---- Andy F <andyf274 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've rarely heard green arguments about overpopulation
> in reference to the US in particular. What's
> particularly Nazi about the notion of human
> overpopulation? Mostly I hear it in terms of
> wealthier humans being a bigger environment burden.
>
And you seem to be lucky then. Usually it seems that it's not the white cafe crowds that are associated with "overpopulation"
Eiter way, the concept of "overpopulation" seems to be relative--I m sure a pop of 5000 could be an "overpopulation" issue in some circumstances if there are distribution problems.
Can you offer me a definition of "overpopulation"? If it is defined as a condition where there are not enough resources to sustain some x number of humans, then why not ally ourselves with the right and say survival of the fittest, only capitalistic market structures can control supply and demand, ect? How does the "left" in whatever definition you wish claim that everyone can have a equitable rights beyond simply basic needs, and gain some form of liberation for themselves but at the same time say there is an "overpopulation" issue? What does it mean? Prove overpopulation, I guess I'm asking. "Overpopulation" is something I reject, and usually associate with some sort of anti poor and brown contention.
>
> > > Then there is the nationalist feeling that those
> > > dang dirty 'developing' nations are rootin'
> > tootin'
> > > pollutin'...
>
> Actually that's a common and spurious argument against
> Kyoto.
And I wouldn't deny there are serious environmental issues. I'm not saying "Hitler Breated Oxygen, so lets inhale monoxide to fight fascism!", but there is always the question that the "developed" west, when they are able to find cleaner alternatives are saying "I gots mine, so why don't you gots yours?" to the "developing" world and if its fair?