Eugenics and Depopulation

[Michael]

I split this off from another thread about the cost of medical insurance, which led to the topic of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

[Teazer]

Sorry Michael, that's some wacky conclusions. Fine, Sanger was a eugenics nutjob. Fine she started the organization that became PP, even then mostly as a way of offering birth control options to women, but maybe there was some part of the eugenics stuff. Nowadays though? Not from anything I've seen or heard. So those rich people are donating to a particular non-profit that promotes contraception, sexual health, pregnancy etc.

the recent announcement by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's chief environmental advisor, Porritt, that the UK population must fall to 30 million within 20 years.

Which is why....
<<Despite these comments, however, government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy.>>
follows so closely in the article, because Porritt is a grade A wacko.

[Michael]

You might have to go looking to see what's going on.

[Teazer]

If Porrit is whacko, then so are Prince Phillip,....

Well that's for sure. Everyone's known that for years. But he is very quotable!!
http://listverse.com/2007/09/11/top-15-quotes-of-prince-philip/
1. China State Visit, 1986

If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed.

2. To a blind women with a guide

“Do you know they have eating dogs for the anorexic now?”

3. To an Aborigine in Australia

“Do you still throw spears at each other?”

4. To his wife, the Queen, after her coronation

“Where did you get the hat?”

5. When asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union

“The bastards murdered half my family”

6. To a Briton in Budapest

“You can’t have been here that long – you haven’t got a pot belly.”

7. To a driving instructor in Scotland

“How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?”

8. After the Dunblane shooting

“If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?”

9. To a student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea

“You managed not to get eaten, then?”

10. To Elton John after hearing Elton had sold his Gold Aston Martin

“Oh, it’s you that owns that ghastly car – we often see it when driving to Windsor Castle.”

11. On the London Traffic Debate

“The problem with London is the tourists. They cause the congestion. If we could just stop tourism, we could stop the congestion.”

12. To the President of Nigeria, dressed in traditional robes

“You look like you’re ready for bed!”

13. Unknown

“If you see a man opening a car door for a woman, it means one of two things: it’s either a new woman or a new car!”

14. On key problems facing Brazil

“Brazilians live there”

15. To the matron of a hospital in the Caribbean

“You have mosquitos. I have the Press”

[Teazer]

But we were talking about Planned Parenthood specifically, rather than 'the nutjobs in the world who happen to have power/wealth etc'

[Michael]

Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide
by Joseph Brewda Dec. 8, 1995

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

So, you advocate willy nilly over population?

I support planned parenthood and education as a viable means of population control.

As we are a non-agrarian society and more than 80% of us are urbanized, why on earth would there be a call for families that are great than a unit of 4 which basically is generational replacement.

I don't believe we should legislate to that end such as China has done (and probably necessarily so). But I do believe we should educate people about the damage of larger than generational replacement family sizes.

[Dmitri]

Michael, let's pretend for a second that all of it is true. What do you suggest we should do about this?

[Michael]

So, you advocate willy nilly over population?

I don't concede the point that there is such a thing as overpopulation. There is mismanagement and ridiculous herding of hordes of people into large cities, but there is not an overall population problem on our planet, and only in a few places, likesay Bangladesh, do you even see something approaching a population problem in a large area, again due to mismanagement by the very same people who would like to legislate 1 child policies for us.

Why on earth would there be a call for families that are great than a unit of 4 which basically is generational replacement?

Because kids are fun and some people feel like having tons of them. Really, the burden is on the depopulation folks to make a case.

I don't believe we should legislate to that end such as China has done (and probably necessarily so).

Glad that you're not in favor of legislation for something like this. What's the evidence of the necessity of China's one-child plicy? The one-child policy is a hugely corrosive element in this society, selectively enforced, and leading to a host of other problems. The fact that this policy came from a government that starved to death or executed at least 10% of its population in a short time does not speak well for what is essentially forced sterilization.

But I do believe we should educate people about the damage of larger than generational replacement family sizes.

Because I'm not in agreement with you, and I generally see such arguments within a larger context of a eugenics agenda, I ask you to say a few words on the damage you allege. I say the more the merrier, but if taken literally, and not euphemistically the way that collectivists usually mean "education", then it's fine to put forth various viewpoints and see if one or another is honestly better and well-accepted for reasons of merit in the long view.

[Harvey]

I think the Pope backing down about johnnies would be one hell of a fucking start.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

I don't concede the point that there is such a thing as overpopulation. There is mismanagement and ridiculous herding of hordes of people into large cities, but there is not an overall population problem on our planet, and only in a few places, likesay Bangladesh, do you even see something approaching a population problem in a large area, again due to mismanagement by the very same people who would like to legislate 1 child policies for us.

By having people in cities, it is their lives that become easier and it is easier on the infrastructure to deliver an increased standard of living, better health overall, better hygiene, better disease management, better pollution management, resource management etc etc. Cities are definitely a preferable situation for large populations. Your lack of concession on the matter is rendered moot by the statistical data on starvation. the fact that there are 1 billion people existing in a state of starvation, malnutrition and hunger and our collective lack of ability to manage that speaks directly to overpopulation. Also, disease, war, resource management and availability, infrastructure services and the lack of them indicates that there are more people than we are able to deal with in an egalitarian fashion as far as resource deployment and rendered services go.

