Population control
07-16-2009, 01:55 PM
#1
Antisaint
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Danbury, CT
Posts: 4,564
Total Cats: 58
Population control
What do you guys think? Haven't heard about it? Is it just crazy talk?
Obama's science czar worked on a book back in 1977 that discussed the methods of proposed population control. Some pretty crazy **** we're talking about here.
Here's some cliff notes;
- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.
- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.
- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.
- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.
Book is called ECOSCIENCE
Obama's science czar worked on a book back in 1977 that discussed the methods of proposed population control. Some pretty crazy **** we're talking about here.
Here's some cliff notes;
- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.
- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.
- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.
- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.
Book is called ECOSCIENCE
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:08 PM
#2
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
this is all true, but is it relevant? is the guy ramming population control down obama's throat? no. would it ever become a law? no.
it's like saying just because obama has a muslim advisor that we're all going to have to go to the mosque.
it's like saying just because obama has a muslim advisor that we're all going to have to go to the mosque.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:14 PM
#3
Antisaint
Thread Starter
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Danbury, CT
Posts: 4,564
Total Cats: 58
I'm more surprised at the fact that Obama took him seriously enough to make him his top science guy.
I don't care about race, or even really backgrounds to a point. But if someone thinks that way, and now is involved with the president and is the top guy, isn't that a little off?
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:29 PM
#7
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
in other news: I'm trying to get Nancy Pelosi's science advisor's bf to build me a garage. he's more a cabinet guy tho
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:34 PM
#9
Since when is it wrong to discuss options and ideas? I can discuss something I would never implement or hope for. I can say the only solution to the middle east problems is to use nukes and turn the entire region into a giant sheet of glass. That doesn't mean I would push the button to actually do it. I'd leave that to the military!
From Wikipedia concerning John Holdren.
Controversy
Overpopulation was an early concern and interest, and in 1969, writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[10] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"[11]. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,916,000[12]. In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,[13] which discussed the possible role of a wide range of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning at one extreme, to a "planetary regime" of enforced population control at the other extreme. Holdren & Ehrlich’s 1977 book, entitled Ecoscience, and verified the quotations and page citations provided in the FrontPage Magazine article, by scanning and posting them on the Internet.
To this day, Holdren lists the book on his CV.
Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems:
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
Face it. He was in college in the late 60's. He was writing this stuff in the 70's. That guy smoked a whole lot of pot and took who knows what else with all his "hippy" buddies. He was a radical environmentalist in the 70's. Shocking.
The big question is does he believe in or recommend those ideas as policy now. It's one thing to throw those ideas out as possible options. The President: "Gee guys, what can we do about the environment?" Recycle! Eliminate all non public transportation! Paint all roofs and roads white! Kill the first born child of every family! No wait, too jewish...
See, it could have just been spitballing. Like population control, it's easy to consider bad ideas. Heck I considered supercharging my car at one point!
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:41 PM
#10
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
I think having Czars is ******* stupid and unconstitutional in the first place. I would support some type of population control. People shouldn't have complete free reign to have 10 kids when they don't have the income to support them, and end up living off of the government because they couldn't keep their dick in their pants/legs shut. Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if we reduced 25% of the population of nobodies that no one would miss. Heard one comedian bring it up in a show and it made sense. Think of how nice it would be having a greater concentration of smart people, and less traffic and lines to wait in.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:57 PM
#11
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
All these thoughts of the government controlling reproduction is fascist in origin. I'm talking pre-**** fascism. BTW fascism is not the same as Nazism.
fascism = religion of the state ... meaning the state/government is all knowing, all powerful, and does everything for our own good.
What the 1977 book talks about also has roots in Eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that some humans are inferior to others and the "superior" ones have the right and duty to control the rest. Eugenics started in this country, and Hitler picked up on it and took it to the extreme. It's also interesting that Eugenics came about from the same circles as the people who believe in Social Engineering by an all-powerful government ... aka fascism. Another interesting related philosophy is the Fabian Socialism. This is the belief that an "enlightened elite" should spread Socialism among the masses as long as they control the wealth and the power, because Socialism will make the unwashed masses easier to control.
The idea that an "enlightened elite" should rule the rest goes all the way back to Plato.
The Declaration of Independence turned that idea upside down. Ever since then, the political and financial elite have mostly believed in Plato's ideas and tried to morph this country into such. It's a natural tendency of people in power, AND of course positions of power attract such kinds of people. It's a positive feedback loop. These people constantly try to increase their power by passing new laws, and these laws are always sold to the public as being "good for us". Exhibit one, the No Banker Left Behind Mother of All Bailouts.
BTW - the best way to reduce population growth is to raise the standard of living in poor countries. When standard of living improves, birth rate alwasy drops. Why is it that these "overpopulation" people on their high horses rarely mention this? It makes you wonder if they really are after a perceived problem, or are after more government power.
fascism = religion of the state ... meaning the state/government is all knowing, all powerful, and does everything for our own good.
