[btu2012]

Yale Study Shows US Sterilization Movement More Prevalent that Believed at Time of Nazi Germany

population control

At that time the US and other countries used forced sterilization on supposedly "deficient" people to completely stop them from reproducing (this included the mentally ill and the mentally retarded). Such programs continued long after the war e.g. in Sweden.

We are not discussing something like that here (in particular no one is proposing to define a group of people who should be prevented from reproducing). That sort of idea is utterly discredited.

For your information, the strongest measure I would personally support is a change in taxation but it's interesting to see that some people would (or think they would or claim they would) support quite extreme ideas. My guess is that that's just posturing though.

Btu

[Ferretlover]

I did not say that I favored that type of sterilization, however, forced sterilization was one of the options offered in your poll.
I posted that item primarily for information, and because it is a short jump from that kind of sterilization to a form regarding procreation.
If I remember the article correctly, it said something to the affect that forced sterilization in the US lasted until the 1960s.
And, I also sometimes feel that our current executive branch is behaving like Nazis.....
I don't think that forced anything regarding enforced reduced procreation will go over in the US. To reduce numbers, it will have to be something along the lines of global war or pandemics...
Of course, I could be wrong!

[Ludi]

Seriously, it's to be used as a gauge of social attitudes.

Btu

Used in what?

Thanks, just curious!

[Bytesmiths]

Seriously, it's to be used as a gauge of social attitudes.

Used in what?

Fascist mind-control experiments? For compiling lists of the first to go up against the wall? To find Ann Coulter types who want to make a baby?

[Ferretlover]

lol @ byte

[btu2012]

Seriously, it's to be used as a gauge of social attitudes.

Btu

Used in what?

Thanks, just curious!

Used by the Illuminati planners for their UN agenda. Truly.
Hope Alex Jones reads this

Seriously, some people want to know how awareness of resource limits affects people's attitudes towards population
control/reduction.

Btu

[btu2012]

Seriously, it's to be used as a gauge of social attitudes.

Used in what?

Fascist mind-control experiments? For compiling lists of the first to go up against the wall? To find Ann Coulter types who want to make a baby?

Nothing that ambitious. They don't take polls for that, they've got much better ways to sniff you out. After they find out who fits the profile they desire, they'll abduct them for secret cross-breeding experiments with aliens. That's the plan, anyway. Well, unless you wear a tinfoil hat, in which case ...



Btu

[gg3]

Back a ways here:

---

Egomancer is correct in one respect: war is the fastest way to reduce a population to below the carrying capacity of its ecosystem. See also my postings about "humanitarian nuclear war."

However, high tech warfare is about as effective at determining darwinian fitness as a lottery based on random numbers.

Yo Egomancer, have you ever served in combat? Know anyone who has? Somehow I doubt it.

---

Jack: I disagree. Nuclear weapons are the better bet.

First of all, ground bursts throw lots of debris up into the atmosphere, which will help offset global warming. Second, they're quick enough that your enemy (or your target population) doesn't have time to respond. Third, there is no issue about having to keep a secret, as one does with a preemptive biological attack.

And last but by no means least, the blowback (in the technical sense) is manageable: if the fallout comes your way, hide in a hole for a month at most, and then it's safe to come out again. Can't say that about bugs! And if you vaccinate as much of your own population as you need to keep the wheels turning after the plague, your enemies will find out (there is no way to keep that a secret) and then the cat's out of the bag. As it were.

Too many people have to be involved to make bugs work. Nuclear weapons, not so many that you can't keep it a secret until the first one goes off.

---

BTU is correct about China and Russia. Both of which (whom?) are just waiting for the US to go away, and under the right circumstances might be tempted to give us a nudge.

---

Header_Rack, your reasoning has a hole in it big enough to drive a main battle tank through.

Your neighbors have 10 kids on 40 acres. OK, five of the kids take care of the farm while the other five take a hike up the road, with rifles and binoculars. One day you & your family are outdoors together, and five minutes later you're all dead, and the multiplying morons down the road have taken over your land.

Did I hear you say "Life isn't fair"...? Were those your last words, or the words of the 16-year-old who took you out with a single shot, as he and his siblings bury the corpses and survey their new conquest? Or will they keep your daughter alive as "breeding stock"...?

Dude, you need to take some lessons in community defense.

It's not in anyone's interest for that kind of excessive breeding to be tolerated.

---

Egomancer, re. nuclear defense shield: Dude, go do your research, it simply can't work. Search the keywords "nuclear defense" and "decoys" and see what you come up with. The decoys will always be cheaper than anything that can kill them all fast enough to also get the real warheads. Game over, you lose.


---

BTU, what measures do you think are realistic (rather than extremist or naive) given the short time frame available?

---

I'm quite serious about the proposals I posted, including snipping everyone at age 12 and requiring a permit in order to make a baby. It's not posturing. I'm a geek, I wouldn't know how to posture if you gave me an illustrated instruction.

That stuff is downright mild compared to what Ma Nature has in store for us if we don't. See also Iraq, Somalia, Darfur.

Realistically we won't do doodley-squat, and Ma Nature will do the housecleaning.

[btu2012]

BTU, what measures do you think are realistic (rather than extremist or naive) given the short time frame available?

---

I'm quite serious about the proposals I posted, including snipping everyone at age 12 and requiring a permit in order to make a baby. It's not posturing. I'm a geek, I wouldn't know how to posture if you gave me an illustrated instruction.

That stuff is downright mild compared to what Ma Nature has in store for us if we don't. See also Iraq, Somalia, Darfur.

gg3,

Thanks for the excellent post. It's a pleasure to get back on topic.

I agree with the points you make above. I think that any measures, initially, should start with incentives and taxation
(including along the lines you proposed) and possibly fines in some parts of the third world (where education is low, tax collection is poor and the political system is authoritarian). One also needs intensive propaganda through all media, saturating the public with awareness of the problems we are facing and we'll likely face; this will require government pressure. Among incentives I would mention universally available free contraception, family planning clinics etc.

Increasing women's education and rights as the UN is already doing is crucial, and should be intensified and funded MUCH better than it is now. It should be viewed as an emergency and high priority. A propaganda campaign must be launched/intensified in certain third world countries.

I agree with making foreign aid and funding conditional of implementing meaningful population control/reduction schemes, and on reforming tax codes to account for environmental and resource costs.

One also has to deal with the objections of religious leaders. This could be done by encouraging "stewardship" interpretations of religious texts. One can achieve it by directing funding appropriately and by challenging the "grow and multiply" paradigm; also by exposing the suicidal character of the ideas of the "multiply" schools. This will be extremely difficult to achieve especially regarding Islam and Hinduism.

All of this would be the first step, likely to be politically feasible as the crisis becomes serious.

In the rich/developing world, taxation would be key (also for dealing with the general resource/environmental problems). One must reform the tax system such as to fully include all social and environmental externalities of major human activities, including that of having children. This would ensure that everyone pays the full price for the environmental, social and resource damage created his decisions.

As the crisis progresses, more serious measures might become necessary and politically acceptable.

Btu

[Bytesmiths]

In the rich world, taxation would be key (also for dealing with the general resource/environmental problems).

Taxation as a way of effecting change only works when people have jobs. If vast numbers of people are thrown out of work (a la 1929), then the "tax tool" becomes impotent.

This is certainly true of those who have chosen voluntary simplicity, as well. Tax policy has zero impact on me, because I don't make enough money to pay taxes.

Be careful about promoting growth-based tools in a period of decline.

[btu2012]

In the rich world, taxation would be key (also for dealing with the general resource/environmental problems).

Taxation as a way of effecting change only works when people have jobs. If vast numbers of people are thrown out of work (a la 1929), then the "tax tool" becomes impotent.

This is certainly true of those who have chosen voluntary simplicity, as well. Tax policy has zero impact on me, because I don't make enough money to pay taxes.

Be careful about promoting growth-based tools in a period of decline.

You are perfectly correct. However I expect that the economy will be kept functioning in some sort of emergency regime, similar to WWII. There will be a great need for large scale relocalization/public transportation/energy efficiency projects, which could be used to keep people employed.

The unemployed will likely not choose to have children, if there are no tax benefits associated with that, and if reproduction is made expensive by taxation of the associated products (value added tax on child-rearing products, given the environmental cost of having children).

Btu

[Bytesmiths]

The unemployed will likely not choose to have children, if there are no tax benefits associated with that...

That might be a hasty assumption. I think that in times of abject poverty, reproduction goes up, because the children can be put to work at an early age, whether farming, working in a family business, or begging.

[btu2012]

The unemployed will likely not choose to have children, if there are no tax benefits associated with that...

That might be a hasty assumption. I think that in times of abject poverty, reproduction goes up, because the children can be put to work at an early age, whether farming, working in a family business, or begging.

Not if rearing them to the age where they are productive is more expensive than the benefit they could bring their parents.

One could also introduce some basic legal requirements for registering children, such as their parents should be able to provide them with a reasonable environment and education. I agree with some of gg3's proposals in this regard.

Btu

[Bytesmiths]

One question always remains when talk turns to "registering" children or restricting procreation -- who decides?

Would you trust the current US administration with these powers? If so, you can bet that the wealthy would be free to procreate and those living simply would bear the brunt of regulation. How about "registering children?" That didn't seem to work for the current US leader, who pretty much did as he pleased at a time when all young men were supposed to be "registered" for possible military service.

Not that I'm against limiting procreation -- I just cringe when I hear talk of regulation, because in a low-energy future, big governments are going to have less and less power.

If it doesn't come from within, we're going to have to do without.

[btu2012]

One question always remains when talk turns to "registering" children or restricting procreation -- who decides?

