“lobby group, not science group”
“a biased political movement pretending to be an objective, scientific one” (pray tell, what would be an “unbiased political movement”?)
“these are people who think the Green Party and environmentalists will agree with them.”
“the views are extreme”
Random responses given November 12/08 to the Biodiversity First survey.
Ah yes, you know it helps to be told by your best friends that you have bad breath. Who else is going to tell you?
Really it is quite a revelation how others perceive us, isn’t it? Conservatives see Liberals as socialists, and social democrats see Liberals as Conservative clones. And the Greens think they are environmentalists. Until they see us. A biased, pseudo-scientific political lobby of anti-immigrant extremists who cloak themselves in environmentalism. And we see them for what they are. A human rights, anthropocentric movement cloaked in Green that serves the corporate globalist agenda of the massive importation of cheap labour. Extremism is really a matter of perspective. Of where you are standing, and when.
Defending the status quo of runaway population growth strikes us as pretty “extreme”. But apparently not the Green Party leadership though. They don’t seem to be bothered that as, John Feeney observed, between 8 and 16 times as many people are born every year as existed for nearly all of human history, or that more humans are born in every day than there are primates in the world. Or that 90% of African lions have been lost in the last two decades alongside spectacular human growth. Why would they mind, when they are blind to the damage that exploding population growth is doing in Canada? For them it is all down to poor planning, poor technology and poor habits. Extreme denial. Hardly a perspective based on science. More a perspective based on blind faith. Abra Ka dab ra ! Smart Growth! Environmental Impact Gone! (funny it didn’t work in Portland or LA, maybe James Randi can tell us why).
Rate this article 1>10:
a) if you learn the author has credentials or
b) if you learn the author has no credentials
c) if he has authority, eg. do people respect him by calling him Dr., Sir, Mr., Your Highness Lord Demographer or “Hey you”?
d) If he is straight, gay, white, brown, disabled, just a miserable retired computer programmer or
e) Would you just prefer to skip the Jacoby-Hawkins test and judge the article on its own merits?