Thursday, September 11, 2008

Intelligence testing as tool of the eugenic program of extermination

http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap7.htm

12 comments:

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Truthseeker, FYI:
-----------------

J-MC Patriot Alert Task Force Email:
TO: gilwhite@comcast.net

Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:16 AM
re: Eugenics Final Solution, Annapolis etc.

Francisco Gil-White,
Historical & Investigative Research,
hirhome.com

Mr. Gil-White,

I have read some of your website, particularly Chapter 7 of Resurrecting Racism, much of which I am aware of, but not with the amount of specificity that you provided. I also browsed the Annapolis article.

I was wondering whether your website simply focusses on criticism of those who attempt to resolve overpopulation issues (unless of course you would be quite happy to live in a world of calcutta's and bombays) whether by prevention of overpopulation and it's consequences, or by putting it bluntly cannon fodder depopulation, whether as resource wars, religious wars, or just plain honest Nazi 'final solution' style?

Do you provide any suggestions and advocacy for ideas on seriously in an egalitarian manner encouraging the prevention of overpopulation? If so, please could you inform me where I could go on your website to read these suggestions, ideas and advocacy you are involved in.

I also wondered whether in your article on Annapolis, you had considered the possibility of the issues and ideas at bbb-annapolis-mdc.blogspot.com?

Finally, I have myself suggested two -- perhaps seriously out of the box ideas, for inside the box thinkers -- ideas for such prevention of unwanted children.

Briefly:

http://disclosure-jmcswans.blogspot.com/
IUD GI BILL:
An educational scholarship loan for women who choose to get an education prior to having children. If by the age of 25, they have maintained their commitment to an education and acquired their relevant degree, diploma or as relevant, and are still without child, then the scholarship loan paid as part of their IUD-GI bill, is written off and considered paid in full.

and the other, I posted it somewhere on the related sights, is what I could I guess call the Russian Roulette cognitive awakening for prospective parents idea. A kind of way prospective mommys and daddy's could do some serious self-analysis about how serious they are about their relationship to each other, commitment, and to their future child; to encourage themselves to ask themselves a lot of questions about their intentions for procreating... encouraging their own emotional growth, so that we don't have emotional children of adult ages, giving birth to children, and a world going mad, with emotional ineptitude and irresponsibility.
In short a world of inhumane genocidal slave and cannon fodder breeding procreation policies; which considering they are such procreation policies, the reality that their consequences are inhumane, genocidal and of the cannon fodder solution variety should not be any surprise to us, should it?

Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you,

Kind regards

Lara Johnstone

--
www.greean.co.nr

'S.Q. WORM SOCIETY:
"What good fortune for governments,
that 'the people' do not think."
~ Führer Adolf Hitler, Wolfsschanze
Huskylord, Third Reich ~

'S.Q. SOIL SOLDIER FAMILY:
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns.
We don't allow our enemies to have
guns, why should we allow them to have
ideas?" ~ Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin ~

Timothy said...

I've already mentioned that world overpopulation is a myth. Plenty of links here outline this. Europe is having an underpopulation crisis including Japan and South Korea. The UN says that world population will level and decline by 2050. Also, the population in the world can fit in the state of Texas given 1,000 sq. ft. per person.

Many among the new world order crowd promote depopulation and sick population control measures. There needs to be development of the Third World via modernization and high technology not depopulation tactics.

By Timothy

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Timothy,

If you feel that way, and you are quite happy to live in this world as it is, with it's slave and cannon fodder genocidal breeding habits, and consequences, then you are more than entitled to your belief.

I certainly don't consider it cognitively intelligent, in terms of imagining that can avoid the consequences or effect, of a cause you (I don't mean 'you' personally, but those who procreate in this inhumane slave and cannon fodder breeding high birth rate manner), can avoid living or experiencing the consequences.

It's like hoping that 200 + 200 is going to be 4000000 trillion, or that you will win any of these online spam lotteries, when you never even bought a bloody ticket...

but anyway, i'm happy to agree to disagree. I have yet to see any evidence to convince me otherwise, but if I do, I'd happily change my mind.

Lara

Timothy said...

We're human beings, so we have a right to disagree.


You know what, I feel that. I feel that genocide isn't inevitable. I feel like human ingeuity and human intelligence have overcome oppression for thousands of years. History proves this. Time validates this. Technological advancement sent globally is always a blessing.

I reject abortion. I reject population control. I reject eugenics and Nazism. These tenets are promoted by the elite and the new world crowd. They restrict individual liberty, they restrict true freedom, and they inhibit the unique value of all human life.


