The increasingly unruly "Occupy Earth" movement took a huge step this week when it added the7 billionth person to its membership roles.
The demands of the most recent members of the group are much the same as those of smaller "occupy" groups currently inhabiting public parks: they want someone to give them food, clothing, and shelter and won't take "no" for an answer.
The United Nations - which seems to have way too much time on its hands - officially certified the "7 billionth person" number despite vigorous ongoing efforts from the Obama administration to forcibly evict many of the young occupiers from their mother's wombs.
But despite uncomfortable weather extremes, lack of access to clean water, shortages of food, and the occasional outbreak of hostilities, the "Occupy Earth" crowd claims they are "here to stay" and "not going anywhere."
Well actually, they just cried and pooped themselves...but we're pretty sure it's what they meant.
-
25 comments:
There are highly-thought-of morons who suggest the population of the world should be limited to 100 million. They are not so crass as to suggest we get down to that number through mass executions (yet). They would prefer the more benign approach of forcibly limiting reproduction through sanctions, taxes and, if need be, forced abortion and sterilization. They, of course, will be exempted.
I do not fear idiots like this. I fear the powerful "leaders" who listen to idiots like this. Good luck with that shortage of women, Chicoms. I'm sure it will work out for you.
It's the height of hypocrisy: the "progressive" and "population control" movements both arose at roughly the same time, and, remarkably, of the same people. The progressives want to soften the burden of living by giving all things to the citizenry, while the latter wants to ensure a small citizenry so that there's "enough to go around". Selfishness and greed are the ultimate drivers: the fewer the people, the more bounty for those allowed to live. Progressives want life easier for you (read: themselves), but they also decide whether or not you are allowed to exist...
Fly over the United States at 30K feet. How much of it looks like New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles. Not much. Even those crowded cities are not "overcrowded", certainly not to Soylent Green levels. Europe has more than 2-1/2 times the population density of the US and they don't yet appear overpopulated. Even where there are food shortages for a given population it is generally true that politics is causing those shortages more than drought, floods or infestation. Spread out over the planet Earth seven billion isn't too much and we don't need to start whacking "useless eaters".
We were supposed to have hit unsustainable population half a century ago and everyone was going to starve to death. Then scientists discovered better ways to increase seed production and harvests. Globally, people are way better off due to the hard work of private sector scientists. Where there are shortages, look to the government as My Dog Brewski already said.
Brewski - as for the "useless eaters", MY arrogant opinion is that they need to get skills and get useful. I have little patience for parasites. Note - I consider being able to feed oneself to be 'useful', as is picking up trash. Sitting on the sofa, watching TV, breeding more parasites? Not so much.
But hey, that's just me.
These are the good old days -- never before have more people had more goods, food and money, wealth, health and leisure time. I read just yesterday that some 2.5 billion people, mostly in South American, Africa and Asia went from abject poverty to lower middle class at least, by anyone's definition. Nearly 35 countries doubled their GDP in the last decade. Even Mexico went from $3,000 per capita earnings in 1993 to nearly $12,000 now. More people seems to have brought more wealth, not less.
And 100% of this was because of an increase in Capitalism, or more truly, Free Markets. And an increase in globalization (which has been going on since at least, oh, since the dawn of time,) has led to enormous benefits to everyone. As socialist regime after regime fell and free markets spread, everyone got richer. The poor, the middle, the rich -- all richer as aggregates. And the rich, well, they're the ones who bop in and out of that category all the time, such that the rich individuals of today are simply not the rich of say, 1980.
And these Occupying morons, neo-Malthusians and progressives in this country want to recreate China of 1980. They are a bizarre bunch. Meanwhile, China has 90,000, often violent, demonstrations a year -- screaming FOR capitalism, and a lot less government and taxes, so they can get richer, and have more kids. It's a Tea Party over there, for sure. Which is quite the opposite of what the Lefty nuts here desire. And when the world hits 8 Billion we'll all be richer still -- so long as socialism and all its permutations are removed from power.
Oddly, the "useless eaters" tend to be the ones who are the most vehement proponents of liberalism/socialism and zero population growth. Quite a paradox if they're successful :o)
@Angry Hoosier Dad- You have good reason to fear "leaders who listen to (population control) idiots." Specifically, Barack Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once wrote a book advancing the case for government-run compulsory sterilizations and abortions to control population. But Holdren is a piker compared to Obama's Director for Counterterrorism, Audrey Tomason, who wrote "The Apocalypse Equation" and said that our overpopulated world could benefit from the carefully controlled genocide of 4.5 billion people (via a "limited" nuclear war, followed with chemical and biological weapons to finish the job). With the "right" people being preserved, of course.
@Emmentaler- Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberalism. How many liberals actually impoverish themselves giving to the poor before demanding that others do the same? And why to they believe that people who are too stupid to be given the choice of buying a Happy Meal should be trusted to make an "intelligent" choice to abort a baby?
@My Dog Brewski- Time and again, humans have shown remarkable abilities to provide for our quickly growing numbers. But what happens when Liberals declare that "frankenfoods" (like genetically engineered blight-resistent crops) must be abolished?
