Environmentalists = Nazis

[Mr-Money]

I find it funny how most prominent environmentalists just happen to believe in cutting the size of the population dramatically

Here are just a few articles I've been reading in the past few months:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/po litics/article5950442.ece

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 8/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-
impact/

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/
04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ ment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception -cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.h tml

Feel free to bring on the debate

[Mr-Money]

Here are some more sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1105255/Britain-set-population-limit-saf eguard-national-security-say-experts.htm l

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1107696/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en vironment/article3908588.ece

[Victory]

You must acknowledge that, speaking from a purely environmental point of view, in our current lifestyles large numbers of humans have a devastating impact? That is.. obvious.

Really, what point are you actually making? Environmentalists have a secret agenda of pursuing National Socialism? I know you have a history of whacky conspiracy theories, but damn..

[Mr-Money]

At 9/22/09 01:49 PM, Victory wrote: You must acknowledge that, speaking from a purely environmental point of view, in our current lifestyles large numbers of humans have a devastating impact? That is.. obvious.

Really, what point are you actually making? Environmentalists have a secret agenda of pursuing National Socialism? I know you have a history of whacky conspiracy theories, but damn..

No....... The point I'm making is that they openly believe in cutting the population by up to 80%. That's what I'm saying. Now, if you think that's a good thing, you sicken me and I don't even want to hear any future responses from you. If that is not your opinion, please continue with your argument.

[Mr-Money]

At 9/22/09 01:58 PM, Ericho wrote: I think what they mean is that they want birth control and fewer people being born, not to kill the people that are living.

That is correct. I never said they wanted to kill people off.

[awkward-silence]

At 9/22/09 01:51 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

No....... The point I'm making is that they openly believe in cutting the population by up to 80%. That's what I'm saying. Now, if you think that's a good thing, you sicken me and I don't even want to hear any future responses from you. If that is not your opinion, please continue with your argument.

First off, Hilarious! "If you agree with me, keep talking. If not Piss off, I only want to hear from people who will tell me how right I am." I love it.

Secondly, Anyone not in favor of some kind of population control has clearly never spent much time in Kentucky.

Thirdly, the arbitrary target set by those studies was to be completely self sustaining, a goal nobody realistically wants to achieve, because that mean your imports and exports become Zero. Its economic suicide.

Lastly, they don't advocate mass executions and gassings. The means by which they will control population are birth control. And sex ed classes that teach fellatio and cunnilingus as alternatives to coitus.

[Mr-Money]

OK, so which gene pools will be continued and which will be killed off?

Or will we have a one-child policy like in China?

[AapoJoki]

At 9/22/09 01:51 PM, Mr-Money wrote: No....... The point I'm making is that they openly believe in cutting the population by up to 80%. That's what I'm saying. Now, if you think that's a good thing, you sicken me and I don't even want to hear any future responses from you. If that is not your opinion, please continue with your argument.

You're making it sound as though genocide and eugenics are they only ways to cut down the population or slow its growth. That's not true. There's contraception and family planning. Higher levels of education and standards of living also tend to reduce people's interest in having oversize families, which in turn, helps the new generations become even wealthier and more educated than their parents, further encouraging the virtue of small families, thus initiating a positive feedback loop that slows down population growth and will maybe even reverse it.

If we had a global average of only one child per couple, we would halve the earth's population in just one generation. This is impossible in places where people are poor and uneducated. In that situation, you want to have lots of children so that at least some of them will survive into adulthood. In western societies, even one child is enough. Those who have no children at all are doing a great environmental deed.

[fli]

dude.
Nazis GENOCIDED people.

Is there way to put "GENOCIDE" in a bolder font? Oh wait...

GENOCIDE

There... much better.

You cannot compare telling people to have smaller families to GENOCIDE.

[Mr-Money]

At 9/22/09 02:28 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Those who have no children at all are doing a great environmental deed.

Wow.. even though every human could fit into the state of Texas and have an acre of land, you continue to believe this propaganda..

[AapoJoki]

At 9/22/09 02:43 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Wow.. even though every human could fit into the state of Texas and have an acre of land, you continue to believe this propaganda..

What's that supposed to mean? Humans don't just exist. We consume and produce waste, even just by breathing and shitting, not to mention driving cars and enjoying industrial products. If we want to keep living as extravagantly as we do, we at least need to slow down population growth, if not reverse it entirely. It's not just a question of "taking up space". I think you're being very childish.

[awkward-silence]

At 9/22/09 02:43 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Wow.. even though every human could fit into the state of Texas and have an acre of land, you continue to believe this propaganda..

Apparently you believe some fucked up voodoo. How are you going to give an Acre (4,000 m^2) to everybody 6.3 Billion People, in a state that is only 700,000 km^2. You can't even give an acre to every american, let alone the 6 billion other people.

[jakobhummelen]

Oh but I'm all for cutting the world population by like 80%, it's no secret that the world's population has exploded Little graph for you and that the resources that are now still available for succesful survival are diminishing by the day.

I believe that if we were to live with a smaller population that it would bring about a lot of positive effects yet my ethics dictate my executive opinion that I'm not for any measurements to start decreasing world population.

Does this make me a nazi? no, I don't think so. I believe the term 'nazi' is already being used way to liberal anyway. If someone wants to bring about a change that is either radical or unheared of, that doesn't make them a nazi. Start marginalizing what terrible people they were and you'll probably be more likely to see them return.

I also don't think you should let your emotional bias dictate your opinion, a cut in world population makes perfect sense and it also makes perfect sense to not act upon this actively (by like killing people) so what gives you the right to call these people names when in fact they are probably more right than you'll ever be ;)

[poxpower]

At 9/22/09 02:08 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

That is correct. I never said they wanted to kill people off.