It's also false that trillions of humans will exist anytime soon. You haven't refuted me at all. You just promote over exaggeration as an excuse to promote the overpopulation deception.

Few in the world have high birth rates. It's a fact, the modernization of the Third World stablize population growth. Also, there is omission of the underpopulation crisis in Asia, Russia, parts of Europe, and parts of Africa even.

I do believe in improvement in the world. I just don't accept killing people in the process to make improvement. I don't believe in denying the Third World the necessary tools to be economically great to fulfill their God given destiny in the Universe.

Agreeing to disagree on this issue is fine since no evidence can convince me otherwise as well.

By Timothy

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Hi Tim,

Glad you don't mind if we -- for now -- agree to disagree, and perhaps we may find we shall find a way to agree.

I hope -- for the sake of those whom I unfortunately think genocide is reasonably inevitable -- that you are right, and I am wrong.

I would agree that to a certain extent, human ingenuity and intelligence have made inroads against oppression; they have won a few battles here and there, but I dont think the war -- which in essence really is always ongoing.

So I'd agree with you partially there.

As for technological advancement sent globally -- in my opinion it's a double edged sword; it depends what kind of technological advancement, and it depends on how the particular technology is used, by the relevant recipients; whether it is a blessing or a curse.

As a primary concern for the birth of children who are conceived out of love, by committed parents; which to me is the fundamental basis for loving procreation;

I too reject abortion; because when a child is born from parents who are committed to each other, who KNOW why they are procreating, and their intentions are based from love, for the child; WE WOULD NOT NEED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION!!

Because such parents WOULD NOT WANT, NOR NEED ANY ABORTION CLINIC ON THE PLANET ANYWHERE; and if all parents conceived children in such a manner PLANNED PARENTHOOD WOULD BE BANKRUPT YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!!!

We would not need to have this conversation; it would be relegated to history's dustbin!

The reality is a little different. Millions of children are born, and continue to be born, who are NOT WANTED, WHO ARE BORN FOR SLAVE PURPOSES, TO WORK FOR THE PARENTS, OR AS OLD AGE INSURANCE POLICIES, OR SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PARENTS, may need to patch up a rocky relationship and attempt to do it with a child (which very seldom works, and backfires on the child), and for other reasons.

So we have millions of children emotionally, financially, psychologically destitute and stunted in their growth as human beings.

Frankly, if my mother had been raped or similar thereby conceiving me, and could not have me, or did not want me; I WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE FINE IF SHE ABORTED ME.

However I consider the entire ABORTION - PRO LIFE - PRO CHOICE debate a bandaid on a braintumour issue; that both sides would rather fight about their little isolated ideology than address the reality that for both sides:

IF THEY WORKED TO PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, AND SUPPORTED WOMEN TO ONLY CONCEIVE CHILDREN OUT OF LOVE; THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO HAVE THIS PATHETIC PRO-LIFE, PRO-CHOICE OSTRICH HEAD IN THE SAND ARGUMENT.

But it appears neither side, is willing to admit to that reality; that IN FACT SHOULD THEY ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN SUCH A MANNER; BOTH SIDES WOULD (I) AGREE, AND (II) THEIR WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ABORTIONS, NOR THIS PATHETIC CHILDISH ARGUMENT.

As for population control.

I also reject population control -- IN A SOCIETY WHERE THE INDIVIDUALS ARE AND WANT TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY RESPONSIBLE.

Perhaps one day in some future life, I shall end up on such a planet; I certainly am not on such a planet in this life.

I live on a planet where people breed like braindead cattle on viagra, and couldn't care less how they treat their children.

And this they call 'human'. When 'people' act like fornicating viagra type cattle slaves, without any serious commitment to their offspring; they aren't behaving like they have any interest in the gifts of reason, logic, critical thinking, etc provided to them, which makes them 'human'. My father's farm had cattle who show more concern for their calves than many humans do for their children.

So in that sense, I consider the world to be inhabited by probably about 1 or 2 billion people, and the rest are just slave and cannon fodder breeding 'cattle' who think they are humans; but certainly don't behave that way, in terms of how they procreate, and how they treat their children.

Eugenics is what has been happening to humans since the first human came along, whether he was created by God, or some mutant offspring from the big bang.

If there weren't any eugenic evolution; we'd still be running around naked in the garden of eden...

