E-Sermon #9, by The Church of Euthanasia

Possibly the world's most popular inclination, the impulse to export your suffering to another seems to be near-universal. Not confined to any race, sex, or age category, the impulse to cause pain appears to well up from deep inside human beings. This is mysterious, because no one seems to enjoy pain when it is inflicted on them. Go figure.

E-Sermon #9, by The Church of Euthanasia

Postby admin » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:13 am

E-Sermon #9
by The Church of Euthanasia

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

Last week's sermon provoked a host of questions, and I'll try to answer some of them today. Before we get started, though, let me clarify some minor points:

1. When I said that death was beautiful in the same way that Bauhaus was beautiful, I meant the ARCHITECTURE, not the band! It hadn't even crossed my mind that anyone would miss this. I'm not saying that you did miss it, but the possibility exists. Actually I couldn't care less about the band. I meant the type of buildings that abound in the movie "Koyanisquatsi," for example.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

-- Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance, directed by Godfrey Reggio


2. I said eternal DEATH, not eternal life. There's a big difference! The triumph of the Spectacle is eternal death. There certainly is a spirit world, as even a casual acquaintance with Native people will reveal, and the object of the Spectacle is to isolate you from its influence, thereby depriving you of all hope and cutting you off from the source of your own being. To deny the Spirit in the face of so much evidence is to CHOOSE death willfully. This is the fate of all Vermin.

Now, regarding the infinitely valuable trees, who capture energy from the sun, crack rocks with their roots, and help create soils, our friend Pete writes:

I'm afraid this is just another form of entropy that most humans choose not to see because it is so slow. The supply of rocks is not infinite. Neither is the "electromagnetic" energy from the sun. The primary effect of humans on this planet is that they accelerate environmental entropy, but an absence of humans does not halt that entropy. Life in general is just a momentary upswing in the graph of cosmic progress, which leads ever-downward toward chaos.

In Schroedinger's Cat, Robert Anton Wilson hypothesizes that what we "unscientifically" call life is in fact really negative entropy or the tendency of the universe towards order. Obviously positive entropy is death, the religion and ultimate goal of the Spectacle. The interesting question is whether, by promoting death, the Church of Euthanasia is in fact serving the Spectacle. Our critics certainly think so, and label us "agents of fear."

Wilson, like Alvin Toffler, Newt Gingrich, and other proponents of "new" technology, believes that human evolution thus far can be divided into two stages, the "Hunter/Gatherer" stage and the "Agricultural/Industrial" stage, and that only a "third stage" resulting from a synthesis of the first two can save humanity from destroying itself. The new technologists have nothing but contempt for the "eco-fascist" Luddites who are supposedly advocating a return to the "primitive savagery" of the first stage. The implicit assumption in all of the "new-technology" utopias is that humans have the right to adapt the biosphere to the ever-changing demands of their individual egos. Once this has been established, the argument is merely over how best to alter existing technology so that the exploitation of the biosphere can continue in a long-term, sustainable manner.

What our critics fail to understand is that the Church is not merely opposed to technology. This would hardly be news. The Church is opposed to the primordial "will to manipulate" that gives rise to technology. In short, from the Church's point of view, the tools-wielding primates are an evolutionary loose cannon, an accident waiting to happen, and either the primates must voluntarily return to their rightful role within the organic food chain of the biosphere, or the experiment must be forcibly terminated. Because we would rather see the experiment terminated than see even one more acre of trees cut down in the name of any form of human-defined "progress", we are called "agents of fear."

Obviously our philosophy forces individual humans into two categories: those who are willing and capable of returning to their rightful role as the "eyes of the world," and those who are not. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the remaining Native Americans tribes are fine examples of humans who have both the will and the capability to make this transition, largely because they foresaw it hundreds of years ago, and have been preparing for it ever since. The vast multitudes who are unwilling and incapable, including myself and the majority of the followers of this church, are Useless Vermin, and must be eliminated so that the Earth can heal herself.

The Church is of course opposed to needless suffering, and it is for this reason and no other that the Church continues to advocate legalized euthanasia for all humans who freely choose it. The most incapable and unwilling individual may also be deeply sensitive, thoughtful, virtuous, and deserving of a quick and painless death. Our message is one of profound hope for the few who have the faith and humility to rejoin the natural order, and one of sympathy and firm justice for those who do not. We are angels of mercy, not agents of fear.

Our friend Pete continues:

Aside from this objection, it becomes more and more clear to me every day that mass sterilization is the only answer to our environmental problems. Perhaps that makes me more radical than the Church, which advocates voluntary measures only. But I'm ready to hop in a B-52 with a payload of genetically-tailored-virus smart-bombs, enough to sterilize 99% of the world's population in one trans-globe flight. Someone need only invent the hardware, train me, and present me with the opportunity. Maybe in 10 years it will be possible.

I'm sympathetic, though unofficially of course. If you are interested in pursuing this, I suggest you send an SASE to Les U. Knight at VHEMT (the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) in Oregon for more information, particularly on the GLF (Gaia Liberation Front) and a group of scientists including French chemists Jean-Michael DuPont and Henri Mevel who are developing a powerful toxin that will completely eliminate the human species without disturbing the other inhabitants of the biosphere.

For your reference, I include some information on the GLF from page 12 of VHEMT's newsletter These Exit Times #2. NOTE that the Church of Euthanasia does NOT in any way endorse the GLF or its methods.

Headquartered in Toronto, The Gaia Liberation Front is one of the many grassroots movements which have grown out of the belief that all life on planet Earth is more important than the survival of the human race.

The GLF states in communique #1, dated Earth Day 1990: "Our mission is the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.


Membership requirements are similar to VHEMT's: "The GLF is a concept, not an organization. You're a member of the GLF if you join us in our work."

Although more radical than VHEMT, the GLF is cautious enough to include a legal disclaimer: "We don't advocate anything illegal, because it's illegal to advocate anything illegal and we don't want to get busted. Our members choose their own methods."

