The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Within decades China and India may give a graphic demonstration of what huge numbers of educated people are capable of. I hope they do. It might make the point a lot clearer to intelligent people who have gotten used to a "small is beautiful, small is efficient, small is manageable, growth should be limited" paradigm.

You make a great point here

The 25% of India's population with the highest IQ's is greater than the total population of the United States.

In other words, India has more honors kids than America has kids.

reply to post by LiveForever8


The real challenge is organizing and bringing that intelligence to bear on problems. That's why large armies in the past have often been defeated by smaller ones. It's difficult to concentrate all of a large army's strength.

Intellectual power can be pooled and concentrated thanks to computers. We may be coming into an age where we see a long succession of stunning scientific advances come out of situations where problems are subjected to massive overthink, to coin a phrase.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

They may have higher IQ's but that doesn't mean they can use logic and common sense, we American's are smart and resoursceful in our own ways.

We would be even more impressive if we did away with our greedy government revamped and ran the the place ourselves.

reply to post by observe50

They can use logic and common sense too. I know many Chinese personally. They have just as much common sense as you have. They are not robots in any sense of the word.

This fact puts in perspective some theories that the Rothschilds are going to take over the world in an act of final domination. How is that possible? The Chinese and the Indians are very suspicious of the British. India was conquered by the British East India Company, then assisted by the British Government and Cornwallis who went there after "losing" the Revolutionary War here. But despite Indian independence, I think England maintains some ties there.

That is basically not the case in China, which threw out the Chinese entirely, the end being the forced handover of Hong Kong in 1997. Great Britain forced China to cede Hong Kong in the Opium War around 1840, and the Chinese still remember that like it was yesterday. They are well familiar with the English tricks, and they won't get fooled again. The English system has already tried, and failed, to subdue the rise of China.

reply to post by Aeons

Really? Even with the problems it caused? Even showing that the Western model clearly shows that it brings a population into a less than replacement value in only a few generations? You prefer brutal totalitarianism?

What problems? Quite small gender imbalance is the only one I can think of, and it is caused by their culture primarily. Other than that, it helped their country immensely.

Western model only works if the country is wealthy. Until this happens, there is a population explosion of poorest people in the country, dragging down entire population with them. Just look at neighbouring India, anarchy is certainly not the way to go.

I do not see anything brutal in this policy. What I consider brutal is allowing people who cannto even tak care of themselves to procreate. That is brutal, indeed.

The 25% of India's population with the highest IQ's is greater than the total population of the United States. In other words, India has more honors kids than America has kids.

But thats just because there is so much of them. Make no mistake, people of India are POORLY educated, thier literacy rate is just 66 %.

reply to post by LiveForever8


if population numbers and percentage of intelligent people was all it took, then India and China would have moved ahead of us long ago.

No, the problem is culture. Europeans have always had far more democratic societies, far more egalitarian. This is what gives European countries their advantage.

The reason the third world nations are so screwed up is because small numbers of people suppress the rest.

People with more control over their lives make better decisions, and one of those important decisions is not to have too many children.

I think that the number one problem faced by all cultures, no matter where they are, is the presence of psychopaths at the top. These people cause vastly more suffering than the worst serial killer you could think of.

A way has to be found in this world to deal with the devils you know, to reduce the amount of damage they can do, instead of continually trying to exchange them for a new devil that you don't know.

How?

In the US it is done through the system of "checks and balances", when that system is not subverted by presidential signing statements issued by a president run amuck. If George W. Bush could not be brought to heel by the US Congress and the judiciary, the American system is broken and in need of repair.

The cost? Just do a review of the events that happened under Bush and the legacy in war and bankruptcy that he left.

The whole world (including China, India, Russia, Indonesia and a host of others) has to find ways to deal with psychos at the top.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think that the number one problem faced by all cultures, no matter where they are, is the presence of psychopaths at the top. These people cause vastly more suffering than the worst serial killer you could think of.

...and back to the topic...

WHY are TPTB pushing the idea that the planet is overpopulated and promoting Eugenics Policies - when most of the earth's lifeforms, including humans, are "endangered species," and facing the danger of extinction?

At least two times in the past, humans have been on the verge of extinction: 200,000 years ago and again, 70,000 years ago - leaving us all with the same great-great-great+ grandmother. [Whew! That was close!]

