Is this a joke? Someone please tell me this is a joke.

.....

**holds off on saying anything**

Are you posting this because you agree with it or because you want others to see it or....what exactly is the intention here, cause its about 1 post from being closed to be honest.

I'm just gonna assume he posted this for us all to laugh at and discuss the stupidity of it all.

Or, to be more precise, the decline of birth rates in Western nations, to the point where more people are dying off than are being born.

I thought an interesting point brought up by Steyn was on demographics. When you think about it, the demographics determine a lot about the course of a nation, for good or ill.

Just out of curiosity WB, why exactly is this topic 'one post away from being closed'?

Because it can easily be read as only white americans should have babies. Or God is only ALLOWING white americans to have babies.

I don't think it should be closed really, but it could be misread.

Honestly? Sounds like bullcookie to me. All I hear about is the INCREASING world population. Where is this person getting their numbers?

~Rico

World population IS increasing, but that's not what's being said here. What IS being said is that the birth rates among certain countries are declining, while others are increasing.

I read it as not 'only white Americans should have babies', rather as 'Americans and other Western nations are having less and less children than before'. I think that the only reason America's national birthrate is as high as it is is because of the mostly-Catholic Hispanic population.

A little question though; how does one define overpopulation?

Edit: One more thing to take note of in terms of increasing population is life expectency. People are living longer, so they contribute to the total population level for a longer period of time.

I read it as not 'only white Americans should have babies', rather as 'Americans and other Western nations are having less and less children than before'.
You're halfway there. The other half of it is, essentially, "white people are the only race civilized enough to keep the world from falling into total chaos".

In other words, 850 words of xenophobic fearmongering.

Quote:

---

You're halfway there. The other half of it is, essentially, "white people are the only race civilized enough to keep the world from falling into total chaos".

---

I'd like to specifically replace 'white people' with Western people. Whites aren't the only people in America or Europe, or Japan for that matter (which has a total fertility rate of 1.5. Compare that with Iran, which has 4.3, or Pakistan with 4.9).

Main TFR Page

Ok, so then "Western People are the only race civilized enough to keep the world from falling into total chaos"?

There ya go!

Still makes me put on the sad panda hat though.

~Rico

Quote:

---

Western People are the only race civilized enough to keep the world from falling into total chaos

---

That's right. Move over, ninjas and pirates. It's all about cowboys.

Ultimately, I agree with Cycle and Rico on this one. Whether or not it is explicit, the article is catagorizing "civilized nations" as white nations. The fact that Japan has been tacked on is a moot point and one should recall that it has only gained acceptance through assimilation with Western (white) ideology. This article also negates the fact that demography has historically played little role concerning "who is in power". Consider the British for instance. At one point they were the colonizer of over 75% of the world, although they probably made up the population of less than 5% of the world. The same could be said of women, who demographically outweigh men in the majority of the US and only hold 12% of positions in the Senate.

Quote:

---

it has only gained acceptance through assimilation with Western (white) ideology

---

Are you kidding? Japanese culture is about as far removed from Western culture as is possible.

But I agree about the article; it's simply a turgid lump of xenophobic scaremongering. The sad part about it, though, is that it's just close enough to the truth to make us (well, me at least) feel really uncomfortable

Are you kidding? Japanese culture is about as far removed from Western culture as is possible.
Vancouver

Boston

Dublin

Amsterdam

Tokyo

Looks about the same to me.

Good lord, you're judging a culture solely on the basis of SOME of its buildings? SOME of its most heavily WESTERN inflected buildings? Taken in the heart of downtown Tokyo (if memory serves)? Here's some pictures that might possibly be a little more representative of Japanese culture:

What you don't understand is that the Japanese would never, ever dream of becoming something they're not. Sure, they're interested in the superficial aspects of Western culture. Kogaru girls, baseball, skyscrapers, sure. But if you think for one minute that Japan's just like an European city with yellow skin instead, you'd better reconsider, because this is the stuff they read on the train, watch in the middle of the night, and fantasize about when no one's looking. I don't think any other culture in the world has been quite this joyfully depraved (except perhaps the Romans, but that was 2000 years ago innit).

And finally, i'll leave you with this article that shows you exactly how the Japanese see Paris. Do read; it's worth the enlightenment. Want more and i'll give you some pictures of last year's Takayama Matsuri.