The GLF takes a dim view of Homo sapiens. "The Humans evolved on the Earth, but are no longer of the Earth. Having become alienated from the Earth, they must be regarded as an alien species.

"The evidence is overwhelming that the Humans are programmed to kill the Earth. This programming is not only cultural, but probably also genetic since the major technologies Humans use for this purpose, from agriculture and metallurgy to writing and mathematics, have all been invented independently more than once.

"In any case, every Human now carries the seeds of terracide. If any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances."

GLF Spokesorganism Geophilus shares insights with Les U. Knight:

Les: How does the GLF differ from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

G: While we support all voluntary efforts to make the Humans extinct, we do not exclude the involuntary route. At the rate that the Humans are killing the earth -- and for all we know she may have already passed the point of no return -- a decision to not reproduce, by itself, even if adopted immediately by every Human -- as a result, say, of a new Gaia-worshipping religious movement --would be just too damn slow.

Les: What involuntary methods do you have in mind?

G: We support, for example, involuntary sterilization, but we would also welcome the escape of any new anti-Human viruses -- such as the airborne version of AIDS that might result from AIDS research on mice. [Science 16 February 1992 p. 809]

Les: What about wars?

G: In the war of the Humans against the Earth -- the only war we're concerned about -- we take the side of the Earth, so we have no problem in principle with the Humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's an inefficient way of making the Humans extinct -- every quarter of a million Humans killed represents only one day's growth of the Human population -- but every little bit helps. Our only concern is that, in the process, the Humans do a lot of collateral damage to non-Human life, so we want them to confine themselves to hand-to-hand combat or, better yet, to the use of biological agents that kill only Humans.

Les: In practice, wouldn't involuntary human extinction take the form of genocide?

G: Well, sure, it might. You know what those Humans are like. But remember that the outcome might be the same if someone released a new virus without targeting a particular race -- or even if a new virus popped up on its own -- just because one race might be genetically more susceptible. Humans can be egalitarian, but nature isn't. And while it matters from the point of view of Human ethics whether a particular result was intended, it doesn't matter to the Earth. The taboo against genocide helps to protect the Humans from one another, so it's a good thing for them, but as soon as you stop seeing things from a Human point of view and adopt the viewpoint of the Earth -- and it helps here to see Humans as having become a hostile alien species -- things look rather different. If you want Humans to die out, is it so awful if some of them die out before the rest? Of course, if I knew that someone had targeted a particular race, I'd be happier knowing that that race was my own, because that's the one that's doing the most damage. But if it weren't, I wouldn't be unhappy, just less happy. As far is Earth is concerned, it would still be a good start.

Les: I can understand your position when viewing the planet from the Moon, but I have to disagree when I think about the death and suffering down here on the ground. Shouldn't all of us be allowed to live out our lives?

G: Why? It's self-indulgent for the breeders to insist on their "right" to have kids, but it's also self-indulgent for the rest of us to insist on our "right" to live out our allotted threescore and ten.

Les: So, why don't you just commit suicide?

G: If I merely believed in Human extinction, then of course, you'd be right. But, in my judgement, the good I'm doing by promoting the idea of Human extinction outweighs the harm I'm doing by staying alive.

Les: So you hope to live long before you die out. We do agree on some things. Thank you for sharing the GLF perspective with T.E.T. readers.

To reach VHEMT, write:

These Exit Times
P.O.Box 86646
Portland OR 97286-0646

The GLF can be contacted at:
P.O.Box 127 Station P
Toronto ON M5S 2S7
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 28623
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: E-Sermon #9, by The Church of Euthanasia

Postby admin » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:27 am

Prince Philip's Malthusians Launch New Age Killer Cults
by Mark Burdman and Roger Moore
Executive Intelligence Review
July 18, 1997
© 1997 EIR News Service Inc.

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


In 1988, Britain's Prince Philip expressed the wish that, should he be reincarnated, he would want to be a deadly virus that would reduce world population. [fn1] Today, his wish is finding expression in a proliferation of bizarre, Malthusian grouplets, killer cults, which openly, on the Internet and elsewhere, call for actions to dramatically reduce world population, if not to eliminate the human race in its entirety, on behalf of "Mother Earth," or "Gaia."

"I'd like to be able to rise from the dead every ten years, walk to a newsstand, and buy a few newspapers. I wouldn't ask for anything more. With my papers under my arm, pale, brushing against the walls, I'd return to the cemetery and read about the world's disasters before going back to sleep satisfied, in the calming refuge of the grave."

-- Luis Bunuel


These groups are not just some lunatic fringe that can be brushed aside; they are the shock-troops of Prince Philip and the British oligarchy. They have names like the Church of Euthanasia, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, and the Gaia Liberation Front. They represent a more radical version of such clones of Prince Philip's World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), as Earth First! and other eco-terrorist organizations. [fn2]

In recent decades, it has been the desire of Prince Philip and his WWF minions, that "Mother Earth worship" be taught to children, from the elementary school level on up. Is it surprising, that certain unstable members of the younger generation could be programmed to grow up in such an enraged state, that they would wish to destroy the human race?

The killer cults, furthermore, are just the gutter expression of ideas that are freely set forth, by "respectable" groups and institutions, in universities and think-tanks, and by individuals who have held high-level posts in the U.S. government. These are primarily grouped around an entity called Negative Population Growth (NPG), which was created in 1972, and which has become more brazenly homicidal in recent years.

NPG and its offshoots are effectively the implementation tools of a section of the U.S. State Department, which, during Henry Kissinger's reign as Secretary of State, produced, in 1974, the National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200) report, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." Later in the 1970s, the same State Department nest played a prominent role in producing the Jimmy Carter White House's Global 2000 atrocity. The official State Department Coordinator for Global 2000, Lindsey Grant, is, today, a seminal figure in NPG. Grant's current State Department successor, Tim Wirth, is praised by NPG as "the best Deputy Secretary of State for Population and Environment we've had in a long time."

