Refuting the Claims of Radical Eugenicists and Neo-Malthusian Tyrants.
By now I'm sure everyone has heard the idea that our survival somehow rests on a reduction in our population. Besides the obvious fallacy of the basic argument, that reducing your numbers increases your survivability, it does not. There are a number of fallacious arguments, backed by incomplete science, being made by population reduction advocates. With a complete disregard for the actual causes of suffering, or environmental perils that we face.
To begin with, we must dispense of the overall argument. Reducing our numbers, or even seeking a designated equilibrium, is monstrously negligent, and is a course with massive genocidal consequences, intentionally caused by population goals. Is this actually a course we need to take, when it can be shown that the population at large has very little to do with the problems we are facing? The issues that do directly involve the population, are simple issues of education in hygiene and sanitation.
The popular view is that carbon dioxide is the major issue, it certainly gets it's airtime. This is aimed, primarily at the fact that we are carbon based creatures, we breath out carbon dioxide, so therefore it is argued that too many of us breathing, is going to somehow undo the delicate balance of the earth's ecosystem. For starters, there exists no evidence that the earth has ever been in a "state of equilibrium."
The ecosystem is an extension of the universe at large, all part of which function on a cyclical system, things go around, things go up and down. The universe also functions on a time scale which is almost inconceivable to humans. Where we think 100 years, or a few 100 thousand years, is a long time, we are keenly aware that the grand scale of planetary objects is on the hundreds of millions, or hundreds of billions of years. It is extremely short sighted to say that, "carbon dioxide has been going up the last 400,00 years, so it must be because of agriculture, and increasing population." When we look over a scale of millions of years, we see great variations in carbon dioxide, and temperature. I've heard it argued that "except for interglacial periods, there has been an equilibrium." Again this is a standard argument of the carbon dioxide demonizers, and is a fallacy in itself also. How can you omit certain periods of time, and claim an equilibrium? This is not sound science, to say " except for the times it was up or down, it was in the middle." Obviously, but that means that there never has been a constant equilibrium. If you only look at the evidence that proves your point, and not at the whole picture, it is not complete science. I will not tolerate ad hominem arguments that call me a "denier," or anything else. I have, and will put forth logical points that need to be addressed in a logical fashion.
If I may interject at this point, my opposition to the use of the "greenhouse" analogy. The argument goes something like this; "When you walk into a greenhouse you'll notice the higher temperature, and higher humidity, the extra gas in the atmosphere is like that greenhouse covering, keeping heat in." Hence, "greenhouse gasses." This is no where near being an accurate comparison. For starters are we talking about a totally closed off greenhouse, with no ventilation? The earth has natural movement of air, called wind. So lets add some fans to that greenhouse. Starting to get cooler eh? Lets also add bodies of water that take up 70% of the space in the greenhouse, underneath the flow of air. Sort of like the ocean. Starting to get cooler, eh? Now lets go ahead and add a whole bunch of carbon dioxide on purpose, way more in percentage than we add to the earth at large. Amazingly, it does not get hotter. In fact the plants grow with a vigor. I understand that any analogy falls apart at some point, no doubt that will be the radical environmentalists response to this. But as I have shown, a clearer comparison can be made, but is never discussed by global warming fanatics. Not to mention that the grand scale of the earth's environmental cycle is so large, that any real comparison in experimental form is virtually impossible, evidenced by the failed Bio-dome experiments. I argue that the whole analogy is simply irrelevant, on it's face, totally incomparable.
Another point that is claimed as "evidence," is the idea that the weather is getting worse. If we are in a natural carbon cycle, where the CO2 in the atmosphere is always either going up, or going down, we can expect that the earth has systems of working within these parameters, called weather. Along with the external force of the sun, of course, which NASA has been showing is going through some fairly large solar flare activity this year, and this again, is something the sun does, on a cyclical system, sometimes there is a lot of solar activity, sometimes there is very little. It has been shown that the increased solar activity, does effect weather patterns, and that temperature, has a direct effect on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While I have seen this denied by some ultra "green" websites, the science exists to show this to be the case. And as I pointed out, when we add high percentages of CO2 to a greenhouse, it has zero effect on the temperature. Of course that is the point of this, to have an open dialogue about the actual science.