@Earl- I'd already commented to Brewski before I saw your response. You're exactly right that private sector scientists can continue to feed the world...if they're allowed to.
@Pete(Detroit)- I would imagine that relatively few of the world's 7 billion citizens fall into the parasite category, for the simple reason that most people don't live in countries where there are enough surpluses. As for our own parasites (not to be confused with those in genuine need), our policies should be changed to give them a little more motivation (ie, jerk the safety net out from under them).
@Jim Hlavac- You tie up the various threads quite neatly here: the problem isn't too many people, it's too little reward for initiative under non-capitalist systems.
And by the way, I'd like to hear what the Occupiers would say to the millions of people who would starve when evil "corporate" farms are dismantled under the New Order.
Ironically, it's the Progressive economic agenda which would do the most to control population. Most of the planet's population growth is due to our historically extreme productivity. We are so rich that we freely send our surplus food and technology to lesser advanced corners of the world, which have allowed their populations to explode.
If the Progressive economic agenda is not arrested. this is a situation that will eventually cease. Once America's prosperity drops to the point to where it can barely feed itself, its surplus exports to parts of the world that could never sustain themselves will cease. It will not be pretty.
I once calculated that you could put 8 billion people in an area the size of the state of Texas and have no people anywhere else on the planet, and everyone would have 30 square feet. (Before anyone asks if I'm advocating that, I'd point out that that's all the space 8 billion people take up.) Are we really overpopulated if there's that much space left? It's really just a question of proper allocation and use of the land we have.
Pete(Detroit):
My choice of the term "useless eaters" was not in reference to the parasites who knowingly feed off society with no intention of being productive (although I share your scorn for them). Actually, I was using a term I believe the Nazi's used to describe the developmentally handicapped, the old and the infirm. It was a way of dehumanizing segments of the population to justify some of their atrocities. I did not want to specifically reference Nazi's for fear of being called out for Godwinism.
Brewski - I see your point (and, in strict terms thiers, tho I disagree on the 'uselessness') Those who CAN not care for themselves provide opportunities to practice (and show) care / concern / compassion for our fellow humans - necessary, I think, for proper growth and development of one's soul.
Those who WILL not care for themselves provide opportunities to practice discernment, discipline, and the chance to practice 'hand up, not hand out' charity in hopes of changing their hearts / minds / situation. If they don't want to change, screw 'em.
One of the problems w/ "Liberals" is that they conflate the two (either intentionally, for their own reasons - usually power / control; or unintentionally, through lack of discernment) and insist on picking MY pocket to reward the bad behavior of those who WILL not be self responsible. Thereby ensuring a ever growing population in that group.
And THAT just really pisses me off.
Yer Dogliness: I'm guilty of misinterpreting "useless eaters" to be the parasites rather than the infirm in my comment as well. Oops.
Heya, Stilt - the Autumnal Equinox was 9:04 UTC 23 September 2011. Summer is over. I'm going to give vent to my irrational, liberal side to demand that you get off yer butt and give us more fodder for discussion. If you don't, me and my comrades are gonna Occupy HopeNChangeCartoons.com until we get our way. Or get real. Either one. :o)
@Emmentaler- First, a warning: if Occupy HopeNChangeCartoons invades this office, you'll be served nothing but boiled brown rice and cheap whiskey. And if the group takes a twinkle vote to pool their pocket change with the annual earnings from Hope n' Change, then redistribute the money equally amongst everyone present, I'll be laughing all the way to Wendy's dollar menu, because I'll make out great on the deal. In fact, I'll probably disguise my voice and be the guy in the back of the group who suggests the idea.
In all lack of seriousness, Hope n' Change doesn't make a penny but does take a lot of time. As an entrepreneur who has always been self-employed, there's a direct relationship between my productivity and paychecks (what a concept, huh?)...and I simply have to put in time on those projects that pay the bills, then give Hope n' Change the rest.
And for now, that means I can only guarantee cartoons 3 times a week, even though I'd like to be able to go back to daily posts. Then again, if I could get a government grant to pay for the strip... Hmm....
@Jim Hlavac, by objective standards, these really are "good days" for an increasing number of our planet's inhabitants. And that's the problem. You see, affluent, self-sufficient citizens have little need for politicians and governments, and certainly no need for politicians who derive their power from wealth redistribution.
That is why in very affluent countries like ours, the politicians literally invent crisis to convince citizens that they need government, even if they really don't. "Global Warming" comes to mind as one such crisis.
Just read that 6% of people classified as "poor" in America have Jacuuzis and 1/3rd have game consoles. Amazing! I don't have either. So am I "poor"?
@Stilt: Maybe in 2013. I'm afraid your subject matter precludes you from any going grant programs under this, ahem, "administration". Know that I enjoy your work, enjoy your site as an outlet for, well: for all the stuff I let out on it. As for grant money: I was always taught that it's the thought that counts: I'd happily fund a "Hot & Juicy" for ya. (Keep yer minds outta the gutter: they're HAMBURGERS, for goodness sakes!)