With its propaganda for a massive reduction of the American population, NPG serves the purposes of those British forces, in the environs of Prince Philip, who have openly stated their intention to destroy the United States, to break the country into separate and competing "bio-regions," over the coming years.

What makes all this more alarming, is the May 1 election of Tony Blair as British prime minister. According to a key figure in Britain's leading neomalthusian lobbying organization, Population Concern, the Blair government is much more open to "policies of population limitation" than was the previous John Major government. Population Concern, whose official patron is Prince Philip, sponsored a speech on July 10, before the British All-Party Group on Population in the British Parliament, by Clare Short, Blair's minister for overseas development. The Population Concern source, who maintains regular liaison with NPG head Donald Mann in the United States, is hopeful that Short will follow in the footsteps of her predecessor as overseas development minister, Baroness Lynda Chalker, who is seen as the one figure in the Major regime who had a strong bias for "population limitation" policies. As readers of EIR know, Baroness Chalker is a controller of the African governments and military units now committing genocide in what used to be Zaire.

Save The Planet, Kill Yourself

Over the past months, increasing attention has been drawn to the Church of Euthanasia, based in Boston, Massachusetts, and headed by the self-professed "Reverend" Chris Korda, the son of New York-based author Michael Korda. Chris Korda is a biological male who often dresses in women's clothes. In November 1996, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a three-page exposé of this "Church," reporting that it had some 1,000 members in the United States, and was growing.

Image
Promoters of the "culture of death," left to right: U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Population and Environment Tim Wirth, Britain's Prince Philip, and Jack "Doctor Death" Kevorkian.

In its literature, Korda's group advocates "suicide, abortion, cannibalism, and sodomy," while its title promotes the fifth means of what it calls "massive voluntary population reduction": euthanasia. One of its heroes is Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian. Among its slogans, promoted on the Internet, are "Save the planet, kill yourself," "Thank you for not breeding," "Learn to masturbate." A Church "Commandment" reads, "Thou should not procreate!" Korda writes that he would have, long ago, killed himself, except that he decided it were better that he stay around, to bring about the progressive elimination of the rest of the members of the human species.

Korda praises the work of Paul ("Population Bomb") Ehrlich, a mainstay of the NPG.

Korda, who abhors the institution of the nuclear family, promotes what he calls "Our Family Album" of alleged supporters and members of the Church of Euthanasia. The album includes a photo of none other than Henry Kissinger! A leading anti-Malthusian investigator in Germany has raised the point, that while this may be a phony photo-montage, the fact is that Kissinger has not repudiated the appearance of his mug in this location.

Eliminate The Human Species

Korda is a regular "discussion partner" with the more secretive Gaia Liberation Front, based in Toronto, Canada. The GLF was launched on Earth Day 1990. Its "Communiqué 1," issued at that time, proclaimed: "Our mission is the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.... Every Human now carries the seeds of terracide. If any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances." The GLF explains, in its literature, that it capitalizes the word "Humans," because it regards human beings as an "alien species," who have genetically programmed "technological propensities" that must inevitably end up destroying "Gaia."

The GLF fumes, "The Humans have been usefully compared to a cancer or a virus.... What does a surgeon do with a cancer?" The "Humans" are particularly obstreperous, GLF complains, because they always promote their dignity and self-worth, as in the passage from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason!" There can only be one solution for such a species, according to the GLF: "extermination."

In a document called "A Modest Proposal," cynically spoofing Jonathan Swift's devastating attack on British genocidalists, the GLF discusses various possible methods for exterminating the human species. It rejects nuclear war (bad for the environment), sterilization (not fast enough, whether voluntary or involuntary), and suicide (too narrow in application), but then exclaims about the potentials represented by "bioengineering." This can produce "genetically engineered viruses" that will attack "only the target species." They continue:

"To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters)."


In another document, there is a dialogue between the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) and the GLF, published in the VHEMT publication, These Exit Times. Someone calling himself or herself "Spokesorganism Geophilus" declares,

"We would welcome the escape of any new anti-Human viruses -- such as the airborne version of AIDS that might result from AIDS research on mice."


According to Geophilus, war is not such an "efficient" means of human elimination, as it doesn't kill enough people. "But every little bit helps." Asked what it thinks about genocide, the Spokesorganism responds sympathetically, but frets that genocide usually refers only to the elimination of a specific ethnic or racial group, and is therefore "limited," or even somewhat counterproductive, for reaching the aim of eliminating the whole human race!

Asked why it doesn't commit suicide, Geophilus responds:

"If I merely believed in Human extinction, then of course, you'd be right. But, in my judgment, the good I'm doing by promoting the idea of Human extinction outweighs the harm I'm doing by staying alive."


In reviewing some of the "ideas" of the GLF, which he "unofficially" endorses, the Church of Euthanasia's Korda reports about "a group of scientists, including French chemists Jean-Michael DuPont and Henri Mevel, who are developing a powerful toxin that will completely eliminate the human species, without disturbing the other inhabitants of the biosphere."

These maniacs insist on eliminating all apes, since, they argue, invoking Darwinian theory, one day apes will become humans, and the onslaught against Gaia will then re-commence!

We Should Phase Ourselves Out

The VHEMT promotes itself as more "reasonable" than the GLF, since it supports "voluntary," rather than "involuntary" approaches to human extinction. On inspection, however, the VHEMT policies are no less draconian.

The group was founded in 1991, in Portland, Oregon, by Les Knight, a schoolteacher. His stated purpose is to "phase out" the human race, primarily through putting a "stop at once, to all reproduction." According to Knight, "each child increases the environmental impact of a family by 50%, and two children do so by 100%."


On June 8, 1994, Knight was interviewed on BBC World Service's "Outlook" program. The BBC interviewer, who chirped that Knight's views were "very interesting," reported that the VHEMT was gaining support from elements of the environmentalist movement in the United States. Knight told BBC:

"Having made such a mess of the world, we should phase ourselves out. We're incompatible with the biosphere."


