Population Control (as promoted by Barack Obama's science czar)

[YDtoad]

Discuss the following ideas promoted by Barack Obama's science czar:

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."

"Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. "

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. "

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

"Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Oh and also it's totally comforting that the man setting Obama's science policy is an authoritarian eugenicist.

[beso negro]

that's retarded why do we keep allowing dumb people to run this country

[Against Miik!]

Oh and also it's totally comforting that the man setting Obama's science policy is an authoritarian eugenicist.

Not even a good eugenicist those plans all suck

[Aaron]

Society does stupid things, government corrects it. Seems to be a simple idea really.

[robertsona]

everything ever is obama's fault

[Angmar]

everything ever is obama's fault

123

[McP3000]

steve youre starting to come around good for you

[Smokey D]

I think it's entirely appropriate to quote something from 1969 as if it were said yesterday.

Almost as much as I think it's appropriate to equivocate between between Obama's personal views and those of a member of his Administration.

Although there are important questions to be considered, like intergenerational justice and the negative effects of over population and how to stop it.

[McP3000]

mudstomping is the only solution

[1338 h4x0r]

steve youre starting to come around good for you

Obama Derangement Syndrome is highly contagious

[Moon Flavor]

Those are all pretty plans but on the other hand nearly every single one of the world's major problems can be attributed to overpopulation.

So I mean...we should do something about it instead of waiting til it's wayyyy too late for once. But what could we do?

[1338 h4x0r]

pray tuh JAY-zus

derp

[die of starvation]

authoritarianism and eugenics are both good in moderation

[lukeskywalkertakingadump3]

This sounds pretty gay.

[die of starvation]

gay people have a lot of abortions

[lukeskywalkertakingadump3]

it's just fascist(sp)

[TerranYouApart]

science czar?

yeah dude it's inevidable unless we go live on mars we're gonna have to start limiting population because it will put the jews at risk (they can't fight)

[lukeskywalkertakingadump3]

Let's legalize all the drugs and kill all the cops

[TerranYouApart]

"a rake weilding mob has killed every officer in the city today. nobody knows why."

[lukeskywalkertakingadump3]

what's your old username old timer? i see you remember the rake thread. god i miss that thread.

[YDtoad]

I think it's entirely appropriate to quote something from 1969 as if it were said yesterday.

He's never renounced those views; in fact, he listed that book on his course syllabi so he must be quite fond of it still. And really, once a tyrannical eugenicist, always a tyrannical eugenicist.

Compare it to if a Republican wrote a book advocating Holocaust denial in the 70s and never apologized for it, never rebuked its views, and listed it in his course syllabi. Then got an appointment as the ambassador to Israel.


Almost as much as I think it's appropriate to equivocate between between Obama's personal views and those of a member of his Administration.

Obama chose him to advise him on scientific matters and set his policy. These are his views. It would be like if George W Bush had chosen a science czar who didn't believe in evolution. Except then it'd be George Bush and the double standard would apply.


Although there are important questions to be considered, like intergenerational justice and the negative effects of over population and how to stop it.

Population growth concerns are usually advocated strictly by eugenicist who are concerned about 'inferior' people. Like Obama's science adviser. He believed that the US couldn't sustain a population of 280 million. He was wrong. Population growth doomsdayers have consistently been proven wrong.

[1338 h4x0r]

Like Obama's science adviser.

One of Ronald Reagan's cabinet appointees went on to become an important member of Stormfront so I guess Reagan was a skinhead or summat in your view.

In other news:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/75/Cool_story%2C_bro.jpg

[Light Flantastic]

yeah i guess reagan should have predicted the future thats totally the same as being aware of existing views

[1338 h4x0r]

I guess he didn't know that Bob Whitaker has been an open racist for years

[Light Flantastic]

thats not what you said

source for this new allegation though

[1338 h4x0r]

"My 1976 book, A Plague On Both Your Houses, was praised by the Publishers' Weekly, Kirkus, and even recommended for purchase by the Library Journal, though all of them hated my politics and said so. I specifically voiced my concern in that book about the disappearance of the white race, but I did it right."

