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 shit 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

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.

No I hear you. If everything that everyone ever wrote was taken seriously it would be a mindfuck of a mess.

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?

I didn't hear anything about this, I was too busy celebrating national fist bump day.

Obama named me Czar of awesome.

We shouldnt use his past a metric for his future performance in his role. If anything the most it gives us is an insight to the mans mentality. However, if the question is will those actual points ever come into existence? Never. Though I think some arent a bad idea.

he probably had a good resume otherwise. who knows. i wouldn't put my crazy third rail politics on my resume if I was submitting it to the president for a job!

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 :)

Call me crazy, but I think that people ABSOLUTELY SHOULD have to pass some sort of a test and get some sort of a license to have kids. There are SOOOOOO many fucking losers and idiots giving birth to children that mostly grow up to be the same way its insane.

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!:naughty:

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:


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!

I think having Czars is fucking 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.

All these thoughts of the government controlling reproduction is fascist in origin. I'm talking pre-Nazi 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.

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

The right solution is to NOT give welfare based on # of children. You subsidize anything, you get more of it.

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.

idiocracy

I especially hate the ones who walk around with their fucking underwear exposed. WTF would you want to wear your pants around your thighs?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Can we start this one soon?

in for sex education

LOVE THIS IDEA. However... all others are pretty ridiculous.

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.

i think we should enforce some of those laws :)

I think you should put it in her bum

Jason, I completely agree with you. Unfortunately some people just don't want to be responsible for themselves.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

One last point, forced sterilization is a violation of the individual's rights.
Even if the majority support it, it is unconstitutional.

This country is supposed to have a government that protects individual rights.
A government that violates individual rights if the majority supports it, is a pure Democracy. In a Republic that protects individual rights, the majority is not allowed to vote and take away the rights of any one individual.

In a pure Democracy the majority can vote to make miatas or car modifications illegal. In a Republic you can modify your car provided you don't violate other individuals' rights.

(If someone brings up smog laws, that's a gray area because in theory your pollution violates others' rights to the air they breathe)

The beauty of liberty is that it gives you the ability to do what makes you happy (pursuit of happiness, more than any other system). And economic liberty rewards the productive, which is a win-win between the individual and society.

And, taking money from those that are prudent and careful with their money, and giving it to failed banks, people whose mortgages are upside down, and to welfare queens, is in theory a violation of economic liberty and individual rights.

If we let liberty be our guiding light whenever new laws are passed, we would do a lot better, IMO.

Jason -


Everything you listed can be solved by population control. Are you for it or against it? I'm confused.

EDIT: Pertaining to your original post.

The other side of that coin is that gov't shouldn't force the rest of us to be responsible for them.

Those that will squawk about "helping those that can't help themselves"... think about it, how many % of the population truly can't work to support themselves? I reckon < 1%. (a) in theory a 1% tax would cover them, and (b) charity probably could too. Note when times are good, charitable contributions go up. If productivity were rewarded instead of punished, we'd all be better off.

AGAINST. It is a violation of individual rights.

You can have "population control" in the world if the 3rd World living standards improved.
You can have "low life control" here (what people are actually complaining about), by encouraging people to help themselves.

A lot of these problems are caused by too much government. The solution isn't more government.

P.S. I grew up in the 3rd world, and my best friend there worked in NGO's, in the government, in the World Bank dealing with poverty alleviation projects, etc. He has a lot of insight to this problem. And we have the same views.

I agree with that also, It's a lose lose situation.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

I can understand some points to a degree, but some are just flat out ridiculous.

Yes there's lots of idiots out there popping out kids and they are nowhere near fit to take care of them. Of course it would be nice to "wipe" those "shits" out of the picture, but who are we to say?

And yes there's people out there that maybe should have their meatwands turned off, but who are we to say?

I just feel like its unconstitutional to take away ones choice. However, if we stopped giving so many god damn hand outs to these fuckers, and maybe only gave the strong a chance to survive it would work itself out over time. You know, made it hard to have 3 kids, no job and stay alive. Maybe thats wrong to say, but if we keep helping them out its never going to stop.

It's not a matter of "strong", it's a matter of attitude. With today's technology a burger flipper can afford to eat as many burgers as he wants, buy enough clothes to look decent at a thrift shop, and afford to rent a room. Burger flipping is of course a job for teenagers. With learning any kind of specialized skill (e.g. roof repair, typing up docs in MS Word), a couple can afford to rent a small house and raise one kid in many parts of the country.

The sum total of intelligence on the planet is a constant; unfortunately, the population continues to grow...

I hear there's a big debate on abortion....
choice + population control wut?

Very much agreed.

The correct debate on abortion is for the law to decide at what point the fetus is an individual human being and thus has the individual's right to life. Is it 8 mos, 5 mos, 3 mos? My personal opinion is that it's somehere between 3 and 7 months. And possibly this issue may be left to the individual states as opposed to the Federal gov't.

"Woman's rights" vs. "unborn right to life" is the wrong discussion, they are both individuals and thus both have individual rights.

