stop making kids

Pronatalist: you ignored my question, does that mean you don't have an answer? surely not...

once again:

why do you despise all the other creatures that must be annihilated in order to make way for one species of fumbling bipeds? didn't your pal 'god' create all living things? therefore, by slaughtering them, aren't we, like, disrespecting god?

did it occur to you that most people cannot afford to continually breed? bringing up children is increasingly expensive= no opportunities.


you truly are deluded if you think a greater number of people fighting over LIMITED resources will spontaneously start getting along. the world you see in your head is a fantasy, this thread is concerned with reality. there is no substance in your posts, you simply repeat the same message over and over. lucky for the rest of us you always seem to run out of time.

 

Brother Inquiring Mind…

It’s here that I see a crack in traditional logic although it makes perfect sense in the “traditional” way we think…I don’t see the top down hierarchal authoritarian mindset as workable. In our culture today I am convinced that we are witness to the natural death of god and frankly believe that we should be celebrating. Every day that we continue to attach life support to a brain dead corpse is another day of imperialistic capitalism and environmental and spiritual degradation. .

God is dead! And I’m not sure if he has ever been more than a corrupt illusion of a deluded mindset.

It’s time to put the "privileged" money changers at the temple gate to work…honest work…tending to nature, community and our spiritual salvation. It’s time for our CEO’s, priest, judges, intellectuals, teachers, police, politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats and you and me to stop polluting this wondrous earth and to start teaching our kids how to be good, honest, hard working, compassionate, empathetic and peace loving citizens.

How complicated is it to want a government that promotes honesty, a spiritual balance with nature, self sufficiency, hard work, love of community and the sacredness of life? The irony is that it is the intellectuals that have conspired, colluded and schemed to manipulate the working class by corrupting our spiritual, educational and social institutions. (The intellectuals are pissing in our beds because they are to damn lazy and corrupt to compost.)

One could argue that when our intellectual elites start getting their just dues that our capitalistic markets will be dealing with an overabundance of tar and feathers.

The only way we are going to clean this planet and ourselves up is from the bottom up!

We the people!

 

Actually the majority of Slash and Burn tactics are used by small, poor farmers in Africa and South America and SouthEast Asia.

Read THIS again. The fallacy is that a small minority of the population (mainly the contributers) are causing ALL the damage. Not true. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3181029&postcount=98

 

I am assuming she was an educated, smart womyn, No?



Please, if you haven't read just where the majority of overpopualtion is coming from. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3181029&postcount=98 The First World already has ZPG. The places that many feel need it, aren't doing it, and won't. Not "bullshit" fact. The "overpopulation" isn't coming from the USA or Western Europe. You may well have been introduced to ZPG by a womyn from Pakistan, that proves nothing. The fact is, most of the population of the world is coming from the places which have the least resources and are the least likely to stop. Yelling at a few middle class families to "stop breeding" will do nothing for the cause. How could it? We've already stabilized our population.

I am not coming at this from a religious prespective, I couldn't care less about that. What I am seeing is FACT, the fact is that me, you or people like us having kids isn't even a drop in the bucket. PLEASE, if you DO beleive in the Population Bomb, lay blame where it belongs. And to do that, one does have to be more honest with those who are actually causing the Population "problem" if there even is one. Mainly Third World Africa, Asia and SouthEast Asia. And among these areas, it is mainly the poorest countries who have the highest population explosions.

Screaming at a few middle class Westerners, who are responsible parents, who really aren't the problem here is doing no good.

 

One can only ponder the effects that unbridled American imperialistic capitalism is having on the population of the rest of this planet. But then most of them are an insignificant third behind big number one. And certainly when you use "our" here you are NOT referring to the wondrous planet!

But then nobody can escape the zombie drone chant...!

I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another. M. Gandhi

 

More facts, rather than propaganda (and BTW, Pakistan is no longer considered a "Third World Country" and has a population growth factor of only 2.05, more than USA's factor of under 1, but not a huge growth country, by any means, any more.)


Here is an interesting article about population growth WHERE it is happening, and why.

Please read before freaking.

the wrong people are being yelled at, and singled out.

I'm done here. No one wants to hear truth, they just want to tell others what to do with their bodies, (just as bad as the Bible Thumpers who tell us what to do with our bodies) so until people actually want to LOOK at the real numbers of where the population is the problem (HINT, not the USA or Europe) then I'm done debating this.

 

Sister Maggie Sugar,

We are all children of this earth and Mother Nature is the source of all life. Am I missing something here?

