Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Jan Klimkowski]

Greg - another fine post.

Delve deep into the the European and American population control organisations of the C20th and you always find the same secret philosophical core: EUGENICS.

European royals are often involved in such movements. And yet European royal familes are almost always vast, and they spread their seed still further through numerous illegitimate offspring. (Check out the Prince of Monaco's latest escapades.)

Their overt claim is: we must control population to save the planet.

Their covert belief is: our blood is superior to yours.

[Keith Millea]

If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...?

I think Timothy Leary was pondering these same ideas,and,eventually came to the conclusion that Space Migration would be a good "other choice". :bolt:

[Greg Burnham]

If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...?

I think Timothy Leary was pondering these same ideas,and,eventually came to the conclusion that Space Migration would be a good "other choice". :bolt:

Sorry Keith,

You lost me on that one. I'm uncertain as to the probability of long range space travel--from or to--planet Earth. I also tend to be skeptical about the opinions of a known--and self-proclaimed--LSD user.

Use of psychedelics does not automatically disqualify Leary's claims, but your having attempted to associate my statements with his claims is inappropriate. They are not related in the least.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg - another fine post.

Delve deep into the the European and American population control organisations of the C20th and you always find the same secret philosophical core: EUGENICS.

European royals are often involved in such movements. And yet European royal familes are almost always vast, and they spread their seed still further through numerous illegitimate offspring. (Check out the Prince of Monaco's latest escapades.)

Their overt claim is: we must control population to save the planet.

Their covert belief is: our blood is superior to yours.

Very astute observations, Jan, IMO. Is it not amazing to note that: "If there is indeed enough to go around..." then the question of "whose blood is better than whose...?" is of no consequence! But, if there is an insufficient supply of resources to go around, then it is a foregone conclusion that "some will have to do without" -- right? And who will those unfortunate souls be, pray tell? "They will NOT BE US"--is the answer!

I find that to be a grossly inadequate answer and a morally apathetic stance to embrace.

But, what if there is enough to go around? What if?

[Keith Millea]

Sorry Keith,

You lost me on that one. I'm uncertain as to the probability of long range space travel--from or to--planet Earth. I also tend to be skeptical about the opinions of a known--and self-proclaimed--LSD user.

Use of psychedelics does not automatically disqualify Leary's claims, but your having attempted to associate my statements with his claims is inappropriate. They are not related in the least.

Greg,

I'm sorry if I lost you.It's a holiday,and my post was made in a lighthearted manner.I can understand your sensitivities,and will be more watchful of what I say in your posts.

Keith

[Magda Hassan]

If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...?

I think Timothy Leary was pondering these same ideas,and,eventually came to the conclusion that Space Migration would be a good "other choice". :bolt:

I know you were jesting Keith but I think Leary was genuine. He was really keen on all that space travel stuff in his later years. I find it a bit hard to comprehend as I quite like my home and don't see the attraction of venturing off into a vacuum looking for some where else to start all over again and real space travel seems such a let down after all that inner space travel. But as I some times mutter to myself "If they can send one man to the moon why can't they send them all?" I can think of a few I would volunteer for a one way rocket trip.

Sorry Greg, to divert the thread. I actually think there is enough resources for the planets as it stands. It is a matter of distribution on a matter of need. Education, particularly of women, results in smaller familes. But i don't see the resources going into education. It seems to be that the new economy is based on war production with regular human sacrifices.

[Mark Stapleton]

Call it idealism if you like, Mark. Feel free to exaggerate my position making it easier to defeat. But, I'm still wondering at the fact that this Malthusianistic Paradigm has been so deeply ingrained as to make it literally A FACT of life that most are unwilling to even question its validity.

If Malthus was right (which is the position you seem to have accepted) then one ends up in the world as we now know; a world of power mongers and peasants; a world in which GLOBAL solutions are suggested by many who believe that the problems are insurmountable; a world constantly engaged in several wars; a world full of conflict.

However, if Malthus was wrong (which is the position I accept) then one can envision possibilities beyond those to which we would otherwise be bound and by which we would be limited. Perhaps the overly simplistic solutions I offered as examples fail to solve the problem, but that's not the point. The point is that we are limited by the paradigms within which and from which we operate. Paradigms need to be questioned and rejected when appropriate.

