Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

I never cease to be amazed that many weren't taught about Thomas Malthus in high school and/or college. His theories were given a special treatment in the schools I attended due to the significance of the impact they had on economic theories near the end of the 18th century and the impact they continued to have throughout the 20th century and continue to have even to this day.

I am also a bit mystified by the lack of recognition that his theories have greatly impacted the way we all think and act when it comes to survival. The influence that Malthus' theory has exerted in the fields of economics and sociology (particularly in justifying population control) isn't in question. In fact, Malthus' theories are as popular in economics circles as Isaac Newton's laws of motion are popular in physics circles.

The reason I bring this up is because it is an area that is extremely important.

Today we know that Newton's Laws of Motion are fundamentally sound and they are extremely useful to us. We also know that those laws "break down" as a "body of mass" approaches the speed of light, thanks to Albert Einstein's introduction of Special Relativity into the field of Physics.

So too, the principles in Malthus' theories appeared sound in 1798 when they were written, but after the extreme progress in the century following the Industrial Revolution we find that these "principles" also begin to "break down" as we approach an age where the socio-political-economic-industrial-agricultural world is traveling near the "speed of light" (to borrow the metaphor from Physics).

So, the point is this: That Malthus' theories shaped our world is not in question anymore than it is in question whether or not Newton's Laws of Motion have shaped our world. Both have done so to a degree that is both profound and subtle. Both have created the paradigm within which we all live.

When we couple Malthusian theory with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" concept, we observe a truly insidious world; a world in which only a MAD MAX type of character would thrive.

Once we understand that this "Malthusian/Darwinian" paradigm limits our ability to truly support the "human race" because of its inappropriately "catastrophic" view of population growth, we begin to move away from war and away from all things that are war-like, including the creation of offensive weapons.

Thomas Malthus' -- An Essay on the Principle of Population (written in 1798), says the following on page 5:

"...I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

But, what happens when agricultural technology is improved to the point where food production becomes "geometrically increas-able" and not just arithmetically? And what happens when education and birth control techniques are developed to a degree so that population growth can be self-controlled by the individual without war (read:genocide)?

Well, those two items have changed dramatically since 1798, but "we" as an Anglo-based culture have failed to recognize the change as a whole. Those in the highest levels of wealth and power have no reason to recognize the change--or so they think. The promotion of the "there's not enough to go around" myth serves the purpose of maintaining socio-economic inequality to the benefit of the "haves" and to the detriment of the "have-nots".

The rest of us have a moral obligation--to ourselves, to our children, to their children, and to our fellow men--to recognize this change so that we can embrace a new paradigm and shift away from the old. Not only will it be a more accurate world view as to what has evolved, but it will also be a much more pleasing world in which to live.

[Jack White]

I never cease to be amazed that many weren't taught about Thomas Malthus in high school and/or college. His theories were given a special treatment in the schools I attended due to the significance of the impact they had on economic theories near the end of the 18th century and the impact they continued to have throughout the 20th century and continue to have even to this day.

I am also a bit mystified by the lack of recognition that his theories have greatly impacted the way we all think and act when it comes to survival. The influence that Malthus' theory has exerted in the fields of economics and sociology (particularly in justifying population control) isn't in question. In fact, Malthus' theories are as popular in economics circles as Isaac Newton's laws of motion are popular in physics circles.

The reason I bring this up is because it is an area that is extremely important.

Today we know that Newton's Laws of Motion are fundamentally sound and they are extremely useful to us. We also know that those laws "break down" as a "body of mass" approaches the speed of light, thanks to Albert Einstein's introduction of Special Relativity into the field of Physics.

So too, the principles in Malthus' theories appeared sound in 1798 when they were written, but after the extreme progress in the century following the Industrial Revolution we find that these "principles" also begin to "break down" as we approach an age where the socio-political-economic-industrial-agricultural world is traveling near the "speed of light" (to borrow the metaphor from Physics).

So, the point is this: That Malthus' theories shaped our world is not in question anymore than it is in question whether or not Newton's Laws of Motion have shaped our world. Both have done so to a degree that is both profound and subtle. Both have created the paradigm within which we all live.

When we couple Malthusian theory with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" concept, we observe a truly insidious world; a world in which only a MAD MAX type of character would thrive.

Once we understand that this "Malthusian/Darwinian" paradigm limits our ability to truly support the "human race" because of its inappropriately "catastrophic" view of population growth, we begin to move away from war and away from all things that are war-like, including the creation of offensive weapons.

Thomas Malthus' -- An Essay on the Principle of Population (written in 1798), says the following on page 5:

"...I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

But, what happens when agricultural technology is improved to the point where food production becomes "geometrically increas-able" and not just arithmetically? And what happens when education and birth control techniques are developed to a degree so that population growth can be self-controlled by the individual without war (read:genocide)?

Well, those two items have changed dramatically since 1798, but "we" as an Anglo-based culture have failed to recognize the change as a whole. Those in the highest levels of wealth and power have no reason to recognize the change--or so they think. The promotion of the "there's not enough to go around" myth serves the purpose of maintaining socio-economic inequality to the benefit of the "haves" and to the detriment of the "have-nots".

The rest of us have a moral obligation--to ourselves, to our children, to their children, and to our fellow men--to recognize this change so that we can embrace a new paradigm and shift away from the old. Not only will it be a more accurate world view as to what has evolved, but it will also be a much more pleasing world in which to live.

Absolutely, Monk!

Darwinism and Malthusism are 19th century false theories.

So are Communism and what today is called "Capitalism" (but is
really a form of Monopolism (rich get richer, poor get poorer).

Yet academics embrace all of these to various degrees.

Darwin's theory that all life forms were created by "random mutations"
should be rejected by every thinking person.