You misunderstand me. I was actually illustrating your point and showing how an ignorant observer could take a superficial look at Japan and Japanese pop culture and think they've fully assimilated into "Western culture".

A little question though; how does one define overpopulation?

Tempting though it is to say "Go Wiki it", the basic definition is when a population becomes too large to be sustained by the environment it lives in, be it not enough food, water, space or whatever.

In terms of the birth rates, etc., from what I remember from my geography lessons, the developed world typically has low birth rates due to having children not being a high priority for most (people still want to have careers and earn money, etc.) coupled with available and effective contraceptive methods. However, life expectancy is also high in these countries due to high quality and easily available medical care, sanitation, and other comforts of modern living. The Third World tends to have high birth rates due to the need to have children to support their parents in old age, but this is balanced by inferior medical care, sanitation, and less resources to go around causing a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy. The developing world is where you still find the culture of wanting children for support in old age, but also improved sanitation, available resources and better medical care leads to more of the children surviving, and hence the growth in population - reflecting what you see in Iran and Pakistan.

Since there is little pressure to have children in the developed world - in general, the state will support you into old age, and having children means taking time off work, not a great thing in high-pressure jobs or if you're looking to establish your career - fertility rates are not going to be very high. Yes, this will lead to a problem (if the fertility rate is less than 2.0, then the people aren't replacing themselves), but I wouldn't worry too much, since these populations can afford to drop a bit, in addition to the factor of the average age of the population being higher than ever. Quite simply, we will adapt to cope with the situation, just as we have done in the past, and are doing at present.

I'm not exactly an ignorant observer. If you don't consider the wording of the Japanese constitution to be the sign of a formerly colonized nation then I can't really tell you what to believe. I don't believe that cultural "assimilation" (or the lack thereof) is as important as political STRUCTURES which affect the absolute sovereignty of a nation.

I was referring to the author of the article, not you.

I was replying to Pundit. I figured you'd have more sense.

"Xenophobic hatemongering" is a strong sentiment to a thought provoking argument.

Would you rather live in Tehran or Toronto?

If you said "Toronto" could it have anything at all to do with the freedoms enjoyed by Canadians and not by Iranians?

Here is the real question, do we want to live under Sharia law? And if not, what will we do to avoid it?

Jimro

Stumble, let me put it this way. You seem to have adopted a viewpoint that somehow partitions Japanese society into its cultural, political, and economic spheres. But i'd say that your idea is both reductionist and inaccurate. How can you separate Japanese culture from politics in the first place? Was it not the innate Japanese belief in their cultural and moral superiority in the first place that caused Japanese military planners to go to war in the Pacific theater? Is there not a powerful political faction (much like our beloved Elephants) that fundamentally champions the social and cultural "sanctity" of Japan?

In addition to all that, this is the same country that is contemplating revising its constitution to give it the freedom it needs to project military power in the nearby region. To suggest that the Japanese were cowed into silence and inanity by MacArthur and the West, and their fairly brief occupation, is to subscribe to the view that they are a cringing race of yellow subhuman cretins with no mind of their own.

I come from a country that had been, right up to the sixties, a British colony for almost one hundred and fifty years. Don't tell me what it means to be colonized, because there's a very very big difference here that you don't see.

Cycle> I'm sorry to have misunderstood your point.

Jimro> Today I just read the viewpoint, in today's New York Times, of a Muslim who longed to live in a state where Sharia law ruled. Now i'm by no means saying that _I_, or almost anyone else would, but some people do believe in proscriptions of one's personal freedoms in the interest of social/moral stability. But I wouldn't try to prevent people from going to live under Sharia law, because it really is their own decision. I'd just hold my nose and cross to the other side of the room.

To exemplar: It's not up to Jimro to decide what Pundit thinks is a good set of laws and a bad set of laws.

If Pundit thinks US laws are becoming too "christianized", and wants to move to say Amsterdam, Jimro would have no right to say he's moving to a godless place etc etc. Just because one person has an opinion about a country's laws doesn't make them right.