Now, when was Ronald Reagan president?

durr hurr

[Light Flantastic]

cool a quote from the last few years where he can retroactively apply whatever worldview he likes now to his past ramblings

[1338 h4x0r]

cool a quote from the last few years where he can retroactively apply whatever worldview he likes now to his past ramblings

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1092046&postcount=47

In "A Plague on Both Your Houses" I also demanded the presevation of the white race.

Keep digging that hole, Chad

[Light Flantastic]

i wasnt aware that loons who post on stormfront were reliable sources

[1338 h4x0r]

Bob Whitaker is presumably a reliable resource about the content of his own writing, dipshit

That was him posting on Stormfront

[Light Flantastic]

yes im aware of what you were trying to do but its quite fallacious

just because he says now (post outing) that his book was about racial issues doesnt mean that to other people at the time it was overtly so

which is why you need a reliable source

[1338 h4x0r]

In "A Plague on Both Your Houses" I also demanded the [preservation] of the white race.

Seems pretty clear cut idk

[Light Flantastic]

thats still him speaking

im not even disputing that its true you just need to prove it what

[1338 h4x0r]

Huh?

[Light Flantastic]

prove the book was racist and that it would be reasonable to expect people to know he was racist from the contents of the book using a reliable and impartial source

go

[1338 h4x0r]

Nah he just called for "preservation of the white race" nod nod wink wink

Kind of like how Hitler proposed the final solution to the "Jewish question" nod nod wink wink

[Light Flantastic]

cool another fallacy and still no proof

[beso negro]

overpopulation is a myth

[1338 h4x0r]

Proof is for alcohol and mathematics

Also you use argument by analogy all the time except that your analogies are fanciful and invalid

@chad

[Light Flantastic]

so now you're saying that because i make fallacious arguments your fallacious arguments arent fallacious

im afraid thats fallacious

[1338 h4x0r]

No my analogy was valid

You use argument by invalid analogy

[Light Flantastic]

no your analogy was a retarded comparison to hitler

ignoring the horrible cliché, advocating the preservation of ones own race isnt the same as advocating the eradication of another

not that you've even proved those views of his were obvious at the time reagan selected him yet

[1338 h4x0r]

ignoring the horrible cliché, advocating the preservation of ones own race isnt the same as advocating the eradication of another

It isn't, but my point was that racist language is typically veiled a little (but not much)


not that you've even proved those views of his were obvious at the time reagan selected him yet

What he only wrote a widely publicized book expounding those views

[Light Flantastic]

What he only wrote a widely publicized book expounding those views

im still waiting for you to show this actually happened

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm not going to buy his book

The quote, attributable directly to him, is good enough

[Light Flantastic]

nah not really

guy writes innocuous book
guy converts to extremism
guy retroactively claims book is extremist

doesnt really work for saying people should have always known

[jaredong]

i think hindsight is 20/20. From what i gather, during the 70's people were quite worried about overpopulation and such; more so than we are today. Based on the kinds of information and trends in the 70s, I think that it would at least be understandable for a country to know all possible solutions; drastic if necessary.

Its like "if it came down to it", theres a plan. Just like if it came down to a nuclear war, there would be certain things to follow. Its not like you're advocating nuclear war, but if the time came, thats what you have to do.

In anycase, I think it would be an overreaction to imply that in 2009, he holds exactly the same views as he did in the 70s. Just as perhaps it was a overreaction in the 70's for him to make such predictions.

