Nick Matzke's Dystopia
by chunkdzMatzke joins the ranks of world famous population control alarmist nut jobs like Paul "England will not exist in the year 2000" Ehrlich and Al "ice caps will disappear by 2014" Gore.
As coauthor of a Nature review article entitled “Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere” Matzke engages in copious group fear mongering in advance of the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio.
So what are the scary predictions endorsed by Matzke?
…a world dominated by cows and corn fields
…humans…fighting each other for ever-diminishing nonrenewable resources
…rising temperatures and sea levels…
…tropical insects and diseases…
…ecosystems consisting mostly of human-tolerant, easily-dispersable weeds
…a world without any wildness left.
Well, ok, Matzke is not as scary as Paul "coastlines will be evacuated because of dead fish" Ehrlich and IPCC Chief "Himalayas will melt" Pauchari. In fact, Matzke's dystopia of plentiful beef, corn, milk, warm climates and balmy tropical oceans sounds rather pleasant to this skeptic. But obviously, he considers this a dire catastrophe in the making.
So I'll make a prediction of my own. Matzke will offer a progressive solution to the problem which will include reducing consumption, and population control. Hey look! I was right!
"If humans decide to take appropriate action – conserve natural ecosystems, engage in sustainable agriculture and energy production, flatten out population growth and resource consumption, and halt global warming – there is hope that the state shift could be avoided. It’s up to us."
Well, even if the predictions of alarmist nut jobs rarely ever come true, it's comforting to know that the alarmists themselves are completely predictable.
June 13th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Chunk (thinking to himself): "Hmmm, gotta liven this place up after such a long hiatus. Let's see, how do I create a spark?…I know! When in doubt, poke Matzke in the ribs. That's always good for a few hostile comments. We'll get everybody's blood boiling in no time!"
Comment by Bilbo — June 13, 2012 @ 3:52 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
"we have ten years to save the world's oceans"
-Ted Danson, 1988
Comment by chunkdz — June 13, 2012 @ 5:21 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
San Jose Mercury News, 1989.
Comment by chunkdz — June 13, 2012 @ 5:33 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
By 2010 the number of environmental refugees could grow to 50 million, the UNU-EHS predicts. According to other estimates, there could be as many as 150 million by 2050.
National Geographic News, 2005
Comment by chunkdz — June 13, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
OK, just in case Jesus doesn't come back until after we overpopulate the Earth, how many human beings is too many? And can humans create too much CO2? And how much CO2 is too much?
Comment by Bilbo — June 13, 2012 @ 8:03 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Including the Kardashians?
Comment by chunkdz — June 13, 2012 @ 8:18 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
The only thing I watch on TV are DVDs, Chunk, so I've missed the whole Kardashian thing. Should I be sorry?
Comment by Bilbo — June 13, 2012 @ 9:07 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I'm sure you can get their show on DVD too. I'll let you be the judge.
Is the world too populated? Sometimes when I commute I think so. Of course that is nothing but my own selfishness talking. Sort of like when Al Gore wishes women would stop having so many babies so he can fly guilt free in his private jet back and forth between his mansions.
Do you know how many humans are too many, Bilbo? What should we do with all the excess homo sapiens?
Comment by chunkdz — June 13, 2012 @ 9:24 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
I'm watching past seasons of "The Big Bang Theory" right now. Other than for the sake of self-flagellation, is there any other reason why I should watch the Kardashians?
I don't know how many humans is too many. Should we try to figure it out before it happens and maybe try to find humane ways to do something about it or just wait until it happens and then decide it's too many?
Comment by Bilbo — June 13, 2012 @ 10:39 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
I think you should watch 3 hrs/day of Glenn Beck show instead.
Of course you don't. Nobody does. You and I just want to keep observing and learning but the Matzkes, Gores and Ehrlichs of the world want to implement hysterical authoritarian mandates now, and figure out the truth later.
Don't believe me? I've got a whole bunch of other failed hysterical predictions I can show you. Polar bears – extinct by 2050? Hurricanes more powerful and numerous than ever? Island inhabitants fleeing the rising oceans?
It's hard to believe intuitively that a smart guy like Matzke would buy into such obvious in-your-face-silliness – but as I keep reminding everyone… these are not rational people we are dealing with.
Comment by chunkdz — June 13, 2012 @ 10:56 pm
June 13th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Bilbo wrote:
It is too many now. Besides, humaneness is overrated.
You are no longer outraged by the events of September 11, 2001, I gather – except to criticize them for being too inefficient. With which I agree, of course. War is much more efficient. Governmentally forced starvation is more efficient still.
Comment by Marquis de AOFM — June 13, 2012 @ 11:23 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Hi Marquis,
What's the "AOFM" for? My thoughts about 9/11 haven't changed. Humane ways to curtail growth of population: No more additional tax exemptions after two children? Raise standard of living for people, so that they don't need to reproduce more children just to support them?