In the same breath that he expressed his affection, as a schoolteacher, for children, he said that the appropriate slogan for the times in which we are living, would be: "Make love, not babies."

One creature who is favorably cited by these grouplets, is the Finnish writer, and self-proclaimed "eco-fascist," Pentti Linkola. Linkola is quite a celebrity in Finland, with a substantial following. In his Finland Who's Who entry, he lists his hobby as "destroying human culture."

Linkola's views were made known to a wide English-language readership, in a May 24, 1994 front-page feature in the Wall Street Journal-Europe, elements of which were then reported on, not unsympathetically, in a London Times commentary by Lord William Rees-Mogg. Noting that Linkola was in favor of "annihilating most of the human race," the Journal quoted him saying that a new world war would be

"a happy occasion for the planet.... If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."


Linkola harbors a special hatred for the United States of America, because "the United States symbolizes the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom." In his future eco-fascist utopia, only "a few million" Americans would be allowed to survive.

What must rule the world, in the future, according to Linkola, are "green police," unencumbered by the "syrup of ethics" that governs human behavior today. They would keep progress in check. People would work as fishermen and farmers, and "everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed."

According to Linkola,

"We still have a chance to be cruel. But if we are not cruel today, all is lost."


"Respectable" Homicidal Maniacs

Gruesome stuff. But how different is this, in substance, from what is promoted by Negative Population Growth? NPG, keep in mind, has considerable "respectability" among British and Anglophile American influentials. It regularly places advertisements in major American newspapers, with its demands for a reduction of the American population to 150 million or lower. Such ad placements obviously require substantial sums of money. One key source of funds, is the Nebraska mega-billionaire Warren Buffett, whose possible links to a circle of high-level satanic child abusers in that state, have become a matter of public controversy. [fn3]

NPG has infiltrated its ideas into one current of what passes for mainstream political debate these days in the United States, by its opposition to immigration. Its central, racist argument, is that immigrants breed more than non-immigrant Americans, and so are the driving force behind population growth.
NPG propaganda was widely on display during California's anti-immigration campaign, a couple of years back. Their work was cited positively by "conservative Christian" Pat Buchanan, and their arguments were adopted, in significant part, by California Gov. Pete Wilson. One finds the NPG in constant communication with neo-conservative anti-immigrant groups and propagandists.

The ideas of NPG's head, Donald Mann, as well as those of the NPG's Paul Ehrlich, are promoted by a group in Britain called the Council for Posterity. This group, affiliated closely with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Unesco), is politically and philosophically close to Oxford University Darwinian fanatic Richard Dawkins, to New Dark Age fiction writer Sir William Golding (Lord of the Flies), and to the chief British inventors of the Gaia/Mother Earth mythos, James Lovelock and Edward Goldsmith, the latter the brother of, and recipient of funds from, wheeler-dealer Sir James Goldsmith. The Council of Posterity also promotes the ideas of such British malthusians of the past as Unesco founder Julian Huxley and H.G. Wells.

In 1995, NPG began distributing an essay entitled, "Confronting the 21st Century's Hidden Crisis: Reducing Human Numbers by 80%." It was authored, in May 1995, by J. Kenneth Smail, a professor of anthropology at Kenyon College, in Gambier, Ohio, who gives courses in "biological anthropology." Smail's article is written in bloodless, academic language, but it is a document that is 1,000 times more bloodcurdling, in content, than Hitler's Mein Kampf.


He begins:

"My position is simply stated. Within the next half-century, it will be essential for the human species to have fully operational a flexibly designed, broadly equitable and internationally coordinated set of initiatives, focussed on reducing the then-current world population by at least 80%. Given that even with the best of intentions it will take considerable time and exceptional diplomatic skill to develop and implement such an undertaking, perhaps on the order of 25 to 50 years, it is important that the process of consensus-building -- local, national and global -- begin now."


Smail then enumerates a series of "essential, incontrovertible and inescapable realities," which make mass murder absolutely required. He rejects "zero population growth" approaches as inadequate, since, even if implemented, "human population would nevertheless continue its rapid rate of expansion." This charming creature further exclaims:

"Unless there appears a deadly pandemic, a devastating world war, or a massive breakdown in public health (or a combination of all three), it is inevitable that ongoing global gains in human longevity will continue to make a major contribution to population expansion over the next half-century, regardless of whatever progress might be made in reducing fertility."


He rejects as "ridiculous," suggestions that "extraterrestrial migration" could help solve the problem of "excess human population, in either the near or more distant future." He declares that

"it is extremely important to come to terms with the fact that the earth's long-term carrying capacity ... is indeed finite, ... notwithstanding the high probability of continued scientific/technological progress."


And further:

"Assertions that the earth 'might' be able to support a population of 10, 15 or even 20 billion for an 'indefinite' period of time, at a standard of living 'superior' to the present, are not only demonstrably false, but also cruelly misleading. Rather, ongoing analysis by ecologists, demographers and numerous others, suggests that it is quite likely that the earth's true carrying capacity ... has already been exceeded by a factor or more."


Bringing population to a level no more than 2 billion, and perhaps no higher than 500 million, will not be a simple matter, Smail raves:

"Obviously, a numerical dislocation of this magnitude will require a massive reorientation of human thought, expectations and values.... Put most simply, there seems to be no alternative to the premise, that a very significant population reduction must necessarily follow population stabilization.... For the stark reality is this. Population regulation is the primary issue facing humanity; all other matters are subordinate."


The New Malthusian Organizing Drive

As we indicated above, a key figure in NPG, is Lindsey Grant. Grant's writings are frequently cited or recommended in NPG literature, and it is he who edits the documents (under the title, "NPG Footnotes") distributed by NPG. During the latter 1970s, Grant was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population Affairs; he was the State Department coordinator for the infamous Global 2000 project of the Carter White House; his rise at State is related to the NSSM-200 document commissioned by Kissinger. In its argumentation that population growth in the developing world would impede U.S. access to vital strategic raw materials, NSSM-200 should be seen as providing a before-the-fact rationalization for the raw materials grab and genocide that we now see occurring in Africa.