The nature in human nature is Mother Nature and the mother of nature is the garden!

Much peace and eternal love, your brother in ecstasy! Benther Dondat

 

No, I haven't heard of that expression. But I have seem some stupid stork movie on the internet, in which armies of storks bring lots of human babies, leaving a wake of houses and development behind, to accomodate the naturally expanding human race presumably, as the poor deer and critters perhaps go running from the human onslaught on the "environment." Of course, I am much in favor of all that development, if it is population-driven, and thus necessary, and not just the building of lots of usually-empty buildings that only tend to drive up the cost of living per capita, as all those people need to be welcome, and to have some place to live.

Are you perhaps insinuating here, that human life isn't as precious as I claim? Obviously, I would have to dispute such a claim, if that is your claim, being a fellow human being and all.

Huh? Didn't you forget to count all the squirrels and rabbits and birds, that seem fine with living around lots of humans within cities, and still find their own natural niches? But yeah, I think we should get rid of some huge space-wasting animals, such as elephants, as needed to make more room for more people. Did you know that a single elephant invading people's gardens in developing countries, can eat 400 pounds of food in a single night? That's ridiculous and ought not at all, to be tolerated. Is it any wonder that humans and wild elephants don't get along so well? Eat the elephants, or put them to work or put them in zoos, so that they can better coexist with humans. In comparison, humans eat very little, can share and trade and develop resources, and can both survive and thrive at extreme densities, not really being all that "territorial." Yes, humans are so special, that humans should prefer the supposed possible prospect, of growing into whatever global "crowded monoculture" of humans upon the planet, like some stupid population pessimist fears we may be doing. Although I think most all the credible experts, don't expect the human race to add all that many more billions more, either due to the impending Biblical endtimes, or the rampant contraceptive peddling-induced, spreading "birth dearth" which seems to be a growing problem, threatening all sorts of problems ranging from economic, to lack of innovation, selfishness, rampant divorce, abortion, STDs, to the "death" of the Social inSecurity ponzy scheme.

Your use of the word "fiction" seems to be very selective. Why not also apply some such word, to the delusions of the educate idiots who like to scare people needlessly, with psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo nonsense about some presumed "population crisis" or whatever? Yeah, it may be "fiction," but I notice that much of sci-fi, seems to be strangely comfortable with the idea, of an immense and dense world population of people, so much so that it's quite "normal" to see other highrises full of people, out one's highrise windows, in The Jetsons cartoon. And the people seem to think nothing of it, obviously not having some bizarre desire to lament the huge success of the expanding human race in taming nature for the greater good of the many people. And whatever for, are those flying cars all nuclear powered anyway? Those "power pellets" that power them, have got to be nuclear because according to physics, you don't get that huge amount of energy, and high speeds, and rare refueling, from chemical reactions such as burning gasoline. Nuclear would be well and good, in the perhaps highly-populated world of The Jetsons, in which the people are prosperous, free to shop, and presumably, still quite free to breed. So many people would suggest that pollution per person, probably ought to eventually decrease, as I notice the skies seem quite clear, although I don't think I see much of "nature" left in that future time cartoon.

I keep wondering what I should tell you, concerning your references to my beliefs, largely influenced by an ancient or "old book." I kind of like the term "burgeoning billions" that I have seen in over-educated idiot anti-population literature, as it seems sort of cute, and an accurate summary of the situation, except that it is oversummarized too much, not really saying much as to the huge value of so many people being able to enjoy living around the world, all at once. But it's really a rather hollow or meaningless term. Which is easy to demonstrate. For example, let's look at what it must have been like in the past. In the past, there was the "burgeoning 100s of millions" of people. And further back, burgeoning 10s of millions of people. And burgeoning millions and 100,000s of people. And shortly after the creation of Adam & Eve, the burgeoning 100s of people. And maybe in some distant future, perhaps the burgeoning trillions of people. But what does it all mean? How many people is "a lot?" Only God can decide when the earth is full, or so claimed a main poster or owner of some Philippines pro-life forum that I sometimes visit. Yeah, maybe God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is a wee bit ancient. But so what? Upon what logical basis, do humans dare judge God, and ask for God to finally "update" that commandment? God apparently has allowed humans, for now, to retain the ability to reproduce, and has not at all, changed his commandment. Upon who's arbitrary line, do supposedly educated "experts," most of whom don't seem to much accept belief in God to begin with, do we accept as the world finally having "enough" people? What parents can practically, morally, or logically wait, presumably "until hell freezes over" for world population to finally go down a little? I have heard that Thomas Malthus said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. What utter nonsense! What if people don't heed that? Then human populations may go on accumulating. There can be lots more people living upon earth, if supposely intelligent humans can learn and adapt to living and breeding in closer proximity to other people, so that all the more people can enjoy their natural and God-given right, to live also.

