CEASE ACTIVITY, EARTHLINGS

Poor people are urged to stay put lest their scurrying to and fro offends Gaia:

The growing number of people who migrated from developing countries to over-populated Western states in search of a better life was damaging the planet and could be avoided, a think-tank said today.

Governments and aid agencies should encourage families to stay put by tackling environmental degradation, such as the spread of deserts, that forces many to leave …

I’d be surprised if “deserts got too big” was a common motivation to leave these places.

In addition, migrants typically increased their ecological footprint – the damage each person inflicts on the environment – by moving from low to high-consuming countries.

The ecological footprint of someone from Bangladesh increases sixteen-fold if he or she emigrated to the US, while that of a Somali citizen rises more than thirteen-times when he or she migrated to Britain.

So it would be massively beneficial, earth-wise, for Americans and British to find new homes in Bangladesh and Somalia. The report’s British authors should set an example by moving to, say, Jambaluul.

UPDATE. Cuckoo comments: “On matters environmental, I note that Tim Flannery (palaeontologist) is described by the Age today as an ‘environmental scientist’. He must’ve been taking night classes.”

Posted by Tim B. on 05/30/2006 at 12:53 AM
    1. How dare all those distended-bellied, moon-eyed darkies expect a better life by buggering off from their flyblown, despot-ruined homeland, and increasing the depletion of scant resources; don’t they know that it’s their place to starve and be victimised in some shit-hole, there to be patronised by first world twonks and ignored at great expense by the UN.

      Next thing you know they’ll be getting sociology degrees and taking a persons job!

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 01:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. On a global scale, he {OPT patron Professor Aubrey Manning} said: “People are in surplus and often those most needed at home are those who leave. A gradual reduction to our population is the only way to secure any quality of life for future human beings.”

      Emphasis is mine.

      So, alternatively, human beings could just drop dead.  That would also address the concerns of the good Professor Manning, him being concerned about “surplus” people and all, I mean.

      Pfui!  Maybe I’ll listen to these creeps if they hold a lottery during their meetings to see who gets to committ suicide to help out Mother Gaia™.

      And if not suicide (which is an extreme measure, I agree), how about moving your arse over to a developing country?  YOu know—a swap.  Some emigrant can better his life, and these OPT cretins can pick up a shovel to start fixing this tire old Earth.  What a deal, eh?

      But how many of you OPT characters would ever make such an offer?

      [crickets chirping]

      ‘Bout what I thought.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 30 at 01:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. The ecological footprint of someone from Bangladesh increases sixteen-fold if he or she emigrated to the US, while that of a Somali citizen rises more than thirteen-times when he or she migrated to Britain.

      So let’s just leave them there, living in a small ecological footprint, with starvation and disease and sub-standard everything. Yeah, that’s a good idea.

      I’d move to these places, but I’d have to take my plumbing and my dishwasher, and my car and my kitchen appliances, and my washing machine and my microwave, and, and, and…

      Jeez, Habib, you say it so well!

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 30 at 01:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. The small ecological footprint bullshit is up there with the ‘noble savage’ concept lie.

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 30 at 01:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. But hang on! I thought all immigration was good and that any attempts to even regulate it by, say, cracking down on illegal immigration was evil.

      But wait a second! If all immigration is evil because it affects the environment … that means … um, that is, that …

      I.THINK.I’M.GOING.CRAZZZZZZZY!

      Posted by TimT on 2006 05 30 at 01:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. DISCLAIMER:
      I actually support unregulated immigration, illegal or legal – whatever, I don’t care too much how they get here. But just imagine how the inner-city Greens and socialists will react to this report?

      Posted by TimT on 2006 05 30 at 01:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Does this now make Howard a greenie?

      Posted by Nic on 2006 05 30 at 01:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. #7 Yes it does. His strong but fair stance on illegal immigration had everything to do with reducing Australia’s total ecological footprint and nothing else. The Greens will eventually understand this and should award him a Greenpeace decoration. The kelpie cross with gum leaf cluster at least.

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 05 30 at 01:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. It’s not so much the size of the footprint as the smell- after all, the noxious gases released by manky, soap-free tootsies are a known ozone-depleter and greenhouse generator.

      I therefore call for an immediate hippy cull, in the interest of all life on the planet- that should satisfy these Malthusian moonbats, who’ve been predicting that humanity will drown in its own poo for about four centuries so far.