So, I ask again, "Even if Malthus was right in 1798 about the world as it then existed, what if he is wrong about the world as it exists now in 2011?" After all, a whole lot has drastically changed regarding population control and food production. It is literally a different world--1798. So, I don't think my original idea is so far off the mark. And if we allow ourselves to begin by simply imagining a non-Malthusian solution may exist, we then at least have a chance to find alternative solutions that are realistic. However, if we remain married to a paradigm that is inadequate to the evidence, then we imprison our souls and shackle our minds.

I'm not even interested in whether Malthus was right or wrong.

I'm simply making the observation that human population is expanding at an unsustainable rate. It has more than doubled just in my lifetime. Some view a continuously expanding human population--matched by ingenious technological advances in medicine and food production--as some kind of dreamy utopian ideal. Advocates of this position seem to think we are the only life form on this planet. I see it as a disaster for life on the planet because it necessitates the destruction of habitat for other species.

One only has to look at the current extinction rates for other species, coupled with environmental degradation caused by overpopulation to realise that something is seriously wrong here.

I don't advocate any form of human population control, eugenics, soylent green or any other contrived restraints on population growth.

I just make the observation that, although humans are part of the carbon cycle of life that exists on this planet, we are still not really natural. We don't exist in harmony with nature, we destroy nature. Unlike other species, we don't appear to serve a useful role.

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry Keith,

You lost me on that one. I'm uncertain as to the probability of long range space travel--from or to--planet Earth. I also tend to be skeptical about the opinions of a known--and self-proclaimed--LSD user.

Use of psychedelics does not automatically disqualify Leary's claims, but your having attempted to associate my statements with his claims is inappropriate. They are not related in the least.

Greg,

I'm sorry if I lost you.It's a holiday,and my post was made in a lighthearted manner.I can understand your sensitivities,and will be more watchful of what I say in your posts.

Keith

No problem, Keith. I was obviously confused. Don't worry, I'm not usually so slow.

[Greg Burnham]

I'm not even interested in whether Malthus was right or wrong.

Ok. Fair enough. I now better understand why there's been a disconnect. In my view, we are subject to the parameters set by the paradigms that we hold as true. Whether or not we are aware of or acknowledge the existence of those paradigms makes no difference: we are still ruled by them.

I'm simply making the observation that human population is expanding at an unsustainable rate.

I think that statement demonstrates that you do, in fact, believe Malthus was correct, just as most everyone in the west so believes, thus your choice of the word "unsustainable" --

It has more than doubled just in my lifetime. Some view a continuously expanding human population--matched by ingenious technological advances in medicine and food production--as some kind of dreamy utopian ideal. Advocates of this position seem to think we are the only life form on this planet. I see it as a disaster for life on the planet because it necessitates the destruction of habitat for other species.

I think that there are numerous reasons that the PLANET causes certain species to become extinct and that HUMANS are only one of many contributing factors to that extinction, with few exceptions.

One only has to look at the current extinction rates for other species, coupled with environmental degradation caused by overpopulation to realise that something is seriously wrong here.

I don't advocate any form of human population control, eugenics, soylent green or any other contrived restraints on population growth.

Yet, if we don't have a plan to control population VOLUNTARILY by the individual, will we just accept this Malthusian determinism and give up? To me that's where information sharing (which I was calling education) is absolutely essential.

I just make the observation that, although humans are part of the carbon cycle of life that exists on this planet, we are still not really natural. We don't exist in harmony with nature, we destroy nature.

I couldn't disagree with you more. We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural. However, not everything we do is to our own benefit nor is it always to the benefit of other species. But, we cannot destroy nature--that is absurd. We are subservient to nature and to the planet, not the other way around.

Unlike other species, we don't appear to serve a useful role.

George Carlin once said [paraphrased]:

"For all we know planet Earth needed plastic! Don't ask me why, but maybe this planet just needed plastic for reasons beyond our comprehension and THAT'S why we're here!"

[Mark Stapleton]

I couldn't disagree with you more. We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural. However, not everything we do is to our own benefit nor is it always to the benefit of other species. But, we cannot destroy nature--that is absurd. We are subservient to nature and to the planet, not the other way around.

But we can destroy nature. We have the power to destroy the environment for almost every creature on the planet, including us. In fact, we may even have the power to blow the whole planet to smithereens. That's my point. Why do we have this power? All other life forms play a constructive role in sustaining the planet, but we don't. Our role appears to be destructive.

You say "We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural". I disagree. It doesn't necessarily follow.

Nature never grants one species the intelligence to destroy all other species. Nature has given all other species the intelligence to survive within their own environment, nothing more.

Why has nature given us alone the intelligence to do this?

It doesn't seem natural to me.