The population phobics are in an even worse and precarious situation, not having any credible answers as to how they intend to prevent the wars that become more likely, due to fights for independence and of parents hopping mad who want very much to breed, but presumably aren't allowed to, in the pathetic non-workable utopia globalist world tyranny that the population phobics want to build. Any logical analysis of the "nowhere" idea of utopia, ought to suggest that it would likely be all the more populous and pronatalist, as humans seem to very much like to breed, or at least be free to breed if they would so choose or "accidently" end up doing somehow. The historical evidence is already on my side, as the technology is already swinging very widely in favor of a populous future world, in which human numbers need not at all be arbitrarily "limited" somehow. I even read on some population website or something, about how we are in an era of "weak restraints on growth" in which population can grow "side by side." Presumably, if humans would so choose to be more moral, in great cooperation for the common good and natural expansion of numbers, to benefit everybody. But the author worrried that it may not last, as resources presumably run short. Well why do you think I am so pro-development? I do believe that more and more people can live on such a "finite" planet, but not necessarily by forever doing things the same old ways. Technology needs to progress, and human population expansion already naturally fuels acceleration in technology growth, which in turn can help support vaster and denser populations of people, such that people of course are free to value their children and go on making kids, in a world that apparently has no shortage of people.

Out of time. Talk to you later.

 

i would be a fool to point out all the flawed logic in your post. rather than individual errors, your entire mindset is functioning on flawed logic. for this reason i must agree with the earlier diagnosis that you are quite completely insane.

i honestly don't know why you bother with such epic posts that so utterly lack substance. when i point out something illogical, your response is to generate a torrent of text, not addressing the error itself, but following the same illogical path you were on to begin with.

it's a kind of denial of reality. bending the rules to better suit the world that exists in your mind. this is essentially what religion does: programs people to unquestioningly accept (whatever), and to simply block out any conflicting opinions.

you have demonstrated an inability to appreciate the wonders of the natural world, because you are so enclosed in the safe, comforting world in your head. a world of childish certainties where, whatever happens, someone will be there to look after you.



i personally think elephants are quite beautiful. they are unique creatures that deserve our respect.

umm... the jetsons isn't real. it won't be of any use in predicting the future.

humans are precious, yes. but what is an unborn mind? something that never was cannot mourn its own lack of existence.

people who live in perpetual delusion have no business telling the rational-minded how to live.

 

God doesn't exist dumbass. Grow up OK? The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, god....all cute little stories. But they are fiction, get it?

 

This has all got to be some kind of clever ruse.Doesn't it?

 

And why exactly would not the wacked idea to "stop making kids" not be some clever ruse instead? It's rather bizarre that supposedly sane and "educated" people, would not see some value in there being human beings alive, to inhabit the earth. What? Should we maybe clear some space, for some invading aliens instead, even though we were here first?

There's so many compelling reasons to go ahead and have children, that if some of us don't, wouldn't other people just go on breeding anyway, soon "extincting" or at least outbreeding those who don't believe in procreation?

 

I think I responded to all the previous stuff I omitted from these quotebacks, so I will resume from here.

Me and my kind ? That would seem to be a stereotype alert. While I may share many traits with my kind, I am an independent thinking and don't necessarily agree with "my kind" (stereotype) on everything.

Well of course I have to dismiss anything that conflicts with the Bible, because the Bible is true, and men are liars. Surely you know that much about religion, something about the mutual exclusivity of belief systems? Something is wrong with your logic, else you would be chiming in with me more, somehow. I have cited much evidence and reasons, other than just Bible verses, but Yes, I do use the Bible as my frame of reference for understanding the world. One must have a proper standard of truth, and using a false standand, can only lead to confusion and error.

Also, the Bible would seem to have much to say about the purpose of each and every human life, while atheism or evolution pretty much says that nothing matters, everything happened by chance for no particular reason, and so what really do we need all these people in the way of whatever the rich elitists of the world deem "progress" anyway?

Don't blame the messenger? If the messenger is a liar, then why shouldn't he be blamed? And blame what "science?" The science isn't to blame, because such lies of "global warming" or supposed human "overpopulation" aren't science to begin with. It's the people who feign science, and not the science, that is to blame.

