"Choice, not control: Why limiting the fertility of poor populations will not solve the climate crisis"

https://www.carefrance.org/ressources/themas/1/4422,CARE_COP20_Choice-not-control_Famil.pdf

First, it is human consumption, fundamentally controlled and driven by wealthier populations, not the reproductive behaviour of poor populations, that is overstretching the capacity of our ecosystems. Suggesting otherwise puts false blame on populations who have done least to cause climate change while suffering the brunt of its impacts. Second, in the context of climatic adversity and natural resource dependence, the line between fulfilling unmet demand for family planning on the one hand, and contributing to unjust population control narratives on the other, is very thin.

Both liberal and conservative Americans hold that a peaceful transfer of power is something we aspire towards. — Philosophim

This doesn't address a thing I said. And why torture citizens when you can simply keep them on the edge of starvation, without healthcare, or simply bound to work for poverty wages? And sure, if it doesn't torture its citizens - debateable - it sure does torture non-citizens, while vigorously supporting other nations that do torture their citizens, while regularly destroying democracies overseas. And that's to say nothing of the all out persecution of journalists who expose its wanton war crimes. And again, who needs to shut down journalists when your media environment is simply owned by corporations who would never hire or platform subversive journalists in the first place? And who could forget unmarked vehicles dragging people away as they protested Trump? Or your cops who do, in fact, murder people for crimes like 'sleeping in their bed'.

But nah, definitely spill infinte energy into a rowdy carnival that threatened some rich power-hungry ghouls with loud noises from the hoi-polloi.

It's mad that people fantasize about a coming civil war, without recognizing the class war that is widespread and pervasive at every point in time, already playing out minute-to-minute. The privilege reeks.

Overpopulation narratives are just eugenic fascism for the well-off.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2010/04/28/overpopulation-and-global-warming-dissecting-the-numbers-part-one/

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2010/06/02/dissecting-those-overpopulation-numbers-part-two-the-perils-of-per-capita/

As a person who enjoys philosophy, don't you find that offensive? — Philosophim

I don't find it offensive because I enjoy philosophy. One of the things a bit of analysis teaches you is not to get sucked in by spectacle and glitz. What is the point of a peaceful transition of power when the power in question is murderous? What is the point of voting when representatives represent literally no one but the rich? That's my issue with liberals: they care about 'ideas', and not one bit about reality. It is literal idealism. You can't eat pride. You can't pay your rent with pride. Maybe the 'defenders' of the capitol don't personally murder people extra-judicially on a regular basis. But they sure as hell looked at an institution that does and said, 'yep, I would like to be a part of that'.

And if one's politics is driven by how emotional one feeling at any point in time, maybe consider that all your opinions are totally invalid for all time until the heat death of the universe.

I feel you have made people into "the other". — Philosophim

People who systematically extra-judicially murder citizens on a regular basis are an "other".

Never seen so many people driven into collective hysteria on the basis of a glorified cosplay convention gone awry.

e also tend to support civil disobedience and jury nullification when we have failed to make the law just. But we are trying to build something better than the war of all against all. — Srap Tasmaner

Nah, liberals have proven time and time again that these are nothing more than words. It's why they cannot but blather on about Jan 6 and say nothing - literally nothing - about capitalism. They want comfort, not justice. The only interesting thing about Jan 6 is it's aftermath - the fact that the pollies have used it to milk sympathy from a population it is been systematically immiserating for decades, who - as this thread amply demonstrates - are now more rather than less apt to brownnose than ever.

I couldn't care less. What happened to some pig somewhere is not a systemic problem. Even Gobbels had a family. American police are a public health hazard, and as they are so fond of reminding people, they put themselves in the front line. It's a job. If they don't like it they should get another. Instead, they got more funding.

People busted windows, beat up police officers, destroyed and took things like podium's out of the house, and all with the aim to stop the election from being certified. — Philosophim

Oh no they damaged property and hurt some class traitors for a process which is largely meaningless how sad :( It's insane how glassy eyed people get for rituals and symbols of power, even if that power has presided over mass misery.