Check out these threads:
'Eve,' Mother of All Humans
Age Confirmed for 'Eve,' Mother of All Humans

Both of our near extinctions were linked to climate change.

...What do TPTB know that we don't? ...Are they trying to position to hold control? ...Do we really want the sociopaths to mother the next human go-round?

reply to post by soficrow

WHY are TPTB pushing the idea that the planet is overpopulated and promoting Eugenics Policies

TPTB are not pushing Eugenic policies, I believe the opposite is true. After WW2, eugenics was connected with Hitler and widely condemned, but before WW2 eugenics was quite mainstream, even in the US. Today, when you say that you support population control and eugenics, people assume you are nazi or something and automaticaly see you in a bad light, even if you propose peaceful means.
Only country where population control is currently done is China, and I believe China is far less under TPTB control than "western world". There is no promotion of eugenic policies in the world, but there are plenty of TPTB-affiliated pseudohumanists ready to call you fascist or nazi when you promote these.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow

 

WHY are TPTB pushing the idea that the planet is overpopulated and promoting Eugenics Policies

TPTB are not pushing Eugenic policies, I believe the opposite is true. ...

There is no promotion of eugenic policies in the world, but there are plenty of TPTB-affiliated pseudohumanists ready to call you fascist or nazi when you promote these.

Oh dear, I don't know where to start. But you are so sadly mistaken, I fear you'll never wake up.

1. Eugenics did NOT end after WWII - it went a bit underground, remained ingrained in "science" courses, and got repackaged as "genetics." Today, the notion that "genetics" explains most every human frailty and ailment is more entrenched than ever. Despite the results of the Human Genome Project.

FYI - The last Eugenics Policies on the books in the USA were not removed until the '70's - quite some time after WWII.

2. Most current Eugenics Policies are embedded in "Medical Insurance Policies" as "Terms and Conditions of Coverage," including: severe constraints on diagnostic testing; prohibitions on treatment unless said treatment will lead to a cure (the worst diseases today are chronic and incurable, but treatment can improve quality of life); non-coverage of "preventive" interventions; rules regarding "medical necessity", and more.

...and that's just the short list. Other Eugenics Policies are unwritten, now just 'common practice' in medicine - and never mind the campaign to "quarantine" Africa. Check this one out, then tell me that human quarantine is not a Eugenics Policy, created in lieu of agricultural and industry regulations that might lower profits:

Quarantine Until Death: The Pandemic Policy Now on Trial in the Court of Public Opinion

reply to post by poet1b


You're right, but China is moving ahead now. They've gotten rid of the bad latter Mao years and are moving ahead with their non-democratic leadership.

India is still not moving ahead as fast. And according to most people who think about it, including Chinese and Indians, the reason is that India is too democratic.

If China wants to build a highway, railroad or dam, or redevelop a whole area of a city, they just move the people out, pay them compensation (typically it's rather generous) and go ahead. Command and control, and it's working.

reply to post by soficrow

1. Eugenics did NOT end after WWII - it went a bit underground, remained ingrained in "science" courses, and got repackaged as "genetics." Today, the notion that "genetics" explains most every human frailty and ailment is more entrenched than ever. Despite the results of the Human Genome Project.

Genetics explains a lot about human beings, but there are also strong infuences of social and physical conditions. Do you question our current understanding of genetics? I find the notion that genetics is rebranded eugenics absurd.

FYI - The last Eugenics Policies on the books in the USA were not removed until the '70's - quite some time after WWII.

This only proves my point that eugenics was widely condemned after WW2 and is fringe science today.

2. Most current Eugenics Policies are embedded in "Medical Insurance Policies" as "Terms and Conditions of Coverage," including: severe constraints on diagnostic testing; prohibitions on treatment unless said treatment will lead to a cure (the worst diseases today are chronic and incurable, but treatment can improve quality of life); non-coverage of "preventive" interventions; rules regarding "medical necessity", and more.

This is not the result of eugenics, but economics, and is mostly US-related phenomenon. It certainly does not help to better human race or genome, so how is it eugenics then?

Check this one out, then tell me that human quarantine is not a Eugenics Policy, created in lieu of agricultural and industry regulations that might lower profits:

I read it and it is surely NOT an eugenic policy. Quarantine is for protecion of people against an infectious disease, and I fully support it. We cannot just let people with antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis run free and spread it further, more so in Africa, where people do not have very good healthcare.

reply to post by oniongrass


China will self destruct unless they start raising wages and standards of living. The country is an ecological mess, and that will restrict their growth for decades. Unless China develops some sort of democratic government, it is doomed to collapse upon itself.