Me (thinking to myself): "Hmmm…Glenn Beck?…The Kardashians?…or pins and needles in my eyes?….Where's that sewing basket?"
Comment by Bilbo — June 14, 2012 @ 11:06 am
June 14th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Oh, China's already tried all that. Now instead of raising children they eat them in powdered form as a nutritional supplement.
Such is population control. It always starts with Bilbos and Matzkes pleading "pretty please let us control your reproductive habits", and it always ends with powdered babies.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 1:06 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Chunkdz did you vote for Gingrich? He would have gotten us a moon colony.
Comment by Guts — June 14, 2012 @ 2:30 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
He was just looking for a place to put all his ex wives.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 2:40 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Bilbo wrote:
That would be me, AngryOldFatMan.
The Marquis is an alter-ego I use to write things I don't actually believe, which avoids a lot of confusion and accusations.
His philosophy is loosely based on the one expressed by the Marquis de Sade, who boiled down naturalism to its most fundamental forms and lived according to its logical, though disgusting and perverted, conclusions.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 14, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Bilbo wrote:
They must have. Otherwise you would not align with the masters of 9/11 in calling for population control.
Did these masters not engineer 9/11? Why did they do so? To obtain more power over the populace and to start a war, of course. And what does war do? It kills large numbers of people. To date, the body count is heavily Middle-Eastern, not so much American. But the Americans that have died were mostly non-white, predominantly ill-educated dullards.
All of these dead are undesirables, unlike the two global wars in the 20th Century. So limited war is a very good (if expensive) way to cull the herd, to clean the muck out of the gene pool.
The manufactured terrorist crisis that accompanies this limited war causes the American populace to willingly place themselves under the bootheel of the masters. Why would these masters want this control? Sure, purposeless domination can be fun for awhile, but it gets old… trust me on this.
So they are doing this for a purpose.
The purpose is to limit the population size of the "winning" side of the limited war. Of the "desirables", there are still those less desirable than others. Lower population also means easier governance and less chance of successful rebellion.
And, mon ami, think of how difficult it would be for potential rebels when you've already thoroughly convinced the populace that they need culling?
This is why your current stance surprises me. You are convinced that others are sheep, yet you have unsheared wool over your eyes.
Comment by Marquis de AOFM — June 14, 2012 @ 5:19 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Hi AOF,
I'll avoid talking about 9/11 at TT. And I'll avoid talking to the "Marquis." If you really want to discuss it, you can visit my blog. My question to Chunk, that he never answered was whether we should try to figure out ahead of time how many humans would be too many, or should we just wait until it happens. What do you think?
Comment by Bilbo — June 14, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I too have noticed Bilbo's change of heart.
He believes that the Masters of Government engineered the murder of thousands, yet he passionately argues that the Masters should be given massive funding, more centralized power, and increased regulatory control over the peasants.
One can only conclude that he would like to see the murderous powers commit more of the same treacherous tyranny.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 5:46 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Populations of organisms tend to self-regulate so I'm not particularly worried. To quote zoologist Michael C. Healy:
"Animal populations fluctuate in numbers, but the fluctuations occur within certain definite limits. That is to say, whole populations do not go on increasing indefinitely, and they seldom become extinct."
Why don't you just enjoy life, don't be wasteful, and ignore the fear mongers?
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 5:56 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Thanks for answering my question, Chunk. I wasn't particularly worried about over-population to begin with, though it's been on the back of my mind since ZPG was made popular back in the late 60s. I hope Healy is right.
I was reading a couple of articles on China's population problem. It began with a large drop-off in infant mortality (from the time that Mao came to power) combined with Mao's apparent encouragement of large families.
Contrary to what you said, China's attempt to control population growth didn't start with just tax policies. They pretty much did the whole shabang at one time.
If you really want me to talk about 9/11 here, feel free to start a thread about it.
Comment by Bilbo — June 14, 2012 @ 6:16 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
And ended with fetus flakes for breakfast.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 7:36 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
9/11 is fair game as far as I am concerned. I've always thought of it as a good exercise in detecting intelligent design.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 7:37 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Bilbo wrote:
Meh, suit yourself. I personally love how flustered some folks get at the Marquis' logic, such as it is.
Sade's philosophy has been gaining ground since the 1960s, and accelerated its takeover of the zeitgeist immensely in recent years. It comes as a shock to many materialists that they can't knock down his nastiness without resorting to circular arguments, ad hominem, appeals to popularity, and other common logical fallacies.
I appreciate the offer, but you already know how I really feel about it. No need to rehash the whole thing.
Chunk has answered already, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Also, we hashed this out with Don Provan et al many months ago. I'll just copypaste what I said to velikovskys:
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 14, 2012 @ 8:51 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Also, Bilbo, see this comment in that same thread.
