize those as questionable would be very generous.

    JD (8ded14)

  127. “But if we are like a cancer or a virus, killing the host will kill US.”

    “They might conclude, quite reasonably, that humanity appears to be behaving like a cancer or a virus.”
    Patterico – You share the conclusion of the aliens.

    “People who say that the Earth will survive us miss the point.”

    Patterico – No, you do, repeatedly. Those people do not share your belief that overpopulation will kill the host. They may, however, believe, that mankind will die, just as other species have died over the life of this planet and that the host will continue surviving.

    This is not rocket science.

    I don’t really understand this comment. What is your point?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  128. JD,

    But I think he was talking about the foreseeable future, not now. Those are not the most developed countries, are they? Have you seen any estimates of population growth in those cities over the next several decades?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  129. P-jag

    Actually – almost every state that has the death penalty has discussed the IQ cutoff.

    Apparently there are topics that have been discussed.

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  130. “I don’t really understand this comment. What is your point?”

    Patterico – You seem most obtuse tonight. Christoph understood it easily enough. I’m sure Bradley did as well.

    Let it sink in a little.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  131. I was just pointing out that for his point to have merit, or a basis in reality, that those 4 cities would have to multiply by at least 6 times over, while North American would have to remain at 400,000,000. Not likely, even in the foreseeable future.

    JD (8ded14)

  132. Patterico,

    I see what you mean. However, I may choose to express the second concept with the words used in the first example.

    I’d like the ability to do so without having law professors try to convince people to shun me for how I expressed my sentiments.

    But you should know that the phrase “Humanity is a virus,” carries odious connotations to large numbers of people. So if you choose to use that analogy, you need to take care how you use it, lest you be misunderstood. If you argue as carefully as you usually do, I’m sure Reynolds will get your point.

    Your own phrase of one who “analogizes humanity’s current population explosion to the behavior of a virus or cancer” is less prone to misinterpretation. So why not use that? If you wish to be understood accurately, it’s best to choose the clearest way of expressing yourself.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  133. Of course, it would be even better to lose any comparisons to diseases when describing humanity. A milder analogy that is more easily understood would be a comparison to lemmings*.

    *Although even that analogy is flawed, because lemmings can’t invent technology and plan like humans do.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  134. Didn’t you once argue that conservatives should be careful in selecting their words, lest they be too easily misconstrued by the left?

    JD (8ded14)

  135. Uh, oh! I was afraid this was going to segue into The Interminable Subject That Should Not Be Named!

    Please, let it not be!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  136. JD

    Mexico City has a pop est of 50 million today – there always is a descrepancy between actual city populations and area populations

    Today as of day 1 the inside city limits population of the 4 top cities are over 60 million

    Double that or more for the area population

    Jut 4 cities 40% of the entire population of the United States

    But for argument sake – lets go get a beer and go count of of them – how mong could it posibly take?

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  137. EPWJ-

    Do you not see a difference between the IQ at which a person is cognitively responsible for moral behavior and the IQ at which a person deserves the right to live? Nobody (sane and not evil) has discussed a minimum IQ to be allowed to continue to live. Peter Singer might have, but if so, I’ll let others decide which catagory to put him in.

    P- Just because the left likes to enlarge the list of despicable things to crimp debate does not void the concept.

    First of all, I think this discussion needs to assume the intellectual honesty of those involved, or the discussion is pointless. I think the left uses this as a tactic to win dishonest arguments. That is different, in my mind, to a legitimate honest response regarding something horrid.

    The difficulty is holding intellectually dishonest people accountable to anything.

    I’d like the ability to do so without having law professors try to convince people to shun me for how I expressed my sentiments.
    Comment by Patterico

    Is someone trying to convince people to shun you? Shame on them. We’re not seeing eye to eye, but if we did all of the time, one of us would be unnecessary.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  138. Bradley,

    Since ian cormac brought up one of the old unpleasant episodes, allow me to bring up another.

    Take another four-word phrase that carries odious connotations to many: “I hope he fails.” Substitute that for “Humanity is a virus” in the comment you just wrote and see how it reads.

    There are those who argued that phrasing things in an attention-getting way is sometimes necessary to shake people up. (Not many will remember, but I acknowledged that as a strong argument when it was articulated to me. Not many will remember this either, but my argument there was that, even in context, what Rush was saying was not so clear. That subtlety was completely lost in the general wash of anger, and would be again if we re-discussed it. I’m speaking to maybe the top 1% of my readership here.)