India will take a very long time to change. It takes a long time to change culture.

reply to post by Maslo

...eugenics was widely condemned after WW2 and is fringe science today.

Originally posted by soficrow
2. Most current Eugenics Policies are embedded in "Medical Insurance Policies" as "Terms and Conditions of Coverage," including: severe constraints on diagnostic testing; prohibitions on treatment unless said treatment will lead to a cure (the worst diseases today are chronic and incurable, but treatment can improve quality of life); non-coverage of "preventive" interventions; rules regarding "medical necessity", and more.

This is not the result of eugenics, but economics, and is mostly US-related phenomenon. It certainly does not help to better human race or genome, so how is it eugenics then?

Not to butt in, soficrow seems to be doing just fine, but one small thing to point out.

When you say "better the human race", it implies a perspective. "Better", according to whom exactly? Any general consensus on what "better" might be?

The fact is, our masters may very well be practicing "eugenics", on a large scale, but because it's from "their" perspective, most of us may not even be able to recognize what that might look like. Plus, it's "supposed" to be a "secret"!

A quick example. If our masters thought that "docility" was a "good" characteristic for their slaves to have, then perhaps it could be promoted in some ways. Obviously, it would have to be perpetrated upon a mostly unwitting population. Is such a thing an "improvement"? Well, we may not think so, but it's not up to us of course.

Ever since Plato's Republic, it has been recognized as important to keep the population ignorant of any "eugenics" being carried out upon them. In other words, it's supposed to be a secret! Humankind has known this now for thousands of years.

Is it any surprise most people naively imagine it is not even going on at all?

JR

Originally posted by Aronolac
Impressive statistics but manipulated to produce a wrong answer - the overpopulation of the planet is the most serious problem mankind faces, and for the most part, he is totally ignorant of it.

I am in agreement with the poster who questioned the sanity of people who deny reality about population. Too many people is dangerous and it will have consequences far beyond us just talking about it. This world and its resources can support about 3 billion people easily; it can not sustain itself approaching 8 billion people.

The next few years will tell the truth about what happens to the teeming masses when they have to cope with adversities they created by over-breeding to the point of insanity. It is so sad to see no leadership stepping forward to help us come to terms with this looming disaster.

You are exactly right. I once read a "fact" somewhere, I'm looking for the link now, that detailed the lack of food being produced. 1.02 billion people are currently starving, yet if all the food humans are producing was spread evenly to everyone, we would all be starving. I'm not sure on the truth behind that, but its an interesting though.

reply to post by delawhere302

You are exactly right. I once read a "fact" somewhere, I'm looking for the link now, that detailed the lack of food being produced. 1.02 billion people are currently starving, yet if all the food humans are producing was spread evenly to everyone, we would all be starving. I'm not sure on the truth behind that, but its an interesting though.

I do not think that is true. I for one once read somewhere that there are more overweight people than starving people, and the amount of food that goes to waste due to poor management is substantial. There is more than enough food for everyone, but we have a problem with its distribution.

I knew it was a myth a long time ago by doing my own math from wiki stats. there should definitely be enough space to house this many people and much left over....

Originally posted by wolfwood290
I knew it was a myth a long time ago by doing my own math from wiki stats. there should definitely be enough space to house this many people and much left over....

Space is irrelevant, there is enough space on Sahara desert to house tens of bilions of people and much left over. But they would all die soon. What is important is quantity of resources, and most importantly, our ability to use and distribute these.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow

 

WHY are TPTB pushing the idea that the planet is overpopulated and promoting Eugenics Policies

TPTB are not pushing Eugenic policies, I believe the opposite is true. After WW2, eugenics was connected with Hitler and widely condemned, but before WW2 eugenics was quite mainstream, even in the US. Today, when you say that you support population control and eugenics, people assume you are nazi or something and automaticaly see you in a bad light, even if you propose peaceful means.

...

FYI - The last Eugenics Policies on the books in the USA were not removed until the '70's - quite some time after WWII.

This only proves my point that eugenics was widely condemned after WW2 and is fringe science today.