Listen here to Professor Murray Silby, discussing the carbon cycle.
His findings conclude that it is the temperature that drives the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rather than temperature being determined by CO2, as folks like Al Gore have proposed (who has also proposed that carbon credits be paid to him, to do literally nothing). Harsh weather is exactly how the earth deals with these events, large storms bring lots of water, and plants grow more quickly, and hardily in high carbon dioxide environments. The fact is, that we are not in an extremely high carbon dioxide period yet, it's been much higher before, we'll keep seeing it go up for some time, regardless of human activity (or lack there of), and then engage in a long downward cycle (all over the next few 100 thousand years). The combination of wild weather and mass growth of vegetation is the outcome, with reduction in CO2, and presumably, the solar activity will calm as well. This of course is not to be feared, nor is it the cause of the population. Simply get ready for some wild weather, for some time to come, get prepared, don't depopulate, bad storms kill enough people! The simple fact is, that we are guaranteed a finite amount of time on the planet earth. Eventually our sun will extinguish itself, our planet will be engulfed by the red giant, and eventually left to freeze when the sun shrinks back on itself into a white dwarf, hundreds of millions of years from now. If this is the case, we must absolutely pursue development in space technology and colonization of other planets, and solar systems. We must "project our progeny into the universe" as Alex Jones once put it. We will see the awesome power of nature, and how meek our existence really is. If we intend to survive, we must pursue advanced technology, and breed in abundance. It is the direction, availability, and use, of that technology, that is the real question.
The issue of electrical power generation, and petroleum use, is one to be debated in an honest fashion, as well. Many solutions offered are simply means of control. For example, the "smart meter, and smart grid" systems, are in effect, monitoring systems, allowing the electric company, and government (or anyone else who picks up the wireless signal coming from your smart meter), to see exactly how much power you use, where in the house you use it, and when you are using it, of course. They can monitor for abnormal power usage, and charge different rates depending on what you are doing, and when you are doing it. This will not result in reduced electrical usage, or a reduced cost. It is easy to see that major industries, small businesses and individuals, would simply shift work loads to off peak hours, thus shifting the peak times, always keeping the price up, up, up. This is not a solution, this is another problem.
When we talk about the environmental and physical health effects of current power generation, we must discuss things like carbon tar and ash, heavy metals, nuclear fall out, and destruction of water ways due to contamination from mining, and the afore mentioned by products of using fossil fuels, and nuclear power. All of these things are immediately detrimental to our health, and the health of all other living things, concrete science has shown this to be true. Carbon dioxide, however, is not the concern, it is a natural part of the life cycle, and certainly not detrimental to the health of living things, nor does it contribute to "global warming," as I have pointed out.
While I am not entirely against the use of all hydrocarbon sources, I think reasonable use is fine, I do see environmental and health issues involved with the mining and extraction of these sources of energy, as well as cartel like manipulation of the market. I do however, theorize that, we have made a simple trade off with the earth, when it comes to burning oil and gas. We pursue advanced fire fighting techniques, as well as indigenous techniques for caring for and cleaning forest areas, thus reducing the amount and severity of naturally occurring wildfires. The trade off, is that we burn petroleum instead, really it's very simple. Wildfires are the cause of a large part of global emissions, and are, at this point at minimum, equivalent to emissions from burning fuel. More proof that the carbon cycle is a natural occurrence that the earth is easily capable of handling.
Solutions to the problem of toxic contamination exist. A de-consolidation of the electrical power grid is the place to start. More investment in individual power systems that run on a combination of wind, solar, and generators that use hemp oil based biodiesel. Small scale individual, and local grid power, and then some larger scale facilities, all with the ability to tie into each other, or disconnect, at will. Hemp is one of the real solutions that is never seriously discussed, but it would make plant based bio fuels actually viable. Hemp will grow 15 feet high in a matter of 3 months. This means that places like Mexico, and further south, could have 4 crops a year. Places in the U.S. could have 3-4 crops. It will grow in most conditions (eliminating the need to invade existing food producing land), and very well with little effort or input, it is after all, a weed. Hemp provides more oil than any other available renewable resource, and does not cut into existing food supplies. In fact, the hemp seed is one of the most highly nutritious seeds known to man, thus growing hemp would increase the healthy food supply also. This is another instance where innovative development and reality based science, with the goal of providing clean and safe energy for everyone, is absolutely possible using a debt free monetary system that encourages infrastructure development. This is in no way communist consolidation, this is a plan to support the de-consolidation of monopolies, and centralized power, while uplifting the standard of living for everyone.