Surely you aren't going to try to claim to me, that Al Gore didn't know any better? All those lies he tells, and not once, did anybody bother to correct him? That's highly unlikely that he wouldn't somehow have come across any evidence at how week and unworkable his theory and the hasty jump to talk anti-freedom policy, in all these years. Come on, I wasn't born yesterday.

Even Rush Limbaugh was the other day, talking on his radio program, about how global warming is nothing but a scheme to promote socialism and big government. I don't know why people criticize Rush so much, because I do a lot of reading, and at best, that's exactly what global warming is all about.

Science indicates no such thing. And at least in this instance, "problem" is obviously an opinion. An irrational fear of natural change, no matter how minor or slight, merely because humans might supposedly be the cause. If you want to talk "science," then science says that more heat, leads to faster disipation of heat into outer space, so it's highly self-correcting or self-balancing anyway. Similar to why my heating bill rises the colder it gets outside and the warmer I like it inside. Heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature on opposite sides of my home's exterior walls and ceiling. Even with insulation, it's still proportional, just reduced in the speed of heat flow.

Now I know all about "Greenhouse Effect," as they used to call it, before that term became passe, and so the anti-freedom tree-hugger earth-worshippers sought for some more "shocking" term to get people's attention again. But the heat transfer I spoke of still applies, that's why my car doesn't burst into flames on every sunny day. Yeah, the heat builds up, but not all that much, as heat leaks back outside again.

And why would I bother to watch his film? Surely you don't think I should pay money and buy those lies, for him to get some undeserved royalty payments? What for would I want to watch Al Bore prattle on about his earth extremism views? Like is he really saying much that I haven't heard somewhere before? Sure, I would probably watch it, for free. But perhaps even the lying liberal TV media wouldn't air it for free. They're too busy airing the stupidest immoral sitcoms and the dumbest imaginable "reality" shows.

That's ridiculous. The spring thaw photo-op is hardly "global warming," nor would melting ice "endanger" polar bears. Who thought up that sloppy piece of non-logic? Al Bore ? Or you? How do you claim to think that such would "endanger" polar bears? Their habitat is going to become some hot sauna, even hotter than the minor few degrees at most they claim, at the equator?

Has some globalist eco-freak now decided to stretch their evaporating credibility factor even farther, saying that every glacier in the world will completely melt, and that there will never be any more snow ever again? Yippee! I would love for the world to become more like a Garden-of-Eden paradise, in which Adam & Eve didn't even notice at first, that they were naked. That sounds rather warm to me.

Since when is "a few inches" a "flood?" I don't make it much of a habit, to go around pretending to solve non-problems. When ice melts, it shrinks, so melting ice does not raise sea level. Rush Limbaugh some time ago talked about how a glass of ice water filled to the brim, won't overflow as the ice melts. However, water can expand as it warms farther. And supposedly, melted ice that then flows off of land into the ocean, might have a very minor effect. But then the ocean is very, very large. Do you have any idea how much water it would take, just to add a mere inch, to the sea level? And then it probably isn't that simple, as I suspect the planet flexes all the time, more than a few inches with the tides. So if the oceans were to become a bit "heavier" they may "sink" more, helping to nullify the effect. (The Earth is round for a reason.--gravity) But then why be bothered with science or the facts, when there's a perverse globalist political agenda to pursue, and half of Americans seem to be mushy-head gullible TV couch potatoes, so what does truth matter anyway?

Nonsense. Funny how enviro-wackos feign concern for "diversity," and probably most of them live in very "artificial" cities and houses, like the rest of us. Most have no idea what species exist, and yet feign concern for supposedly lost species, not even understanding the basic difference between species and kind. The Bible makes a distinction, that most of these supposedly "educated" types seem to miss. God created the plants and animals, with the seed inside (Genesis 1:11), to reproduce after their kind. That means that new species are being bred all the time, as others diminish. Where is it written anywhere, that all species must maintain the same constant, boring numbers? That's not at all the way that nature works, as there is some degree of variability. One reason they say that the human population is "exploding" supposedly "out of control," is because apparently, humans are populated far below the potential, science-aided "capacity."

What about diversity within the human population? Can't that count for something? More people tends towards somewhat more "diversity." There's some old joke about where somebody asks God why God didn't provide a cure for AIDS I think it was. God answers and says, "I sent somebody with the cure, but you aborted him." Not to say that God said any such thing, as it is only but a joke, but why can't we count immense human populations as an asset. Why do eco-freaks feign concern about some plant or mushroom or whatever, that might lead to some discovery of some over-priced drug for the pharmaseutical corporations to get rich off of, and yet discount the prospect that more inquiring human minds might lead to even more such discoveries?