~Rico

Quote:

---

Stumble, let me put it this way. You seem to have adopted a viewpoint that somehow partitions Japanese society into its cultural, political, and economic spheres. But i'd say that your idea is both reductionist and inaccurate. How can you separate Japanese culture from politics in the first place? Was it not the innate Japanese belief in their cultural and moral superiority in the first place that caused Japanese military planners to go to war in the Pacific theater? Is there not a powerful political faction (much like our beloved Elephants) that fundamentally champions the social and cultural "sanctity" of Japan?

---

I do believe that Japanese society is divided into interrelated and mutually beneficial/harmful spheres of influence. I would, however, divide Japanese politics up between the Diet, the bureaucracy and business if I were analyzing how policy is made and who wields power in Japanese politics.

Comparing the LDP and the Republican Party is ridiculous because the LDP has no coherent ideology whereas as controversial as the Republican party may be, it does. The LDP simply takes issues from smaller parties and adopts them toward its own political agenda to ensure its majority in the Diet.

Read up on some current Japanese political theory. Try Steven Reed or Johnson or Chalmiers. Or read "The New Party System" by Hrebenar. Cultural explanations are, at best, a cop out for actually studying the political structures that alter a "society". In my opinion cultural explanations are INCREDIBLY problematic, because they ASSUME that a nation has INHERENT PERSONALITIES AND MENTAL CAPABILITIES. Why don't we just all assume that the Japanese are sofar peaceful because Japanese people are all so quiet and polite and gentle? That would be a cultural explanation and I think it's obvious as to why it doesn't work.

Quote:

---

In addition to all that, this is the same country that is contemplating revising its constitution to give it the freedom it needs to project military power in the nearby region. To suggest that the Japanese were cowed into silence and inanity by MacArthur and the West, and their fairly brief occupation, is to subscribe to the view that they are a cringing race of yellow subhuman cretins with no mind of their own.

---

I have no idea where you got that last part, I think your explanations are more fitting to those sort of stereotypes than mine.

Quote:

---

I come from a country that had been, right up to the sixties, a British colony for almost one hundred and fifty years. Don't tell me what it means to be colonized, because there's a very very big difference here that you don't see.

---

Glad to make your assumptions today.

Quote:

---

Why don't we just all assume that the Japanese are sofar peaceful because Japanese people are all so quiet and polite and gentle? That would be a cultural explanation and I think it's obvious as to why it doesn't work.

---

The above is a ridiculous straw man argument that doesn't work. Seriously, that's weaker than a kitten.

Quote:

---

I have no idea where you got that last part

---

Please see quote below.

Quote:

---

If you don't consider the wording of the Japanese constitution to be the sign of a formerly colonized nation then I can't really tell you what to believe.

---

Quote:

---

Read up on some current Japanese political theory

---

Wait wait. You're telling me you don't *like* cultural explanations because they don't fit into the neat little poli-sci framework that you learned in school? Please work with me here and stop trying to answer the exam question that NO ONE'S ASKING. Your inability to reduce the influence that Japanese culture has on its society to a compact set of bullet points does NOT in any way reduce the impact of Japanese culture.

LDP? No one's talking about the LDP here. I'm referring to the ultra-right faction in Japanese politics, the ones that pay for black vans to drive around with loudspeakers haranguing the population with patriotic speeches and music.

Quote:

---

I would, however, divide Japanese politics up

---

What? Divide? Politics? How can you separate the politicians from the highest level from the businessmen at the highest level from the administrators at the highest level? The Japanese have always been incredibly clubby; please refer to the Zaibatsu era if you don't know what i'm talking about. In other words, it's the old boy's club that pays the piper, not some arbitrary partitions of the power structure that stay in their cute little spheres.

Quote:

---

Glad to make your assumptions today.

---

No really, please explain what exactly you mean. I argue that it's silly to just throw Japan into the "colony" pigeonhole and you tell me that you're glad to... make?... my assumptions. Today. Right.

Quote:

---

To exemplar: It's not up to Jimro to decide what Pundit thinks is a good set of laws and a bad set of laws.

If Pundit thinks US laws are becoming too "christianized", and wants to move to say Amsterdam, Jimro would have no right to say he's moving to a godless place etc etc. Just because one person has an opinion about a country's laws doesn't make them right.

---

What a load of moral relativism.

It is wrong to drown a girl in the family pool because she kissed a man she wasn't married to. It is wrong to "circumsize" female, (for Cycle, I use the quotes here to imply "genital mutilation")

It is wrong to murder someone for being homosexual, the very day after you boned a boy.