Nazism is another reality of current life; whether it is hidden under the cloak of covert passive aggressive liberal biological warfare depopulation 'aids gas chambers' or whether it is up front in your face like the nazi's practiced. It's GEO POLITICS 101.

It will continue, until humans change their hateful high birth rate procreation behaviour of breeding like cattle on viagra; on a finite planet without enough resources; because they don't know the first goddamn fucking rule about ecological sustainable farming/procreation.

Rejecting it is fine; rejecting it with the intention of educating people towards where it no longer exists because society has eugenically evolved to a higher level of consciousness whereby they don't CAUSE THE PROBLEMS THEY ALLEGEDLY REJECT WITHOUT HAVING THE BALLS TO CHANGE THE CAUSES, RATHER THAN MOAN ABOUT THE FUCKING SYMPTOMS AND EFFECTS, is when anyone REALLY STARTS REJECTING A PRINCIPLE.

You know where you are in terms of your rejection of these issues; I don't, although I would hope you'd be for evolutionary consciousness whereby the rejection would no longer be required, since the issue being rejected would no longer be a reality.

I never said trillions of humans. As far as I am concerned 6 billion is about 4 billion TOO MANY ALREADY.

I never imagined I had refuted you; that was not my intention. Simply to state my perspective; and recognize yours, as different in some ways and similar in others.

You are entitled to your opinion that I promote over exaggeration as an excuse to promote the overpopulation deception.

I disagree; but then perhaps if I lived in lovely Virginia, with no or very little kayelitsha's down the road from me, with squatter camps and breeding cattle on viagra who rape babies, perhaps I would agree with you; since the problem of overpopulation wouldn't be STARING ME IN THE FACE WITH MILLIONS OF CATTLE BREEDING NIGGERS, anytime I left my front door...

REALITY HAS A HABIT OF CHANGING YOUR POINT OF VIEW -- PERHAPS YOU MAY WISH TO SPEND SOME TIME IN A SOWETHO OR CALCUTTA SQUATTER CAMP, AND SEE IF REALITY CHANGES YOUR POINT OF VIEW??

Few in the world have high birth rates? Maybe in Virginia -- again, take a trip to Calcutta, or Khayelitsha and see if that wakes you up out of your Virginia population reality?

The only way there can be a serious underpopulation crisis in any country, is if that country has consistently for a long period of time experienced a zero unemployment rate!!!!!!!

THAT MEANS NOT ONE COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET!!!

The shit those economists population policy people tell you about 'underpopulation crisis' is more slave and cannon fodder breeding economists, and considering your alleged opinions about the sanctity of human life, blah, blah, one would wonder why you believe those pathological population economists, who ONLY WANT TO MAKE THE GODDAMN FUCKING PROBLEM WORSE WITH MORE BANDAIDS, NOT ADDRESS THE CAUSES...

But if that is your choice -- by all means go ahead; ten years from now, they will sell you ice in Siberia, or anything you WANT TO HEAR, they will tell you, except the goddamn truth.

The third world is NOT INTERESTED IN BETTING ITSELF......... THE SOONER THE FIRST WORLD WAKES UP TO THAT REALITY, THEY SOONER THEY WILL BE REALLY ABLE TO HELP THE FEW IN THE THIRD WORLD WHO DO WANT TO BETTER THEMSELVES...

And finally, I did not say 'no evidence' could convince me otherwise -- I said I had not seen any impartial, evidence that could be constituted as evidence, instead of some economic religious or national bias BS; that can convince me otherwise.

If I am presented with some scientific evidence based upon reality and fact, that proves me incorrect in my perspective; I WOULD HAPPILY CHANGE MY MIND; HAPPILY.

If you are of the opinion that NO EVIDENCE can convince you otherwise; not even scientific evidence based on fact and reality; THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF OUR DISCUSSION?

To see whether I'd be willing to love a stubborn 'devils advocate'?

Well I would -- Love

Lara

Timothy said...

It's fine to agree to disagree. We do agree on many issues. Therefore that is fine with me as well.



Genocide is not inevitable nor is it justified in my eyes.




We both agree that human ingeunity and intelligence have been a blessing globally not just in the Western world. It has caused oppression to be decreased in countries as well. The war for truth and the war for freedom is ongoing. Yet, it's our responsibility as human beings to treat a person as we would want to be treated. Giving other nations high technology, modernization, and other crucial forms of improvement is just.






