Berkeley declares 'climate emergency' - demands 'humane' population control

a reply to: Justoneman

Look back in history.
Anyone her realize that a major river in the United States actually caught fire ?

Ever take a look at the smog over Detroit back when coal and steel were booming and there was no EPA?

Ever take a look at an entire canyon(including a city) buried underneath molybdenum tailings so toxic nothing could grow? (An entire mountain was leveled and turned into acidic dust)..

I personally used to collect 15lbs of aluminum cans on a three mile walk to town. Every Sunday!

Oh the United States is and has been cleaning up. We will continue to.

Overpopulation? I dare anyone reading to start walking west of here just outside of city. It will be a week before you find so much as a mini mart on foot.

All covered In pine, snow, and wildlife. People should get out more. On foot.

There's a whole lot of room on this big green ball. Of course we've learned over time you can't cut a Forrest without replanting.

You can't have everyone piss in the snow pack that brings water to your city.

However to suggest that there's not enough room or resources to go around is to suggest stopping the Berkley education and taking a long walk into the desert while dehydrated.

Wait#!@!
Of course, there's got to be someone in charge to educate the unwashed masses!! Before they eat themselves off the planet. Hrmm guess that has to be the authors burden right?

Educated ignorance.

Population Control - Berkely First!

It is a plan I approve!

It’s because black budget private corporations have been slowly poisoning populations around the world with geo-engineering, and the culmination of the decades long operation of spraying atmospheric oxidized metals along with stuff like sulfur dioxide may actually cause an ELE. Ironically... Global warming, or climate change, is the excuse they have been using to spray the aerosol metals, claiming they are creating a reflective shield in the atmosphere to increase the Earths albedo to combat “global warming” (according to USA Today).

m.phys.org...

The USA Today published the above article in February of 2011. I couldn’t find a link but I remember seeing it on the front page.

Then they publish this one earlier this year...

www.usatoday.com...


Sorry if the links don’t work.... may need to copy and paste them.


Anyways, maybe Berkeley is putting out a warning article since the people funding them are the people funding Geo-engineering.


See I did all that without using the word “chem trails”

originally posted by: Phage
Here's the resolution. It doesn't seem to say anything about population control. What a surprise.
www.cityofberkeley.info...

It should be also noted that population control doesn't really mean killing people, nor is it eugenics. Unless it is targeted at particular groups.

Oh, but it's so much more fun getting angry and calling for the death of leftists!

You really know how to take the fun out of a thread.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Berkeley declared that the world is suffering a "climate emergency" more dangerous than WWII and that a sixth mass extinction is coming.

Well...I guess things are worse than I thought.

I know the climate is important. I don't think anyone will deny that. But is it as bad as all that? And are humans really responsible for something that is dynamic and always changing anyway? Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. But either way, is "humane" population control really necessary?

First of all, what exactly is 'humane' population control. We euthanize animals not lucky enough to find forever homes and claim we do it in a humane way. So what exactly is humane population control? And who enforces it? And what are the penalties for not complying?

If the people at Berkeley, and the democrats who defend the climate emergency tooth and nail, really believe there is an extinction level event coming due to climate change why are they still driving around in limousines and flying personal jets? Why do they have refrigerators and air conditioners for that matter? If the climate is really in that much danger, why aren't they walking the walk instead of talking the talk?

link

I know the majority of people who read this will say it just means we need to be more responsible. But 'we', the US, are only 340 million people in a world nearing 8 billion people. As for the population/land mass ratio we are about as responsible as anyone could be. And if the idea really is benign and simplistic in nature, what of the politicians who will seize this as an opportunity to enable more sinister devices meant to cut population, not just control its growth?

Let the people at Berkeley demonstrate leadership in this by having themselves put down using the method they define as humane' population control.

originally posted by: Phage
Here's the resolution. It doesn't seem to say anything about population control. What a surprise.
www.cityofberkeley.info...

It should be also noted that population control doesn't really mean killing people, nor is it eugenics. Unless it is targeted at particular groups.

Sounds like generic fear mongering. I especially liked the part where they invoke the pope's authority on the matter.
The funny hat shaman agrees with you? Well say no more, im sold!

originally posted by: CB328

is "humane" population control really necessary?

Yes, anyone who doesn't know anything about the world. There are more poor people than ever and no relief in site, not to mention weather catastrophies like the flooding we just had in PA.

you first.

I won't bother.

I don't think they mean soylent green but maybe a one child policy for a couple of generations that will sort it out.

we already have humane population control... it's called family planning. give adults the ability and knowledge to control their own reproduction rates and they do so quite effectively, of their own free will. heck if you read through enough of these threads, you will get the idea that some seem to think it's been too effective, since most of the developed countries are more likely to be seeing near negative population growth.