The policies incorporated in NSSM-200 and Global 2000 are now receiving a new shot in the arm, in part through the efforts of Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who, with Grant and Ehrlich, is among the most frequently cited writers in NPG literature.

In 1994, Pimentel presented a report to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in which he and his co-authors argue for an "optimal" global population of 1-2 billion. The report states that "a drastic demographic adjustment to 1 to 2 billion humans will cause serious social, economic, and political problems," but that these are preferable to the presumed consequences of "rapid population growth to 12 billion or more."

In his above-quoted paper, Smail mentions having received a personal communication from Pimentel, evidently soon after that 1994 report to the AAAS, indicating that Pimentel was drastically lowering his estimation of what the "global optimum" should be. Writes Smail, citing Pimentel: "Actually, this 2 billion estimate may be somewhat on the generous side, particularly in light of the fact that some recent projections for the earth's long-term carrying capacity have been set much lower, in the one-half to 1 billion range."

Pimentel is on the executive committee of a new group, the U.S. Population Policy Project (USPPP), which released its Planning Document on May 30 of this year. The group's "Project Focus" is described as follows: "The Development and Implementation of a Domestic Population Policy in the United States, to Achieve Long-term Environmental and Economic Sustainability." As footnoted recommended literature, the USPPP cites the writings of Pimentel; Lindsey Grant; Paul and Anne Ehrlich; the British Medical Journal; the Carrying Capacity Network; and others of the Malthusian species.

In its Planning Document, the USPPP proposes to initiate a "three-year interdisciplinary project," leading to a "national population policy conference, and follow-up activities to develop and implement a coherent, fair U.S. population policy." The document asserts that "the first serious attempt to develop a population policy was in Chicago, June 7-11, 1970, when the First National Congress on Optimum Population and Environment (COPE) was convened." This was followed by the "Rockefeller Commission," officially known as President Nixon's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.

The document goes on:

"In early 1974, the Nixon Administration undertook a comprehensive study, 'National Security Memorandum 200' [sic], of population growth and its implications for United States national security and overseas interests. The United States contributed many of the findings and recommendations in this report to the draft plan of the approaching World Population Conference, to be held in Bucharest. Later, in 1974, the United Nations held its first international conference on population in Bucharest. The U.S. delegation was led by Caspar Weinberger, President Nixon's secretary of HEW. For the first time, overpopulation was identified as a critical global issue."


The document discusses other key moments in this Malthusian proces, the UN population conferences in Mexico City (1984) and Cairo (1994), the 1995 formation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, etc. A consistent theme, throughout, is that the U.S. government has been dragging its feet on implementing the necessary measures, so, now, more decisive action must be taken.

_______________

Notes:

1. As reported by Deutsche Press Agentur, August 1988. See also the Prince's foreword to Fleur Cowles, People as Animals (United Kingdom: Robin Clark Ltd., 1986).

2. See "Prince Philip Deploys Worldwide Green Terrorism," EIR, Jan. 13, 1995.

3. See John W. DeCamp, The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska (Lincoln, Neb.: AWT, Inc., 1992, second edition 1996).
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 28623
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: E-Sermon #9, by The Church of Euthanasia

Postby admin » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:32 am

Confronting The 21st Century’s Hidden Crisis: Reducing Human Numbers by 80%
by J. Kenneth Smail, Professor of Anthropology Department of Anthropology/Sociology at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio
August 20, 1995

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


My position is simply stated. Within the next half-century, it will be essential for the human species to have fully operational a flexibly designed, broadly equitable and internationally coordinated set of initiatives focussed on reducing the then-current world population by at least 80%. Given that even with the best of intentions it will take considerable time and exceptional diplomatic skill to develop and implement such an undertaking, perhaps on the order of 25 to 50 years, it is important that the process of consensus building – local, national and global – begin now. The mathematical inevitability that human numbers will continue their dramatic increase over the next two generations, to perhaps 10 billion by the year 2040, and the high probability that this numerical increase will exacerbate still further the systemic problems that already plague humanity (economic, political, environmental, social, moral, etc.), only reinforces this sense of urgency. There are, however, hopeful signs. In recent years, we have finally begun to come to terms with the fact that the consequences of the 20th century’s rapid and seemingly uncontrolled population growth will soon place us – if it hasn’t already done so – in the midst of the greatest crisis our species has yet encountered.

Some Realities

In order to better appreciate the scope and ramifications of this still partly hidden crisis, I shall briefly call attention to eight essential, incontrovertible and inescapable realities that must not only be fully understood but soon confronted.

First, during the present century world population will have grown from somewhere around 1.6 billion in 1900 to slightly more than six billion in the year 2000, an almost four-fold increase in but 100 years. This is an unprecedented numerical expansion. Throughout human history, world population growth measured over similar 100-year intervals has been virtually non-existent or at most modestly incremental; it has only become markedly exponential within the last few hundred years. To illustrate this on a more easily comprehensible scale, based on the present rate of increase of some 90 to 95 million per year, human population growth during the l990s alone will amount to nearly one billion, an astonishing 20% increase in but 10 years. Just by itself, this 10 year increase is equivalent to the total global population in the year 1800 (barely 200 years ago) and is approximately triple the estimated world population at the height of the Roman Empire (ca. 300 million). It is a chastening thought that even moderate to conservative demographic projections suggest that this billion-per-decade rate of increase will continue well into the next century, and that the current global total of 5.7 billion (1995 estimate) could easily reach 10 to 11 billion by the year 2050.

