Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 7, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Trump Ends Funding For Population Control

Trump Ends Funding For Population Control thumbnail

The Department of State laid out why it no longer funds the United Nations’ family planning arm in a memo sent to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relation.

The department said U.S. government money will not be given to the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) and any other organization that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

The UNPF was founded in 1969 when overpopulation was a major political issue. Democratic administrations usually give taxpayer dollars to the group, but the Trump administration won’t be giving the $32.5 million to the UNPF this year.

Pro-life groups have regularly accused UNPF of supporting coercive population control programs, like China’s “one-child policy.” Part of the organization’s stated goal is to “deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted,” and some claim the group was created, in part, to prevent the spread of communism through abortion.

The president has the authority to withhold federal funding from foreign appropriations bills. The U.S. was UNPF’s fourth-largest donor under the Obama administration, but the past few Republican administrations have denied taxpayer funding to the group.

Population control supporters aren’t happy with Trump’s decision.

“What is it about women’s empowerment and autonomy that is so offensive to this administration?,” Brian Dixon, vice president of Population Connection, said in a statement. “Don’t be fooled. Today’s action to bar any aid to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) by the Trump administration has absolutely nothing to do with defending human rights in China or anywhere else.”

Instead of donating to UNPF, the State Department fund U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) global health programs.

Population became an intellectual fad in the 1970s, and advocates claimed “100 to 200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” They predicted that millions of humans would starve to death and that mass famines would sweep rich countries, like England.

Those predictions failed to materialize, and, instead, a massive agricultural revolution boosted the world’s food supply in the following decades.

daily caller



19 Comments on "Trump Ends Funding For Population Control"

  1. Davy on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 1:08 pm 

    Please, ended funding for population control!!! Good because it was a joke. Population has exploded while all this population control has been funded. More stupid NGO’s and governmental agencies with big salaries and little to show. More lying liberal fake efforts to do something they can’t do because they are living one way and talking another.

    The only population control is to embrace poverty and collapse. A die down will come with a collapse and that is the only way to get our numbers down to a natural carrying capacity. We can get there quickly or if we were wise we could powerdown over time. It does not matter anymore. The scale and the timing are beyond human management. It is like climate change. The horse is out the gate and you are not going to catch it. What we need to be doing is putting money into hospices and lifeboats. Use your imagination on what that means. Stop using your imagination that there is such a thing as population control in this day and age. I will laugh in your stupid face.

  2. Ghung on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 1:09 pm 

    More babies.
    More refugees.
    More walls.
    Sounds like a plan.

  3. You Don't Want to Know Me on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 1:17 pm 

    “More lying liberal fake efforts to do something they can’t do because they are living one way and talking another”

    Shorter every-Davy-post:

    “Damn big gubmint liberals screwing everything up!”

    While Davy gives a pass to the other side of that liberal/conservative coin. Because he’s dumb.

    Hey Davy, conservatives are helping screw the world up too. Just so you know.

    This helpful post will go right over your sloped head and right into the bit bucket I’m sure but oh well…

    Have a nice day, uh, pussy?

  4. You Don't Want to Know Me on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 1:46 pm 

    “Stop using your imagination that there is such a thing as population control in this day and age. I will laugh in your stupid face.”

    So if I used my imagination to not have kids as a form of population control you’d laugh in my “stupid face”?

    Oh Davy Boy… put some thought into what you write before you hit the post button, OK? Otherwise you say really stupid shit.

    Just more friendly advice.

  5. superpeasant on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 1:55 pm 

    By letting global warming rip Trump will achieve the same result – much more dramatically but in an irreversible and considerably less controllable manner.

  6. You Don't Want to Know Me on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 1:58 pm 

    “More babies.”

    There’ll be more babies no matter what 32 million pays for – Davy is right about that.

    There’ll be more babies until there’s no more food and shelter for them. Like all animal species humans will gain in population as long as there is food and shelter for more of them.

    We ain’t no smarter than your average rat when it comes to that.

  7. Apneaman on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 2:25 pm 

    Waste of money anyhow. The population has more than doubled in my 50 years on this planet. Could doing nothing have made it all that much worse? Let the cancer multiply uninhabited I say. That way the end of human suffering will come all the quicker.

    It appears that the human cancer might be unintentionally causing something of a population negative feedback by poisoning themselves with their consumer goodies and pollution.