    So yes: if you use the provocative phrase and don’t make its meaning clear from the surrounding context, you’re in trouble. But you should be able to use a provocative phrase as long as its surrounding context makes it clear. Right? You used to think that, at least, if I recall.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  139. I certainly agree people should be able to say humanity is a virus, is a blight, is a cancer. But unless they come up with this real clear context you’re referring to pretty fast, Patterico, I’m going to consider the other person a warped human-hating bastard.

    The fact that I, or you, may provide such context tout de suite is one thing. The people Reynolds is criticizing and suggesting should tighten up so rhetoric?

    Not so much.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  140. I wrote that comment before seeing this from JD:

    Didn’t you once argue that conservatives should be careful in selecting their words, lest they be too easily misconstrued by the left?

    My actual argument depended entirely on whether the interpretation was reasonable. If the context makes it clear that the misinterpretation is reasonable, the onus is on the speaker. If the context makes clear that the misinterpretation is unreasonable, the onus is on the (mis)interpreter.

    Rush should have been free to say “I hope he fails” if his context made it clear what he meant by that. I spent about 500,000 words explaining that he did not; if you aren’t convinced by now, you never will be. But the point is that the argument was really about a smaller point: did his context make his statement clear?

    I see by your bringing up the analogy, JD, that you see the same connection I did between the two topics. I hope that you can see what I am saying about how they are indeed connected.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  141. See you guys in a few days – traveling 2 days back to the sunny Qatar

    Small world story – apporiate for this thread

    We moved to Watar in 2005 from Spring Texas, MY oldest just finihed 9th grade.

    She is attending West Point and to her surprize – a neighbor from her old spring neighborhood just doors away from us is alos in her class

    THis summer her Spring Texas Classmate was sent to Qatar for field studies, and he stopped by…

    Freaky deaky

    Worlds getting so small sometimes when I open the door in Al Jazi Gardens at the far end of the world I expect to see relatives or neighbors and now it happened…

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  142. * The fact that I, or you, may provide such context tout de suite is one thing. The people Reynolds is criticizing and suggesting should tighten up so their rhetoric?

    Not so much.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  143. But you should be able to use a provocative phrase as long as its surrounding context makes it clear. Right? You used to think that, at least, if I recall.

    Yes, but “Humanity is a virus” carries a far more sinister tone than “I hope he fails.” And Limbaugh knew what he was doing — he was able to explain that he believes Obama’s failure is success for America, because Obama’s policies are bad for America. Limbaugh didn’t lose any popularity.

    Can you pull off the same feat with “Humanity is a virus?”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  144. sorry for the typos

    JD

    I’m going to count all of them soon

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  145. I just read it a fourth and fifth time, and I still don’t understand it. Presumably if you insult me some more, that will help.

    You should know, if you have forgotten, that when Christoph gets into a disagreement with me, he has an annoying habit of cheering on any comment that also expresses disagreement with me. Trust me, that doesn’t mean he understands what you are saying. It’s simply done to be obnoxious. I say this based on a long history of experience.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  146. Yes, but “Humanity is a virus” carries a far more sinister tone than “I hope he fails.” And Limbaugh knew what he was doing — he was able to explain that he believes Obama’s failure is success for America, because Obama’s policies are bad for America

    There was the issue about whether he wished long-term success through short-term economic failure, or whether he simply wanted the policies defeated but would want them to succeed if enacted.

    It eventually became clear he meant the former, which is a hard sell, and plenty sinister-sounding to people out of work.

    Limbaugh didn’t lose any popularity.

    Can you pull off the same feat with “Humanity is a virus?”

    Sure, if I am speaking to an audience of environmentalists. Give any speaker a choir to preach to, and he’ll do much better.

    I don’t judge the soundness of an argument by its popularity with the speaker’s crowd.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  147. “Presumably if you insult me some more, that will help.”

    Patterico – OK. How about this. It means what it says.

    I also remember Christoph’s behavior well.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  148. Patterico,

    The insults are unwarranted, of course. This has been an extremely interesting discussion. I think it’s well worth your effort, even though we may not give you enough credit at the time.