I think we should 'round up all the crying republicans and euthanize them because America is dead and they don't want to live through the pacifist, satan-worshiping, child-killing, communist agenda. The thought of living in a world were people have healthcare, alternative fuels, and one less war is just too much for some people.

I also believe that female beauty and intelligence are inversely proportionate.

That's it, something NEEDS to be done. People like this shouldn't be running through the streets.

https://www.miataturbo.net/forum/t37154/#post431230
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

If this were to happen, many of your loved ones would be dead. 1/4 of the population is alot, you make me sick. The ideal you just stated is completely lucifarian.

Fixed.

To the op, heres something interesting for you: Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myth. Unemployment and poverty isn't caused by "overpopulation". When the earth's population was 25% less years ago, the worldwide average standards of living were actually lower. Standards are continually increasing.

aids and hustler, population control the natural way

I hate to break it y'all, but a lot of the population problems have NOTHING to do with the general intelligence level of man kind. As much as I agree with quite a few of those [b][/ b]'d statements, we're simply sucking up all of the planet's natural resources faster than it can replenish them. I remember discussing it for a week or two in environmental science, back in high school. A lot of the facts are pretty scary.

edit: searched for a few minutes to find some good facts by a reputable source, finally found one seconds after I posted of course. NA6C-guy seems to be right on the money.

http://www.populationinstitute.org/p...sues/index.php

I'm not saying kill them after the fact retard, and none of my family would be effected because everyone in my family is hard working and smart :hustler:. Well, I have an uncle who is a meth head and should be shot in the face, so it would be nice if they would go ahead and take him out of the gene pool. Sad that he has already had 3 kids.

Didn't say it was, I just said imagine if 1/4 of the population, the ones that were probably born in poverty by a mother who couldn't afford to have them, who fell into a life of crime and became a piece of shit human beings, were gone. I'm not saying I'm someone who would support all of this, just bringing up points. I would like having less shitty people to deal with. I wish I could remember what comedian it was I saw talking about this. I'm also not thinking as deep into this as some of you butt hurts are. Everyone on the internet has to be so serious. :violin:

Well the problem really is that no politician can ever say anything about responsible self-control with regard to having babies or they might as well sign their death sentence.

The thought of less than 10 percent of the population (actually closer to 5 percent) paying nearly 50 percent of their earnings to fund 40(+) percent of the population that does not contribute to the tax base is abhorrent.

The producers should not become (remain) the fertilizer (victims) for the leeches...

- L

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...gPlaces_BD.jpg


Seriously though. I'm not sure how secretly sterilizing the whole population would be a good move (as you're just wiping out your own tax base) but to really step back and look at the situation objectively, I honestly have to say that the rest of those ideas sound like they'd tend to improve the overall quality of life in the US.

Since noone has brought up the obvious, I will.

Those of you who say "Sterilize the scum!" (against their will), may be say, in the top 20% on an intelligence scale, talking about the bottom 10%.

Now what do you think the top 0.01% (in terms of wealth and power), are thinking about the 99% of us? Don't you think they feel superior and think along the same lines and wish to pass laws that will enable them to do things against our will? How does that make you feel now?

If you wish for a government or law to impose your will and violate the individual rights of those you feel are "beneath" you, this same government will allow those "above" you to control YOU.

What do you end up with? Brave New World.

Capiche?

Eliminate the "bottom 10%" and you eliminate at least 50% (and probably > 75%) of violent crime, welfare recipients, incarcerated prisoners, and other people who generally drain away the resources of society w/o contributing anything. The sum total of human happiness goes up.

Eliminate the "bottom 99%" and you more or less destroy all of civilization, wipe out the economy, etc. Not really a practical thing to do.



They already do this. It's called congress.

Most people are fools. I don't mean that in the sense that they can't tie their own shoes, but they certainly cannot be trusted to make important decisions concerning monetary policy, foreign relations, healthcare, etc. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'm probably not qualified to be running the Federal Reserve or negotiating trade agreements with China, and I sure as hell don't want to see my redneck neighbor doing it either.


You end up with a representative democracy.

My honest opinion: the best form of government is a non-hereditary Aristocracy.

That's not really an aristocracy then but whatever. Are you saying this because the people in power would have a longer term outlook? Would you still have some mechanism for ousting them if they perform poorly? Oversight, checks and balances are kind of necessary no matter what form of government exists in order to keep a system from, well, systematically devolving.

Why do you think the educational status of the bottom half of this country is so bad? Public schools aka government schools. No competition between schools = poor performance.

There will always be a tiny fraction who are psychopathic lowlifes. The purpose of the government's justice system is to catch them.
There will also be a tiny fraction who are psychopaths but are intelligent and megalomanic. These are the scum who are attracted to positions of power aka the government. The only way to prevent government from being a magnet for these megalomaniacs it to prevent gov't from acquiring power beyond what is needed to protect individual rights.

I didn't say "eliminate the bottom 99%", I said control them, in a similar manner that some posters here want to control and sterilize the bottom 10%.