Second, even if a fully effective program of zero population growth were to be implemented immediately, by limiting human fertility to what demographers term the replacement rate (roughly 2.1 children per female), human population would nevertheless continue its rapid rate of expansion. In fact, demographers estimate that it would take at least two to three generations (50 to 75 years) at ZPG fertility levels just to reach a point of population stability, unfortunately at numbers considerably higher than at present. This powerful population momentum results from the fact that an unusually high proportion (nearly 1/3) of the current world population is under the age of 15 and has not yet reproduced. Even more broad-based population profiles are to be found throughout the developing world, where the under-15 age cohort often exceeds 40% and where birth rates have remained high even as mortality rates have fallen. While there are some recent indications that fertility rates are beginning to decline, the global composite (ca. 3.8) is still nearly double that needed for ZPG.

Third, in addition to fertility levels, it is essential to understand that population growth is also significantly affected by changes in mortality rates. In fact, demographic transition theory predicts that the earlier stages of rapid population expansion are typically fueled more by significant reductions in death rates than by changes in birth rates. Nor does recent empirical data suggest that average human life expectancy has reached anywhere near its theoretical upper limit, in either the developing or developed worlds. Consequently, unless there appears a deadly pandemic, a devastating world war or a massive breakdown in public health (or a combination of all three), it is inevitable that ongoing global gains in human longevity will continue to make a major contribution to population expansion over the next half-century, regardless of whatever progress might be made in reducing fertility. A further consequence is the fact that populations will inevitably get “older”, with mean ages in the 40 to 45 range and perhaps as many as 1/3 of their members over age 60, as both mortality and fertility rates decline and human numbers (hopefully) reach stable levels. Not surprisingly, these aging populations will develop their own unique set of problems to resolve, not the least of which might be understandable but misguided efforts to increase the size (and economic productivity) of younger age cohorts by encouraging higher fertility.

Fourth, it is important to recognize that the quantitative scale, geographic scope, escalating pace and functional interconnectedness of these impending demographic changes are of such a magnitude that there are few if any historical precedents to guide us. For example, at the current rate of increase of 250,000 people per day (more than 10,000 per hour), it is ludicrous to speak of there being any significant empty spaces left on earth to colonize, certainly when compared with but a century ago. And it is even more ridiculous to suggest that “off earth” (extraterrestrial) migration will somehow be sufficient to siphon away excess human population, in either the near or more distant future.

Fifth, given the data and observations presented thus far, it becomes increasingly apparent that the time span available for implementing an effective program of population control may be quite limited, with a window of opportunity that may not extend much beyond the middle of the next century. While future population trends are notoriously difficult to predict with precision, dependent as they are on a broad range of factors, most middle-of-the-road demographic projections for the year 2040 – less than two generations from now – are in the 9 to 11 billion range, nearly double our present numbers (see point #1 above). Several observations might help to bring this “limited” time span into somewhat better perspective: 1) the year 2040 is as close to the present as the year 1950; 2) an infant born in 1995 will be but 45 years old in the year 2040; and 3) a young person entering the job market in the mid-1990s will just be reaching retirement age in the year 2040. By any reasonable standard of comparison, this is hardly the remote future.

Sixth, it is extremely important to come to terms with the fact that the earth’s long term carrying capacity, in terms of resources broadly defined, is indeed finite, despite the continuing use of economic models predicated on seemingly unlimited growth and notwithstanding the high probability of continued scientific/technological progress. Some further terminological clarification may be useful. “Long-term” is most appropriately defined on the order of several hundred years at least; it emphatically does not mean the 5 to 10 year horizon typical of much economic forecasting or political prognostication. Over this much longer time span, it then becomes much more reasonable – perhaps even essential to human survival – to define a sustainable human population size in terms of optimums rather than maximums. In other words, what “could” be supported in the short term is not necessarily what “should” be humanity’s goal over the longer term. As far as resources are concerned, whether these be characterized as renewable or non-renewable, it is clear that the era of inexpensive energy (derived from fossil fuels), adequate food supplies (whether plant or animal), readily available or easily extractable raw materials (from wood to minerals), plentiful fresh water and readily accessible “open space” is rapidly coming to a close, almost certainly within the next half-century. And finally, the consequences of future scientific/technological advances – whether in terms of energy production, technological efficiency, agricultural productivity or creation of alternative materials – are much more likely to be incremental than revolutionary, notwithstanding frequent and grandiose claims for the latter.

Seventh, it is becoming increasingly apparent that rhetoric about “sustainable growth” is at best a continuing exercise in economic self-deception and at worst a politically pernicious oxymoron. Almost certainly, working toward a “steady-state” sustainability is much more realistic scientifically, more attainable economically and (perhaps) more prudent politically. Assertions that the earth “might” be able to support a population of 10, 15 or even 20 billion for an “indefinite” period of time at a standard of living “superior” to the present are not only demonstrably false but also cruelly misleading. Rather, ongoing analysis by ecologists, demographers and numerous others suggests that it is quite likely that the earth’s true carrying capacity – defined here (simply) as humans in long-term adaptive balance with their ecological setting and resource base – has already been exceeded by a factor of two or more. To the best of my knowledge, there is no clear-cut or well-documented evidence that effectively contradicts this sober – even frightening – assessment. Consequently, since at some point in the not-too-distant future the negative consequences and ecological damage stemming from continued and uncontrolled human reproductive profligacy could well become irreversible, and because there is only one earth with which to experiment, it is undoubtedly better for our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever possible a cautious and careful stewardship.

Eighth and finally, only about 20% of the current world population (ca. 1.2 billion people) could be said to have a “generally adequate” standard of living, defined here as something approximating that of industrialized Western Europe, Japan or North America, the so-called developed world. The other 80% (ca. 4.5 billion), incorporating most of the inhabitants of what have been termed the developing nations, live in conditions ranging from mild deprivation to severe deficiency. Despite well-intentioned efforts to the contrary, there is little evidence that this imbalance is going to decrease in any significant way, and a strong likelihood that it may get worse, particularly in view of the fact that more than 90% of all future population growth is projected to occur in these less-developed regions of the world. In fact, there is growing concern that when this burgeoning population growth in the developing world is combined with “excessive” per capita energy and resource consumption in much of the developed world, the potential for wide-spread environmental deterioration (systemic breakdown?) in a number of the earth’s more heavily-stressed ecosystems becomes increasingly likely. This is particularly worrisome in regions already beset by short-sighted or counterproductive economic policies, chronic political instability and growing social unrest.