It has even been evidenced that the uneven distribution of wealth is due to overpopulation. How is it, that multi-national mega banks, being allowed to create almost infinite amounts of wealth based on debt, and then buy up real assets around the world, imposing austerity on countries to pay back loans, and bringing in agribusiness giants who destroy local food economies, is the fault of the population at large? Don't be fooled by this argument for one second! This is the Malthusian/Darwinian mind set, that the suffering of the masses is needed for the benefit of the few, those more capable, or more privileged, will out-compete you for limited resources, and therefore you deserve to fall victim to "natural selection". Somehow the elite oligarchs have a right to be greedy, and those who are the victims of their plundering, are simply useless feeders, who should be, or would be, exterminated anyway. And I'll tell you, as we become more technologically dependent, and more and more things become automated, our value as labor falls, thus making humans, in the eyes of the elite, increasingly expendable. While Darwin made some worth while observations, his theory is flawed in that living systems have a tendency to form order, he ignores empathy, or feelings, and that many evolutionary traits are actually driven by abundance. And abundance is possible for humans, simply rebuilding our economic system with fairness in mind, using debt free money, that eases the flow of trade, while allowing the very poorest to be sustained. Tyrannical global banking practices that impose so called austerity measures on entire countries, driving them into poverty and starvation, are not the fault of the population. This is the fault of a few controlling institutions, and can absolutely be turned around, 100%. Exposing the power structure is fundamental to our future survival.
The elite have always sought to reduce human life to a number, a statistic in the grand scheme. While ignoring our individual gifts. The fact that the human mind can create and communicate, the fact that we have civilizations that allow for the expression of art and music, and free thought. That we can have local, chemical free food systems that not only feed us, but create an abundance of food, increasing biodiversity and providing labor for most anyone considered "unemployed."
This is where we get into the actual problems we are facing, starvation, thirst, and mass epidemics. For some reason, most of the major water ways in large countries are polluted beyond the point of drinkability. This is where the argument for "water wars" comes in. We will see a shortage in clean water if something serious is not done. While there will always be renewed clean water, so long as it rains, the fact remains that major systems of what should be drinkable water, are not clean. We are also faced with the horrible situation, in the "developed" nations, where we get to choose between BPA containing bottled water (which affects our hormones), or fluoride, chlorine, and sometimes nuclear isotope, containing tap water (this is part of the larger eugenics program, I will discuss later). I say, "Clean the water, don't kill each other!" If certain industrial practices, and hygienic practices are causing the pollution, lets deal with those issues specifically. Mercury, arsenic, high levels of ammonium nitrate from chemically based agriculture, cancer causing pesticides, GMO cross contamination, antibiotics, and E-coli, all going into the water, air, and food. Oh but of course, actually dealing with these problems would let more people survive, and the radical environmentalists would hate to see that.
We see many other detrimental health effects due to chemically based, genetically modified agricultural practices. There is a literal attack on the very genes of our most precious food sources. Are you aware, that the corn syrup in that soda is from genetically modified corn, sprayed with Round Up (linked to cancer) ? Are you also aware that it is exposing you to mercury due to the manufacturing process? Are you aware that Round Up is just a mild version of Agent Orange? Are you aware that the feeding of genetically modified cottonseed to livestock has resulted in death of the livestock? Are you aware that rats who eat the GMO corn become sterile in 3 generations? These are serious environmental and health risks that are imminent, and need to be dealt with immediately.
