May 21, 2007

Macho men against immigrants and against the environment

Stuart H. Hurlbert, eminent ecologist at San Diego State University, writes against immigrants in the official blog of the Ecological Society of America (ESA). He doesn't want immigrants because he thinks they destroy the environment. According to Hurlbert, "the most environmentally disastrous legislation" of the last forty years in the U.S. was "the 1965 immigration legislation that opened the floodgates." He applauds the Republicans for opposing in 2006 a "horrendous bill" that would have allowed for more immigration ("You must take your friends where you find them!").

Hurlbert wants ecologists to join him in his fight:
Ecologist, heal thyself!

There is plenty of intellectual and ethical back-up for taking a firm stand against any immigration legislation that will increase the rate of U.S. population growth and for taking firm stands in favor of legislation and policies that will lead to U.S. population stabilization as soon as feasible.

ESA [whose members have so far behaved as "microcojónicos"] would be taking the side of many of the greats of the past.
Hurlbert doesn't tell us the names of those "greats of the past" that had the big "cojones" to fight immigrants.

My opinion is that we will be wealthier and enjoy a better environment if we let everyone in.

6 comments:

  1. Marcelino,

    You distort my words in many ways, but that is a common tactic of those who support open borders. Lacking rational arguments in favor of their own position, they resort to ad hominen attacks and name-calling.

    High human population density "destroys the environment", whether that is a consequence of excessive production of babies or excessive immigration levels.

    To be for U.S. population stabilization is no more an "anti-immigrant" position than it is an "anti-baby" one.

    I did in fact name two of those "greats of the past" - Gaylord Nelson and Garrett Hardin. Perhaps you've never heard of them.

    You at least can take some comfort in the fact that your "let everyone in" recommendation is the one receiving de facto support from ESA. This is by virtue of it taking a "no opinion" stance on the issue, giving free rein to the venality of powerful special interests who are pushing for a tripling of immigration rates and doubling of the U.S. population growth rate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stuart, thank you for your comment.

    If the purpose of legislation were to preserve a pristine environment then it should perhaps aim at eliminating humans altogether - e.g. through anti-baby and anti-immigrant measures. I think, however, that the purpose of legislation should be to improve human well-being, including human enjoyment of the environment. I unreservedly support open borders because they would improve human well-being.

    I have called you two names - eminent ecologist and macho man. The latter refers to your use of the word "microcojónicos." Having never heard of Gaylord Nelson I am relieved to learn that he was just a local U.S. politician (I am from Spain). I do know Hardin and you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marcelino,

    I presume that you are a citizen of Spain. If so, that gives you certain legal rights and responsibilities in your city and province, in Spain, and in the European Union.

    Thus, if you "unreservedly support open borders because they would improve human well-being," then you presumably are taking ACTION to halt enforcement of Spanish and European Union laws and policies that restrict immigration from Northern Africa, Russia, China, and most of the rest of the world."

    Working with the Red Brigades might be inadvisable professionally, but at least you are writing letters to relevant legislators, newspapers, professional societies, etc.?

    If not, perhaps you ony mean that it would be nice if the world only had a human population that was compatible with a high standard of living for almost everyone and long term environmental stability, e.g. perhaps 2 billion people. In that situation, excess population growth in one part of the planet would not be likely to threaten other parts of the planet. If this is your meaning, then I agree with you.

    If it is not your meaning, then your position is unclear to me.

    Sen. Gaylord was not "just a local U.S. politician", he was a national politician of considerable national and international fame. And the Earth Day he founded is celebrated in cities throughout Spain!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stuart,

    I am not fond of sending letters to politicians, etc, and my effort would have no or negligible effect on public policy. Expressing my views here in my blog and when I am hanging out with my friends is also politically useless but I happen to enjoy it. So, I plan to keep doing the latter and not the former.

    I support opening the borders of my town, province and country to foreign goods, services and people. I support doing so unilaterally, but if other countries do the same then the better for all of us. I despise the anti-immigrant and xenophobic policies of Spain and the European Union.

    It seems that the human population will stabilize quite soon, reproduction and immigration policies notwithstanding. And I think that when such thing happens - at maybe 10 billion people - the standard of living, including the overall quality of the environment, will be much higher than it is now, just as it is much higher now than it was a hundred years ago.

    Freedom to move to another country, and individual freedom in general, would help to improve our standard of living faster.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have a thing to add for macho men.
    (please excuse my English, as I am a French speaker):

    If you won’t share the world, just get OUT
    If you won’t share the world with women, do not forget that we ARE the world.
    Never forget that if the world could carry on without you, without us, no more human being.
    We ARE the world; we are the future

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have a thing to add for macho men.
    (please excuse my English, as I am a French speaker):

    If you won’t share the world, just get OUT
    If you won’t share the world with women, do not forget that we ARE the world.
    Never forget that if the world could carry on without you, without us, no more human being.
    We ARE the world; we are the future

    ReplyDelete