It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Crusade Against Population

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:05 PM
I couldn't find any specific thread on this, but if it was already posted I apologize.

by George C. Leef, Posted May 1, 2009

Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits by Steven W. Mosher (Transaction Publishers, 2008); 300 pages.

You have probably never heard of Dr. Reimert Ravenholt, but he was one of the most influential people of the 20th century. More than anyone else, Ravenholt was responsible for putting together the worldwide network of population-control programs and agencies. Appointed in 1966 to be the first director of the Office of Population in the United States Agency for International Development, Ravenholt was an arch-Malthusian who saw human fertility as a looming planetary disaster. Backed by a large supply of federal tax dollars, he zealously went about promoting contraception, sterilization, and abortion as the cure for the “plague” of too many children.

The result of Ravenholt’s global crusade against human fertility (which almost always proceeds under such euphemisms as “family planning” or “reproductive health”) has been what Steven Mosher calls in his book Population Control the “white pestilence” — that is, a dearth of children in the population. Mosher, president of Population Research Institute, argues strongly that the Malthusian worry that people would breed themselves into disaster was always wrong, but we do face, if not a disaster, at least severe socioeconomic problems from the fact that in many countries the fertility rate has been below the population-replacement rate for decades.

Mosher has put his finger on another instance of the general case that government intervention in the spontaneous order of the world is counterproductive. When government intervenes, resources are squandered to “solve” a small or imaginary problem and in doing so it creates a large and real problem. I’m delighted that the author has shown that the population-control movement is another of those blunders. As he puts it,

For over half a century, the population controllers have perpetrated a gigantic, costly and inhumane fraud upon the human race, defrauding the people of developing countries of their progeny and the people of the developed world their pocketbooks.

A passionately held but erroneous belief supported by government money and force is always harmful, and Mosher makes a good case that the population- control crusade is one of the worst ever.

Another interesting section in the above article states, and I quote:

The population-control bureaucracy, he shows, usually relies on deception, coercion, and even violence to accomplish its objectives. Local officials are generally paid (with money that came initially from American taxpayers) on the basis of the number of sterilizations and abortions they bring about. Most of them are not much concerned about the rights of the individuals. Mosher recounts many heart-wrenching stories about the despicable tactics of the anti-childbirth enforcers. In any population, you’ll find a percentage of people who have no qualms about using force against their fellow citizens. In Nazi Germany, they were drawn to the Gestapo; in the Soviet Union, to the KGB. Today, that kind of person can find satisfying employment in the “family planning” apparatus in many countries in Asia, Africa, and South America.

I agree for the most part in what this article is trying to tell us. All these claims that "the world can't sustain so many people" comes from rich people, or doctors, environmentalists who have no conscience, and in order for them to be able to control people, they need a smaller amount of people on the planet.

These people all have different goals, and agendas behind them wanting to reduce the population, and all of them are based on lies, and deception to have some form of control, either for environmental issues, or political issues, or for money.

IMO, if rich corporations really wanted, we could have been working on cleaning our oceans of the large plastic islands floating in the Pacific, and recycling this material to help people in developing countries, or even in developed countries.

I know there are people living in houses which were made from recicled material, and they live a healthy life.

This could also be done in developing countries which has cities full of garbage, and the poor people in those countries, including their children, spend a great deal of time in these garbage disposal sites, trying to find something usable, or something to eat, despite the health issues of such people, and children rummaging through the disposed garbage.

This could be done without the regular people having to pay for it with any new taxes, but of course, the rich love their money, and they don't really care about the poor for the most part, even if many of these rich people spend a small percentage of their income on charities. IMO they do this just for their public image, and not because they care. At least for the most part.

If a company, anywhere in the world, employs people, it should be accountable for it's eployees being able to afford housing, three meals a day, and at least some other essentials, such as clothing, and still have some money for other necessities.

Of course the pay should also be higher for those who can work more, that are innovative and can come up with different ideas to help the business, or who can work faster considering safety precedures. But then again, even in developed countries, when companies, and employees are supposed to put safety firts, this does not happen frequently. But then this would be for another discussion.

BTW, I am not talking about a state controlled business environment, in which the state controls all infraestructure. No, Communism has been shown to be a failure, and to be the worse form of economy/government which becomes a dictatorship, and despite the claims of it's advocates, it does not make any sense even on paper.

Individualism is important for the development of a person, and in turn this strengthtens a nation.

Instead of countries, and these groups concentrating in trying to depopulate the world, they should be concentrating in helping the people in the world, but they don't care about that. Instead they care more about being able to control a smaller number of people populating Earth.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

new topics

log in