Well, this is simple, organically based agriculture will put a stop to most of these problems. If we have some problems with industries polluting water with heavy metals and such, we deal with that, put a stop to it, do something different, it's very simple. Clean the water if we need clean water. Allow countries the opportunity to have locally based, debt free economies, that can invest in water cleaning systems, and hygiene education. I don't know how many stories and pictures I've seen, or experienced myself, folks using their major rivers as toilets, of little children just dropping trousers and using the restroom right on the ground, not cleaning themselves, or burying it, this again is not a question of the amount of people, simply a question of education regarding hygiene, an understanding that the clean water needs to be kept clean, so we can drink it, and that dirty feces everywhere cause epidemics, it's very simple. Allowing people access to clean water is key, and allowing governments to invest in the well being of their own people, using sovereign, debt free money systems, is the path to accomplishing this goal.
To address the question of waste management, it is a matter of understanding that large scale infrastructure to deal with human waste is not needed, if the society is functioning on a healthy, chemical free locally based agricultural system, small scale composting toilets can be used on a fairly wide scale, thus reducing the need to invest in major sewage systems, and at the same time keeping areas clean and free of contamination. Again, if you don't like that idea, give governments the ability to have a sovereign, debt free infrastructure building economy, and a clean toilet for everyone is easily achievable.
Trash on the other hand, is something that we must come to terms with, this is where development and a move to a locally based economy is absolutely key. When more things are grown and produced locally, less packaging is needed, thus less waste, it's very simple. A move to more biodegradable and compost-able plastics, metal and glass, all combine with local agriculture and industry, to create a super efficient society that not only thrives, but creates very little waste. Innovative development fostered by a positive economic environment can build solutions. We can deal with these issues at every level using the creative power of our minds. It's beautiful to think of hope rather than destruction, to think of uplifting the human condition rather than extinguishing it.
We hear the term "carrying capacity," thrown around quite often by the overpopulation crowd. It is important to understand where this ideology comes from. Dr. Webster Tarpley does an accurate historical analysis of the origin of the term in his book "Against Oligarchy," here is a link to chapter 3, where he delves into the issue.
We see the origin comes from a Venetian economist by the name of Giammaria Ortes. This quote from Ortes sums up his view fairly succinctly. “But that the general wealth cannot be increased for some without an equal deficiency of them for others; that no one can find himself better off without someone else being worse off, or without somebody’s suffering..." Rather than discussing systems which would provide wealth to everyone, he postulates that some must suffer for others to do well. As we can see, with our current debt based economic system, this is true, there is always more debt than there is money to pay it back, there will always be a loser. This, however, is not the natural state of being, this is artificial scarcity, brought on by unfair economic systems.
The eugenics connection, from Darwin to the modern day, is undeniably evident. The term eugenics was coined by Darwin's half cousin Sir Francis Galton, who took Darwin's work to a new height, claiming that societies acting to protect the weakest members, were acting against natural selection, which would have exterminated those weaker members of society naturally. I argue, for starters, that value has been misplaced in this sense as social standing, or wealth, not exactly as fitness in the wild, as we might see our elite are fairly frail and cowardly people, with a psychopathic, cannibalistic mind set, who seek technological dominance, to make up for physical shortcomings. Nor is the value of love, creativity, or empathy considered. Only the value of power and control. This is an unhealthy state of mind, that leads to genocidal actions, as we can see all around us. Elite organizations such as the Carnegie Institution, and the Rockefellar Foundation, both supported eugenics studies in the United States and abroad, leading to widespread adoption of policies including forced sterilization, forced abortion, and resulting in Nazi Germany conducting "compulsory euthanasia". A nice way of saying they murdered a whole lot of humans in the name of purifying the species. The results of selective breeding experiments carried out by Darwin, Galton, and Huxley, of course, were inbreeding, resulting in a number of physical and mental problems.
We can see the more stealth examples of this in our modern society, with the push for "planned parenthood," and politicians like the White House science advisor, John Holdren, calling for licensed breeding, and planetary regime (world government) to deal with the issue of population (in his book, Ecoscience). We see that abortion has been propagandized as a "woman's right to choose." We see endless discussions about whether a fetus is alive or not. This is asinine, of course, a zygote grows into a living baby, end of story. While I will concede that it is a woman's choice, in the end, I will not ever concede to the argument that it is not murder. It is absolutely, the ending of an innocent life, and should never be promoted as a means of "birth control." Nor should we be concerned with anything called birth control either, this is another extension of the covert eugenics that are taking place all around us. We are taught in school to be selfish, that having a child will "ruin your life, take away your future." This is interesting, because if you do not reproduce, your future ends with you. We are taught to "live in the moment," while never considering long term consequences of our actions. The beauty of creating life is broken down and destroyed in public school sex education, I know, I went through it, and came out with the idea that one should never have children. It took great effort to break through that programming, but that is what we are taught in public school. Bold faced anti-human propaganda.