Some things are inherently wrong, and you might want to become aquainted with the versions of Sharia that Islamists want to force on the world.

Jimro

Where did I say we should force people to live there?

~Rico

Here is the real question, do we want to live under Sharia law? And if not, what will we do to avoid it?
Uh, how about by continuing to live in countries that aren't Islamic theocracies? Please explain how we are in any way threatened.

Where did I say we should force people to live there?
I think what he's getting at is that if we don't start having more babies, like, right now, the Islamofascists will overwhelm us by sheer numbers and replace our WASP-dominated governments with brutal and savage Islamic theocracies.

The whole thing is a giant non-sequitur -- "We are outnumbered by brown people, therefore the end of Western civilization is upon us."

A Note: I attempted to send this message to your Ezboard PM account Pundit, but you do not have it enabled. Any further discussion about Japan/stuff unrelated to whatever the intent of this thread was can be discussed with me on AIM. I don't want to derail the thread anymore than has been.

Quote:

---

-The above is a ridiculous straw man argument that doesn't work. Seriously, that's weaker than a kitten.

---

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't work as an argument because it's ridiculous, neither do other cultural arguements that explain why "people are the way they are". You aren't reading me here.

Quote:

---

Quote:
-If you don't consider the wording of the Japanese constitution to be the sign of a formerly colonized nation then I can't really tell you what to believe.

---

Reread this with emphasis on the world formerly. You can't deny that there have been numerous Japanese economic and military policy stemmed from a few years of Western inhabitance and US pressure in the years during and following the war. This impedes on Japanese sovereignty, no?

Quote:

---

Wait wait. You're telling me you don't *like* cultural explanations because they don't fit into the neat little poli-sci framework that you learned in school? Please work with me here and stop trying to answer the exam question that NO ONE'S ASKING. Your inability to reduce the influence that Japanese culture has on its society to a compact set of bullet points does NOT in any way reduce the impact of Japanese culture.

---

I don't like cultural explanations, because they don't answer the question of where culture comes from in the first place. I'm assuming people are fairly rational actors who do things for their own gain (or loss). There have to be structures in place that allocate power to different groups and uphold the status quo. For example, I could say "Women are economically oppressed, because men are inherently greedy". This explanation would suck because it explains absolutely nothing. If instead I said "Women are oppressed, because educational systems encourage them to find lower paying work, like in education or healthcare" I could analyze empirical data and have something to measure. You can't exactly measure culture. I've tried, there aren't numbers.

Quote:

---

LDP? No one's talking about the LDP here. I'm referring to the ultra-right faction in Japanese politics, the ones that pay for black vans to drive around with loudspeakers haranguing the population with patriotic speeches and music.

---

Who? What party? "Ultra-right faction" is hardly descript". How much influence do they have outside of this arena?

Quote:

---

What? Divide? Politics? How can you separate the politicians from the highest level from the businessmen at the highest level from the administrators at the highest level? The Japanese have always been incredibly clubby; please refer to the Zaibatsu era if you don't know what i'm talking about. In other words, it's the old boy's club that pays the piper, not some arbitrary partitions of the power structure that stay in their cute little spheres.

---

You obviously missed the point of the line "mutually beneficial". I'm well aware of the idea of iron triangles and definitely familiar with old boy networks.

Quote:

---

No really, please explain what exactly you mean. I argue that it's silly to just throw Japan into the "colony" pigeonhole and you tell me that you're glad to... make?... my assumptions. Today. Right.

---

Your charged statement made the assumption that neither myself nor anyone else on this board comes from a contested area or has any idea of what colonization means. I'm not using colonization in the sense of what it has done to my mother's nation Mexico and what is now the state of Texas. People of my race are discouraged from speaking Spanish in schools and the state is trying anything they can to keep more Mexicans out of a place that originally their own. That is an extreme case. I do however consider forms of economic colonization (strong political pressure to dominate what another country imports/exports/produces) and political colonization (basically underwriting an entire nations constitution and military capabilities) a form of just that, colonization.

Take it to my AIM after this: dorkreally

Quote:

---

I think what he's getting at is that if we don't start having more babies, like, right now, the Islamofascists will overwhelm us by sheer numbers and convert our WASP governments to Islamic theocracies.