      It’s never occured to these dips that the main cause of overpopulation in the third world is lack of development, both industrial and social; in countries where economic and democratic freedoms have flourished, populations hace declined correspondingly, except for the utterly useless and non-productive who procreate on the IV drip of the welfare state.

      What say we ship all our excessively consuming bogans to Somalia and the Sudan, and return with some sub-Saharans who’d appreciate the benefits of a first world existence- then we can send a whole shitload of deeply concerned planet cuddlers to re-educate said yobbos and live together in rousseauian splendour in mud huts, flourishing in the bounty of mother Gaiea.

      (I’m going to run a calcutta on when they revert to cannibalism; I’d give it a week, when the fatties who’ve been stuffing their gobs with double whoppers in front of Oprah realise the eskies are full of dessicated yams and a diseased meerkat).

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 01:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. Alright, dammit, just when I thought my “useless people and groups” list was complete I find I have to add Think Tanks to it. Will my list ever be complete?, it already fills an entire toilet roll!.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 05 30 at 02:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. Which side of the fence will the Franklin River Fiddler take on this issue?

      I’m guessing he will have some doublethinking explanation which has a Bob each way.

      Oh wait a second, he is a bob each way.

      Fuck

      Posted by The (WHMECDM) President on 2006 05 30 at 02:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Why don’t they just eat cake?

      Posted by Rory on 2006 05 30 at 02:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Where do the funds come from to pay for all these idiots to jack off this crap???  i mean how do these people get cushy jobs, pushing their own looney tunes private political and social horse dung???

      does someone not ask periodically what they have received from this mob, for the endowment or funds they have given???  and are they really satisfied with this load of guff???  tell the poor sods to stay where they are and fix the deserts???  i mean what a stroke of genius????

      Posted by casanova on 2006 05 30 at 02:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. In addition, migrants typically increased their ecological footprint – the damage each person inflicts on the environment – by moving from low to high-consuming countries.

      Duh! That’s why they’re leaving, so they don’t have to live in a yurt, drinking from the same stream as the oxen.

      Posted by Aaron – Freewill on 2006 05 30 at 02:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. It sez: ‘Parts of the planet that have been damaged by climate change, soil erosion and water shortages merely deteriorated further once their inhabitants fled.’

      Wait a minute. I thought that the place you moved to deteriorated, and that staying put was better. So how can leaving make things worse?

      And I want to know which parts have not been damaged by climate change, too. I’ll have what they’re having.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 30 at 02:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Such migration coupled with population growth was undermining efforts to meet the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, the think-tank said.

      For God’s sake, stand still! We’re trying to meet our Millennium Development Goals and you keep moving! And stop having children! How can we even think!?

      Stupidity such as this also wanted to ban GM crops which would have fed more people and reduced pesticide use which is currently ravaging Africa.

      Posted by ilibcc on 2006 05 30 at 03:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe third world immigration should be on a 1 for 1 basis: we’ll take one of your low eco footprint people, if you’ll take one of our high eco footprint eco scientists and activists.

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 05 30 at 03:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. And the Word was Gaia.

      Environmentalism is the new born-again religion of the left. And the poor hear the same message from the silver-tailed Saved: your poverty is virtuous.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 05 30 at 03:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t understand these poor people from third world countries.  Just because they are starving, can’t take care of their families and are quite often brutalised by despot leaders, they won’t to have what we have.

      How greedy and selfish they are!  Don’t they care that they might make Bob Brown upset?

      Posted by youngy on 2006 05 30 at 03:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ahhhhh.  The satisfaction of being vicious in the name of the good.  And if you don’t have enough victims to justify your viciousness, make some.  All you have to do is get a hold on the law, just a little toe in the door.  Just get them to agree to one premise, and you’ve got ‘em by the short hairs.  Move the goal posts expertly enough and some of your victims will leap into their graves on their own.  All you have to do is make sure they believe that it is their own fault that they are victims; if only they hadn’t had big feet.

      What a racket.

      Habib, you have all my admiration.  You are spot on, as usual.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 30 at 03:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. The ecological footprint of someone from Bangladesh increases sixteen-fold if he or she emigrated to the US, while that of a Somali citizen rises more than thirteen-times when he or she migrated to Britain.

      The real reason his “ecological footprint” in those 3rd-World shitholes is so much smaller is because his life expectancy is so much less.

      Something tells me the authors of this taxpayer-funded tripe are fully aware of that fact.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 05 30 at 04:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Did anyone else read that as:

      Such migration coupled with population growth was undermining efforts to meet the United Nations’ Minimum Development Goals, the think-tank said.

      Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2006 05 30 at 04:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Speaking of moonbat organisations, it seems the Australia Institute is now the Australia Institute for a just, sustainable, peaceful future (or is that AIJSPF?)

      Well that certainly makes me feel all cuddly and warm towards anything they have to say.

      Posted by entropy on 2006 05 30 at 05:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. So TIm Flannery is a palaeontologist?  Well if he has studied palaeoecology that is an excellent ground for calling oneself an ‘environmental scientist’.

      The update potentially makes him MORE credible on climate change issues.

      Posted by ChrisPer on 2006 05 30 at 05:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. And here I thought the problem with all this migration (hold on, people!  Stop moving about freely!) was that so many would move north to the US/Canada and Britain that the earth’s tilt would get much worse and the poles would shift.  You Aussies need to gather more Somalis and Bangladeshis down there to offset all the tiltiness!

      Posted by ushie on 2006 05 30 at 06:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. This guy sounds like a college professor I had who complained about businesses opening factories in Third World countries and the subsequent need for roads to be built there to accomodate the buses needed to transport the workers. She thought, see, that the workers shouldn’t have buses, because then they “wouldn’t get any exercise.” The idea that even a smidgen of the comforts we take for granted here in the US should be offered to people in Third World countries was quite beyond her comprehension.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 05 30 at 07:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #24 – more credible than he usually is?
      ok. Still not good.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 05 30 at 07:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Such migration coupled with population growth was undermining efforts to meet the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goalsthe think-tank said.

      What would Somalia be named if all the Somalis left? Best leave them in place to be killed, is this what they are saying?

      What the hell kind of ‘think-tank’ is this? They still believe the UN is useful, get Al Gore on the phone, now!

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 30 at 07:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Environmental degradation was seen to be forcing a further 135 million people out of their homes in the future.

      What does that mean? In the future year, decade, vague period of designated worry-time? What it says, in its current clumsiness, is that after that next 135 million make their move, that’ll be the end of migration, for ever and ever. (Or so it “was seen.”) And this is called “Breaking News 24/7.”

      Posted by m on 2006 05 30 at 07:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. Air conditioning for me, but none for thee.

      Posted by perfectsense on 2006 05 30 at 07:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. I suggest that such think-tanks as this one should properly be called emote-tanks.

      Posted by PW on 2006 05 30 at 07:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. #26 Andrea,

      This guy sounds like a college professor I had who complained about businesses opening factories in Third World countries and the subsequent need for roads to be built there to accomodate the buses needed to transport the workers. She thought, see, that the workers shouldn’t have buses, because then they “wouldn’t get any exercise.”

      Doesn’t that just say it all?  Did it ever occur to this person that nobody had ceded the right to own life to her?  Where the hell do these people get off thinking that they have the right to determine what everyone else is to do, or not do, according to their dictates?  Talk about petty tyrants!

      We ought to remember that those yahoos at that “Think Tank” were all “taught” by professors just like the one you talk about, Andrea.  It shows.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 30 at 07:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. O/T Why is Expatriate Australian Kirsty Sword Gusmao referred to in hushed and ingratiating tones by the ABC as East Timor’s “first lady”?
      The wife of the Prime Minister of Australia is slighted by the Oz msm as is the wife of George W from the world’s most powerful nation.Expatriate Princess Mary is sneered at by the Austrayan press.
      But Ms SwordGusmao is attached to a STRUGGLING 3RD WORLD TYPE country which is NOT anglo saxon,not supporting itself and failing -all criteria which makes her a martyr and her country a deserving icon magnet to the media.
      At least the Indonesian people did not bring this latest crisis on themselves like the East Timorese.Maybe our troops (if invited) could have been assisting them.

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 30 at 07:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, it’s all over then.  Wait till they get onto the ecological footprint of all those Chinese who’ll be damaging the planet without even emigrating.  So, who’s up to telling them?

      Posted by spyder on 2006 05 30 at 08:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. Building up local economies and improving local environments so that people wouldn’t have to emigrate is actually a good idea.  But who’s going to do that?  Oh my God, Big Business with its Eeeevil Globalism, that’s who!  And removing tinpot dictators, well, that usually has to be done by Imperialist Military Jackboots from Eeeeevil “Democratic” Countries.  Oh, woe!