@John: Global Warming?! Like, as if! Global Climate Change. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!! Global Warming is, like, oh so before-it-was-exposed-as-a-scam. Get with it, man! Fer sher...
Stilton,
My firewall at work has successfully blocked me from blogging, so it feels good to finally have a minute at home to participate!
As much as we would love 7 days per week of Hope'n'Change, we understand that you need to work to support the losers and pay their college tuition for degrees in basket weaving.
I will admit that it's is more like Christmas when I have to wait a couple of days for your genius. I also pray that you never get to the point where you can no longer do this blog.
Many, many thanks!
Mr. and Mrs. Colby
Today’s actions by President Obama’s Super PAC provided even more proof that Mitt Romney is the republican that scares democrats most. This anti-Romney ad buy is $100,000 and it’s far from the first anti-Romney attack ad President Obama’s Super PAC has produced. The continued paid attacks this early in the election illustrate a level of desperation from the Obama administration that makes sense considering President Obama’s record of accomplishment is so weak.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/11/02/president-obamas-super-pac-priorities-usa-launches-another-round-of-attacks-on-mitt-romney/
@Emmentaler Limburger, please forgive me; you're right. "Climate Change" is the current operative term. Quite frankly, I don't know why they didn't go for that in the first place, since it pretty much covers any possible scenario. That they didn't is perhaps indicative of the level of belief they had in their own manufactured fantasy.
It took me long enough to adjust when it was supposed to be "global cooling" and "nuclear winter" that was supposed to do us in. I recall teachers lecturing on how we had to do everything possible to prevent Ronald Reagan from being elected, because they knew in their hearts that he wanted nothing more than to launch the missiles that would doom us to the "nuclear winter" scenario; indicative of the level of delusion in their belief systems...
@Anonymous, the Democrats are going to be scared of whoever ends up as the candidate. It's conservatives who should be most scared of Romney; a flip-flopping liberal in conservative clothing...
@Emmentaler- Thanks for the nice words. I'll take you up on that Hot n' Juicy if I ever get the chance!
@Colby- And your words are appreciated too. It's weird - I'm not really a social media kind of guy (anyone following me on Twitter or Facebook will attest to that), but I feel like this blog is some sort of half-assed but whole-hearted duty for me, and I treat it as such. I think laughter (even pained laughter) is important in this fight, and I'd like to be doing it full time, all day, every day. I sometimes wish that a conservative "mischief tank" would hire me to plan ways to (truthfully and honestly) bedevil the bad guys. It hasn't happened yet, but if any such entities are reading this now, my address is in the sidebar!
Currently, my plan is to keep this blog going until Obama is dragged kicking and screaming out of the Whitehouse in 2013 (although sooner would be good, too). At that point, I might step back and concentrate on other mischief (we can all meet over at Johnny Optimism's during visiting hours!) And frankly, if Obama is re-elected, I don't know that I've got 4 more years of this left in me. But I'm not making any firm decisions yet.
And in truth, any such decisions are as much about all of YOU as me. If people appreciate this blog, tell others about it, and visitor numbers stay good, then I'll continue to mount the soapbox as often as possible! I'm grateful for your interest, friendship, and participation every day!
@Anonymous (two above)- Politics in general, and the Obama camp in particular, are so sneaky and shifty that I'm not sure how to read this campaign ad. The Dems might well attack Romney to make us think they fear him, when they actually want to run against him. Or they might just want to attack him to chum the waters to get Cain, Perry, and others to attack Romney. It's hard to say. But one thing (as you point out) is for sure: Obama sure as hell won't be running on his record of "accomplishment." I expect this to be the ugliest election ever.
@John the Econ- Yes, "Climate Change" is best for covering all the bases, especially when your science is baseless.
Climate's been changing for all of human history. Over the past 400,000 years, temps have been "normal" for less than 20% of the time, the rest of it have been times of active glaciation. In Other words, we live in freakishly warm times.
"Nuclear winter" is a concept that at least makes SENSE, dust in atmo blocking / reflecting light leading to cooler weather, and precedent exists. One of the side effects of Krakatoa was global cooling of several degrees the next year, and disrupted weather patterns for several years.
@Stilton, I simply cannot imagine you running out of material given another 4 years of Obama jackassery. What I could imagine is you and the rest of us running out of material wealth.
@Pete(Detroit)- I'm entirely open to the idea of Climate Change (because it always has). What really annoys me is when politicians (like, oh, Mitt Romney) say that a temperature spike is reason enough to start changing industry without waiting for evidence that industry is to blame. Put another way, if winters are getting colder, it might not be the best time to shut down the coat and blanket factories.
@John the Econ- It's unlikely that I would ever run out of material or anger. But if the American people put Obama back in office, I might very well run out of hope for our nation's future.
You're on a roll Stilton lol
Linked!
Reaganite's Sunday Funnies
Linked:
Reaganite's Sunday Funnies
Post a Comment