The ideas of Malthus lead to eugenics, ethnic cleansing, wars, and many
other bad practices.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Jack!

I was talking with my daughter on the phone a few days ago and was shocked by the lack of attention that was given to Malthus while she was in college. She's a very bright girl with a good memory, yet she couldn't recall Malthus at all! I suspect the reason was due to "lack of coverage" and lack of proper emphasis on the part of the institution.

[Jack White]

Thanks Jack!

I was talking with my daughter on the phone a few days ago and was shocked by the lack of attention that was given to Malthus while she was in college. She's a very bright girl with a good memory, yet she couldn't recall Malthus at all! I suspect the reason was due to "lack of coverage" and lack of proper emphasis on the part of the institution.

I never heard of Malthus in college. But when I started studying
Skull and Bones and Bushes, I learned of Malthus theories of Eugenics,
killing off unworthies (non-white, non-"Christian"). S&B itself is based
on DEATH to the unworthies.

Malthus' ideas of a limit to population size because of lack of space to
grow is largely bunk. If you have ever flown coast to coast, you note
that more than 99 percent of land is unoccupied. REASONABLE population
growth is possible if economic and natural resources are used wisely and
energy becomes less petroleum oriented. I filled my gas tank today
and for the first time ever it cost me $75. Three weeks ago it was $66.
A year ago it was $45. Several years ago it was $24 (same car). That
is what is killing us...not theories.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Great observations, Jack. Thanks for the reminders--

[Jan Klimkowski]

Greg - more here:

The Dark History of Population Control

NSSM 200

Exposed: FAIR founder's 20 years links to Pioneer Fund, racists and eugenicists

The Human Laboratory

[Albert Doyle]

I think it is seriously erroneous to say "I flew coast to coast and 99% of land is unoccupied". Earth is in a resource depletion and species extinction phase right now from the population we currently have. CIA says water sources will run-out and become the reason for major conflicts. I think we would need 2.5 Earth's to sustain the present population and its current demands.

[Mark Stapleton]

I think it is seriously erroneous to say "I flew coast to coast and 99% of land is unoccupied". Earth is in a resource depletion and species extinction phase right now from the population we currently have. CIA says water sources will run-out and become the reason for major conflicts. I think we would need 2.5 Earth's to sustain the present population and its current demands.

I agree.

I don't really understand the point the author of this thread is trying to make but its clear to me that human population growth is the source of most the problems we face today.

It's the economic paradigm of endless growth that must change if we are to survive as a species.

We need this planet more than it needs us.

[Ed Jewett]

Euthanasia Coaster

July 1st, 2011
Via: Science Gallery:

http://www.sciencegallery.com/humanplus/...ia-coaster

Euthanasia Coaster is a hypothetical euthanasia machine in the form of a roller coaster, engineered to humanelywith elegance and euphoriatake the life of a human being. Riding the coaster's track, the rider is subjected to a series of intensive motion elements that induce various unique experiences: from euphoria to thrill, and from tunnel vision to loss of consciousness and eventually death.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=23300


Text continued from original source:

Thanks to the marriage of the advanced cross-disciplinary research in aerospace medicine, mechanical engineering, material technologies and of course gravity, the fatal journey is made pleasing, elegant and meaningful. Celebrating the limits of the human body but also the liberation from the horizontal life, this kinetic sculpture' is in fact the ultimate roller coaster. John Allen, former president of the famed Philadelphia Toboggan Company, once said that "the ultimate roller coaster is built when you send out twenty-four people and they all come back dead. This could be done, you know."

ABOUT THE ARTIST
Julijonas Urbonas is a designer, artist, writer, engineer and PhD student in Design Interactions at the Royal College of Art, London. His work has been exhibited internationally and received many awards, including the Award of Distinction in Interactive Art, Prix Ars Electronica 2010, one the most prestigious awards in media arts. Julijonas lives and works in London and Vilnius.





Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSEXmhldX...r_embedded

[Greg Burnham]

I think it is seriously erroneous to say "I flew coast to coast and 99% of land is unoccupied". Earth is in a resource depletion and species extinction phase right now from the population we currently have. CIA says water sources will run-out and become the reason for major conflicts. I think we would need 2.5 Earth's to sustain the present population and its current demands.

I agree.

I don't really understand the point the author of this thread is trying to make but its clear to me that human population growth is the source of most the problems we face today.

It's the economic paradigm of endless growth that must change if we are to survive as a species.

We need this planet more than it needs us.

Without restating everything I already wrote, my point is this: It is necessary to promote war when the Malthusian Paradigm is coupled with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" Paradigm. When both are embraced without the application of critical thinking; embraced even without asking the simple question: "What if they're not entirely correct"? --Then, the future appears extremely dismal, indeed. However, what if the biggest problem we face today is not population growth? What if a bigger problem is ignorance? What if ignorance (about voluntary control of population growth) is a major contributing factor to over population? What if ignorance (as to how crop production might be multiplied many times over in 3rd world countries) is a huge factor in starvation numbers globally? What if ignorance is at the heart of many of the fears people feel even here in America? What if that ignorance, and thus the accompanying fear, starvation, suffering and misery were all eradicated by education?

In my view, war exists due to power grabbing. It is accomplished by gaining support from those who finance it, namely, tax payers. Tax payers are convinced to finance war out of fear. The power mongers promote fear in order to serve this agenda. The type of fear being promoted, however, is far out dated, if not totally obsolete--because we actually have the means through education to solve much of the population growth concerns that almost all of us have grown up "educated" with which to be concerned.

What if there really is (or through education, the potential exists in the immediate future for there to be) "enough to go around" for everyone? What if?

I believe that through education the "lack of enough sustainable resources to go around" argument falls on its face.

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is requirednot because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." --JFK


.