Tuesday, February 24, 2009


Just who is credible and how should they convey their message?

“Canada needs immigration because our own population isn't having enough children, nor will our own citizens do the work that many immigrants will take on.”

How many children is “enough”. Enough to replace our current population? Why would we want to replace a population that is so demonstrably unsustainable? I went into the hospital 48 pounds overweight, and thanks to post-operative nausea, antibiotics and hospital food, I lost 20 pounds. Should I then attempt to “replace” those lost 20 pounds? We need to go on a demographic crash diet. Will this sustain our growth economy? Japan and Germany are doing better than most in losing people, and Russia has the highest economic growth of any G8 country, despite shedding a ton of people in the post-Soviet era. But what if we can’t “sustain” our economy by shrinking our population? Our per capita GNP, and certainly our per capita share of natural resources, aka as real wealth, will then be increased.

And we certainly don’t require a bigger youth cohort to support an ageing population. Supporting the under-20s is more costly than supporting the over-65s. A zero immigration policy would free up $2 billion from the fiscal deficits incurred by low skill immigrants and allow it to be spent on improving technology. It is the higher productivity of a smaller workforce, not the taxes of a larger unskilled workforce swollen by immigration, which will support the aged, as well as their postponed retirement. And oh, as for that old chestnut, the one that has been parroted throughout the ages in Canada, America, France, Germany and elsewhere, that “immigrants will do work that our people won’t do”, one needs to ask: What kind of work is that, the kind not remunerated by decent, living wages? Minimum wage laws and unionization are the remedy for that, not the importation of an ecologically unsustainable slave class.

“You have to ensure your message is not about keeping particular groups, religions or faiths out of Canada. We need these to help understand cultures and communities outside of Canada.”

Again, Japan and Germany seem to do quite well “understanding” the cultures of foreign export markets. Our message is actually about the need not to exclude particular groups, but the need to exclude almost everyone. Then again, why shouldn’t we exclude those who fail to understand us, who will not accept our core values? Are we not entitled to have a culture of own? Dr. William Rees is on record supporting the “integrative” as opposed to the “multicultural” model of accepting immigrants. He has argued that multicultural societies are less sustainable because in the emergency ahead, all groups of individuals need to share a firm and common consensus in order to meet our tough challenges.

“I would suggest re-evaluating how your opinions are presented and backing them up with more notable scientists…”
What kind of scientists are “notable”? Our articles are laced with links to “experts” in their field. It should be remembered that notable scientists gave us thalidomide, DDT, chemical weapons, Chernobyl and the flawed engineering of the space shuttle, the Tacoma bridge and the Titanic, as well as an over-confidence in climate models that are less than perfect. Notable scientists have been wrong, and while they have been knowledgeable, they often have been unwise, myopic, and guided by the wishes of those who provide their funding.

Many of the individuals on your list share the same point of views as you but do not carry the credibility to stimulate change.”
What “qualifications”, other than 20/20 vision, does anyone need to see the truth? To access information, to sift through data and weigh conflicting studies one against the other, all composed by credentialed experts? Judgment is as important as knowledge. And judging someone by his credentials is akin to judging someone by his skin colour or class background. It is not the credentials of a writer that should be persuasive, but the merits of his arguments. One does not have to have a degree to be a logician, or be anointed as such by a professional body. As Jack Alpert remarked:

“I have a pile of degrees and completed real world tasks. It does not make my causal understanding more sound. Anyone can create causal understanding…I have read all the papers you quoted and I have spoken to all the writers and they are not historians nor are their ideas experience-based. They make their views with causal models which are not experienced-based rules of thumb. They hold the same anchors in reality that I find to be true and they have connected those anchors with causal links to other variables that I find true with out correlational experiments…Who the hell are you? When you are not letting your emotions get the best of you, you think and write clearly.”

My writing may not be to your taste. This is as to be expected. Different people react differently to different communication styles. That is why all styles are needed to communicate a given message to a broad readership. Direct, indirect, scholarly, scientific, polemical, caustic and confrontational. All bring something to the table and can be useful in the right setting. We obviously require the raw data and detached objectivity of scientific or academic papers. But too many of us find these presentations less than “stimulating”. Scholars are inhibited by the inherent caution of proper methodology and the desire to find conclusive evidence before recommending timely policy action. They cannot weigh heavily into the battle as decisively as a militant activist who is driven by the urgency of our predicament. And it is this detachment which typically makes scientists inferior communicators. The masses are moved by rhetoricians and the leadership of those who are willing to act now on provisional evidence because definitive evidence usually comes too late to save us.

Thus, the “credibility” to “stimulate” change is most often provided by skilled communicators who permit logic, not factoids or dry dissertations, to stimulate the change we so desperately require.

“Bad mouthing organizations like the Wildlife Foundation, Sierra Club etc isn't a good idea either as these are recognizable organizations whom people respect and trust.”
Many organizations do not deserve popular respect or trust. The fact that they do or are “recognizable” should not gain them immunity from exposure for corruption or stupidity. They are not the Santa Claus who must not be revealed as fake so that little children can revel in their innocence and credulity. Thinking adults in a democracy need to know the naked truth behind the environmental NGOs. These pied pipers must not be allowed to lead us along a path of denial, ignorance and ruin. To many the Ku Klux Klan was respectable and trustworthy, as was the National Socialist Party that won a German election in the early thirties. Many politicians have enjoyed respectability and trust before their disgrace. Do these organizations and leaders get a free pass at fraud and misrepresentation because their followers might be traumatized by the truth? Mainstream environment NGOs are watchdogs on the corporate take, trained not to bark at the environmental threats posed by overpopulation and over-immigration, and intellectually hamstrung by political correctness. They must be discredited and dismissed from active duty.

“…you have to approach it in a slightly more toned-down approach….A gentle push is sometimes more effective than an all out battle.”Sometimes it is, and more often it is not. As neo-Malthusians we are firefighters who see that your roof is on fire while you are calmly eating your dinner oblivious to the danger. Would you have us gently tap at your door and whisper a gentle suggestion that perhaps, maybe, you could, at some future point, consider the wisdom of our recommendation that you GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE NOW! ??? And that, BTW, your smoke alarms---the Sierra Club, the WWF, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace and Nature Conservancy---AREN’T WORKING! That your money would be better spent on monitors and clarions like us?

Tim Murray,
Just a blogger with a title

February 24/09 © copyright

1 comment:

Rick Shea said...

Sarah M. comments “…you have to approach it in a slightly more toned-down approach….A gentle push is sometimes more effective than an all out battle.”

Here's my gentle push for her comment: bullshit! We are in a war, and the other side has no interest in responding to gentle pushes.