LOL did you read the book that makes a case that Democracy is far inferior to a benevolent Aristocracy?:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684

The problem with a pure democracy is that 51% can vote to take away the rights of 49%. Voters can vote to ban miatas and turbos, or to sterilize 10% of the population.
Pure democracy is inimical to freedom. In a Republic that protects individual rights, 99% cannot vote to take away the rights of any minority or individual. An individual is free to do as he pleases provided he does not violate any other individual's rights. The purpose of government is to protect those rights and enforce private contracts.

The other bigger problem or a Democracy that doesn't protect individual rights is that the ruling elite can convince the public that "this is what the majority want" or "this is for the common good", in order to get what the politically connected want. For example, the Mother of All Banker Bailouts was sold as being necessary... just look up how much Goldman Sachs got in the first bailout under Paulson and read this recent hard-hitting Taibbi article on Rolling Stone about them:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...bubble_machine

By allowing government to take on more and more power "in the name of the common good" and violating individual rights, it will become a bigger and bigger magnet for the .01% who are intelligent psychopathic scum.

BTW here's a book that says that 1% of the population are psychopaths, and executive positions in the Corporate structure attracts them. The rate of psychopathy among execs is much higher than the general population. Because of the revolving door between gov't and Big Business, by extension the gov't also has a much higher % of psychopaths than the general population. The solution is NOT to "have the right people in government", it's to prevent the system of government from taking on power that attracts these scum.

Book:
Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work
http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-W.../dp/0060837721

Sure it is. Aristocracy simply defines the state of rule by a small and elite group, presumed to be wise and benevolent. Hereditary monarchies are one form of aristocracy, but they are not the only possible form. One extreme example would be the theocratic governments which are not uncommon in Islamic states, where a small group of religious elders constitute both the head of the church and the head of state. From the point of view of a person who is a faithful member of the religion in question, said government would constitute an aristocracy.


Long-term outlook, immunity from partisan political pressure, immunity from the pressures of approval / re-election, immunity from the influence of corporations re: campaign contributions / lobbyists, etc.

Politics in America is a popularity contest. Think back to high school- who were the popular kids? Not the smart ones.



Not needed. A diverse and benevolent ruling class will inherently act to protect its own integrity against the occasional malignant member. You just run into the problem of how to find the perfect benevolent dictator.

And therein lies the rub. For every 1 benevolent megalomaniac who wants a position of power, there are 10 psychopathic megalomaniacs.

I expect you're being generous at that. Those most qualified to govern are those least likely to seek office. Nothing new there- neither the prom king nor queen back in high school were likely the valedictorian.

My biggest problem with representative democracy however aren't the representatives- it's the represented. "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Churchill said that, and I agree.

If we were ruled by people (both executive and legislative) who didn't have to worry about campaigns, elections, pandering to voters, etc., they might be able to be slightly more effective.

I agree the average voter is naive - easily misled with slogans and logical fallacies. (no doubt in part due to the poor educational system, one which doesn't even teach critical thinking)

Now consider that (according to the book I linked), that 1% of the population are psychopaths (it's a gene defect like color blindness). The definition of psychopathy is lack of empathy. If 1% of that 1% were very intelligent and megalomanic (there would be 30,000 such individuals in this country), then it stands to reason that THEY would rise to positions of power, and manipulate the average voter to believe in giving the government more power "for the common good". The book explains that such individuals can turn on the charm and seem empathetic. This would explain what Thomas Jefferson warned about - that power tends to concentrate and grow, and that a government system reliant on "good people" is guaranteed to become tyrannical over time, because bad people *will* rise to power.

Again the solution is to strictly limit the power of government, limit the types of laws it can pass. IOW follow the philosophy of the Founding Fathers of Individual Liberty.

Based on a lot of the postings in this thread, a lot of voters do not understand Freedom and the principles and philosophy behind limited government. They can be easily misled by megalomaniacs to pass laws which they think are in their interests when in reality it's in the ruling class's.

I love this one. I wear my pants a little low, not excessively, but just a tiny bit. Every so often I'll bend over and show a little panty and my parents will ask why I show my underwear.

I reply: "Would you rather see my underwear or my ass?"

You're asking that question on this forum?

Devil's Advocate: Fine & well, but it doesn't address the problem of people being lazy, stupid, criminalistic, xenophobic, redneck assholes.

The vast majority of human beings will work towards bettering themselves if a system of incentives are in place - i.e. they don't get handouts if they're lazy, and get to keep their earnings if they're not. You can't legislate stupidity out, but the government school system sure guarantees it. Catching crimininals is a valid function of government, provided the government doesn't write laws just to create victimless criminals - e.g. speed limits too low, unnecessary stop signs. Government is not the right institution to address bigotry and assholeness.

Having freedom isn't perfect, and won't create a utopia. Freedom comes with personal responsiblity, and allowing people to make mistakes and act like assholes is part of it. Trying to change people's attitudes and making them "better" is social engineering whose philosophical background is the same as fascism. Similar to Nazism, striving to make society homogenous and thinking alike, is like turning humans into the Borg. All dissent is quashed, resistance is futile.