      What will these sobsisters cry about when globalism has done its worst, and everybody in the world has a refrigerator and a car (they already have TV sets and cell phones), and nobody is really “suffering”.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 08:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. Re #24, ChrisPer:

      The update potentially makes him [Tim Flannery] MORE credible on climate change issues.

      Any increase in Flannery’s credibility would have to be enormous simply to reach zero.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 30 at 09:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. o/t Check out Crikey’s expose on how the ABC is “taking its cleaners to the cleaners.”
      They question the willingness of Aunty’s NEWS and CURRENT AFFAIRS eg Red Kezza and the Snowcone to tackle the removal of benefits (super and overtime) for the lowly folk who(shudder)clean up the ABC’S mess.
      Many staff are from Central America.Many are apparently huge fans of Aunty.
      Well O’Brien,Jones and co
      WE’RE WAITING…

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 30 at 09:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Governments and aid agencies should encourage families to stay put by tackling environmental degradation, such as the spread of deserts, that forces many to leave …”.
      To paraphrase the late comedian social commentarian Sam Kinison, “You can’t grow food in the f’in desertAaaaa…..aaaaaa”.

      Posted by bc on 2006 05 30 at 09:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. o/t 100 YOUTHS with sticks,molotov cocktails and baseball bats riot in Paris suburb,situation addressed by 250 riot police,seven police officers injured.
      Mayor,father of seven terrorised in his residence.He has been under police protection since the last riots.

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 30 at 09:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Of course what Sam Kinison overlooked was that those starving people had been forcibly trucked into that desert by their government.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 30 at 09:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. In short, the government wanted to minimize their ecological footprint by killing them.  By that standard, the Khmer Rouge should have been the Khmer Vert.

      So Tim Flannery is a palaeontologist?

      Can you think of a better profession for an absolute bonehead?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 30 at 09:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. well why don’t we just pre-empt all this environmentally irresponsible migration by removing the root cause.  there’s this cool stuff called zyklon b that’ll do the job nicely & surely there’s a barbed wire surplus somewhere that could be put to good use. but wait, we’ll need skilled labour to build the shower blocks.  oh well, all grand plans have a flaw

      Posted by KK on 2006 05 30 at 10:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Awright, nobody move!”
      — The Three Stooges

      Posted by mojo on 2006 05 30 at 10:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. The growing number of people who migrated from developing countries to over-populated Western states

      And one of their example less-overpopulated deveoping countries is Bangladesh?

      Posted by sjens on 2006 05 30 at 10:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. Societies that feature honest governments that are respectful of human rights (including property rights) and that support the rule of law and personal liberty (including economic freedom), will generate more reasonable solutions to environmental (as well as other) problems than all the paleontologists of the world lined up end to end. The latter should stick to settling really important issues, such as whether dinosaurs were actually warm-blooded, and the likelihood of a Tyrannosaur being able to beat King Kong in a rematch.

      Posted by paco on 2006 05 30 at 11:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Those gimp-ass rubber-toothed Tyrannos in that “fight” were either paid off or drugged down.  How many times can you bite a gorilla’s arm off and not have it … you know … come OFF!??  Boooo!!  Cheaties!!

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 01:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. #45, Paco,

      Societies that feature honest governments that are respectful of human rights (including property rights) and that support the rule of law and personal liberty (including economic freedom), will generate more reasonable solutions to environmental (as well as other) problems than all the paleontologists of the world lined up end to end.

      Paco, this is true if your purpose is to further human life on earth.  That they don’t take this proven route, indeed, that they would destroy every vestiage of this proven route, tells you that their purpose is power over man, not nature.

      (I know you know this.  Maybe someone else needs the obvious explained, however.  We get a few like that, no?)

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 30 at 01:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. How dare they want 16 grains of rice instead of 1!

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 05 30 at 02:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. #46: Oh, they definitely took a dive; it was Sonny Liston and Cassius Clay all over again.

      #47: As Orwell said, it is necessary to state the obvious, forcefully, every day.

      Posted by paco on 2006 05 30 at 02:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Manning and his smug ilk may flatter themselves with their own enlightenment but they are really little different from the Nazi eugenicists of the Second World War and the crank ethnologists who preceded them.

      Citing Bangladesh reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s devastatingly accurate take on people like OPT:  just enough of me, far too much of you.

      Whatever we might think of immigration or overpopulation or poverty or the environment, none of it can ever justify diminishing the tantamount value of individual human life – yours, mine and that Bangladeshi’s.

      A pox on these people and their pronouncements.