Somehow the unmitigated greed of tyrannical fascist oligarchs, starving the population on purpose, is used as the argument to de-populate. This again, is a fallacious argument. Anyone can see that. The failed theory of eugenics still holds control on the elite mind today. When we see nouveau riche elitists like Bill Gates funding multi million dollar vaccine programs, while investing nothing in cleaning water. The vaccines by the way, are linked to sterility, and other long term health effects. As well as investing in widespread use of GMO agriculture, while at the same time funding a seed vault in the arctic to keep heirloom seeds safe from contamination. His duplicitous nature is so bold it is impossible to ignore. Bill Gates even stated at a recent TED conference, "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent." Everyone got that right? Doing a good job on vaccines and reproductive heath will lower the population? Sure it will, when the vaccines are linked to sterility, and the reproductive health means abortions. And as Mr. Gates also points out in the same speech, it is for the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions. I discussed the CO2 question earlier, showing that the argument is not ultimately aimed at our industry, but at us as individuals, that we must be reduced, and here Mr. Gates says it himself. As we also discovered, the mainstream view of CO2 is based on flawed assumptions, put forth by individuals who stand to gain financially by pushing for "carbon taxes."
We know that a wide variety of breeding couples is desirable to ensure improved biodiversity, mental capacity, and the disease immunity of our species, this goes totally against the theory of eugenics, and is the benefit that our breeding system offers. We create variety, and that variety is what allows us to have our great ingenuity, and adaptability.
To discuss the issue of mass epidemics takes an honest understanding of the biotech industry, and of what a diverse breeding system is capable of. First, as I just mentioned, the great beauty of our ability to breed across such a wide variety of humans is exactly what allows our species to survive epidemic infections. Some folks are more resistant to some things than others, and this varies across the board. This is good, because, bacteria and viruses come in a great variety, as do natural disasters. It is wise for a species to have as great a genetic, and geographic variety, as possible, to ease the effects of natural epidemics or disasters.
On the point of biotech industries, this is where we get into some very frightening possibilities, and this is another example of where a public discourse about the direction of our science needs to be had. Do we really want scientists developing more deadly diseases, like air born ebola, or weaponized anthrax, which are designed to be far more deadly than they would be if naturally occurring? How about GMO plants that grow sterile seeds, and therefore won't reproduce on their own, which have the ability to cross breed with existing species? These are real threats to our survival, not brought on by the population, but being created by a small clique of scientists funded by defense grants, and private corporate money, around the world. This threat can be stopped immediately, a call to action against the biotech industry is at hand. I am making it now, we must stand against these neo-malthusian technocrats. I urge the biotech seed companies to voluntarily destroy their test crops, research, and end this madness now, please.
While there are certainly things that are being done to the earth that are destroying our survivability, it is important to understand that the population is not the cause of these things. That there is ample evidence that we are being inundated with systems that are meant to destroy our wealth, health and reproductivity. While at the same time the effect of these systems is said to be evidence that there is something called "overpopulation." As I have pointed out multiple times, the argument is in itself a fallacy, and is full of fallacious sub-arguments. We must refute these arguments at every turn if we are to survive.