Technology is a double edged sword. Although, that doesn't mean we reject all forms of technology. It just means we become cautious when new forms of technology comes into our lives. Procreation of children is fine. Corncern for technology is fine, but that doesn't mean we deny technology from the Third World. No, we ought to trade and give the Third the necessary technology to fulfill their destinies and improve their own lives. Children, irrespective if they are concieved out of love or whatever are a blessing in the world.





It's fine that you reject abortion. I reject it because it's murder. You don't rip a baby limb from limb and call it a choice. It isn't a choice because it eliminates the choices the unborn baby has in the world. It ends the probability and possibility of that life being a contributing factors in making the world a better place. By doing abortion, you eliminate a possible great leader, inventor, scholar, theologian, fighter for liberty, etc. Well, we have this conservation is nothing sinister. It's fine as long as it's cordial.





Planned Parenthood would be bankrupt yesterday if woman didn't want an abortion. Yet, woman or people's wants never justify immoral action. There were people wanting murder and rape, that doesn't mean rape is justified at all. Many great inventors and musicians have been born by rape as well.





This conservation is legitimate regardless of your capital letters. See, this conservation reflects 2 different philosophies. One philosophy outlines that eugenics is evil and killing people is immoral. Another philosophy wants eugenics, nefarious evil, and deception to spread in the world. What? Tons of children are wanted in the world. That is why adoptions are going up in certain quarters. Some children may not be wanted by some parents. Yet, children are wanted by many. You need not to demonize and downplay children. As a matter of fact, this is my blog and I will have the final say in it. Using hypotheticals is no justification for allowing children to die or abortion to continue. The answer to emotionally wounded children aren't more abortion. It's the development of child care, adoption, and other forms of assitance and charity. Why don't you mention that? You don't mention that because you don't want to hear these answers. You want to constantly wail on the problems, but don't want to see concrete solutions. You solve these problems by fighting against child slave, sex trafficking, and other evils, not population control.



That's you about rape and abortion. As for me, If I were born as a product of rape, I would want to live. You wanting to die is sad. Abortion shouldn't be done because of rape since you don't punish a child for the actions of a criminal. You punish the criminal and the not the child, who is innocent of any child. There is nothing wrong with being pro-life or fighting for their ideology. The Pro-Life isn't weak neither isolated. It is vivrant and strong. It's here to stay whether you like it or not.




Plenty of Pro-Lifers have done things to prevent unwanted pregnancies in America and globally. You just don't see it in the news and media. There are crisis pregnancy cities and other solutions avaliable. Also, children irrespective if they are birth out of love or not are a blessing in society. The pro-abortion crowd just doesn't want any compromise as they usually support abortion on demand or for any reason whatsoever. Being pro-life isn't pathetic. What's really disgusting is the genocide of over 45 million children being murdered as a result of Roe v. Wade.




Pro Lifers always addresses reality. You fail to see that solutions are being enacted by many Pro Lifers from adoptions, charities, crisis pregnancy centers, assistance parenthood, and other solutions to stop abortions. This argument isn't childish. You seem to be easily agitated when you omit real arguments.



I reject population control forever as well. I reject it irrespective if people are responsible with their lives or not, because coercion by the government to make people do something that they don't want to do is the essence of authoritarianism.




Why do you abhor population control when you demonize humanity like that. Many human beings are waking up about the truth dealing with the new world order. Humanity is the highest order of intelligence, technology, and inguiety of the animal kingdom. We are dynamic and strong. We have the right to achieve great accomplishments. People breeding? There are underpopulation crisis in Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and parts of Africa. So, you need to understand that without the typical deception about breeding excessively, when that isn't the case at all mostly.




You solve fornication problems by offering solutions. You seem to be complaining without offering solutions. Also, all of humanity are not breeding like cattle. Most people have concern about their children. So, I will not yet that stand by you calling mankind acting as cattle. You're stereotype of people collectively not caring about children is false since many do. The deal is that there is poverty and non-industralization of the Third World to help people.




You wanting the world to be 1 and 2 billion outlines you real population control purpose. You claim to deny support of population control, yet you want a massive decrease of world population. That's an oxymoron. The truth is that the UN says that population growth will level and decrease by the year of 2050. Sorry, eugenics in the scale now is recent. Natural processes isn't eugenics. See, eugenics is the intentional murder of human life under the guise of believing the lie that certain men are "inferior." That hasn't occured in a massive scale until in recent centuries. God has nothing to do with that at all.



Nazism is sick and degenerate. It's not justified at all. It's rejected by most of humanity. Some of Nazism may be a reality, but that doesn't mean we support it. We reject it and depopulation plus other forms of eugenics.