      (And God help us all if any of them is ever in a position of power or authority.)

      Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2006 05 30 at 03:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Surprising that the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) of Britain didn’t mention one of the greatest migratorial shifts going on in the world today… namely the waves of illegal aliens pouring across the United States’ southern border.  That might involve a breakneck lefty flipflop.  At any rate, those people are emigrating because of the economic policies of their nations, not because of any environmental degradation.

      Or does the OPT just have it in for Africans and Bangladeshis?

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 04:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Many people have said similar to this above, but could it be that the small footprint is because they are starving and dying?

      Raises to mind the concept of Malthusian Economics – in brief, that wars, disease and famine are good because it keeps a natural check on the total population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe).

      Posted by MB on 2006 05 30 at 06:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. So it would be massively beneficial, earth-wise, for Americans and British to find new homes in Bangladesh and Somalia.

      No, that’d be “cultural imperialism”.

      Posted by HisHineness on 2006 05 30 at 07:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. #53- the only thing being that within a few years ther’d be reliable power, usable roads, stable government and chains of fast food emporiums polluting these pristine rousseauian paradises, with their low life expecatacies and even lower consumer expectations.

      Get with the program- mud huts for all! After all, there was no global warming, coral bleaching and mass extinctions before the evil of bronze was inflicted on the planet.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 07:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe Flannery is a paleoecologist.  There is such a field of study.  And I would just like to say that I have met several very unboneheaded paleontilogists, although Flannery may not be one of them.

      (pedantic mode) Paco #45, the question of dinosaur endothermy (warm-blooded is too vague a term to be useful) has been solved, and the answer is no.  John Ruben of Oregon State University has studied the matter.  All endothermic animals have bones (mammals) or cartilage (birds) called nasal turbinates that support thin membranes which limit water loss to the animals.  Without them an endothermic animal would lose around 7 percent of its body weight per day due to water loss as it breathed moist, warm air out of its lungs.  Pug dogs, which have lost these bones due to selection for a short snout must drink almost constantly in order to maintain their body moisture.  Animals with such turbinates have enlarged nasal passages in order to maintain the volume of air passed to the lungs.  Animals that are ectothermic, like crocodiles, do not have nasal turbinates and this enlarged nasal passage.

      Ruben has studied very well preserved dinosaur skulls using CAT-scans to measure the sizes and cross-sections of the nasal passages.  Dinosaur skulls, for the studied Theropods, have small nasal passage volumes and cross-sections, like crocs, and not large volumes like mammals or birds do.  His conclusion is that theropods (carnivorous dinos like Tyrannosaurids) were ectothermic like crocs.  Presumably the other dinos were too, since they were evolutionarily related to the theropods.  He has also traced the evolution of such nasal turbinates and volume increases in mammal-like reptiles (Therapsids) which developed such structures over a period of about 40 million years to give rise to the mammals in the Triassic period at about the same time that dinosaurs appeared.  So dinosaurs were not (most likely) endothermic.(/pedantic mode)

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 05 30 at 11:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. Michael Lonie — Ectothermic would also explain the seemingly rapid mass die-offs, since a rapid global cooling, for whatever of the stipulated reasons, would lead to rapid hypothermia, especially since given the enormous ratio of body volume to tissue area, they would need a lot of external heat to maintain a viable metabolism (thus, for example, the massive ‘radiator fin’ on the early dimetrodons.

      </pedant bakacha>

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 31 at 12:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Michael Lonie–the important question, as Stoop DD asks, is can King Kong really beat 3 T-Rexes in a fair fight?

      Saw that movie.  Who cares about character development, get to the island and the creepy critters!  Do have to say a 3 T-rex movie is hard to beat.  Should have won the Palm d’Or at Cannes.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 05 31 at 12:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. As for the rest, I like to wonder what Laurie David would say if asked to move into ONE 1400 square-foot home and live contentedly there, driving only a Prius and flying only economy on Southwest Air.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 05 31 at 12:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. #55: Thank you, Michael. I was not informed as to the latest word on the subject. That was quite fascinating (seriously). With a sigh, sends tweed jacket with the intellectual-looking elbow patches off to Goodwill. Too many genuinely brainy coves in the world to have any kind of decent shot at faking it.

      Posted by paco on 2006 05 31 at 01:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. Paco,
      You’re welcome.  Maybe John will write a book about it someday.  I tried to convince him to do so but he said writing it would interfere with his work.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 06 03 at 12:45 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.