You are right that the word "eugenics" fell into disfavor when people learned that Hitler used US laws and Holmes' Supreme Court Judgment almost verbatim to craft legislation for Nazi Eugenics Laws and the concentration camps.

But the main ideas underlying eugenics never went away - that is, that the human species can be "improved" by educated scientific and social "interventions." Eugenics is NOT "fringe science" today - far from it.

Following WWII, eugenics' apologists re-focused on the differences between "positive" and "negative" eugenics policies, but remained committed to the idea that the human gene pool could -and should- be manipulated. …In the interim, an old word euthenics was popularized to distinguish between "positive-social eugenics" policies and "positive scientific eugenic/genetic" interventions.
...

There is no doubt that word definitions change to reflect shifting corporate-economic/political-government agendas. So let's look at how eugenics' definition may have changed and evolved over the half-century following WWII.

You will note: Eugenics remains consistently defined as a "science" from the early 1900's to the present in most college, academic, technical, scientific and medical dictionaries. "Family" and other dictionaries compiled for the mass-public tend to favor the euphemism "a study" - which implies 'serious scholarship' cum "scientific study" [a more gentle idea-marketing technique].

And don't forget: The "educated" people using academic/scientific dictionaries, and learning from books and teachers supporting these views, are today's geneticists, doctors, social scientists and policy-makers.

Eugenics Definitions:

1913 - Webster, Original definition
The science of improving stock, whether human or animal. --F. Galton.
…

1946 - Funk and Wagnall's
* The science and art of improving human breeds by so applying the ascertained principles of genetics and inheritance, as to secure a desirable combination of pysical characteristics and mental traits in the offspring of suitably mated parents.
...

1967 - Thorndile Barnhart Handy Dictionary - the most modern and scientific dictionary in print today.
* Science of improving the human race.
…

1960 - Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia
* Study of methods to improve the human race physically and mentally through control of mating and heredity by society. It is directed toward discouraging propagation by unfit and encouraging it in the fit. Some states have laws relating to sterilization of mental defectives, but many problems are involved in carrying out such laws. Future problems of eugenics have been considered in novels of social criticism, e.g., Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) by George Orwell. Probably the greatest immediate hope lies in education and in bettering the environment.
[NOTE: 1968 unchanged.]
…

1971 - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
* The study of hereditary improvement, especially of human improvement by genetic control.
…

1972 - New American Webster Handy College Dictionary
* The science of improving the human race through the regulation of parenthood.
…

1979 - Canadian Senior Dictionary (Gage)
* The science of improving the human race by a careful selection of parents in order to develop healthier and more intelligent children. 2. the science of improving offspring.
…

1983 - Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
* Study of methods to improve inherited human characteristics. It is directed cheifly at discouraging propagation among the unfit and encouraging it in the fit, although there are many difficulties in defining which traits are the most desirable.
…

1984 - Webster's New World Dictionary, Paperback Edition
The movement devoted to improving the human species by controlling heredity.
…

1988 - Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary
A science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.

Also note: Eugenic - relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring
…

1997 - Webster's Universal College Dictionary
A science concerned with improving a breed or species, esp. the human species, by such means as influencing or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have desirable genetic traits.

COMPARE - current online definitions, vetted for mass consumption.

Eugenics:
* a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
* The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

COMPARE - online Science and Medical dictionaries

Eugenics:

Computing: Free Online Dictionary
* study of human genetics and of methods to improve the inherited characteristics, physical and mental, of the human race. Efforts to improve the human race through bettering housing facilities and other environmental conditions are known as euthenics.
Sir Francis Galton, who introduced the term eugenics, is usually regarded as the founder of the modern science of eugenics …

In the United States in recent years, interest in eugenics has centered around genetic screening. It is known, for example, that hemophilia, albinism, and certain structural abnormalities are inheritable. Family gene maps, called pedigrees, can help families with serious diseases avoid having children with the same diseases through genetic counseling, and, increasingly, prospective parents can be tested directly for the presence of undesired genes. If conception has occurred, tests such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling can be used to detect certain genetic defects in the fetus. Embryo biopsy, or preimplantation diagnosis, can be used in conjunction with in vitro fertilization prior to pregnancy to test embryos for a number of genetic defects; only those found free of defects are implanted and allowed to develop.
…