Now it might be nice, if the planet were a bit bigger (never mind the crushing gravity that might bring), or if humans had access to more worlds to colonize our burgeoning numbers among, so that there might be a bit more room for all this minor "diversity" nonsense. But we have to deal with what God has provide us, for now at least. There might actually not be quite enough room left on earth, to "save" every supposedly "endangered" snail darter and spotted owl, which BTW, aren't even concerned about the steady and gradual human encroachment, because they can't measure nor even think of such things.

Humans need growing room, but they say the frontiers are pretty much gone. Actually, I think Star Trek may be mistaken partially, to call outer space "the final frontier." Because outer space still isn't all that acessible to humans. The real final frontier, at least for now, is to populate denser and more efficiently. That is a frontier worthy of more exploration, for curiosity's sake, or as needed. And the sheer numbers of people on the earth, requires we look at very sensible options, such as building more suburbs upon suburbs. A little urban sprawl here and there, isn't so bad, so that everybody may be welcome and have some place to live.

Sorry, out of time again. Talk to you later.

 

Some morons in Oklahoma handle serpents because somewhere in the bible it says they can without being hurt.They ocasionally die but thats another story.So you choose one element of the bible and run with it?My original post still applies --my opinion -you are quite insane.You keep refering to all the people who want to be here=ie=be born.Eggs and sperm in seperate people's bodies are not people and have no desires whatsoever.I think you might be happy in L.A.There are plenty of humans there for you to enjoy.

 

Continued...

We must clear land and expand human habitat, because so many people want babies, and more and more people would be glad to live. There simply is no better option. Why can't enviro wackos understand such simple concepts. The human population is expanding, so people must spread out or cluster as they see fit, in order that they not be too much overly crowded, and that there may be a place for everybody. If that perhaps means a slightly, or a far more urbanized world, then so be it. Small price to pay, for being able to enjoy being alive.

Can you not understand that Christians worship a "jealous" God, who commands us not to worship any other (false) gods nor idols. God expects us to worship him, not his creation, nor any other idols. As some poster at the pro-life Philippines forum that I sometimes frequent says, only God can decide when the earth is full. I am not a litterbug, and I do respect other people and their environment as much as I reasonably can, but this bizarre and sudden "modern" idea that humans must supposedly "limit" their numbers, supposedly for the sake of "the environment," I find very dishonest and bogus, as unlike so many gullible people, I actually know something of the deceptive, racist, and immoral history of the development of so many shoddy and highly experimental "birth control" "options" and how all of them all aim to eliminate precious human life, even of babies supposedly "wanted" by trying to "manufacture" demand and expectation for contraceptive use, where little or none existed before. Did you know that many countries still commonly associate "birth control" with "dirty sex," such as prostitution. And no wonder, since "the pill" and such, helped encourage a rampant immoral epidemic of promiscuous sex.

I have long considered the population concern, and can simply not find any evidence that the eco-system that humans are increasing filling, has any "objection" to humans naturally growing all the more numerous, if at all possible and as it naturally happens. Why do you think there are so many people alive now? Because God gave people dominion over nature, such that nature is unable, perhaps even uninterested, in "limiting" our numbers, a practical reason why large families should continue on, as before, even within the huge and growing cities.

Yeah, and that's a huge part of the problem, the evolutionary trivialization of the great sacred value of each and every human life. We get our value imputed to us by God, and we value ourselves, so each and every person is just as precious and worth just as much, regardless how large the overall population or individual families may manage to grow. That is quite a comfortable confidence that atheists by their wrong belief system aim to steal from us, just another reason why one's world view really does matter towards defending human freedom and dignity.

The atheist world view suggest that human life value diminishes with any gain in world population, as as supply supposedly overwhelms demand, each individual human life becomes more and more redundant or trivial. Which doesn't even match one's own selfish view of the importance of their own life, and their God-implanted desire to live and longing for eternity, which leads us to seek God. And if in the end, we just turn back into dust, then what for, is life worth living anyway?

And humans need a "safety net." What's so wrong with that? Is it so bad to lean onto a "crutch" if it is reliable and not false?

Look at all our pets, who would rather live with humans, than be "free" to roam in the wild, because it is more comfortable and easier and safe?

Do you have any insurance of any kind? Why? Why not be terrifying, thrilling, a mystery, exhilarating, and all that nonsense?