Because kids are fun and some people feel like having tons of them. Really, the burden is on the depopulation folks to make a case.

The case against large families is made stronger when weighed against the ability of the family to sustain itself vs the family relying on everyone else to sustain them or living in a state of impoverishment that is detrimental to the adequate mental and physical health of the family. There are large families of starving , malnourished, uneducated etc etc all over the world. Notably in large pop countries such as China and India. IN the US you have a wonderful example of the problem with that "fun" thinking with the celebrity octo-mom who desperately wants to have a pile of kids, but can't afford them and so IS a burden on society. So now it is the taxpayer that must support her huge family so she may have fun fulfilling her desires for a large family. In her case, and many others, that is just plain old stupid.

Glad that you're not in favor of legislation for something like this. What's the evidence of the necessity of China's one-child policy? The one-child policy is a hugely corrosive element in this society, selectively enforced, and leading to a host of other problems. The fact that this policy came from a government that starved to death or executed at least 10% of its population in a short time does not speak well for what is essentially forced sterilization.

The corruption in China are the problem then and not the policy is what you are saying here. Further education and understanding is required. Also the Chinese need to get away from their patriarchal desires. Kill the baby girl and keep trying for a boy because of cultural values kind of thing.

This is ignorance rearing it's head which in turn causes the problem of too many bachelors running around who cannot get a wife because their aren't any because the people of China on a large scale do not want to have daughters. It doesn't all fall onto the government, many of the problems surrounding the issue are the people themselves and their being resistant to the required change. Much of China is in impoverishment as well.

Though the government doesn't like to say so, there are many who are hungry and many who live in very unhealthy environments and the mortality rate overall is high. People are also deliberately cheating the law by running to Hong Kong with their new wealth and being scoff laws and that is where the selective enforcement comes into play. And again, corruption is systemic in Chinese government. That really really needs to be dealt with as it is a core problem that effects many other levels of society there.

Because I'm not in agreement with you, and I generally see such arguments within a larger context of a eugenics agenda, I ask you to say a few words on the damage you allege. I say the more the merrier, but if taken literally, and not euphemistically the way that collectivists usually mean "education", then it's fine to put forth various viewpoints and see if one or another is honestly better and well-accepted for reasons of merit in the long view.

The more the merrier always winds up with less of everything else and i regard it as a reckless and thoughtless view. YOu are advocating rolling the dice and letting the chances play out as they may for humans, but not for everything else we share the planet with.

Our oceans are getting whaled out, fished out. The amount of arable land is limited and it will peak it's ability to produce in only a few more short years when we hit about 9 billion people, many of whom will be asian and south asian. Where they have difficulty now feeding their populations.

If we look at all the possible food sources available and at the very best practices for developing, distributing and maintaining that, then the number has already been set at 9 billion being the peak.

as we poorly manage what we have now, we are missing out on 1 billion people now.

Is it better to make further demands on planning and resourcing to deal with someones idea fun with a big family? really?
Why not educate people worldwide about the social benefits of smaller families that make less demands on resources and in turn offer opportunities at more wealth for everyone?

I think that as we control other populations of species on this planet, so too should we control our own. Not necessarily through the scary tactics laid out vis a vis nazi style eugenics, but through the rising of all boats with the tide of knowledge.

[Michael]

Not rendered moot. It is mismanagement, not overpopulation. There is no evidence to suggest that the current causes for the mismanagement of natural resources and society would be addressed in any way by reducing population.

Big cities are better? Maybe our terms are mixed up. I should probably say huge cities or megalopolises like Guangzhou, Tokyo, Toronto, L.A., Mexico City, Cairo, and like that.

I don't buy the argument there are only a certain number of seats at the table. The capacity of the earth is huge, HUGE. Everything you cite is mismanagement, which also includes extremely inefficient use of arable land and a distinct lack of technological innovation for increased crops and energy resources in favor of technology primarily for the purpose of market control. For example, continued use of petro instead of just about anything else; and instead of genetically modifed food for increased production, we have Monsanto contaminating the world with terminator seeds that produce less in order to control the market. You think Monsanto will change its ways if the population is reduced?

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Not rendered moot. It is mismanagement, not overpopulation. There is no evidence to suggest that the current causes for the mismanagement of natural resources and society would be addressed in any way by reducing population. Thanks for the detailed responses.

Of course it would be addressed through population reduction inasmuch as it would allow existing infrastructure to meet the needs of the people.

Also, pollution levels would drop with less usage, food levels would be easier to maintain and wild species would be unburdened from the ever encroaching habitations of humans who are consistently pressing wildlife further and further into habitation areas that are not ideal.

There would be all sorts of benefits to having the current infrastructures we do have with lower populations. Absolutely!

It's only a matter of time before natural mechanisms such as disease and disaster start to put us into check and when that happens, our management systems will again fail because they are not designed to deal with that.

[Michael]

Sorry, I was editing while you were responding.

[Teazer]

For example, in 1998 Bill Joy, the CEO of Sun Microsystems attended a conference where he met Ray Kurzweil and then Joy later wrote an article about it for Wired (Why the Future Doesn't Need Us), an article that explains the plans of the powered elite for humanity. It's long, but the point is made in the first 2 pages.

Okay, so his idea is based entirely on
<<and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. >>
Hardly seems relevant yet does it?

Anyways, back to Planned Parenthood - proof it is promoting any kind of eugenics agenda in this day and age?