    Thank you.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  149. Please don’t let this thread devolve to insults or the personal – through every comment it has provided a fascinating, challenging and insightful read throughout the day and evening. It *is* precisely be what this reader thinks Patterico’s is best at. Guard it.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  150. It is you who have misunderstood several things on this thread, Patterico, from basic facts regarding population growth rates, population growth vs. decline in developing vs. developed nations, and also the nature of the people Reynolds is criticizing.

    They are not, for the most part, interested in examining humanity’s population growth like a virus or a cancer for the purposes of assuring we survive and thrive. They are concerned that we’re hurting all the other critters that don’t have technology like nasty, virulent cancer us.

    In short, when they talk about us being a cancer or a virus, they have a negative view of humanity much like above when you said that when a person uses those words directed at Jews, they mean they want Jews to go away.

    That’s what daleyrocks was saying.

    And I’m cheering on he and Brother Bradley because I thoroughly agree with them. I’m not disagreeing with you for the sake of doing so.

    The earlier part of our conversation regarding population growth rates and projected future total population would have gone a lot smoother if you’d read these “widely known” (to quote SPQR, who I also agreed with) facts on the subject and went, “Hmm. Interesting. Good point.”

    It is you who cleave to a position like a dog to a bone. I’m perfectly willing to change my position if the facts and argument warrants it. That’s how I learn.

    In this case, though, Reynolds directed his critique regarding environmental eliminationist rhetoric at people many of whom really do wish humans would just go away. He’s urging them to control their rhetoric and people to shun those who use such harsh rhetoric to describe people.

    Why?

    As said earlier, we kill cancer and viruses. But you said that’s different, because they’re not “us”.

    Well sure they’re not — to you and I — who identify with our humanity, our survival, and our wishing a great future for our loved ones. But to those who identify with the planet and its other creatures as an end to themselves more important than our species, that’s what they mean when they call us viruses, and cancer.

    That is what daleyrocks was getting at. I don’t get how it escaped you because you’re a smart fellow, with an Achilles heel of being a bit too wedded to your starting position.

    Undoubtedly that trait comes in handy in certain circumstances, even professionally.

    I know that philosophically you’re open to changing your mind, but in practice you do so rarely. I say this based on a long history of experience.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  151. Thank you, Bradley and dana, for those comments.

    daley:

    It means what it means, eh? Well then, if you are going to affect a Reynoldsian Oracle of Delphi posture, let me take a stab at what you mean, and maybe you can at least drop a hint as to whether I’m on the right track?

    “But if we are like a cancer or a virus, killing the host will kill US.”

    “They might conclude, quite reasonably, that humanity appears to be behaving like a cancer or a virus.”
    Patterico – You share the conclusion of the aliens.

    Yes. I believe humanity is acting like a cancer or a virus.

    “People who say that the Earth will survive us miss the point.”

    Patterico – No, you do, repeatedly. Those people do not share your belief that overpopulation will kill the host. They may, however, believe, that mankind will die, just as other species have died over the life of this planet and that the host will continue surviving.

    This is not rocket science.

    I think you are saying that the critics of analogies such as I am defending in this thread don’t think overpopulation is as much of a problem as I do. I get that.

    But when I make the argument that “overpopulation will kill the host” it misses my point to argue that the Earth will survive even if becomes unsustainable for us. When I say it will kill the host, my point is that the Earth will become unsustainable for us. Whether it lives on after us is immaterial to me.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  152. Patterico – My comment takes three sentences you wrote concerning population, one from the post and two from the same comment. In the post you suggested aliens would reasonable view our population explosion as one species spiraling out of control, humanity acting as a cancer or a virus. In the comment you imply that if we are a cancer or a virus, we will kill the host, e.g. the earth and also point out that those who say the Earth will survive “us” miss the point (whatever point that is). I merely point out that you fail to see that the people on the other side of the argument who have been presenting population evidence calmly to you all evening, do not necessarily agree with your position that mankind is killing the host and have an alternate view you are overlooking. It is really very simple.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  153. When I first started hearing about Deep Ecology, that’s the technical name for this school of thought, and Earth First, I thought it insane,
    Then I read as much as I could stand of Earth in the balance, redolent with phrases, like an’environmental Kristallnacht,’ and by no fault of my own, watched ‘an Inconvenient Truth’ which should proscribed by the Geneva Convention, as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ with few exceptions, this pattern of belief, has not been moderated, rather it has been encouraged, and among a small percentage, insane behavior is to be expected

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  154. It is you who have misunderstood several things on this thread, Patterico, from basic facts regarding population growth rates, population growth vs. decline in developing vs. developed nations, and also the nature of the people Reynolds is criticizing.