I do think that we tend to buy way too much crap though, crap we really don't need but ya know, it's nice to have around, till it gets old or something better comes we we just have to have. and I imagine many of the kids in berkley are just as guilty of this as anyone else. if you are really concerned, let the crap sit on the store shelves, less will be produced, which will mean less resources will be wasted. nothing irks me more than an army of environmental experts flying in from the four corners of the world, many with private planes, for some stupid conference to complain about how much energy I am using to keep from freezing in my home or to drive me car into town to buy groceries. ... they are the "experts", surely they can figure out the technical issues involved in teleconferencing!!!

... More recently, some countries, such as Iran and Spain, have begun efforts to increase their birth rates once again.

en.wikipedia.org...

I mean... look at the map? Why do you think some people in poorer countries tend to have so many kids?

Jumping the bandwaggon much?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well, following this line of logic... from the leftist stronghold... we know that diversity in ethnicity is of utmost importance, so just apply the same principles as affirmative action... Give special tax cuts to someone with a high ratio of the global population, like Asians, Indians, Hispanics, Latinos, if they marry someone who is from a more rare ethnicity, like a White, or a Black, or a Pacific Islander. And give couples that are both from a "rare" ethnicity even more benefits. A Latino dating a Hispanic, or an Indian dating a Chinese, however, would result in a tax increase, since we already have too many of them around for a healthy diversity, according to leftist ideology combined with the latest reports from Berkeley.

But of course, this is focused on leaning more towards lowering, or controlling population, so, the penalties for bringing more of the plentiful ethnicities into the world would be very harsh, while the benefits for bringing a rare ethnicity into the world would be minimal.

a reply to: 3n19m470

All those replies from our amateurs of eugenics professionals only provide further evidence to the fact, that you have no clue what this talk was even getting at.

Just take a commieee-Brkly headline and make up your own crap, works like a charme on ATS. Kinda entertaining, actually.

or an Indian dating a Chinese, however, would result in a tax increase

Hahaha. Wait. What? Taxes? You guys are fascinating!

originally posted by: Phage
Here's the resolution. It doesn't seem to say anything about population control. What a surprise.
www.cityofberkeley.info...

It should be also noted that population control doesn't really mean killing people, nor is it eugenics. Unless it is targeted at particular groups.

Here is the revised version which does talk about humane population control. What a surprise...

Supplem ental materials (Supp 3)

It should be also noted that, considering the source of this report, humane population control has not been defined and may well include such unpleasant potentials as those listed above.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Phage
Here's the resolution. It doesn't seem to say anything about population control. What a surprise.
www.cityofberkeley.info...

It should be also noted that population control doesn't really mean killing people, nor is it eugenics. Unless it is targeted at particular groups.

Oh, but it's so much more fun getting angry and calling for the death of leftists!

You really know how to take the fun out of a thread.

There were three links to choose from. Phage chose the one that didn't say anything about population control. I chose the most recent revision which does.

Sorry, but I had to put the fun back in...

originally posted by: CB328

is "humane" population control really necessary?

Yes, anyone who doesn't know anything about the world. There are more poor people than ever and no relief in site, not to mention weather catastrophies like the flooding we just had in PA.

Well we could start mandating nutering and spaying the young generation for 20 yrs. around 2 generations basically.And pay them to get sterilized. If we paid people to get fixed then they would be lining up out the door.

originally posted by: testingtesting
I don't think they mean soylent green but maybe a one child policy for a couple of generations that will sort it out.

What happens to people who accidentally go for more than one?

Will you force them to abort like China does?

What will you do with the kids who get abandoned because they aren't the perfect kid for whatever reason? Have you ever wondered why so many of the Chinese kids you see adopted by American parents are girls? You should ...

Well thats exactly it. Who gets to decide, and what constitutes humane? They openly blame the population for the problems so it only follows to reason that the solution is a smaller population. You cant complain about the rate of resource consumption and ignore the growing population. Even if stricter measures for use and consumption were implemented a growing population will still increase the amount of resources being used.

The US was shocked to hear about forced abortions and limits to the number and gender of children a couple is allowed to have. But it sounds like that is exactly where they are headed now.

originally posted by: RAY1990
I won't bother.

I understand.
Facts and scientific reasoning are meaningless in a lefty versus righty debate.


-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Maybe in a deluded world view.

In a realistic world view the refining of resources into things seldom ever found in nature has bugger all to do with politics and everything to do with technology and innovation.

Yet even people of history ruined landscapes well before your dualistic nonsensical approach to reality. I don't think Celts gave a damn about Republican vs Democrat or left vs right. Neither do I either. Take your politics and put it in a place the sun don't shine, for all I care.

They did care about production though, leather and metal, jewelry and weapons. They however didn't have the foresight to see how much damage they'll do to the ecosystems they lived in.

I understand. 
Facts and scientific reasoning are meaningless in a lefty versus righty debate. 

Practice as you preach