This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Eugenics was mentioned earlier in the thread.
I could be wrong, and am prepared to be castigated for this, but what the hell is wrong in screening for, say, Downs syndrome, Cerebral palsy and others?
Surely these ailments are nothing more than a drain on an already overstretched system.
I think the Royal Society has twigged the new message at last:
I noticed a piece of supporting evidence for "the oceans" having been intended to be the focus of the next Green scam today.
The head of Greenpeace has 'declared war' after proposals to 'protect' the world's oceans have been weakened by Rio+20 summit negotiators:
"The head of Greenpeace International said the NGO is moving to a "war footing" after negotiators at the Rio+20 sustainable development conference watered down proposals to protect the world's oceans.
Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International's executive director, said there were so many fudges in the draft agreement that Greenpeace now had no other option but to change its strategy and start planning waves of civil disobedience.
"We have to ask ourselves what history teaches us in terms of how change happens when humanity has faced a big challenge, such as civil rights, apartheid or slavery," he told the Guardian.
"It is only when decent men and women said enough is enough and no more and were prepared to put their lives on the line and go to prison if necessary, and that is where we are. We have to intensify civil disobedience."
In belated reply to JMW, the Royal Society's "People and the Planet" report certainly does show that population control is favoured as the next Green project by Green-leaning academics. So watching what Tickell says is probably a pretty good indicator for Green academic opinion in general. The RS seem to have broadened the issue into 'population and consumption', which presumably means the developing world cuts back on population growth in return for the developed world cutting back on consumption, or to put it another way, giving up on economic growth.
The People and Planet report has recently been endorsed by over a hundred national science academies, indicating how well represented Green-leaning scientists are in these sort of organisations, in a statement on Population and Consumption given on this link:
OK, the Beeb is in board.....
Michael Buerk has sounded of with a piece which includes the phrase "Population Deniers"..... seems we are to skip a few stages in this debate such as the gradual denigration of skeptics by starting out with "deniers".
Plus "Demographic Disasters" seems like they are using the climate change playbook and just changing the word climate to population.
As usual, China - the biggest polluter (sorry, should now say population) is exempt; it appears there are moves afoot in China to repeal the one baby law; partly because of an ageing population and, believe it or not, a growing shortage of workers. The alternative is to maintain the one child law and start terminating the population as they reach pensionable age. Or they could, as in the UK simply move the retirement age goal posts.
Not sure how it plays with this but an allegedly global warming supporting author has suggested barcoding (chipping) everyone at birth. I'm pretty sure the intent is sinister but it's not a new idea and my cat is already chipped. This might tie in with the idea we should either (a) have our medical records on the net for any doctor to access.... we all know what happens to our data on the network so this is a non-starter.. or (b) carry it round with us... perhaps on a chip? but then we have the move in Wales to make organ doning an opt out rather than an opt in choice with all the consequences predicted in the SCi Fi series on Gil "the Arm" Hamilton... This means that one part of the population becomes ever more vulnerable as donors to the other half with the money and the need for organs. That should see a healthy level of predation begin to drag down population levels.....
All markets are free markets. The market will move no matter what you do to prevent it from moving.
My wife went to buy disposable cameras for my sons heading to camp. 4 stores didn't carry them at all. Target still had some. I am not sure how to get them developed (I suspect mail will be involved)..
Opt out for donors is scary. The trickier part is getting the "permission" of the relatives.. If that goes away, Gil stories will be way to prophetic.
I will have to get my speedometer fixed and get a location aware governor to ensure I don't speed.
This weeks Telegraph has reported on a letter sent by the athletes to Mr Cameron calling on the government to spend money on food aid.
I guess this is part of the money making aspect.
Plenty of scope for research, for money to be spent on ocean farming and al the other possible ways to part the tax payer from his money and cripple the economies of the western world. All to do no more than all previous efforts have done.
I can't help thinking that if I were a single minded athlete and the olympics not yet over, sponsorship deals not yet signed, time not yet taken with family and friends, that writing a letter to Cameron would not be high on my list of things to do unless I had an deep seated guilt complex about my sport taking all that money that could be feeding the starving. In reality I suspect that some gullible impressionable sports people who don't normally look outside the narrow focus of their sport have been exploited by the activists.
I guess we can expect a great deal more of this.
Well, OK, lets first of all cut sports funding and send the money saved to feed the starving somewhere. No, I know, that wasn't what they meant. They meant Government should find the money, but not from sports, they'll be claiming that the medal success justifies spending even more on sports, but won't justify the sports themselves, and that means taxpayer's money.
No doubt they can parley poverty and population into the sort of money they only dreamed of with AGW.