    I have misunderstood none of that. I’m sorry you didn’t follow the discussion closely enough to realize that.

    I never denied growth rates are going down. I argued that population continues to expand. Viewed in the perspective of the history of the planet, it is a stunning explosion. I am not reassured by decreases in the growth rate in developed parts of the world.

    I am going to end the cycle of personal observations, but I will point out to you that the contentless “hear hear” comments are indeed annoying and are not productive to a civil discussion. I remember them well and they appear to me to be designed to annoy. I will likely delete them in the future if you persist with them.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  155. I merely point out that you fail to see that the people on the other side of the argument who have been presenting population evidence calmly to you all evening, do not necessarily agree with your position that mankind is killing the host and have an alternate view you are overlooking. It is really very simple.

    I get that they have an alternate view. Why you think I am “overlooking” it, I don’t get.

    The point missed by the “Earth will live on” responders, as I said, is that I am not concerned with whether Earth will live on, except to the extent that it is necessary for humanity and its works to live on.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  156. I have just deleted a Christoph “hear, hear” comment. I will continue.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  157. Since this is a post about speech, and declaring speech off limits, I do think the parallel to “I hope he fails” is interesting.

    Unfortunately, that example is loaded down with so much baggage that any discussion of what I see as an interesting parallel would likely not be productive.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  158. I will ignore the personal comments but will address this:

    It is you who have misunderstood . . . the nature of the people Reynolds is criticizing.

    They are not, for the most part, interested in examining humanity’s population growth like a virus or a cancer for the purposes of assuring we survive and thrive. They are concerned that we’re hurting all the other critters that don’t have technology like nasty, virulent cancer us.

    In short, when they talk about us being a cancer or a virus, they have a negative view of humanity much like above when you said that when a person uses those words directed at Jews, they mean they want Jews to go away.

    That’s what daleyrocks was saying.

    That doesn’t sound like what daleyrocks said he was saying, but let’s address the argument anyway.

    Prof. Reynolds may well be focusing his real wrath on the subset of people who are more interested in the critters than in humanity. And if he is, then yes, he’s not aiming at me.

    But I think he failed to make that distinction effectively, for two reasons.

    First, with his little “Google suggests these results” trick, he suggested that the viewpoint he is criticizing is more prevalent than I believe it really is. As I demonstrate in the post, if you actually click through to see what people are saying, the analogy is not widely used as an excuse to argue for the extermination of the species.

    Second, based on that, his tactic of declaring “humanity is a virus” speech as “unacceptable” declares off limits a far greater category of valuable speech than I think his column acknowledges.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  159. Patterico,
    Sure, if I am speaking to an audience of environmentalists. Give any speaker a choir to preach to, and he’ll do much better.

    I don’t judge the soundness of an argument by its popularity with the speaker’s crowd.

    Okay, well try this: Limbaugh was totally serious when he said he hoped Obama would fail. He wanted to pierce through the taboo about not wishing the president success. And Limbaugh explained why this was literally true: that the good of the country required Obama to fail. Limbaugh’s four words got to the meat of the subject. And the public has soured on Obama’s policies.

    I think Limbaugh helped the process along. By breaking the taboo on criticizing a new president, Limbaugh encouraged others to follow suit, although in more measured terms.

    But when you say “Humanity is a virus,” you’re not getting to the meat of the matter. You’re obscuring the point with an analogy that you don’t think is literally true.

    While Limbaugh could go directly from his statement to the argument backing it up, you’ll have to explain that what you don’t literally mean humanity is a virus. You’ll have to clarify that you “believe humanity is acting like a cancer or a virus.”

    And you’ll have to further clarify that you don’t want to exterminate humanity as people try to do with a virus or cancer. You’ll also need to add that you value humans, and your concern about overpopulation is from the viewpoint of protecting humans.

    Finally, you’ll need to show just how continued population growth will kill the host and humanity with it.

    Good luck spinning all those epicycles in a way people will accept.

    Finally, you’ll need to show

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  160. Uh, those last five words were extraneous. Ignore them.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  161. But when you say “Humanity is a virus,” you’re not getting to the meat of the matter. You’re obscuring the point with an analogy that you don’t think is literally true.