Your fatalism is what I disagree with indeed. There is no high birth rate globally in most nations and I've shown you examples refuting that lie. I don't know why you keep on promoting that lie. Also, humans are breeding like crazy at all. That's impossible because there are limitations of our reproduction system anyway. This planet has plenty of resources to sustain life at it is. It's just that internationalism exploit resources and prevent people from using technology to be self sufficient. Some researchers have found that new oil supplies can be utilized for centuries globally. There is nothing wrong with procreation. Me or you have no right to tell people how many children they want to have anyway. The solution to these problems is the clean up of our environment, the development of newer technologies, and right farming techniques. People are addressing the symptoms, but some population control advocate reject the real pro-population solutions.




I know my view. I believe in individual liberty without the government forcing me to do something that I don't want to do. 6 billion is not 4 billion too much. The reason is that all 6 billion humans can fit in the state of Texas given 1,000 sq. ft. each. That conclusively refutes the overpopulation lie. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea.



You have a right to your views and I have a right to show mine. I agree with you on that point.




I disagree with other issues. There are lovely places globally including Virginia. Virginia is a great place to live at. Although, people raping babies deserve jail time not eugenics. People have a right to concieve what they want. If there are ecological problems, conservation, development of countries, technological advancment, and other solutions. The propulation control advocate hardly never mention that but have paranoia about populations. Their paranoia is similar to the neo-cons having paranoia about terrorism. Also, your use of the N word is totally unnecessary. That word defines racism among many people. I hope you're not a racist by using that word in an angry context. Also, black population growth in America have gone down radically in the 20th century until 2005.




I have habit of changing my point on many issues, but not on this issue. Human liberty and hope in God propells me to think that improvement in society is great.



Few birth rates are global as I said. These birth rates exist in Russia, parts of Africa, South Korea, Western Europe, and other places. I don't know why you don't get it. Also, in India, many places have an overcrowding problem not a overpopulation problem. Also, parts of India have sanitation issues, meaning they need more mordern technology not murder as an option to help them out.





Underpopulation is real and I gave you examples of this. I don't know why you deny this fact. The nation doesn't have enough workers to keep its economy strong and Barry McLerran, producer of "Demographic Winter," a documentary on underpopulation problems, says that could have motivated the nation to expand by taking over Georgia. "Russia has one of the lowest birth rates in the world at 1.17 children per woman," he told LifeNews.com. "A nation needs a birth rate of 2.1 just to replace current population." Most demographers generally believe that Russia's current population of 144 million will fall to 115 million by 2050. But Murray Feshbach, with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, thinks Russia's population will drop to 101 million and could go as low as 77 million by mid-point in this century. That outlines a real underpopulation problem.



The pro-population are addressing the causes and solutions. You just want a certain solutions. The causes are poverty, conflict and other reasons for underpopulation in certain nation. We should have compassion toward all human beings and have love for them. That means we help them out. Yes, I respect the sancitity of human life. I will never mock it or deny it.




Sorry, you reject the truth. I gave you sources and examples. You just reject it because you don't want to hear it. You reject the love of population growth when radical development of technology and trade is one solution to help out the Third World.





The Third World is interested in better itself. Have you known about university students from India, China, Africa, and other locations come here. They want there education so they can return home to better the lives of their families over there. Sorry, you shown your true colors of demonizing the Third World. Also, most Third World people want help as evident by their request. Sorry, we Americans aren't going to give up on the Third World at all.




Sorry, non-biased evidence have existed refuting permanent overpopulation, eugenics, and other lies. Scientific papers have been written on this topic. You just reject because you want to follow a certain perspective. Now, there is nothing wrong with showing information in an religious, economic, or national view. Also, economics isn't biased at all typically.




There are plenty of scientific evidence refuting overpopulation and eugenics. You witnessed an article on this topic. The truth is that population growth according to the UN will level and decline by 2050. That is an unbiased fact. That's scientific and really accurate as well. You can deny and you want to deny it. There needs to be help to the Third World. That's a fact as well. Not all humans are concieving as jackrabbits. That is a fact.

http://www.pop.org/ is a link about this issue. I will oppose the overpopulation lie and I will oppose abortion along with population control forever.

By Timothy

Timothy said...

I will bring it like always. Yet, for now on I will make shorter responses.

By Timothy

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Conservation with you is always interesting; although sometimes I really don't know how to respond to you; anyway if anything is worth conversing, or conserving; you indeed are...

still percolating your long response, and trying to get by in my downsized ratrace..

