All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Lefties revive Soylent Green scare

"How will 9 billion or 10 billion people eat without destroying the environment?" the Washington Post asked in a headline.

Marxists asked the same question 40 years ago when we were at 4.3 billion people. Now we are at 7.6 billion.

Not only did we feed 3.3 billion more people, but we now have 2 billion obese and overweight people in the world without resorting to cannibalism via Soylent Green.

Everybody in the world is not starving to death. We are overeating. Let me make this clear: 30% of the world is now obese and overweight.

But the jamokes at the Washington Post wrote, "The human population has reached 7.6 billion and could number 9 billion or 10 billion by midcentury. All those people will need to eat. A sobering report published Wednesday in the journal Nature argues that a sustainable food system that doesn’t ravage the environment is going to require dramatic changes."

Meanwhile, with all these people the level of carbon dioxide rises, which fake scientists say will destroy the planet.

But carbon dioxide helps plants grow better and quicker, and in more remote places. This not only helps humans but other populations, even those who don't eat plants. The polar bear population has exploded in the past 50 years.

I am sorry but it is ludicrous to base world policy on Charlton Heston movies in the 1970s ("Soylent Green," and "Beneath the Planet of the Apes").

###

Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at DonSurber@gmail.com

18 comments:

  1. Is the problem that the socialist can't grow food, or just that they are overly fond of using starvation as a weapon? Famine follows socialism as flies do rotten meat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point on the effects of capitalism. Little Red Hen definitely was not a socialist.

      Delete
    2. Marxists and their ilk (and, believe me, their ilk are really ugly, and the ilk includes socialists) believe that all resources are limited to a Marxist-scientifically-predicted limit. People compete for those limited resources, with the strong getting more than they need and the weak never getting enough. Since Marxist-science cannot be contradicted under pain of death (please look up Lysenko vs. Darwin) the state legislates distribution. Now pause to look at the efficiencies of our government, which is not yet Marxist, and you can understand why starvation always attends Marxist (socialist) government.

      Delete
    3. Venezuela bears that out.

      Delete
  2. We are constantly bombarded with being over populated and under fed.

    Convert the square miles in Iowa to square feet. Divide that by 7.6 billion and you will see that every person on earth could fit into Iowa in their own 200 sq. Ft. Room.

    Over crowded my ass.

    Underfed my ass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The left is so desperate they're doing cover versions of their greatest hits. Nobody wants to hear Kathy Griffith sing Maggie May.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody wants to hear Kathy Griffith sing Maggie May.

      Thanks. I may never sleep again.

      Delete
  4. simple: 'democrats for cat food' makes a catchy slogan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't feed my cat Democrats, if I had a cat.

      Delete
    2. Well that would save a lot of horses - which are more intelligent than the average socialist-democrat

      Delete
  5. Emmett Tyrrell reminds me that back in the early ‘70s, fans of “Professor” Paul Ehrlich we’re wearing buttons that said FAMINE ‘75. Oh, and Tyrrell also said, LOL funny, that the large number of overweight poor Americans was evidence of improper nutrition, needing more government dollars to study. Beam me up, Scotty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The reason people starve is more often than not due to their government.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the 90s the Journal Nature bought heavily into Global warming. The now debunked "hockey stick" uptick in heat caused hysteria. The magazine abandoned all rationality and did something I had never seen in a journal of science: Editorialize. The editors demanded that the Nations of the world give up sovereignty to "scientists" and their computer models so as to make the right decisions about how to govern themselves in the "crisis" . I kid you not.
    On my trip to MT last week every snack bag I got on the plane was stamped "non GMO" in big letters. Bad science has become political science. The world will not starve or dry up if reality returns to its rightful place in decision making. Trump has been doing such a great job in that restoration, his irrational enemies have been driven to madness,a danger to everyone, even themselves.
    Pmd

    ReplyDelete
  8. How is it that 'Greenland' got the name Greenland. Possibly because it was green? Warm and green? So if the world is 1/ getting warmer, and 2/ more populous, doesn't it stand to reason that there will be more acreage available to grow the additional food needed for the increase. Plus, almost every year farming science learns how to grow more crops on less acreage, so it is a win-win situation for everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the leftists could convince me that there were too many people, it would be to their detriment. I'm already convinced that there are too many leftists. If I believed there were also too many people, well, two birds/one stone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Remember "Zero Population Growth?" According to scientists we were gonna be crowded like sardines by Y2k unless we achieved ZPG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The populations has always been increasing. We have negative population growth in the West and population explosions in the third world nations. So why should we decrease our rate of reproduction? Let the third world nations that are the real issue deal with it. It's not unlike the constant drumbeat about pollution. Most pollution is not from the West but from the East. The diminishing returns we get from antipollution (or anti-AGW) spending will never make sense. Only nations like Red China and India can really make much difference in the levels of pollution any more. And I am not talking about plastic straws. Panic is not a good way to make policy!

      Delete