    True, but won’t that be obvious to anyone who reads those words?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  162. But when you say “Humanity is a virus,” you’re not getting to the meat of the matter. You’re obscuring the point with an analogy that you don’t think is literally true.

    “True, but won’t that be obvious to anyone who reads those words?”

    Comment by Patterico — 9/6/2010 @ 10:04 pm

    It depends who you’re reading them to.

    If you were reading the words, “Jews are wanderers,” or, “Jews are rootless cosmopolitans,” to us, we wouldn’t think much of it. But these are phrases that took on a much deeper meaning to the pre-World War II era anti-semitic Germans and Austrians.

    When these radical environmentalists talk about humans being a cancer on a host, or a virus attacking the Earth, they mean it. And it is the host, the Earth they mean to protect, not us.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  163. Although, afterthought, humans are viruses/cancer is a much more obvious eliminationist phrase.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  164. The main point, Bradley, is that you see this phrase as off-putting. I see it as a wake-up call that can be understood in context.

    I saw “I hope he fails” as off-putting. You saw it as a wake-up call that could be understood in context.

    Other than the fact that my viewpoint betrayed me as an official Candy Ass RINO Non-Conservative, that’s all you need to know.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  165. I don’t care to argue too much this evening—and I don’t mean to direct my comments at any given person tonight. But I had to personally listen to Paul Ehrlich in graduate school, and took a class from him—and I will observe the following. I have yet to meet a person who buys into the “humanity is a cancer/virus” meme who wants to give up a single technological advantage. They like their fancy cars (Ehrlich owned a private plane), expensive homes, vacations, and so forth. Oh, they will say that they recycle or have a hybrid or something. Sigh. The closest I have seen is Ed Begley, Junior, and he is taking advantage of a huge technological base that was not exactly impact-free on the environment.

    And he has plenty of money.

    Most of these folks generally want other people to give up things; it’s part of the New Aristocracy we see, typified by our friend Al Gore.

    Because when you start debating the proper carrying capacity (in ecological parlance) for humans, things get political, not scientific. What is the proper population of humans on this planet? Based on what determinations? How should those people be distributed? Who gets what? Statists are in love with these ideas, because of the power it would let them wield…for the good of the planet.

    NONE of the predictions I had to listen to in school came true. I well remember watching videos in junior high school about a polluted, overpopulated future where everyone had to wear gas masks because of the smog. Kind of like the fifty foot sea level rises in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    History is filled to bursting with well meaning people who predicted awful things that never came true—again, read Holdren’s nonsense or better yet, get an old edition of “The Population Bomb.” More to the point, read about Simon’s attempts to get Ehrlich to be reasonable.

    This is very seldom about science. It is about power and politics.

    So the “humanity is a disease” folks are selling something. And lots of people would like to buy it, because it sounds good. There are a lot of people, and we do have an impact on the environment. But we are the only creatures who care about that impact, and try to lessen our footprint.

    Anyway, it sounds like people are exercised about this topic. I don’t mean to add any fuel to such fires. But I do want to remind folks that a meme has been pushed in our schools and culture for a long time about the impact of humanity on the environment. Be very, very careful about distinguishing fact from political fodder.

    But what the heck do I know? I’m nobody famous or important.

    Eric Blair (58b0cf)

  166. True, but won’t that be obvious to anyone who reads those words?

    If you word your argument carefully enough, probably. But you’re introducing a needless complication with a metaphor that carries an odious connotation. You’ll have to do extra work to avoid being misunderstood, risking sounding belabored.

    Another metaphor, such as “Humans are lemmings,” would not only be less offensive, but more apt. The stereotype of lemmings wildly increasing in number and going heedlessly to their deaths is close to what you appear to be arguing about human overpopulation. It immediately makes your point in a way that “Humanity is a virus” doesn’t.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  167. You can say the N-word with enough context. But it’s still offensive in general.

    Same with saying humans are cancer. I wouldn’t support a blanket rule and you couldn’t enforce it in a free society anyway. But public opprobrium to anyone who uses it without adequately explaining why they’re doing so?

    Works for me.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  168. The stereotype of lemmings wildly increasing in number and going heedlessly to their deaths is close to what you appear to be arguing about human overpopulation. It immediately makes your point in a way that “Humanity is a virus” doesn’t.

