Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- ‘Two incredible extreme events’
- The End Of Snow
- Google Maps Adds Context
- Thing Of The Past Update
- Expert Government Forecasting
- Thing Of The Past Comes To England
- “far outside the range of observed variability”
- African Desertification
- Grok Explains Polar Bears
- The Climate Denial Money Machine
- President Trump : “decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
- New Plan To Rob The Citizenry
- “Fifteen days to flatten the curve”
- Warm December 1923
- “Ensure No One Is Above the Law”
- The Best Electric Cars
- Honeybee Collapse Update
- “a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.”
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- Disillusioned on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- Gamecock on “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- roaddog on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- arn on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- gordon vigurs on “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- conrad ziefle on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- Bob G on “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Bob G on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- Bob G on Holocene Optimum In Alaska
I have no issue with removing tax deductions for children. 75% of my property taxes goes to the local school district and I have no kids. If anything school taxes should be based on the number of children you have and not the property you own, if we really want to be ‘fair’. My parents paid for my education thru taxation decades ago. Why am I being charged for services not rendered? Why, when I am not burdening the district with more enrollees, should I be forced to pay?
Now I’m troubled. I just agreed with something Ehrlich said.
I may not agree with Ehrlich but I do agree with you! There should be a tax incentive for not having children!
This a-hole wrote a book about population even though he knows nothing about it.
High reproduction rates are inversely tied to prosperity, short term exceptions like the ‘baby boom’ notwithstanding. Over long periods of time the high birth rates, no doubt a function of nature, are found in the least developed countries with the worse average living conditions.
The most prosperous and stable places, like the western world, operate right at replacement levels even falling below. In the mid-1960’s China had 700 million while we had 250 million. Today China has almost 1.4 billion and we have 280+ million (309 million counting illegal aliens). China has almost doubled their population (with the single child rule) while we are not even close to doing that.
When you take this into account, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Erlich hates the USA, the western world and humanity itself.
This is a sick man, perhaps the sickest one that has a high profile in the media. When he turns into worm-bait the IQ of the human race will improve dramatically.
On a side-note though, removing all tax-deductions on EVERYTHING would be a great step because then everybody would have skin in the game.
“In the mid-1960?s China had 700 million while we had 250 million. Today China has almost 1.4 billion and we have 280+ million (309 million counting illegal aliens). China has almost doubled their population (with the single child rule) while we are not even close to doing that.”
The 1960 Census counted less than 180 million people in the US. 1970 counted over 203 million. 1980 226.5 million. 1990 almost 249 million. 2000 counted less than 281.5 million. 2010 counted less than 309 million. So, the US population actually grew from around 190 million in the mid 60s to almost 309 million currently, a 62% increase.