If the above “inescapable realities” are indeed valid, it is obvious that rational, equitable and attainable population goals will have to be established in the very near future. It is also obvious that these goals will have to address and in some fashion resolve a powerful internal conflict: how to create and sustain an adequate standard of living for all the world’s peoples (minimizing the growing distance between rich and poor) while simultaneously not over-stressing (or exceeding) the earth’s longer-term carrying capacity. I submit that these goals cannot be reached, or this conflict resolved, unless and until world population is dramatically reduced – to no more than two billion people – over the next two or three centuries.

The Central Argument Restated

On the assumption that the foregoing observations are indeed close to the mark, the logic underlying the above recommendation – and the statement that began this essay – seems both inexorable and clear. It deserves a brief reiteration.

Over the next several generations, and beginning as soon as possible, humanity must not only take significant steps to arrest the rapid growth of human population but also begin to reduce it dramatically. However, it will be very difficult if not impossible to stop current growth short of 9 to 10 billion. This is due not only to the momentum effect but also to the great difficulties, both diplomatic and temporal, in developing and implementing the necessary political, economic, scientific and moral consensus about both ends and means.

Because there is no clear-cut evidence to support assertions to the contrary, and precious little margin for error, it is only prudent to work from the increasingly legitimate assumption that the earth’s long-term carrying capacity is no greater than two billion people. It is therefore necessary to confront the inescapable fact that human numbers will have to be reduced by 80% or more, from the all-but-inevitable 9 to 11 billion in the mid-21st century to something approaching 2 billion by the end of the 22nd century, some 200 years from now. Obviously, a numerical dislocation of this magnitude will require a massive reorientation of human thought, expectations and values.

Just as obvious, time is short, with an implementation window that will last no more than the next 50 to 75 years, and perhaps less. This process of population stabilization and reduction should have begun a generation or more ago – say in 1960 when human numbers were “only” three billion and demographic momentum more easily arrested – and certainly cannot be delayed much longer. For it is abundantly clear that if we do not choose to address and resolve this problem ourselves, “nature” will almost certainly solve it for us, with consequences that would be at best unpredictable and at worst unimaginable.

The problem of establishing rational and defensible population “optimums” deserves further comment. Perhaps most surprising is how unusual it is to find individuals – or organizations – who are willing to state publicly and emphatically that just reaching a point of “population stability” during the next century will not be enough, either to solve our near-term demographic difficulties or to stave off a future demographic catastrophe. For the latter scenario will almost surely come to pass if humanity naively and/or unquestioningly accepts global population levels that are set so high – in the 10 to 15 billion range – that they are clearly unsustainable over the longer term. One only has to consider the stresses already evident at the current level of nearly six billion to recognize that any sort of long-term stability at figures double that number will be impossible to accomplish. Put most simply, there seems to be no credible alternative to the premise that a very significant population reduction must necessarily follow population stabilization.

Admittedly, the above-mentioned global goal – a sustainable optimum of approximately 2 billion people by the beginning of the 23rd century – has a substantial inferential component. This “subjectivity” is undoubtedly due to a number of factors, among which might be included: 1) the fact that as yet only a modest amount of empirical scientific research has been directed toward establishing quantifiable (and testable) parameters for what the earth’s long-term carrying capacity might actually be; 2) the strong likelihood that the sheer complexity, multidisciplinary nature and sociopolitical “sensitivities” surrounding analysis of the population problem have not only inhibited scientific research and funding but have also elicited (in some) a sort of “scale paralysis”; 3) the obvious fact that the process involved in initially establishing – and subsequently implementing – future population goals will involve complex “qualitative considerations” that significantly transcend a strictly scientific (quantitative) analysis; 4) the presence of a persistent (and probably deep-seated) human “reticence” to give serious consideration to a demographic future that seems quite remote from one’s daily life and activities, not to mention a future for which there is little historical precedent; and 5) the distinct possibility that, even with the best of political intentions and unprecedented cooperation at all relevant levels, it may take considerably longer than 200 years to reach the desired demographic goals.

Notwithstanding these and other uncertainties, the two billion “global optimum” utilized here is quite consistent with estimates to be found in several of the sources listed at the end of this essay (see particularly the articles in the volume edited by Grant, the books by Hardin and the Ehrlichs, and various publications and position papers prepared by NPG). Actually, this two billion estimate may be somewhat on the generous side, particularly in light of the fact that some recent projections for the earth’s long-term carrying capacity have been set much lower, in the one-half to one billion range (David Pimentel: pers. com.).

On the other hand, even if future research shows that this global carrying capacity figure has been underestimated by at least l/2 – that is, if further analysis demonstrates that an optimum population estimate of two billion is “off-target” by a factor of two or more – the argument put forth here loses little if any of its validity or persuasive power. For example, if it is indeed inevitable that global population size is destined to reach 10 to 12 billion within the next half-century, even efforts to reach a somewhat “larger” optimum population – one (say) in the four to five billion range-would still require a very significant decrease in human numbers, roughly on the order of 60%. From a practical standpoint, this figure differs little from the 80% reduction postulated earlier; certainly, either of these “projections” is more than adequate to dramatize the need for a profound – and immediate – response to this looming demographic crisis.