And where did God exactly command all those people in Africa, to engage in immoral promiscuous sex, and to spread nasty diseases around? God commanded people to procreate, and to first commit to each other in marriage, for that "security" of which perhaps you seem to loath. But who is it promoting the promiscuity? The contraceptive pushers who claim that the magic condom is "safe," and yet now we have more STDs and AIDS than ever? What an amazing "coincidence" huh?

No, I don't think that "stem-cell" is the catch-all word you make it out to be. I was watching something just the other night, about the big push to synthesize drugs. It's necessary to make them affordable to the masses, rather than very rare and pricy. I don't see why food can't also be similarly "sythesized," if or as it might supposedly become necessary. Food is food. I am not all that picky, as I like most anything.

If eco-homes aren't complicated, then why don't I have one? Why can't I just buy an eco-home at "Low Wages Always" Wal-Mart?

Time to go. Finish later.

 

You know--I stopped reading your post immediately when you used the term "enviro wackos".That limbaugh, republican shit doesn't cut it with me for one god-damned second.Hereafter,whenever the word environmentalist appears,try substituting the phrase "those who care about the earth".Because that's what it means.Not the fuckers who want to pave our home over and fill it with ever more needy work slaves for the few to make even more money---the ones for whom you are on your knees ,if not literally,then sure as hell figuratively..And if you want to know my politics,go to the thread"The end of time,page 6."Every time I read more of your insane blather,I'm reminded that most adherants of any stripe are dangerous and only to be avoided.You like most christians ALWAYS__ALWAYS have the fall -back position of--"god works in mysterious ways"Is that why people, including innocent little babies are mashed on the highways?Is that why 30,000 or more children starve worldwide every year?Is that why humans are still butchering each other?Mysterious INDEED!.Yeah--we need more stupid fucks on the planet.If there is a big head in the sky,he's got a lot of explaining to do,as far as I'm concerned.

 

hey scratcho, good rant buddy. i'm glad somebody else here is shaking their head. although, at this point, i'm also struggling not to surrender to hysterics. the dude just called god an insurance policy!

ahhh.... anyway. i never thought i'd meet anyone who despises our sense of mystery and exhillaration, but i suppose there must be millions of them out there. it's like: what is more interesting? an eternal question, or a solution that answers everything, eliminating the need to think? it's funny for a while, but ultimately it's very depressing.

these epic posts are what you might get if you fed a bunch of conservative catch-phrases into a computer, filtered through a christian lens, then programmed it to type continuously on the topic in question. albeit at the intellectual level of a twelve year old.

 

I agree mondoglove.However,I wish that these conservative folks couldn't light me up so much!The guy is a fellow human ,so basically I wish him well,as much as I disagree with his tenets.I am,after all,a gentle person.And ocasionally a jackass-----------------------there's just no accounting for some folk's ideas.

 

Those who care about the earth? What hippocrates! If they supposedly "care" about the earth, then why not show some more concern for the people who live on the earth, and their need to have jobs that pay their bills? Why the luddite crusade against business, progress, and the cheap and abundant energy that an increasingly populous world would surely need?

I am quite justified to call them "enviro wackos" or "eco-freaks," etc., because of their bizarre and recklessly obsessive concern, for whatever stands in the way of progress and well-being for people, supposedly "the environment," until they come up with another pathetic excuse for dismissing the most basic of human rights, such as the right to reproduce children. BTW, I got the term "eco-freak" I think, from that bizarre environmental propaganda pathetic cartoon, Captain Planet, so you need not give me all the credit for some of those terms.

Now there might be some "good" environmentalists, something like there are "good" Catholics (who tend to have large families because they don't believe in unnatural, anti-life "birth control"), who also have big families, and who actually do look for better ways to do things, but they rarely get much of the liberal media or press attention. I would consider George Washing Carver a "good" environmentalists, for sharing all sorts of uses for the peanuts he wanted farmers to grow to put nitrogen back into the soil, that he said that God gave him those ideas. But such productive people, for some strange reason, generally aren't called the derogatory term "environmentalist," perhaps because they don't worship the earth and hug trees, like some of their hypocritical cousin pagans do.

So exactly when did the discussion transition over to the evils of greedy corporations such as Wal-Mart?

Where is this place where babies are mashed on the highways? I think your rant has veered into the looney direction here somewhere? And who says people have to be stupid? That's another issue I could get all wound up about. Why do so many people, refuse to use the intelligence that God gave them? Now that's what I call "stupid."