---

That's what I gathered from it. I'm also curious as to why the author failed to mention India, as it has a high birth rate and is democratic.

That's what I gathered from it. I'm also curious as to why the author failed to mention India, as it has a high birth rate and is democratic.
Because he's an ignorant schmuck?

Ladies and gents, I would like to direct your attention to the country just north of my hometown. It is one of the few predominantly Muslim yet heterogeneous societies that exist in the world today. Its existence itself is proof that religious Muslims _can_ get along with people of other races and religions. Indeed, the ruling party coalition is a secular collection of parties representing each major race - Malay, Chinese and Indian.

So if you got this mental picture that all Muslim societies are some ghastly medieval throwback where adulteresses are stoned and so forth, I present:

The counterexample, Malaysia.

Stumbleina: I'm afraid I haven't got AIM since i'm a filthy fob. Now if you have an MSN account clx AT pacific DOT net DOT sg is what you want. Or of course we could get Trillian/Adium.

Quote:

---

Uh, how about by continuing to live in countries that aren't Islamic theocracies? Please explain how we are in any way threatened.

---

Why don't you brush up on the goals of islamists? If the concept of a worldwide caliphate doesn't bother you then smoke another one bro.

Jimro

Do you think that all the Muslims in the world, not just the crazy fanatics but all of them, are in favor of the concept of a worldwide caliphate? Honestly? How is it sensible to classify them all as fundamentalist zealots? Shouldn't we seek to encourage the moderate voices in the Muslim community?

This is exactly the kind of scaremongering that breeds extremism on _both_ sides. We really don't need any more of that in this world imo.

Once again, read my previous post for an Islamic country that DOESN'T seek to impose this kind of religious fundamentalist nonsense on the non-Muslims living in it.

**Muslim is equivalent to Moslem

From one of the highest "ranking" clerics in Australia...

www9.sbs.com.au/theworldn...8&region=7

Sheik Taj Din al Hilaly holds a press conference in June
The following are extracts from Sheik Taj Din Al Hilaly's controversial sermon given last month, as independently translated by an SBS Arabic expert.

Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in Gods creation. (oh how tolerant and open minded!)

When it comes to adultery, its 90 percent the womans responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. Its she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. Its she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, its a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years. (that's right ladies, if a man rapes you it is YOUR fault!)

But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldnt have snatched it.

If you get a kilo of meat, and you dont put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, youre crazy. Isnt this true?

If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meats? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldnt roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they wont get it. (maybe muslim MEN should keep their "meat in the fridge"?)

If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if shes wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters dont happen.

Satan sees women as half his soldiers. Youre my messenger in necessity, Satan tells women youre my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But youre the best of my weapons.

The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

############

Tell me that trying to foster Sharia dress codes on Australian women is perfectly natural and a healthy expression of freedom of religion. Go ahead.

I realize that there are Muslims out there right now who are fighting for a secular government, here in the United States as well as Iraq and Afganistan. Trying to paint me as a simplistic hatemonger is fine if you really want to go through the effort.

But it doesn't change the fact that there are fewer voices of reason than voices of oppression and terror.

The Islamic world BELIEVES in muslim superiority, that Jews and Christians are meant to be dhimmi. The western world believes that all individuals are created equal.

Those two paradigms CANNOT coexist in the same political arena, and Muslims have been told that it is their mission to bring the world into Dar Al Islam. Right now all lands that are not Dar al Islam are Dar al Harb. Dar al Harb means, land of war, or "battlefield".

Tell me "jihad" is just an expression of overcoming the self... If you believe that you should really try to tell that to the guys with the AK's and bad attitudes.

Jimro

Why don't you brush up on the goals of islamists? If the concept of a worldwide caliphate doesn't bother you then smoke another one bro.
Islamists concern me. Well, not really. I think the word to decribe my feelings on the matter would be "troubled". Not nearly as much as the raving paranoid maniacs in our own lands who are posoning the fabric of our society by giving attention to these extremists and encouraging fear and distrust of our neighbours.

Let's be reasonable here: only a very small percentage of Muslims are Islamists. Only a very small percentage of Islamists present a real threat to anyone. And not a single one of them is going to somehow overthrow the western world and impose Sharia law.