Oh I know. Liberals treat politics like bureaucrats: as long as rules are not broken, anything goes. Even fascism. Which is why liberals will side with fascists everytime against left pressure.

Jan 6 was a minor kerfuffle but because liberals are literally incapable of systemic analysis and like to frame things Marvel Movie Events and the Goodies and the Baddies duke it out and the Goodies win it is somehow very very consequential. It's Hasbro politics: My First Politics Playtime Set™.

Doesn't help that some powerful people felt threatened and liberals cannot fathom the jaw-dropping idea that people in power can be threatened or made to feel so. A bunch of Plutocrat-enabling grifters felt uneasy for a bit - the horror. The whole thing was a carnival for alt-right cosplayers, in which some class traitors were killed or injured. The only tragedy is that some working people had to be killed so that those in power could continue exactly as they have been.

the root disease for climate change and political corruption is capitalism and all of the contradictions associated with it. Overpopulation is a reactionary myth more than anything that tries to blame resource depletion on average people starting families; but I think it's really just large corporations who are backed by the state who engage in propaganda campaigns convincing Western countries their way of life is sustainable forever when its not — Albero

:up:

It's so depressing seeing nominally liberal or left leaning people buy into rebranded eugenics.

As opposed to being empirically wrong about something for two decades and still thinking that it holds. Mmhm.

Monetary policy (injecting or withdrawing credit money or hiking or lowering policy rates) is really ineffective in managing inflation or economic activity. Study after study has shown that ‘quantitative easing’ had little or no effect on boosting the ‘real’ economy or production and investment; and study after study has shown that huge injections of money credit by central banks over the last 20 years have not led to an acceleration of inflation – on the contrary. So whether the Fed, BoE or ECB speed up the tightening of monetary policy will not work to ‘curb inflation’. Monetary policy does not work – at least at the levels of interest rates that central banks are envisaging.

...If there is going to be any ‘cost-push’ this year, it’s going to come from companies hiking prices as the cost of raw materials, commodities and other inputs rise, partly due to ‘supply-chain’ disruption from COVID... Inflation rates reached post-war lows in the 2010s despite ‘quantitative easing because real GDP growth slowed along with investment and productivity growth. All monetary policy did was weakly counteract that downward pressure on price inflation.

Inflation now is ‘transitory’ in the sense that after the ‘sugar rush’ of consumer and investment spending ends during 2022, growth in GDP, investment and productivity will drop back to ‘long depression’ rates. That will mean that inflation will subside. The Fed is forecasting just 2% real GDP growth by 2024 and 1.8% a year after that – a rate lower than the average for the last ten years. In Q3 2021, US productivity growth slumped on the quarter by the most in 60 years, while the year on year rate dropped 0.6%, the largest decline since 1993, as employment rose faster than output.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2021/05/09/inflation-and-financial-risk/

Inflation is a yawn that is being used by neolib wreckers to further institute cuts and hurt the poor.

Lol 'civil war'. As long as Trump doesn't rock the corporate boat too much and liberalism remains the limit of Harry Potter sytle 'resistance', America will simply openly become the plutocratic dreamworld/sewer it already is without even the sheen of aspiring otherwise. The American fantasists of "civil resistance" have been coopted and conscripted by the powers they fantasized about "resisting". Americans will roll over to their new fascist sponsors albeit with alot of soul-searching columns in the NYT wondering 'how did it come to this?' - right next to the Prime Day ad prominantly displayed below it.

I think there is brewing a real economic and monetary crisis here. — ssu

There is no 'brewing' economic and monetary crisis. The world economy has been in crisis for more than a decade now. It's only 'brewing' for those who are comfortable and benefiting from the misery of those who have been in unending crisis for years. 'Brewing' just means: it's finally going effect those who haven't deigned to look down in some time.

*yawn*. Manchin is just the bad guy of the week. The democrats exist to block left momentum and their not getting anything done is a feature, not a bug. Manchin is to the Democrats what Russia is to liberals in general - an excuse and a scapegoat to not recognize that the entire apparatus is rotten through and through.

"Against free speech" apparently = "people disagreeing with me and exercising their rights to do so".

"Free speech" apparently = "nobody disagreeing with me or facing any consequences for anything I say ever".

The Spoiled Brat Theory of Free Speech™.

Alternatively, Baby's First Free Speech™.

The point is that it is exactly the same argument as you are making. It is meant to bring out your hypocrisy and the fact that the so-called 'free speech' you want is nothing other than a small subset a speech which just so happens to be exactly what you would like to say. Except it's not a coincidence, and your commitment to free speech extends exactly as far as what is convenient to you. You don't care about free speech one bit. You care hiding behind the cover of 'free speech' to say the things you would like to say while crying about others who similarly employ said free speech. Your 'commitment' to free speech is not principled - it is opportunistic and self-serving.

Another snowflake out to limit free speech I see. Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't mean you should try and limit my freeze peach.

Free speech is free speech. If you want to whine about people using their free speech to oppose your peddling of pseudo-scientific gene garbage, then you don't care about free speech. You just want free speech for the speech you like, while you ramble endlessly about speech you don't. That's the thing about free speech - it cuts both ways. You don't get to whine about free speech while whining about being called out for peddling discrimination. You can do one or the other, but not both. Frankly you should be celebrating me. If you don't you clearly don't like free speech.

OP: Wants freedom of speech.
Also OP: Gets mad when people exercise it to tell bigots to STFU.

nor did i specify my stances on the issue anymore than that i do think inequality is a problem — Qmeri

Nah, you couldn't help yourself, you just had to keep talking about genes and people having inferior or superior genes. You're trying to elevate your biases into a philosophical issue. The OP is an attempt to turn a you problem into a problem for others: "I was all for equality until it began to effect my own ability to discriminate".

"I used to be for equality before I realized I can't discriminate against people based on the pseudo-science of inferior and superior genes so now I'm not for that equality nonsense anymore because people are mean to me when I tell them they are inferior :(".

the sleeping giant is embarrassed and angry, and wants to punish Julian Assange to save face, and show that you disturb its dogmatic slumber at your peril. — Janus

Yep - that Assange put exactly zero people in danger - for reporting on American war crimes - is not at issue. It's about sending a message, as the mafia say. And US is nothing if not a mafia operation. Challenges to American power - which at this point is abusive by definition - will not be tolerated. Anyone else who dares do similar things will be ruined and have their lives destroyed.

I wouldn't bother. James is a conspiracist loon whose paranoia is beneath address.

I'll believe it when I see it. Even labour are American lapdogs (dingos?), for the most part.

Our government has never been anything but kangaroo decoration for American whims.

- NY Times etc would not publish classified information as this is illegal. A large part of Wikileaks rationale is to provide a medium through which journalists working at those organisations can release such information and remain protected by anonymity. — Wayfarer

Except the people who did publish were precisely papers like Der Spiegel and so on. This make you wrong, or a liar.

As Wikileaks purportedly has the final say on what is published, then that makes them a publisher. If the site was truly anonymous, i.e. nobody vetted anything that was put on there, then they could deny being a publisher, but the fact that they review material prior to it being released effectively means they're publishing, 'making public', that information.

So which is it, are they journos or not? Or does their designation as journos turn on your personal whim as to what is convenient for you as the wind blows?

liberals like Wayfarer don't care about truth. They care about aesthetics, making sure everything is done according to the sanctioned titles, by the proper channels. — StreetlightX

not observing any of the conventions which hold the framework together. — Wayfarer

As if on cue.

Nevermind, of course, that Assange literally had to tell the 'official' papers to hold off on publishing while he redacted names.

Davis details how The Guardian, the New York Times, and Der Spiegel journalists were putting Assange under extreme pressure to go to press before Assange had finished redacting names from the documents. None of the outlets offered any resources or support to help redact them, and Assange had to pull an all-nighter himself and personally cleanse the logs of over 10,000 names before going live.

Davis says that it was Guardian journalists such as Leigh and Nick Davies, the two most vocal critics of Assange, who were displaying the cavalier attitude toward redaction back then.“Of course, it was apparent that they would be risking, if not the safety, certainly exposing the identity of many people — there’s tens of thousands of documents there,” said Davis. “I never witnessed a conversation where anyone took that seriously. Not one.”

Davis says the only conversation that he witnessed on the topic of redaction was between Davies and Leigh, and Assange wasn’t present.“ It occurred to Nick Davies as they pulled up an article they were going to put in the newspaper — he said ‘Well, we can’t name this guy,’” recalls Davis. “And then someone said ‘Well he’s going to be named on the website.’ Davies said something to the effect of ‘We’ll really cop it then, if and when we are blamed for putting that name up.’ And the words I remember very precisely — from David Leigh was he gazed across the room at Davies and said: ‘But we’re not publishing it.’ Indeed, the only ones who seem to concur with this “cavalier” characterization of Assange are those who’ve had a lot invested in making sure they weren’t blamed for the leaks.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/04/20/debunking-all-the-assange-smears/

Again, people like Wayfarer will excuse war crimes and the murder of innocents because 'not done by the book'.

Liberals like @Wayfarer don't care about truth. They care about aesthetics, making sure everything is done according to the sanctioned titles, by the proper channels. If it isn't, it can be dismissed, because these people have no principles other than bureaucratic adherence. Who cares if the issue at hand are literal war crimes? It wasn't done by the book!

Wikileaks was in no way a journalistic enterprise, it was an anonymous drop folder. — Wayfarer

It chose what to publish, with editorial control. Even the NYT has a goddamn tip line. You're just parroting what you've heard from American power, nothing more.

Quite the opposite, he's been retroactively declared not to be one by power and it's useful parrots like yourself.

Those no-good rascals, Amnesty International — Banno

Can't wait till some moron pipes up about how Amensty has actually been infiltrated by Russians or what fantasy liberals like to cook up in their heads.

source

"The prosecution in the Assange extradition trial has falsely alleged that WikiLeaks recklessly published unredacted files in 2011 which endangered people's lives. In reality the Pentagon admitted that no one was harmed as a result of the leaks during the Manning trial, and the unredacted files were actually published elsewhere as the result of a Guardian journalist recklessly included a real password in a book about WikiLeaks.

A key government witness during the Chelsea Manning trial, Brig. Gen. Robert Carr, testified under oath that no one was hurt by them. Additionally, the Defense Secretary at the time, Robert M Gates, said that the leaks were "awkward" and "embarrassing" but the consequences for US foreign policy were "fairly modest". It was also leaked at the time that insiders were saying the damage was limited and "containable", and they were exaggerating the damage in an attempt to get Manning punished more severely.

As Assange's defense highlighted during the trial, the unredacted publications were the result of a password being published in a book by Guardian reporters Luke Harding and David Leigh, the latter of whom worked with Assange in the initial publications of the Manning leaks. WikiLeaks reported that it didn't speak publicly about Leigh's password publication for several months to avoid drawing attention to it, but broke its silence when they learned a German weekly called Freitag was preparing a story about it. There's footage of Assange calling the US State Department trying to warn of an imminent security breach at the time, but they refused to escalate the call

The attempts to smear Assange as reckless, cold and cavalier with the Manning leaks have been forcefully disputed by an Australian journalist named Mark Davis, who was following Assange closely at the time filming footage which would become the documentary Inside WikiLeaks.

...Davis details how The Guardian, the New York Times, and Der Spiegel journalists were putting Assange under extreme pressure to go to press before Assange had finished redacting names from the documents. None of the outlets offered any resources or support to help redact them, and Assange had to pull an all-nighter himself and personally cleanse the logs of over 10,000 names before going live."

--

Basically almost everything published by the mainstream press and parroted by useful idiots like certain members of this board - @180Proof and @Wayfarer, to name names - is a lie

He was never qualified as a journalist, never worked as a journalist, and Wikileaks observed none of the conventions of journalism. — Wayfarer

https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/assange-is-not-a-journalist-yes-he-is-idiot-761fa437269f

"Yes he is. Publishing relevant information so the public can inform themselves about what’s going on in their world is the thing that journalism is. Which is why Assange was just awarded the GUE/NGL Award for “Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information” the other day, why the WikiLeaks team has racked up many prestigious awards for journalism, and why Assange is a member of Australia’s media union. Only when people started seriously stressing about the very real threats that his arrest poses to press freedoms did it become fashionable to go around bleating “Assange is not a journalist.”