MondoFacto
* The scientific study of artificial selection towards a particular set of desired characteristics.
…

www.pbs.org...]Evolution Glossary, PBS
* The science or practice of altering a population, especially of humans, by controlled breeding for desirable inherited characteristics. The term was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, who was an advocate of "improving" the human race by modifying the fertility of different categories of people. Eugenics fell into disfavour after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
…

Human Genome Project Information - Genomic Science Program - DOE Microbial Genomics
* The study of improving a species by artificial selection; usually refers to the selective breeding of humans.
…

Merck
* the study and control of procreation as a means of improving hereditary characteristics of future generations. The concept has sometimes been used in a pseudoscientific way as an excuse for unethical, racist, or even genocidal practices such as involuntary sterilization or certain other practices in Nazi Germany and elsewhere.

negative eugenics that concerned with prevention of reproduction by individuals considered to have inferior or undesirable traits.
positive eugenics that concerned with promotion of optimal mating and reproduction by individuals considered to have desirable or superior traits.
…

MedicineNet
* Literally, meaning normal genes [FALSE, see note below], eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding. The use of Albert Einstein's sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at positive eugenics. The Nazis notoriously engaged in negative eugenics by genocide.

The word "eugenics" was coined by Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) to denote scientific endeavors to increase the proportion of persons with better than average genetic endowment through selective mating of marriage partners.

The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped, the mentally ill, and ethnic minorities (particularly people of mixed racial heritage), and the adopting out of their children to non-disabled, Caucasian parents. Similar programs spread widely in the early part of the twentieth century, and still exist in some parts of the world. It is important to note that no experiment in eugenics has ever been shown to result in measurable improvements in human health. In fact, in the best known attempt at positive eugenics, the Nazi "Lebensborn" program, there was a higher-than- normal level of birth defects among the resulting offspring. [Rationale for Genetic Engineering as opposed to unsuccessful breeding programs.]
…

Anthropology dictionary
* the study of the methods that can improve the inherited qualities of a species.
…

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
* the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
…

The Difference Computing Dictionary
* Since World War II, the term has fallen out of favor, but the concepts underlying eugenics continue to find proponents.

NOTE: eugenics literally means "well-born" [Greek: eu- well; genos - born.]




The take home message?

Natural breeding programs don't work, but the human species can be "improved" by marketing abortion to the lower classes - and breeding assistance / genetic engineering to the upper classes.

How does this play out in practice? For example:

3. Genetic engineering seems to make positive eugenics possible, at long last. But it is sobering to look at the cutting edge of reproductive technology in different communities. For the rich, the cutting edge is in vitro fertilization, artificial or assisted insemination, genetic counseling, and perhaps genetic engineering and cloning on the horizon. But for the poor, the cutting edge of reproductive technology is new birth control technology, like Norplant implants or Depo-Provera injections.

Mary Lyman Jackson, president of Exodus Youth Services, Inc., a street ministry serving runaways and latchkey kids on the streets on Washington, talked about genetic engineering and cloning. In testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (May 2, 1997), she said:

I live in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in a nice suburban community, but spend a lot of time on the streets in Washington. I am very conscious of the way the differences between these two communities are developing, and it worries me.
I hear people talking about life in the suburbs in ways that are very different than from life in the streets. And it is the differences that concern me.

I do not know of anyone in the suburbs who has birth control pushed on them, but my girls in the inner-city do. They tell me a different story. And I do not know of anyone in the city who expects to get any benefit from genetic engineering. ...

A researcher can get lost in charts and graphs and test tubes and petri dishes and might forget that human life is very precious. These kids get treated as specimens and research objects enough that they have a different attitude towards all this science.

These children know that scientists can treat people like things. They know it, because they have seen how much work goes into persuading them to get on birth control or have an abortion.

Mrs. Jackson saw clearly that genetic engineering has revived the central eugenics agenda: "more from the fit, less from the unfit."

SOURCE: "Modern Genetics Is Eugenics" - George Annas, M.D., bioethics professor at Boston University, speaking at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington

I've been getting an error code (503), but here are the links: Eugenics-watch; Modern Genetics Is Eugenics.

..……..I have much, much more. Shall I continue?

With respect,
sofi







Lots of ooops, format probs...

[edit on 21-8-2010 by soficrow]

Yes, you could add in the increasing of infertility through chemical routes which then can be fixed through medical intervention - if you can afford it.

Nothing suspicious about that at all don't ya think?