Please give me one good reason why I should be worried about the pipe dreams of crazy islamists on the other side of the world.

Religion of Peace
List of Terrorist Attacks Intro
Reported Attacks over the Last 4 Months

Ah yes, terrorist attacks in... uh... Baqubah. And Narathiwat. And Baramulla. Oh, and Muzaffarnagar. Clearly this spells doom for the Western world.

Yeah, still not concerned. I'm more worried I'll get killed in a car accident on the way home from work. It's astounding how many people think they can just turn left without signalling when there's oncoming traffic.

Quote:

---

It's astounding how many people think they can just turn left without signalling when there's oncoming traffic.

---

No kidding. :/

Cycle, if you choose not to be concerned then there is absolutely nothing I can point out that will make you concerned.

Jimro

Quote:

---

Jimro would have no right to say he's moving to a godless place etc etc. Just because one person has an opinion about a country's laws doesn't make them right.

---

You mean would have no right to force her not to move, right? If people have a right to praise a country they have a right to criticize it. And "people have a right to be wrong." It's a good statement.

Marx saw history as a struggle between the owners of production and labor. Others refined it into socioeconomic class, a more accurate portrayal. I see history also, probably more importantly, as a struggle between liberal (individualist, reason) and conservative (nationalist, tradition) instincts. Everybody has both, but some individuals have more of one than the other, and such individuals have a not coincidental correlation with "culture."

I think the writer actually has a point, but is conveniently leaving out WHY so-called Western countries have a low birth rate and many other countries are multiplying too fast.

Socialism, birth control, education, money, and culture are key factors. Reducing the birth rate is a GOOD thing, and tends to corrolate with richer and more liberal. We should be trying to introduce these things into the other countries, which would help with world overpopulation and perhaps help to liberalize these countries. Religion (catholic church especially) and traditions are some of the worst culprits in fighting this.

If world population takes a turn for the conservative, whichever countries may corrolate with such values, those people won't just stay in their countries and keep their culture there. They'll immigrate into the so-called Western countries. Some of them, perhaps iconoclasts in their lands, will be even stauncher supporters of libertarianism because of what they'd seen in their own countries. But others will take conservativism with them, and those people may influence elections and the culture itself. I can understand why some Europeans are worried about the muslim immigration they get. Personally, as a Californian, I'd be worried about immigration from red states. We have people trying to build theocracy in the U.S. too, and while they aren't quite as scary as reprehensible supporters of Sharia law, they have more ability to promote their goals in my backyard.

What's interesting about many attacks on islam is that they don't propose a solution. I certainly agree that islamists, who want to extend islamic law around the world or even in their wn countries are terrible, regardless of how mainstream they are among muslims in general, which I won't pretend to know, but what do we do about it? I'm going to go with liberalize, and it's a lot more efficient to do that with culture than war.

Pundit and Astrid, I suggest a copy topic, so that others can join in.

I think you should take a look at this. Of particular note is this paragraph.

Quote:

---

How much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. (Of course, I've ignored that fact that many parts of Japan would be unsuitable for dwelling places, and I've neglected the land needed for roads, parks, schools, etc.) In a land area as small as Japan, the entire population of the earth could be housed on lots of 5300 square feet, with 8 people per lot. That's smaller than the typical American lot of about 8000 square feet, but it's not unbearably small.If we insisted on American standards, with only 4 people per lot of at least 8,000 square feet, then Gale Lyle Pooley shows that an area the size of Texas plus Nevada would be adequate (op. cit., p. 93). That would make those two states less attractive, perhaps, but it would leave the rest of the world for food production, animal reserves, nature movies, Woodstock festivals, or whatever. In terms of the real resources of this planet, we are not overpopulated.

---

Ultra, overpopulation refers to whether the resources of a given area are sufficient to sustain its population. A region can be considered "overpopulated" long before it runs out of physical surface area.

Also, I'm not the most up on Australian immigration politics, but I doubt most of the Aussie Muslims are of the opinion that it's awesome that the dude in Jimro's post is going around validating white Austalia's worst fears. I can't imagine they particularly like being compared to animals with no self-control or appreciation of societal morals, law, and human dignity by one of their own guys. Oh well, I guess it's just more stupid from a fundamentalist religious leader. What else is new?