I am not a utopian ideologue. I understand that for us to survive we must work, there will always be hardship, and hard work, there is no easy answer to survival. If you need food, you've got to work in a garden to grow that food. If you want to be an artist, you've got to work on your art, so you can trade it for food, etc. This is where fair economics and governance is key. I am only proposing that there is, enough space, and enough money to allow the population to engage in trade, and to grow proper quantities of food. I'm not saying that you'll get to sit on your rump and plug into virtual reality, while the government gives you a handout. If you expect that, you are in for a startling surprise. This is the whole problem. The elite controllers of nations don't want to feed people, they say, they want depopulation. They play on our laziness, on our want to relax. And we play into that whole-heartedly. We'd rather play video games than grow a garden, and if that is the case, we will see massive starvation, and mega deaths. On the other hand, if we are willing to work, and create abundance, we can take care of our loved ones, and ourselves, and by extension, the population at large becomes better off, and those who are unable to care for themselves can be taken care of, with ease. Imagine if all the unemployed youths simply started growing organic gardens! Flash mobs and gang violence will subside, so long as we end the drug war, create a debt free money system that does not create artificial scarcity, and ease the bureaucracy surrounding local food economies. The cures to our problems are absolutely achievable, we can feed everyone and create employment and wealth. We are taught to be cruel and ruthless, by a media that desensitizes us to acts of extreme violence, and by the hardships brought on by the artificial scarcity of debt-based money. Whether you agree with my solutions or not is irrelevant, the facts and analysis I put forth are irrefutable, and the solutions can be debated in an honest, fact based forum, I am not fundamentally attached to any idea, just hope for the future. It is imperative that the population wakes up to this reality and responds with renewed vigor for our love of ingenuity and development, and a love for our fellow living beings that is at the heart of the human experience.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
It is important to have an open discourse about what humans are doing to the earth, and what is propaganda. If one looks at the evidence available, there are a number of deeply troubling environmental issues that are simply not discussed in any depth of meaning by the mainstream media.
When we talk about industrial pollution, I think it's important to realize that what Mr. Tarpley says is true. The idea that industry doesn't exactly equate to pollution, that we are smart enough to develop means of industry that are beneficial. When we discover a problem we can fix it. If we are talking about things like mercury in the water, aluminum in the air, massive pollution of rivers around the world with bacteria from feces, or with waste from mining nuclear material. Some of these problems, as Mr Tarpley points out, come simply from backwards ideas, and can be fixed with simple hygiene education. These things are not happening because of the population, and it is easily discernible. Scientists like Dr. Pianka out of the University of Texas, proclaim that only a reduction in population and a return to a non-technological, hunter gatherer society is the only thing that will save the earth. He makes no qualms about his theory, but his proof is highly suspect. For example, he calculates per capita allotments of land for the whole population using less than half the available land on earth, claiming that the mountains and desert are "uninhabitable". I see water coming out of the ground all over the mountains, so this is obviously false.
If we are talking about the industrialization of food, I would argue that we have a problem in the modern system. When we see genetically modified foods, that cause sterility in the third generation, plants modified to accept herbicides, and plants modified to excrete a pesticide at thousands of times natural rates. These are things that will inevitably be our undoing. It is important that we have an open discussion regarding the direction of our technology, and that takes being aware of what is going on, and what the effects of these sciences are.
I return to Mr. Tarpley. "If you need trees, plant trees." Exactly, if we need clean water, clean the water, there is more than enough for everyone, and there always will be, so long as water continues to evaporate, and then come down as rain, and I don't see that stopping anytime soon! If we have a heavy metal contamination problem, let's deal with it. Maybe we should start by not putting mercury in our vaccines. If we have a world hunger problem, let's deal with it in a way that neither damages the environment, or health of those working. Agriculture, as Mr, Tarpley points out, is a huge portion of our ecosystem, and if done well, it can actually improve the soil quality, provide nutrient dense food for everyone, while improving biodiversity. If we see a problem, we continue to innovate to find a way around that problem, that is the amazing power of living beings. It is not necessary to use chemical inputs on farms, it is not necessary to mass medicate our livestock, all of these practices weaken our resistance to environmental factors, and disease. But have nothing to do with the population at large. Nor are they needed to feed the population.
In fact, one could argue that the modern agricultural system is designed by eugenicist scientists, and neo-Malthusian tyrants, who want to see the third world starve, and are intent on chemically experimenting on their home populations as well. As we see the bisphenol-A in our plastic bottles, that causes hormonal changes, and as we mentioned before, the GMO food that causes sterility, and is soaked in dangerous chemicals, linked to cancer. We can see that this whole ordeal is aimed at depopulating the earth, as is outlined in Ecoscience, as Mr. Tarpley has thoroughly pointed out.
Posted by Patrick Winchester at 5:16 PM