    Male Sperm Count Is Lower Than Ever, and Scientists Say It’s A Threat to Our Very Existence

    The quality of our swimmers has been on the decline, too

    “… sperm counts have been consistently decreasing for the past 75 years and, even worse, the sperm that we do have is misshapen, or, as he puts it, “veering like drunks or paddling crazily in circles.”

    http://www.menshealth.com/health/men-producing-less-sperm

    Are Your Sperm in Trouble?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/opinion/sunday/are-your-sperm-in-trouble.html?_r=0

  8. Apneaman on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 2:32 pm 

    US and China, World’s Worst Polluters, Won’t Discuss Climate Change at Summit

    http://wakingscience.com/2017/04/3746/

    All that matters now is last man standing and anyone who spends any significant amount money/resources on environmental concerns will not be standing last. All will fall in the end.

  9. AFDF on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 2:32 pm 

    Population explosion is a problem of 3rd world poor countries and Hitchens said the only solution is to empower women and to remove them from compulsory reproduction/breeding. In America the Duggar family are the exception but living standard can still allow them to afford it. It still feels like the mom is acting as a queen bee of sort.

    http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-mt-mother-teresa-was-not-a-friend-of-the-poor-she-was-a-friend-of-poverty-she-said-that-christopher-hitchens-63-8-0857.jpg

    I think Hitchens wanted women to be independent and thus produce fewer offsprings. He thinks this is a natural way of doing population control.

    Once net energy is in terminal decline, women have to be bred in massive scale to provide labor hands.

  10. Davy on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 4:00 pm 

    Hey, “don’t want to know a dumbass”, conservatives have been fucking up the world for generations. It is just recently the lying fake liberal left has gone off the deep end.

    BTW, I must have bitch slapped you good the other day. I can tell by all the whining. Lol. Let’s rename you I got bitch slapped for being a pussy. Double lol!

  11. Sissyfuss on Fri, 7th Apr 2017 10:54 pm 

    Hmmm, misshapen drunken sperm swimming in circles. So that’s how you end up with a buffoon for a president.

  12. DMyers on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 8:52 pm 

    Sissyfuss

    funny comment. But I gratuitously defend Trump on this point. Apnea’s quote states a decline over the past 75 years. Trump, therefore, at about 70, would be pre-sperm-disability or, at worst, on the cusp of the transition to sperm-diability. As to Trump voters as a possibly highly polluted pool of sperm disability, there is no indication sperm disability is not evenly distributed throughout the entire population.

    It can be agreed, humans are prone to procreate, even in dire circumstances. But throughout history, this natural inclination has been exacerbated by political manipulators. That includes salesmen and advertisers.

    We are a rigid species when it comes to following the tried and true. We latch on to such cultural maxims as, “sex sells”, and grind away forever. I’m sure the observation of that maxim can be found among even primitive, tribal people. Want to sell a nice polished stone? “It would be a gift to cause her immediate sexual arousal…” So the story goes.

    This all boils down to a mass media experience of sexual images and subliminal messages based on sexual content, all of which tap into a consciousness that is wide open and unfiltered.

    So, this unbridled craving for sex and strange, which ultimately, by some strange coincidence, leads to more births of more children, is elevated by outside intervention stimulating sexual desire, apart from concern over stimulating procreation.

    The solution is simple. Take sex out of advertising.

  13. Sissyfuss on Sat, 8th Apr 2017 10:01 pm 

    DM, you also need to take the breeding imperative out of religion. Such as an empty womb is a sin. Sex sells but so do condoms. Remove the guilt about enjoying sex without procreation and the world would be happier and healthier.

  14. Davy on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 3:07 am 

    “The solution is simple. Take sex out of advertising.” The wiser move is to diminish and or eliminate advertising as we know it. That would knock on to ending TV and Hollywood. These are our culture destroying icons of the 20th century. Yet, somehow few would want to go that far. Sex in advertising through mass media is based on individual free speech and most anything goes. Sex is naturally going to be like cream rising to the top. So something that sounds good like get sex out of advertising really must go far deeper to be effective. The pathways for excess must be eliminate and these are drastic efforts.

    We have a system that is bad and trying to tweak a bad system does little. The alternatives are seemingly draconian but nothing else will work. You can’t legislate or educate these things out of this type of system. Just like you can’t win a drug war. Man does not belong at this level with effective wisdom. What we have is cancerous growth on all levels abstract and physical and this growth is now in the process of killing us. It is destroying our natural commons and our social fabric. The wisdom needed is not compatible with unhindered growth. The simple act of saying no is not possible at some levels.