That's why modernizing the third world is an important goal, particularly from an agricultural standpoint. Proper techniques for cultivating and utilizing the land for farming, irrigation, and the like. This way, resources can be maximized.

Any idea how many pounds of grain it takes to make a pound of beef? I'm pretty sure it's in the hundreds. The amount of energy we consume relative to the third world? I doubt the world is going to be capable of supporting all 6.2 billion people at the level of comfort we are used to any time in the near future.

Quote:

---

Any idea how many pounds of grain it takes to make a pound of beef? I'm pretty sure it's in the hundreds.

---

You're way off.

From the bottom:

Quote:

---

How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef?

1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year).
500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain.
750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain.
Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows).
Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing.

Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.

---

My apologies, Ultra. Obviously that's incorrect. I intended to quote the following statistic:

Quote:

---

Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters.

---

And then there's this:

Quote:

---

On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Beef and lamb are the most costly, in terms of fossil fuel energy input to protein output at 54:1 and 50:1, respectively.

---

Additionally:

Quote:

---

"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."

---

Finally, this:

Quote:

---

If all the U.S. grain now fed to livestock were exported and if cattlemen switched to grass-fed production systems, less beef would be available and animal protein in the average American diet would drop from 75 grams to 29 grams per day. That, plus current levels of plant-protein consumption, would still yield more than the RDA for protein.

---

Which I believe kind of ties into what i'm saying. Full article text available here.

Not to debunk the article too much, let's take a look at a quotes by the reviewer...

Quote:

---

An environmental analyst and longtime critic of waste and inefficiency in agricultural practices, Pimentel depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein.

---

I've read articles by alarmists that recommended that a forced vegetarian diet by the entire western world, to stave off massive starvation and environmental pollution of course.

Let's take a look at a quote from David Pimentel, a 1994 article.

Quote:

---

This report focuses on the interdependency of land, food, and population in the U.S. economy. The United States is in a privileged situation compared to other nations in the world: the per capita endowment of natural resources is relatively high because of the relatively low population density. At the same time, the United States is seriously risking loosing this privilege if more attention is not given to the control of population growth (including immigration), the sustainable management of natural resources, and the development of alternative energy sources. The aim of this report is to increase the awareness of policy makers and the public of the importance of the interaction between population growth, self-sufficiency in food production, standard of living and, ultimately, national security.

---

There is not enough "organic fertilizer" in the world to feed the current population. India would be hit especially hard. "Sustainable agriculture" is a nice phrase, but Pimentel offers no real plan other than raise plant crops because they are somehow more efficient than animal crops.

Pimentel offers up no satisfactory alternatives to modern agricultural practices.

Quote:

---

-- DISAPPEARING SOIL. About 90 percent of U.S. cropland is losing soil -- to wind and water erosion -- at 13 times above the sustainable rate. Soil loss is most severe in some of the richest farming areas; Iowa loses topsoil at 30 times the rate of soil formation. Iowa has lost one-half its topsoil in only 150 years of farming -- soil that took thousands of years to form.

---

I would love to find out how this "fact" came to be. AFter all, this was written in 1997, and you would expect farmers in Iowa to be out of business by now. Sadly for the author, farming in Iowa still continues... Soil erosion is a reality, but modern agricultural practices have even begun to rebuild topsoil.

The truth is that when raising beef becomes cost prohibitive, THEN and ONLY THEN will farmers switch to a more profitable crop. Market forces dictate what farmers produce, whether on a small scale or on the ConAgra scale.

Water use is about the only legitimate concern that Pimentel raises, the rest of the article is little more than alarmist scare tactics to frighten the uncritical into a vegan diet.

Since I know a lot more about agriculture than hydrology I'll not make the mistake Pimentel makes and pretend to be an expert where I'm not. The wonderful thing about science is that there is always more to learn, altho Pimentel and I both agree that genetic engineering crops to be "drought resistant" and "water thrifty" is a good idea.

Jimro

*cough*

Oh dear I wouldn't want you to think that i'm favor of forcing the entire rich western world to turn to eating vat grown algae or anything like that. I'm simply examining the sheer implausibility of the idea that all 6.2 billion people in this world could enjoy the same standard of living that we currently experience.