[1338 h4x0r]

nah not really

guy writes innocuous book

...where he claims that the white race should be preserved

Find an example of someone who says that and isn't a white supremacist

[guitarded_chuck]

He said it in 1969.

overpopulation is a myth

lol

oh my **** some people... sources plzkthnx

[Light Flantastic]

...where he claims that the white race should be preserved

which is what you've yet to prove

it'd be easy to write a book lamenting the death of american culture and then later say it was a euphemism for white culture all along

none of the synopses i've read say anything about race at all

[1338 h4x0r]

which is what you've yet to prove

it'd be easy to write a book lamenting the death of american culture and then later say it was a euphemism for white culture all along

none of the synopses i've read say anything about race at all

Apparently you haven't read his

He never said anything about "the death of American culture"

[Pop music sucks]

The only thing that would further depletion of resources is the expansion of the middle class bubble. People want a comparatively better condition of living and the anemeties involved with that.

Viable interstellar transportation and terraforming technologies would ease the burden onto other planets. Viable transportation would be something timely with cost-effective radiation shielding (lightweight). Of course that **** won't happen for another 50 years.

[Light Flantastic]

Apparently you haven't read his

He never said anything about "the death of American culture"

yes im giving you an example of why we cant just take his word as fact and why you still have to prove thats what the book was about

just because it was about race to him (now) doesnt mean it was about race to other people at the time

people arent actually reliable sources on themselves

[robertsona]

everything ever is obama's fault

i agree

[robertsona]

hey guys that reverend whatever said some pretty bad stuff


therefore everything ever is obama's fault

quod erat something

[Light Flantastic]

did obama hire him to run something

if yes then sure

[McP3000]

hiring idiots to run the country is in no way your fault chad, you should know better

[Mr. Ron]

authoritarianism and eugenics are both good in moderation
^^^^

[sweboy]

None of those quotes are pro-eugenics. Why do you call him an eugenicist?

[Mr. Ron]

world populations will keep increasing to the point where something will need to be done. Try finding usable water for everyone.

[McP3000]

i say we do what Vladmir Cochet always said

GENOCIIIDDDDEEEE

[Smokey D]

He's never renounced those views; in fact, he listed that book on his course syllabi so he must be quite fond of it still. And really, once a tyrannical eugenicist, always a tyrannical eugenicist.

Compare it to if a Republican wrote a book advocating Holocaust denial in the 70s and never apologized for it, never rebuked its views, and listed it in his course syllabi. Then got an appointment as the ambassador to Israel.

Well, don't get me wrong, he's clearly an idiot.

But of course that's not to say he isn't highly qualified to run the Administration's science programme, which as I understand it is going to focus on green technology and climate change etc. Provided they don't let him near the water supplies, it should be alright.

Obama chose him to advise him on scientific matters and set his policy. These are his views. It would be like if George W Bush had chosen a science czar who didn't believe in evolution. Except then it'd be George Bush and the double standard would apply.

Okay when Obama's Administration starts funding eugenics programmes and mass medicating the water with anti-fertility drugs, I'll agree that he was a bad selection.

Population growth concerns are usually advocated strictly by eugenicist who are concerned about 'inferior' people. Like Obama's science adviser. He believed that the US couldn't sustain a population of 280 million. He was wrong. Population growth doomsdayers have consistently been proven wrong.

I disagree. Population growth is a big problem. Just because we can keep on surviving doesn't mean we should.

[YDtoad]

Well, don't get me wrong, he's clearly an idiot.

But of course that's not to say he isn't highly qualified to run the Administration's science programme, which as I understand it is going to focus on green technology and climate change etc. Provided they don't let him near the water supplies, it should be alright.\

While they may want to focus on green technology, that hardly will be the limit of his influence. He's in charge of the entirety of scientific policy, not just green technology.

Think of it as if a president chose an education adviser who happened to write, earlier in his career, that rowdy kids should be beaten to death with baseball bats (and that it was constitutional, too!). Even if the adviser would have the primary task of focusing on, say, negotiating with teachers unions, it would be a horrible pick because the person, regardless of any qualifications, would be clearly insane, and insane people are always bad appointments.

Your position seems to be that it's ok to let crazy wingnuts with really scary views into the mainstream, so long as you ask them to concentrate on things in which their views are, to our knowledge, not totally crazy (though let's be honest, if he wanted to forcibly sterilize people to stop population growth, he probably has all sorts of scary, tyrannical ways of dealing with global warming).

I disagree. Population growth is a big problem. Just because we can keep on surviving doesn't mean we should.

It's not just that we keep on surviving--it's that we keep on thriving. Population growth doomsdayers are always wrong--this is the major point here. They invent a figure, say we can't sustain it, and then are proven wrong. And if we can sustain it, why would we ever desire not to? Population growth is inextricably linked to eugenics because in the end, when you start wanting to control growth, you end up wanting to stop 'inferior' people from reproducing or raising children.

[1338 h4x0r]

I think inferior people like Steve should be prevented from reproducing

Oh forget it never mind I don't need to intervene

Think of it as if a president chose an education adviser who happened to write, earlier in his career, that rowdy kids should be beaten to death with baseball bats (and that it was constitutional, too!). Even if the adviser would have the primary task of focusing on, say, negotiating with teachers unions, it would be a horrible pick because the person, regardless of any qualifications, would be clearly insane, and insane people are always bad appointments.

I think it's truly horrific that, in the 21st century, we had a president who didn't appear to believe in evolution.

(Hint: it wasn't Obama.)

[Smokey D]

While they may want to focus on green technology, that hardly will be the limit of his influence. He's in charge of the entirety of scientific policy, not just green technology.

Presumably everything he wants to do has to be okayed by the president.


Your position seems to be that it's ok to let crazy wingnuts with really scary views into the mainstream, so long as you ask them to concentrate on things in which their views are, to our knowledge, not totally crazy (though let's be honest, if he wanted to forcibly sterilize people to stop population growth, he probably has all sorts of scary, tyrannical ways of dealing with global warming).

My position is that it benefits no-one to rule out people for positions they may or may not actually hold if they are highly qualified to deal with an important issue.

Also, I suspect this has much more to do with this Administration's poor vetting procedures than Obama's secret eugenic desires, although I could be wrong.

It's not just that we keep on surviving--it's that we keep on thriving. Population growth doomsdayers are always wrong--this is the major point here. They invent a figure, say we can't sustain it, and then are proven wrong. And if we can sustain it, why would we ever desire not to? Population growth is inextricably linked to eugenics because in the end, when you start wanting to control growth, you end up wanting to stop 'inferior' people from reproducing or raising children.

Um, the west keeps on thriving. There's lots of places where population growth is extremely pernicious.

PS I don't want to stop inferior people from producing.

[1338 h4x0r]

There's a presumption here that "inferior people" will necessarily produce "inferior offspring", which is really really iffy

[die of starvation]

zerokewl our current situation is not sustainable

[guitarded_chuck]

There is only so much fresh water, so much viable farm land (shrinking due to desertification) to feed some amount of people. It is a simple concept. Negating population scientists who study this field to "doomsdayers" is absolutely ridiculous as their arguments are simple and logical. Perhaps predictions in the past have been extreme, but there is no arguing that the planet can only house some amount of people. The population is growing exponentially while the amount of water and food remains basically the same.

[Smokey D]

Um, genetic engineering means we might be able to produce more food from less and less land/water.

[Mr. Ron]

if you consider the limited amount of land that the amount of food that would need to be produced for a growing population and couple that with expansion you'd still be screwed.

[McP3000]

population grows exponentially so we're gonna be exponentially screwed

[sweboy]

population grows exponentially so we're gonna be exponentially screwed

no it doesn't

[guitarded_chuck]

Um, genetic engineering means we might be able to produce more food from less and less land/water.

Um, unless genetic engineering begins to not only develop but produce yields at an exponential rate to keep up with the exponential curve of human population growth, it is only a band-aid solution that won't help for long.

[Smokey D]

Well, that's what Malthus predicted centuries ago.

[guitarded_chuck]

Yeah, so

[Smokey D]

Just saying that we have in fact had exponential growth in food production pretty much ever since then.

[guitarded_chuck]

There hasn't been any explosive change in food production since the Green Revolution. In developed areas it has barely changed in the last 30 odd years. Yields have increased somewhat but certainly no where near exponentially.

[Smokey D]

I'm not going to comment on whether our current populations are sustainable or not. I was just commenting that Malthus' predictions were wrong.

The main problem with food is not in the production but the distribution. Even with our current population, we produce far in excess of what is needed to feed the planet. Connected with this is wealth and the fact that the wealthier a given population is ie the more food one eats per person, the lower the population growth rate. So we should work on fixing that rather than freaking out about Malthusian crises.

[guitarded_chuck]

Distribution is today's problem. And yeah it definitely needs a solution. Distribution and production are tomorrow's problem.

I'm not an advocate for veganism nor am I one, but: A plausible solution is for developed countries to eat less meat and more grains/vegetables, and so leaving more grain/vegetables left over to give to undeveloped countries. There is enough food being produced on the planet to feed everybody, but there needs to be a change in eating habits in the developed areas and a means of distributing the leftover food to those in need.

Even if this happened it would only really support the exponential growth in population and so inevitably only make things worse when the bigger problems begin to arise. You mentioned that wealthier populations eat more and have a lower pop. growth rate, which is true. But I wouldn't say this is a cause of the amount of food they eat. Undeveloped areas need cheap and easy access to birth control.

[Smokey D]

My point is that instead of indulging in morbid fantasies about exponential vs linear growth rates in population and food production and the "inevitable" population crash that such a model predicts, we should look at finding ways at reducing population growth. This appears closely connected to the wealth of populations, which is reflected in but probably not caused by the distribution of food.

I don't want to make reductionist arguments saying that a more equitable wealth distribution would entail lower growth rates, but there definitely appears to be some sort of connection between the two.

Also, we need to abolish subsidies and tariffs on food because they encourage inefficient land use and mess up third world food production processes.

[1338 h4x0r]

My point is that instead of indulging in morbid fantasies about exponential vs linear growth rates in population and food production and the "inevitable" population crash that such a model predicts, we should look at finding ways at reducing population growth.

Agent Orange

(It will stop tree population growth, too)

[gregulus]

My point is that instead of indulging in morbid fantasies about exponential vs linear growth rates in population and food production and the "inevitable" population crash that such a model predicts, we should look at finding ways at reducing population growth. This appears closely connected to the wealth of populations, which is reflected in but probably not caused by the distribution of food.

I don't want to make reductionist arguments saying that a more equitable wealth distribution would entail lower growth rates, but there definitely appears to be some sort of connection between the two.

Also, we need to abolish subsidies and tariffs on food because they encourage inefficient land use and mess up third world food production processes.
Let the free market do its ****ing job, Pinko.

[Light Flantastic]

free markets do deal with scarcity pretty well good plan

[Mr. Ron]

food isn't really going to be the major problem. Water and livable land are going to be.

[die of starvation]

abolishing tariffs and subsidies are free market policies so

[Blanka Flip]

Can somebody just pull a Sam Adams and do another Boston Tea Party, and fix the country again?

[TerranYouApart]

the only war we'd fight right now would be a civil war. rich people and farmers with guns vs poor people and college students

i'd vote no

[gregulus]

I would like to know how царь got transliterated into czar.

[Blanka Flip]

the only war we'd fight right now would be a civil war. rich people and farmers with guns vs poor people and college students

i'd vote no

I have my money on the poor people and college students. :chug:

[TerranYouApart]

no actually the rich people will just hire all the poor people that are willing to kill the poor people they couldn't hire.

rich people > all, this is america

[DENEpants]

I have my money on the poor people and college students. :chug:

i'm poor and in college so ****, i gotta be for em.

how many more can we get together for this civil war?

[Blanka Flip]

Fuk it, let's just organize a civil war ourselves. We'll flip a coin to see who picks first.

[Futue te Ipsum]

authoritarianism and eugenics are both good in moderationThis.