    There appears little that can be done. I see nothing out there that makes a difference with population. Population efforts are a failure on all levels at the macro. On some levels there are successes. Some places people have made their lives better by family planning and responsible procreation. These generally have come from affluence and affluence has come along with population growth. To get affluent results population must grow so is there really any success? I am not saying doing away with these successful localized efforts. What I am saying is get honest about them. We are not going to solve our population problems except with decline. Localize successes in on overall failure is not success.

    This system of modernism is not conducive to less and population control is less. The world has basics standards of individual rights. These are great values but they also come at a price. The price today is anything goes. I know there are various laws and norms but I am talking those little allowances that when multiplied by billions then become destructive. What wins is individual satisfaction. It sells and consumerism is the backbone of global capitalism. The economics behind globalism preaches an abstract of economic demographics. Population decline is bad if demographics is skewed with too few young supporting too many old. Maybe too many old are allowed to live too long which is a solution but one never considered. Where too many young are it can also be said too many young are allowed to survive. You get the point it is like a balloon grab it one area and it bulges somewhere else.

    There are really no operative answers that solve a predicament of population. A die down is necessary but this will end globalism. Globalism supports us all these days so overpopulation trends will not and cannot be managed except by self-organization and systematic adaptive results. States will fail and famine will begin the process of natural balance. Some places will socially make better arrangements but for how long. The complexity and affluence of many stable areas can disappear quickly leaving them unstable and failing.

    All this should sober up the techno optimist but it does not. Progress is put forth as our only hope and in some ways it is. If we turn away from progress we die but it is ever apparent progress is killing us. A dose of sobriety would say “Yes” we are trapped but can we get honest about this and slow the insanity down. One problem is the process speeds up in the ever increasing needs of growth. It can’t slow because of its nature. Unfortunately it is the social narrative of the denial of death in a progress and manifest destiny of human exceptionalism that maintains life. It gives systematic confidence. So what is left is a few of us that see through the lies and realize humans at our level are all about lies to survive. So paradoxically lying is living and honesty kills. That is the sad truth of being a modern human.

  15. DerHundistlos on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 11:28 am 

    President Trump’s Approval Ratings Just Hit Another Low

    Updated: Apr 05, 2017 11:26 AM ET

    President Donald Trump’s approval ratings fell to 35% Tuesday — another new low for the president during his first months in office and a consistently record low for all US presidents in their first quarter. The average for all presidents is 63%.

    The approval ratings produced by Quinnipiac University are a drop from the last national poll, released March 22, which showed Trump’s approval at 37%. Trump’s ratings fall under former President Barack Obama’s lowest — 38% in 2013.

    According to the poll, the majority of Americans also believe the following about the president:

    “He is not honest”
    “He does not have good leadership skills”
    “He does not care about average Americans”
    “He is not level-headed”
    “He does not share their values”

    Additionally, 52% of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump as president, according to the poll.

    “President Donald Trump continues to struggle, even among his most loyal supporters,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, in a statement. “Many of them would be hard pressed to see even a silver lining in this troubling downward spiral.”

    The poll also found the plurality of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the following issues: the environment, the economy, foreign policy, terrorism and immigration issues. Only 28% of Americans approved of his handling of healthcare about a week after House Republicans failed to pass their Obamacare replacement plan.

  16. Boat on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 1:06 pm 

    Now save even more money. Quit giving out tax breaks for children and being married. End immigration and reward individuals with tax breaks for not having children. Quit selling food to any country that has a family avg size over 2 persons. Now that would be a good start.

  17. Boat on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 1:08 pm 

    DerHund,

    Kind of pointless to poll those who don’t vote. Trump just won the majority of those who do.

  18. DerHundistlos on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 3:10 pm 

    Boat-

    The same statistical results are obtained regardless of the sample population, and, no, Trump did not win the majority of those who do. Quite the contrary, Trump lost the popular vote by a staggering 4,000,000.

  19. Davy on Sun, 9th Apr 2017 3:24 pm 

    Der hund, those numbers are suspect especially considering the high democratic voter fraud probability. Considering the size of the base you should have won easily but so many failed to vote and so many left the dem ticket in disgust. Instead of crowing like a one eyed rooster try to learn from your failure. Thankfully we have the electoral college so those very few blue zones don’t dominate the entire country. If the dems put forth a reasonable candidate in the future there should be no problem winning. That is easier said then done becuase the party is now virulent and wallows in victimization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *