Saturday, February 16, 2008

GROWTHISM AND THE QUESTIONS THAT GROWTHISTS WON'T ANSWER by Brishen Hoff

I didn't coin the term "growthist", but I think it is clever. In case you wonder what a growthist is, see here: http://www.growthism.com/

I think growthism is an even worse threat to humanity than sexism, racism, agism or any other 'ism' dedicated to a belief in a superior category or ideology. Why? Because growthism is erasing forests, polluting water, fouling the air, paving over farmland, depleting soil fertility, burdening us with dependencies on complicated technologies and wiping out the variety, quality, and quantity of species. Growthists believe that we need to grow human populations and economic activity without ever saying when will be enough.

If present 1% annual population growth continues (70% from immigration), Canada will have 1 person per acre in under 434 years, 1 person per square meter in under 806 years or 1 person per square foot in under 1507 years.

IF YOU ASK SOMEONE THESE QUESTIONS AND THEY AVOID GIVING YOU ANSWERS, THEY MIGHT BE A GROWTHIST:

1) Do you think Canada's present population is sustainable in the long term; (think post-fossil fuels) meaning that we can support our own population with our own resources (self-sufficiency) without needing imports from other countries and preserve Canada's variety, quality, and quantity of wildlife at the same time?

2) When would you finally advocate negative net migration? Once we're at 40 million? 50 million? 60 million? How about 1 billion? Would that be enough for you? Or would you try to emulate Britain by having 1 person per acre so that Canada would have 2.47 billion people?

3) Would you expect very many of Canada's native plants and animals to avoid extinction by the time you finally decided we have had too much immigration?

So next time you watch a business journalist on a TV station like CBC, Global, or CTV listen carefully to their choice of words, which reveals their bias. They will say things like:

"Last year we enjoyed 3% growth but pessimistic economists say we might suffer stagnant growth this year due to fears of sluggish housing starts caused by the US sub-prime housing slump."

In reality it is those same growthists who are the preachers of gloom and doom because everything they value directly equates to increasing environmental degradation
Brishen Hoff, Ontario,

2 comments:

caltel said...

Thanks...

Calteltel
Article

Jack said...

Good points. Economists who cite "housing starts" as a continual measure of progress are vapid and money-obsessed. I like to say "where housing starts, nature ends." Imagine if ants or termites tried to build an infinite number of mounds. We would call that a plague, not beneficial growth.

Too many construction jobs are predicated on mindless overpopulation and should not be celebrated as progress. They are similar to oil, coal & gas ventures that wish-away limits to the physical world. It's part of an "I got mine, have a beer, the heck with the future" mentality, which is criminal when you really think about it.