I think we're essentially in agreement here, but I think we disagree on methodology. Increasing government control versus decreasing government control.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 14, 2012 @ 9:28 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
From the Wiki article: "After the introduction of the one-child policy, the fertility rate in China fell from 2.63 births per woman in 1980 (already a sharp reduction from more than five births per woman in the early 1970s)"
So Velikovsky was wrong when he said the birth rate was five before the one-child policy. Now I'm wondering why the birth rate dropped from five to 2.63 before the one-child policy.
Comment by Bilbo — June 14, 2012 @ 9:45 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Okay, another article said that China had instituted a population control program in the early 70s, but it was a combination of birth control information, contraceptives, and propaganda. Still, going from 5 to 2.63 before the Draconian one-child policy doesn't seem too bad.
Comment by Bilbo — June 14, 2012 @ 9:56 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Populations are already declining in Europe and vast parts of Asia. Birth rates are well below replacement rates.
Like I said, populations tend to self regulate.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 10:01 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Wiki article on overpopulation seems to support Chunk's view:
"h. The UN Population Assessment Report of 2003 states that the world population will plateau by 2050 and will remain that way until 2300. Dr Alex Berezow states that overpopulation is not a Western world problem and people often cite China and India as major population contributors; however he notes that with rising wealth in those countries, population will begin to slow, as population growth is strongly linked to the economic stability of a country.[15]"
Wow, they figured out that the population will remain stable from 2050 to 2300. I wonder if I can place a bet on that in Vegas for my great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren to collect on.
Comment by Bilbo — June 14, 2012 @ 10:04 pm
June 14th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Especially when you consider that during Mao's Great Leap Forward deaths outpaced births.
I wonder if maybe watching 60 million of your fellow countrymen die horribly and being afraid you might be next has an adverse effect on reproduction.
Comment by chunkdz — June 14, 2012 @ 10:06 pm
June 15th, 2012 at 7:20 am
chunkdz wrote:
Due to the bottom-up action of intelligent agents. It's strange how the same crowd that believes morality can arise spontaneously from said action believe that self-regulation of population levels cannot.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 15, 2012 @ 7:20 am
June 16th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Well put.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 16, 2012 @ 1:04 pm
June 19th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
I advocate the death penalty for fornication. That would solve a whole slew of problems!!
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 19, 2012 @ 8:04 pm
June 19th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Daniel — Touché!
I asked someone really smart once who said, "Be fruitful and multiply." I think He was maybe even smarter than all the doom-peddlars who have to keep revising their predictions every time the end of the world gets postponed. What do you think?
Comment by DL — June 19, 2012 @ 8:38 pm
June 20th, 2012 at 9:58 am
That's pretty harsh. Even the Torah Law didn't prescribe that.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 20, 2012 @ 9:58 am
June 20th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Daniel Smith wrote:
Comment by Marquis de AOFM — June 20, 2012 @ 7:08 pm
June 20th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I advocate the death penalty for fornication.
It's already been administered by proxy 55 million times since 1973.
Comment by chunkdz — June 20, 2012 @ 7:19 pm
June 20th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Yeah but that's just the babies. Just think if we offed all the illegitimate parents as well!! We'd save $$TRILLIONS$$!! Plus we'd eliminate the rampant rise in single parent homes (which leads to all manner of other problems.) And, since all homosexuals are technically fornicators as well, (since Jesus says marriage can only be between a man and a woman) we'd have less of those guys (and gals) running around too!!
It's a win-win!!
We could also make divorce a capital offense – thus forcing parents to stay together and raise their little darlings just like God intended.
Hey, to all you detractors out there, I'm just offering an extreme 'religious conservative' solution ala Rick Santorum and his ilk. Get on board (or get scourged!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — June 20, 2012 @ 8:04 pm
June 21st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
And from the "we can't make this stuff up" department:
Nick Matzke is not only endorsing eco-alarmism, he's also supporting some pseudo-intellectual stay-at-home PhD who claims that Jesus never existed. That's right – not that Jesus was not the messiah, or that Jesus was never resurrected – but that he never, ever, existed.
I'm not sure exactly what happens when one attends Berkeley, but similar results can apparently be obtained by simply drilling a hole in your temple, inserting the crevice tool attachment of an Oreck vacuum, and sucking out your own prefrontal dorsolateral cortex.
Comment by chunkdz — June 21, 2012 @ 1:11 pm
June 21st, 2012 at 7:45 pm
And before Matzke shows up here and starts blustering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
And…
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 21, 2012 @ 7:45 pm
June 21st, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Whoa… in Chrome it embedded one of the videos.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 21, 2012 @ 7:46 pm
June 21st, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Wow, it showed up in IE8 too. FUNKINESS!
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 21, 2012 @ 7:48 pm
June 24th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Surely we can offer some constructive suggestions to Nick on how to improve his fear mongering.
Comment by Mung — June 24, 2012 @ 9:06 pm
June 25th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
He's doing just fine.
Comment by chunkdz — June 25, 2012 @ 12:32 pm
July 6th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Unlimited Government® is an effective means of population control. Just look at Detroit.
Comment by Justinius — July 6, 2012 @ 2:16 pm