    It’s a false stereotype. Does that matter? Lemmings don’t commit mass suicide. That’s a myth.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  169. If you word your argument carefully enough, probably. But you’re introducing a needless complication with a metaphor that carries an odious connotation. You’ll have to do extra work to avoid being misunderstood, risking sounding belabored.

    Sounds just like “I hope he fails.”

    Only Rush didn’t really do the extra work, in my opinion.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  170. I saw “I hope he fails” as off-putting. You saw it as a wake-up call that could be understood in context.

    Limbaugh’s arresting four-word formulation is exactly what he believes. It sounds harsh, but Limbaugh explained logically why he believes it: He is placing the good of the country over the good of Obama.

    Those four words represent the spine of Limbaugh’s argument, expressed in as few words as possible. That is the work of an experienced communicator who cuts through the clutter to make his point as clearly as possible.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  171. you’ll have to explain that what you don’t literally mean humanity is a virus.

    Since a virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms, and human beings are …. not, I think its sufficiently obvious that its an analogy and not supposed to be meant literally.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  172. It’s a false stereotype. Does that matter? Lemmings don’t commit mass suicide. That’s a myth.

    Yes, you’d have to say the stereotype is not true of lemmings, but it apply to people, somethings like this.

    “Lemmings don’t commit mass suicide. However, that common myth may be a prophecy for humanity as we heedlessly add to our population.”

    Or something like that.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  173. While lemmings don’t commit mass suicide, many inadvertently drown when they migrate due to population growth. That is even closer to the scenario forecast for humans by the overpopulationists than the original myth.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  174. Since a virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms, and human beings are …. not, I think its sufficiently obvious that its an analogy and not supposed to be meant literally.

    Yes, but the implication of such a metaphor is still unfavorable. Patterico will have to explain that’s not his intent. He’s weighing himself down with unnecessary baggage.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  175. Yes, but the implication of such a metaphor is still unfavorable.

    Fine, but its a metaphor.

    A better one might be something like “Humanity is one part of a symbiotic organism, but is damaging the other organisms in this mutually beneficial relationship”.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  176. Good Morning,

    I remember there was a discussion last week or so at my favorite blog site about whether or not the Internet was a good place for discussion. As I recall, there were multiple points about how it can be good and bad.

    A sad truth is that the llamas can still spit at you. The good thing is only the sentiment gets through, the spit stays on their computer screen.

    Backing up a step, perhaps there are multiple issues that need to be discussed one at a time for clarity sake. One issue is world human population and the presence or absence of resources to support us. Second are some of the current views on the subject and the rhetoric involved. Third is the issue whether some rhetoric should be avoided in public discussion, and if so, when, how, and why. A fourth is what Prof. Reynolds was trying to say in his column, how was he trying to communicate it, and whether or not it is an example of what we don’t like to see when it is used by the Left. Then again, maybe no further discussion is needed.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  177. A sad truth is that the llamas can still spit at you.

    Painted Jaguar: I’m handling this, since I’m the one who taught MD everything he knows about llamas.

    MD did not mean to imply that any of the posters last night are/were spitting llamas. As he said, it is morning, he hasn’t had his coffee yet, and he admits to having “spat” on occasion.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  178. Pat the big problem is we have heard all this crap before, and I’m not talking about the 1960’s. In the late 19th Century we had the same kinds of arguments, the same kinds of fear about the masses and the lack of “social control”, and the net results were pretty horrific; the state pronouncing “three generations of imbeciles is enough” before they strapped a human being down and ripped out their reproductive organs, the state classifying human beings for their social utility before deciding who gets to live and who dies – all based on “scientific” criteria or course! – hell, most of the “founding fathers” of Political Science wanted to dispense with democratic institutions, and some advocated for the “control” of the population with use of a psychopharmological agent. Note: None of what I just mentioned was the work of Nazis.

    The fact is it is always an “elite” which worry about “too many people” and far too often the elite really meant “too many of the wrong kind of people.”

    We live in an age where lots of people are buying into the notion that we are living in a “tragedy of the commons” situation, which is a scenario which justifies any course of action (carried out by the powers that be of course) against those who “endanger the collective.” Therefore, when I come across a vague statement about “overpopulation,” one given without caveats or without reference to a particular school of thought, I am prone to lump it in with the mainstream currents…and be damn skeptical about it because the history is very clear. These “concerns” have been used repeatedly as cover for man’s inhumanity to man.

    Rich Horton (e35ee7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1468 secs.