Comments on: We have a population policy, does anyone else?

By: anarkaytie

anarkaytie — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:40 +0000

No rush, Asher …
Maybe after tonite? I would discuss this with you if you’re amenable

By: Asher

Asher — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:59:37 +0000

I will post a proper reply to the replies to me, sorry I haven’t done yet but have barely been home since my initial response to this (my thoughts haven’t changed, incidentally). Will try to do this tomorrow

By: eredwen

eredwen — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:50:58 +0000

Dan (not a eugenicist )

I quote “The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary” 1993 (the big fat two volume version):
“eugenics: The science of dealing with factors that influence the heredity qualities of a race esp. by modifying characteristics of fertility of different characteristics of people.”

Nazi Party 1930s- 40s: YES
Green Party of Aotearoa NZ 2008: NO

PLEASE spend a little more time actually reading what is written before commenting.

By: kjuv

kjuv — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:39:37 +0000

Dan . Please don’t parade your simplistic and emotive notion of eugenics. Yes, eugenics as reportedly practised by the Nazis is totally unacceptable and in any case against the tenets of biodiversity.
The more general idea, namely, that it is some form of (albeit socially beneficial) intervention into human reproduction, is still not in line with the Green Party’s population policy as far as I can asertain.
There is problem with labelling the Greens in particular,and the environmental movement in general, as ‘anti-human’. For surely humans are part of the environment? And isn;t this the problem?: namely that we need to factor in all the non-human portion of the environment in our analysis as well as the human. This is the plea of eco-economics to the classical economists, for example.

By: Dan (not a eugenicist)

Dan (not a eugenicist) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:35:29 +0000

toad, I did present arguments. Namely that the Greens should be ashamed of themselves for introducing eugenics-based policies. Population limitation is eugenics. Period.

Also I presented to fact that “peak oil” and “climate change” are UNPROVEN THEORIES.

The green movement has really turned a corner in the past 2 years and in my opinion you are anti-human if you follow these kinds of ideas.

Carbon is plant food and history has shown that life on earth thrives in a CO2-rich environment.

The greens in this country are so under-educated that they think they are saving the planet by scaring people into believing the unproven theories like peak oil, or that “climate change” is a danger to life on earth.

IDIOTS

By: anarkaytie

anarkaytie — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:17:55 +0000

Compassion for others and a genuine interest in Social Justice have always been cornerstones of Green policy development.

TV3 have misrepresented this policy unfairly, but then media bias is old news, especially in mainstream media.

Asher:
The full policy is not about exclusion, or limitation, or eugenicist thinking!

After 5 years of supporting Ahmed Zauoi, I don’t think green credentials for social justice are tied to any particular ethnicity, creed or nationality; as Green opposition to the TSA, in all it’s varied amendments and drafts along the way, would have pre-figured, if you’d thought about it carefully….

By: Realist

Realist — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:41:58 +0000

Large third world populations are being decimated by local warfare.while there is a steady flow of refugees and illegal immigrants into affluent countries. Deserts are spreading here and there, forests are being illegally felled at an alarming pace, huge recources are being spent on USA’s attempts to retain access to the remnants of large oil-fields, so to deny that Global warming is proceeding apace, could well be suicidal. Sure: we of our generation will get by in comparative comfort, I hope, but what are our grandchildren going to think of us when the world’s climatic extremes have become increasingly destructive, and natural resources much more depleted? Perhaps Greens are being unduely alarmist, but it is surely preferable to just hoping that there is nothing going wrong, so keeping up the open slather– she’ll be right! Population increase requires essentially a moderate standard of living to enable its curtailment, by more and better education etc. Continuing wars and restrictive trade practices deprives us of resources to enable elevation of living standards where badly needed.

By: kjuv

kjuv — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:32:12 +0000

As I said in my prevoius comment, the policy is politically (or maybe just, ‘plain’) brave. Hence I am not surprised at the negative response. However , the policy is consistent with all the other environmental and even social policies of the Greens. It faces up to the two geatest problems for this planet’s overall wellbeing: namely too many people consuming too much.
I guess many believe that this country is underpopulated – whatever that means. The reality is we are close to carrying capacity whereas, frighteningly, most of the rest of the world is (sometimes) grossly overpopulated especially if it were to enjoy anything like our standard of living.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:08:25 +0000

leave comments to tell them how you feel about their misreporting of this story here: http://www.3news.co.nz/Default.aspx?TabId=419&articleID=76238&ce2663=1

By: Nigel

Nigel — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:00:54 +0000

When I saw the item on 3 news reporting on the launch of the Greens population and immigration policies I was shocked. As reported by TV3 the Greens position on immigration and population control are very much “extreme-fringe” thought, i.e. going against the hard work of many people to counter the marginalisation of the Greens and give them mainstream credibility; AKA political suicide.

Before summoning an angry mob to demand someone’s head on a stick I checked the policy online.

I am now shocked at how TV3 is misreporting and spinning this story to portray the Greens to marginalise them as an “extreme-fringe”. Numerous examples in this piece include:

1. There is no mention of a “population cap”; The Green Party “recognises that a sustainable population level for New Zealand would not be “final and fixed” but flexible.”

Reported as: “But the party’s population policy was attached to it too and it warns the world’s population is growing too fast and New Zealand’s population should be capped at a maximum of 5.7 million.”

2.There is no mention in the Greens policy of any mechanism to restrict or limit how many children couples have, the Greens policy only states: “Ensure that potential and existing parents have full and free access to countrywide Family Planning services so that informed decisions about the number and spacing of children can be made at the appropriate level, by the parents concerned”

Reported by TV3 as: “The Greens want to limit the number of people living in New Zealand to 5.7 million”, and directly quoting Hamish Campbell “a policy limiting the number of children.”

3. The figure 5.7million has been plucked out of context, it is “an indicative upper limit figure only” to be treated “with caution”, of the “maximum population that NZ can sustain”.

Reported as above: “should be capped at a maximum of 5.7 million.”

4. The Greens immigration policy is about increasing NZ’s refugee quota from 750 to 1000 per year to allow for climate-change immigrants/refugees primarily from the pacific, and that we should retain capacity for returning kiwis.

TV3 reported: “They are suggesting Kiwis should think twice about having children of their own but keep the door open to immigrants and refugees.”

Nasty biased attack by TV3, perhaps someone pulling their strings feels threatened by the Greens.

Access policies through the summaries: http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/immigration
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/population