Would you trust the current US administration with these powers? If so, you can bet that the wealthy would be free to procreate and those living simply would bear the brunt of regulation. How about "registering children?" That didn't seem to work for the current US leader, who pretty much did as he pleased at a time when all young men were supposed to be "registered" for possible military service.

Not that I'm against limiting procreation -- I just cringe when I hear talk of regulation, because in a low-energy future, big governments are going to have less and less power.

If it doesn't come from within, we're going to have to do without.

Bytesmiths,

Your point is well taken. Under normal conditions I wouldn't trust any government with such powers, they are guaranteed to be abused at least to some extent. I wouldn't support measures of this type unless more reasonable methods prove ineffective.

In the medium run almost all options look bad, so one will have to make a calculus of lesser evil. The best hope hope is
that one could achieve a relatively orderly power-down by simplifying and relocalizing our societies a bit like the Byzantine empire did after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I would hope that extreme measures will not be needed but if things get nasty then I am not sure what the choices will be.

Btu

[DesuMaiden]

Once we run out of oil, will the world population crash down to only a billion or two? I don't think we can feed the current population of the Earth without oil. When we run out of oil, I think the world's population will crash from 8 or 9 billion to only about a billion.

Without oil, the world might be able to sustain 1 or 2 billion people. I think there are too many damn people on this planet. We are beyond the carrying capacity of this planet. Something has got to give in. The world's population will crash one day. When the world population will crash depends on when we run out of oil. But I believe sometime around the mid 21st century, the world population will crash down to pre-oil levels of 1 billion.

There is no way this planet can sustain anymore people. The population needs to be purged. There are too many useless eaters on this planet, who need to DIE.

[JuanP]

Desu, I don't like using the expression "once we run out of oil", because we will, technically never run out of oil. Long after humans cease to exist as a species, the planet will still have a lot of oil in it. The oil will never run out, there will always be very significant amounts left on the ground that are too hard and expensive to extract. Only a fraction of the total global oil resources will ever be used by humans.
I'd ask,"Will the population contract after we can no longer sustain today's levels of energy production and consumption?"
I'd say we could have had a billion or two for a long time, under certain conditions, before we did all the damage we've done, and are still doing, to our planet. I don't think that's possible any longer. In my opinion, there will be very few or no people left after all the predicaments we face hit us.
Our species' extinction is only a matter of time, and the time we have might end up being significantly shorter than most people imagine possible today.

[noobtube]

Having spent years thinking about it, I realized something.

The only big losers will be the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and anywhere else that relies on a car to live.

Especially for Americans, who built an entire infrastructure specifically designed to only work with $2/gallon gas and requires cars just to get food (which requires 1500 miles to get to its destination).

What's worse, is that American food is already so low quality.

What people think is meat, beef or chicken or fish, can be horse meat, or wood pulp, or soy lecithin, or has been dipped in ammonia, or been fused, or has been fed other meat, or has been dyed, filled, or turned into pink slime.

It's like Americans are eating ramen noodles and hamburger helper, and yet think the food is as good as it has always been.

Americans eat so much fast food and packaged and processed food where they stick just about anything in there. I have seen ingredients that go into soap and antifreeze (Propylene glycol), GMO smoothers (soy lecithin), wood (cellulose), artificial sweeteners, bug products and animal anus secretions for colors (called "natural" flavors), and more.

You tell Americans that they are eating garbage, and it is like trying to convince a cow, sheep, or chicken that they are being fattened up for the slaughterhouse. They either ignore you, walk away, or act like you don't exist.

Yet, Americans, probably the stupidest animals on Earth, keep screaming about too many people, as if they aren't the source of there being too many people.

The food in so-called "developed" countries is pure garbage. That should be a warning of a huge population problem in those areas. Of course, they won't do anything about it. It is much easier to do what they've always done. Blame others, while doing nothing to change their own behavior (like giving up those stupid personal cars), in any meaningful way.

[Henriksson]

There is no way this planet can sustain anymore people. The population needs to be purged. There are too many useless eaters on this planet, who need to DIE.

I am very disappointed with this reasoning. I, for one, certainly hope that as many as possible survive, even though it's undeniable that even the current level of population is impossible to sustain.

The saddest part is that the types of people who did the least damage - eg Sub-Saharan Africans, Indians - are the least likely to survive.

[noobtube]

It is always those "other" people that won't survive, while you motor around in your gas-guzzling, rolling trash bin, to get your "mostly food" at the local "SUPER"-market so you can go to your energy-sucking house to catch the latest "stories" on the TeeVee.

The land beasts that are destroying the world's natural abundance will somehow be LESS affected than people who use hardly any resources.

It's like saying HUMMERs will be LESS affected by a lack of oil than bicycles.

But, that is how the degenerate idiots in "the West" actually think. Which means they will be totally unprepared for what is coming, and will be destroyed.

I LOVE IT!