Your conservationist 'Friend' (I hope? ;-))

Lara

Timothy said...

Well, there is nothing wrong with conservation. I made an error in my response. In some of the words, I really wanted to say conversation as in a dialogue. Now, my response was long because at first I didn't really wanted to be that long. It was until I read your entire response and didn't agree with some of your view. So, I responded long to answer question and make sure I made my point on certain issues.

By Timothy

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

RESPONSE FROM MR. G-WHITE:

Thank you for your letter.

Actually, I am not terribly interested in overpopulation. Not that I think the problem is uninteresting as such, it's just that I can't do everything, and that's not what I do. My topic is racism, and especially antisemitism. So that is how I came to the subject of eugenics, because the eugenics movement produced the nazi movement.

All the best,

FGW


===========================
RESPONSE TO MR. GIL-WHITE:


Mr. Gil-White,

Thanks for your Reply.

Good luck with your topic of racism, and addressing it in the absence of population issues.

Bandaid's on brain tumours are indeed the academic, medical world, not to mention politicians favourite means of avoiding addressing the source of problems. "Lebensraum" was not about racism, but about depopulation, Mr. White. The SYMPTOM is racism, very cleverly used by TPTB to DIVIDE AND CONQUER, to resolve their ISSUE of POPULATION POLICY! "lebensraum".

Not to mention the DISASTER CAPITALISM means whereby they profit from both ends.. ;-) Really is Machievellian like genius, if you think about it!

Nevertheless, enjoy your futilitarian focus; and thanks again for responding.

Kind regards,

Lara Johnston

Timothy said...

Another link refuting overpopulation:
From http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000972.php





Overpopulation: Not a Problem Now, and Never Will Be


A future of overpopulation is one of a number of hoary old objections to progress and longer, healthier lives. It has been raised over and over again throughout recent history, but like all other Malthusian concepts, it was wrong then, and it's just as wrong now. Common Malthusianism - the idea that a given resource (such as living space or food) will run out in the future based upon extrapolation of present trends - stems from fundamental misunderstandings about economics, human action and change. We create change in response to our environment; our self-interest leads us to constantly strive at the creation of new resources where old resources are becoming scarce and expensive. This is the path to profit for the individual - and progress for all. One needs a certain amount of willful blindness to avoid seeing the process in action now and in recent history.

The ideas of Malthus were just as wrong as the ideas of those who warn of overpopulation today, and for just the same reasons. The simple answers to any claim of overpopulation with increasing longevity are much as follows:

1) Population growth declines and reverses with increasing wealth, longevity and technological progress:

Decelerating population growth appears to be an inevitable result of growing wealth. Early on in a country's developmental curve, children can be regarded as 'producer goods' (as economists would say). Parents put their children to work on the farm to generate food and revenue. Very little effort is put into caring for the child: no expensive health plans, special classes, trips to Disneyland, X-Men action figures, or mounting phone bills. As we become wealthier, children become 'consumer goods'. That is, we look on them more and more as little people to be enjoyed and pampered and educated, not beasts of burden to help keep the family alive. We spend thousands o dollars on children to keep them healthy, entertain them, and educate them. We come to prefer fewer children to a vast mob of little ones. This preference seems to be reinforced by changing tastes resulting from improved education.
2) It is self-evident from even a few back of the envelope calculations that the Earth can support tens of billions in comfort using the technology of today - and never mind the rest of the solar system once the cost of getting into orbit has been sufficiently reduced.

So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).
3) What some presently view as "overpopulation" is more accurately described as crushing poverty amidst the potential for plenty and resources left unused. This is the result of despotism, corruption, economic ignorance, short-sighted greed and the inhumanity of man unto man - it is not a matter of counting heads.

Here, then, is a short guide for kleptocrats and egalitarians who want to keep their countries poor. All of these policies have stood the test of time as techniques for creating and maintaining poverty. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it will give would-be political leaders a good idea of how to start their countries on the road to ruin.
Malthusianism and cries of overpopulation in the face of a future of healthy life extension are forms of relinquishment. It is a call for death and suffering to continue on a massive scale; a certain type of person prefers any present horror to the uncertainty of change. Fortunately, such people have usually been swept aside in the past by the urge of the many to better their lives, one step at a time. May that long continue to be the case.

Technorati tags: life extension, overpopulation

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000972.php

Timothy said...

I told you that I will have the last word.