So what exactly do they have in common with Nazis?
I can't really think of a single thing.

[awkward-silence]

At 9/22/09 02:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

So what exactly do they have in common with Nazis?
I can't really think of a single thing.

Well there was that time the enviromentalists bombed the Reichstag and invaded Poland.

[Mr-Money]

At 9/22/09 02:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/22/09 02:08 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

That is correct. I never said they wanted to kill people off.

So what exactly do they have in common with Nazis?
I can't really think of a single thing.

They both believe in cutting the population dramatically in a top-down fashion. How's that?

[AapoJoki]

At 9/22/09 03:31 PM, Mr-Money wrote: They both believe in cutting the population dramatically in a top-down fashion. How's that?

Actually, I don't think Nazis even believed that.

[Victory]

At 9/22/09 03:31 PM, Mr-Money wrote: They both believe in cutting the population dramatically in a top-down fashion. How's that?

Hey guys! Apples and oranges must be the same thing, since they're both fruit!

[Patton3]

Please stop drugging up "sources" from the annals of the internet in order to call broad spectrum's of people Nazi's, or something else purposefully inciting hatred. And don't give me that "Well I'm just going off of the facts" bull shit. Showing an extreme side of any group proves nothing. Hell, Senator Byrd was in the KKK as a young man. As in he was for discriminating against, and often even killing, people based on race. Does that mean everyone in the south or in the senate thinks that way? NO!

[poxpower]

At 9/22/09 03:31 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

They both believe in cutting the population dramatically in a top-down fashion. How's that?

The Nazis believed in killing the lower races so the best races could thrive. Nowhere in there program did it say "must lower overall population of earth for long-term stability".

And the environmentalists don't single out any group in particular who should lower their population.

Fail on all levels.

unless..

Yes I also am a Nazi actually since I believe in killing dangerous dictators... yes it all becomes clear now... I want to rid the earth of JUST A SELECT FEW... based on my own moral principles... I AM A MONSTER

[Jizzlebang]

Well duuuuh. Reducing the population is the biggest problem, but no one wants to talk about.

Reducing the population is a GOOD thing.

But; Reducing Population =/= Genocide

[Memorize]

At 9/22/09 02:13 PM, awkward-silence wrote:

Lastly, they don't advocate mass executions and gassings. The means by which they will control population are birth control. And sex ed classes that teach fellatio and cunnilingus as alternatives to coitus.

If anyone actually believes we can cut 80% of the world's population without mass executions and war is the bigger idiot.

[MultiCanimefan]

First off, I believe we should control the population, not setting up Nazi Birth Control Police to ensure that people don't have more than a set amount of children. I care for the environment, but to begin to start drastically lowering the population through killing is wrong. A low population is a good thing, but don't take that to mean "people are no good" or "let's kill 80% of the population." I do NOT advocate such methods. The problem is, though, that while a small population is a positive thing, if a devastating outbreak or natural disaster were to occur, we'd be done for. A large and small population both produce favorable odds for survival but are not without drawbacks.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

I'm getting pretty fed up with people throwing around the 'nazi' accusation. Unless someone has killed millions of their fellows humans, I hardly think they should be classified with them.

[ohbombuh]

Think of it from their point of view, and by that I mean not being subjectively inclined to our species. There's a concept called "carrying capacity" which states that when a species is as big as its environment can support, its numbers will go up and down because we'll *always* have a starving group from people who had too many kids, which is due to the fact that if something starts killing our species we'll need to be able to recover from the fact that people will die without reproducing. Unlike our fickle population, if the Earth is ruined, all life as we know loses.

[awkward-silence]

At 9/22/09 06:23 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I'm getting pretty fed up with people throwing around the 'nazi' accusation. Unless someone has killed millions of their fellows humans, I hardly think they should be classified with them.

People who don't talerate nazi accusations= nazis

[bcdemon]

At 9/22/09 01:28 PM, Mr-Money wrote: I find it funny how most prominent environmentalists just happen to believe in cutting the size of the population dramatically

You don't think the planet earth is overpopulated? Really? I thought that was common knowledge.

[aviewaskewed]

I swear to God we need to word filter "Nazi".

I'M SO SICK OF YOU PEOPLE USING IT WRONG!!!!

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's Nazism. This kind of ideology is nothing new anyway. I'm 26 and I had a science teacher in 7th grade (so I was 13 then) who spent an entire class once lecturing on over population and the damage it does to us. Not just environmentally, but in terms of what it does TO US. Because if you don't have enough resources to sustain the population we all suffer and we all go extinct. This is a real issue that we all have to deal with.

[fli]

At 9/23/09 02:32 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I swear to God we need to word filter "Nazi".
I'M SO SICK OF YOU PEOPLE USING IT WRONG!!!!

My proposed cool points system could be implanted if the Fulps really wanted to...
To recap what I said about Nazism, Hitler, Socialism in my past threads...

minus cool points if you use them (unless you offer a startling compelling argument.)
If you get to zero, then it means you have no dick. And people could laugh at your dickless nature.

I'm serious about cool points.

[dySWN]

I still don't see why people support this, but then turn around and scoff at the idea of expanding into space at some point instead. Science can get us there - there just needs to be the will and the funding to put in the research it takes - and we would reap the secondary benefits of that research all the way to the point where the goal of colonizing Mars or the Moon becomes reality. But hey, it's not like the human race is famous for pushing the limits of habitable environments or anything, right?

And, of course, the minute I show up in a religion-based thread, people forget that I advocate all that and act like I'm some sort of anti-science zealot for believing in my own particular brand of invisible sky-daddy. To each his own, I guess.

/rant