What the 1977 book talks about also has roots in Eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that some humans are inferior to others and the "superior" ones have the right and duty to control the rest. Eugenics started in this country, and Hitler picked up on it and took it to the extreme. It's also interesting that Eugenics came about from the same circles as the people who believe in Social Engineering by an all-powerful government ... aka fascism. Another interesting related philosophy is the Fabian Socialism. This is the belief that an "enlightened elite" should spread Socialism among the masses as long as they control the wealth and the power, because Socialism will make the unwashed masses easier to control.
The idea that an "enlightened elite" should rule the rest goes all the way back to Plato.
The Declaration of Independence turned that idea upside down. Ever since then, the political and financial elite have mostly believed in Plato's ideas and tried to morph this country into such. It's a natural tendency of people in power, AND of course positions of power attract such kinds of people. It's a positive feedback loop. These people constantly try to increase their power by passing new laws, and these laws are always sold to the public as being "good for us". Exhibit one, the No Banker Left Behind Mother of All Bailouts.
BTW - the best way to reduce population growth is to raise the standard of living in poor countries. When standard of living improves, birth rate alwasy drops. Why is it that these "overpopulation" people on their high horses rarely mention this? It makes you wonder if they really are after a perceived problem, or are after more government power.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 02:59 PM
#12
In for some sort of population control. I'm getting tired being called "dog" while in line at Subway and having to tell the person how much change they're supposed to give me.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 03:00 PM
#13
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
I would support some type of population control. People shouldn't have complete free reign to have 10 kids when they don't have the income to support them, and end up living off of the government
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 03:01 PM
#14
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Imagine 1/4 of the population gone, all of those types of people. Would fix unemployment, poverty, congestion in cities, or roads and less waiting in lines. You would get the good seats at sporting events... would be perfect.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 03:08 PM
#16
Exactly, would you miss them if they hadn't been born? Imagine 1/4 of the population gone, all of those types of people. Would fix unemployment, poverty, congestion in cities, or roads and less waiting in lines. You would get the good seats at sporting events... would be perfect.
Imagine 1/4 of the population gone, all of those types of people. Would fix unemployment, poverty, congestion in cities, or roads and less waiting in lines. You would get the good seats at sporting events... would be perfect.I especially hate the ones who walk around with their ******* underwear exposed. WTF would you want to wear your pants around your thighs?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Reply
0
0
07-16-2009, 04:07 PM
#20
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
All you guys who are for population control, are thinking along these lines because you feel superior to the scum and lowlifes that you deal with. This is fine, but what you are doing is getting the government to "enforce" your superiority. Shades of fascism. You feel you are part of the "enlightened" that should rule over the rest. Ever read "Brave New World"?
Let's think about that. Who gets to choose who gets sterilized and who doesn't? Look how the government handles welfare. They don't even check if the recipient is getting paid an under-the-table salary. You expect govenrment to efficiently determine who gets sterilized?
Besides, what's the root of the problem anyway? Why are so many people so stupid anyway? Hmm, public schools aka government schools. They have no competition. If you send your kid to a private school, you still have to pay property tax that goes to the public schools.
Why do welfare queens birth so many kids anyway? Hmm, government gives them more money the more kids they have.
Why are there slummy inner city tenements anyway? Hmm, because government gives special tax breaks to "low cost housing" slumlords. Who benefits? The slumlords. And then these buildings become scum magnets, and these welfare queen children grow up in these environments. It's a vicious cycle.
Do you see a pattern? Government's "do good" initiatives all have unintended consequences. Now what if people were more responsible for their own actions? IOW no bailouts for busted banks, no welfare when you have more and more kids...
Personal responsibility... what a concept.
Personal responsibility and individual freedom are 2 sides of the same coin. You take away one, you take away the other.
In history, giving people freedom allows people to flourish. Increasing handouts from government, and giving it more power over individuals, is a downward spiral. The more you give government power to take money and hand it out, the more people will try and lobby for these handouts, instead of being productive.
Let's think about that. Who gets to choose who gets sterilized and who doesn't? Look how the government handles welfare. They don't even check if the recipient is getting paid an under-the-table salary. You expect govenrment to efficiently determine who gets sterilized?
Besides, what's the root of the problem anyway? Why are so many people so stupid anyway? Hmm, public schools aka government schools. They have no competition. If you send your kid to a private school, you still have to pay property tax that goes to the public schools.
Why do welfare queens birth so many kids anyway? Hmm, government gives them more money the more kids they have.
Why are there slummy inner city tenements anyway? Hmm, because government gives special tax breaks to "low cost housing" slumlords. Who benefits? The slumlords. And then these buildings become scum magnets, and these welfare queen children grow up in these environments. It's a vicious cycle.
Do you see a pattern? Government's "do good" initiatives all have unintended consequences. Now what if people were more responsible for their own actions? IOW no bailouts for busted banks, no welfare when you have more and more kids...
Personal responsibility... what a concept.
Personal responsibility and individual freedom are 2 sides of the same coin. You take away one, you take away the other.
In history, giving people freedom allows people to flourish. Increasing handouts from government, and giving it more power over individuals, is a downward spiral. The more you give government power to take money and hand it out, the more people will try and lobby for these handouts, instead of being productive.
Reply
0
0