This argument is a reprisal of a statement made by Trump’s then-CIA director Mike Pompeo, who proclaimed that WikiLeaks is not a journalistic outlet at all but a “hostile non-state intelligence service”, a designation he made up out of thin air... So they’re already regurgitating propaganda narratives straight from the lips of the Trump administration, but more importantly, their argument is nonsense. As I discuss in the essay hyperlinked here, once the Assange precedent has been set by the US government, the US government isn’t going to be relying on your personal definition of what journalism is; they’re going to be using their own, based on their own interests.

The next time they want to prosecute someone for doing anything similar to what Assange did, they’re just going to do it, regardless of whether you believe that next person to have been a journalist or not. It’s like these people imagine that the US government is going to show up at their doorstep saying “Yes, hello, we wanted to imprison this journalist based on the precedent we set with the prosecution of Julian Assange, but before doing so we wanted to find out how you feel about whether or not they’re a journalist.”

--

The idea that the American destruction of Assange has any more legitimacy than the Saudi destruction of Kashoggi is what happens when one has swallowed so much propaganda that one jumps to the defense of a country emabrrased for murdering people overseas. It is not an 'accident' or 'unfortunate' the the US and Saudis are best friends. They operate out of the same playbook, attend each other parties, and laugh while they kill journalists. They're both irredeemable pieces of international shit deserving of each other.

Have people forgotten that American "justice" is a literal public health hazard to its own minorities and that if you're rich and white you can get away with rape and murder on the regular? A pay-to-win system with a sheen only barely brighter then Saudi mud.

Because as I recall - subject to correction - the Saudis did claim to have arrested perpetrators. — tim wood

Ah yes, I too take official statements of murderous regimes to be reflective of what they are really thinking. I mean if the Saudis didn't say something then *gasp* it can't be true!

He could have had better due process of law, right away, in the U.S. — James Riley

Lol

if you cannot tell the difference between the grotesque murder of the journalist and the effort to bring to justice Assange — tim wood

I'm sure the Saudis thought they "brought to justice" Khashoggi as well. Of course, if you count the years of effective imprisonment without trial - a pretty standard human rights abuse - resulting in Assange's psycological deteriorization and his recent stroke - the grotesque murder is simply happening in slow motion, and all the more sickening for it. If you can't recognize a murderous, illigitimate regime acting to persecute journalists for exposing its warcrimes then you're no better than some Saudi propagandist.

https://mronline.org/2021/12/13/theyre-killing-him/

This is a nice way to put it. What the US is doing to Assange is just a more drawn out version of what Saudi Arabia did to Jamal Khashoggi. Both victims of a brutal regime happy to crush dissent and anyone that would make them look like the violent monsters they are.

"The U.S.-centralized power alliance is murdering a journalist, as surely as the Saudi regime murdered Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The only difference is that Khashoggi was killed quickly by live dismemberment via bone saw while Assange is being killed slowly by lawfare".

And even that is putting it too nicely considering that it's open news that the CIA looked into assassinating Assange anyway. The ultimate sign that you're probably doing some good in the world. The US is just a painted over Saudi Arabia.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/joyce-says-assange-shouldn-t-be-extradited-to-us-20211213-p59h1j.html

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce says Julian Assange should not be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges, calling for the WikiLeaks founder to either be put on trial in Britain or brought back to Australia. Mr Joyce said the Australian citizen, who has spent more than two years in Belmarsh Prison in south-east London, should not be forcibly sent to the US because he was not on American soil at the time of his alleged offences.

Broken clocks somethingsomething.

He does come across as an ass. Still, as an alternative to Ecuador, my useless, coward filled government can simply treat one of its own citizens with the respect he deserves and let him back home. Frankly they ought to gift him a harbour-view house for the service he has rendered to the world, at the very least.