Future Prospects

I am cautiously optimistic that this crisis can be averted, if only because all humans – despite our many differences – share a deep-rooted “investment in immortality”, an individual and collective concern for posterity. This powerful commitment to the future manifests itself biologically (through the children we beget), socioculturally (through our relationships with others) and morally (through our religious and/or ethical systems). As an essential first step, our species will soon have to establish a difficult but very necessary balance between individual reproductive rights and collective reproductive responsibilities. That is, all of the world’s peoples must come fully to terms with the fact that a person’s (biological) right to have children must be mediated by his or her (social) responsibility not to have too many. Certainly, any hope for success in this massive reorientation of basic biological propensities and strongly-held sociocultural expectations will require attention not only to quantitative but also to qualitative issues and concerns. In fact, it will likely be easier to elicit broad-scale agreement on the pressing need for a significant reduction in human numbers – the “quantitative dimension” – than it will be to foster a broad scale consensus on the “qualitative” restructuring of individual, political, economic, social and ethical perceptions that will also be necessary.

In pragmatic terms, the initial stabilization and subsequent 80% reduction in human numbers suggested earlier could be brought about with relative ease by establishing a worldwide average fertility rate of approximately 1.5 to 1.7 over the next several generations (lasting throughout the 21st century at least). Essentially, all that would be necessary is for couples to “stop at two”; because some women have no children, and others only one, this would rather quickly result in an overall (sub-replacement) fertility rate in the desired range. It is important to note that rates approaching this 1.5 to 1.7 level have already been reached in a number of nation-states (including the U.S.), at least for limited periods of time, and further that these fertility levels have in most instances been attained voluntarily (without external coercion). Certainly an important early step in this process of population reduction would be to promote appropriate (i.e. culturally acceptable) local incentives to significantly postpone age at marriage and/or age at first pregnancy, from (say) the mid/late teens until at least the mid-20’s. If these same incentives also encouraged increased intervals between births, the almost certain consequence would be markedly smaller family sizes coupled with a significant decrease in the number of generations per unit time (from nearly six generations per century to fewer than four). Once an optimum population size is within reach – perhaps toward the end of the 22nd century when global numbers begin to come into balance with carrying capacity as then understood – fertility rates could then be increased to the previously mentioned ZPG replacement level (ca. 2.1).

However, it is also abundantly clear, to judge by the agenda and controversies emanating from the recent (September 1994) United Nations-sponsored International Conference on Population and Development, that implementation of these greatly reduced fertility rates is inextricably intertwined with a number of very sensitive political and ideological concerns. Chief among these are matters pertaining to: the enhancement of gender equity; the educational and economic empowerment of women; ongoing controversies surrounding family planning, birth control and abortion; problems of development and modernization; differential access to resources and/or inequities in their distribution; various forms of pollution and environmental degradation; endemic poverty and implementation of effective public health measures; the growth of nationalism and ethnic/religious tensions; human migration and political/ecological refugees; etc.; etc. These are all very important issues, and there is little doubt that they are frequently interconnected in complex cause-and-effect relationships with population growth. However, it is even more important not to confuse short-term means with longer-term ends. More specifically, it is essential that humanity does not lose sight of the over-arching and exploding demographic “forest” in the midst of legitimate and deeply-felt concerns about particular political/ideological “trees”.

For the stark reality is this. Population regulation is the primary issue facing humanity; all other matters are subordinate. Proponents of the above-mentioned agenda items, at the United Nations and elsewhere, must become fully cognizant of the fact that solutions to the problems that deeply concern them will be far more likely (and lasting) in a world that is moving rapidly and effectively toward population stabilization and eventual population reduction. For it must be obvious that the alternative – a world inexorably expanding toward 12 to 15 billion people by the end of the next century – offers much less hope for successful resolution of these matters. Quite simply, hard-won gains would almost certainly be overwhelmed by continuing and uncontrolled numerical growth, similar to what can be observed even now in those regions of the world where populational doubling times of 25 to 35 years are the norm.

n fact, to judge by the available evidence, it is entirely possible that the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years – particularly to the extent that this “wisdom” has been characterized by large-scale economic aid (transfers of wealth) and liberal immigration policies (transfers of people) – has done more to stimulate rapid population growth than inhibit it. It’s almost as if a demographic Parkinson’s Law were in effect, to wit: “Births tend to expand to fill the perceived socioeconomic space”. In other words, when the true limits of this “perceived space” are obscured at the local level by overly generous international aid and relatively easy opportunities for emigration, the unfortunate demographic result has all too often been “counterproductive” incentive structures, creating reproductive contexts in which local fertility rates have generally tended to increase rather than diminish.

This leads to a crucial final point, the ineluctable fact that in our multi-national world solutions cannot be imposed from without. Ultimately, the people of each sovereign state must come to terms with, and subsequently resolve, their own local and unique demographic problems (hopefully motivated by a full awareness of global realities). In this regard, given the limited time available and the excruciatingly difficult decisions that must be made, it is daunting to realize that population problems are often the most pronounced in areas of the world where national sovereignty – and the requisite political, economic and social stability – is most tenuous.

Because of these difficulties, it remains to be seen whether humanity will be capable of mounting a unified and lasting effort toward population control. For surely this is an undertaking that has no quantitative nor qualitative precedent, an effort that must be conducted on a species-wide scale, and an endeavor that by its very nature must be sustained for a century or more. While posterity demands that we be successful, I am only cautiously optimistic that such success can be achieved by rational human forethought, or by means compatible with contemporary social, political and ethical norms.

A NOTE ABOUT SOURCES

This hortatory essay – written and revised during the period November 1994 to May 1995 – hopefully captures the essence of a demographic perspective I have been developing over the past two decades in my introductory biological anthropology course here at Kenyon College. My primary goal was to provide a clearly-stated and reasonably jargon-free “position paper” for my undergraduate students to think about, react to, and perhaps improve upon. For my part, I have gathered ideas and utilized data from a number of sources. The following are the most important.

Abernethy, Virginia. 1993. Population Politics: The Choices That Shape Our Future. New York: Plenum.

Brown, Lester R. and Hal Kane. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Population Carrying Capacity. New York: W.W. Norton.

Connelly, Matthew and Paul Kennedy. 1994. “Must It Be The West Against the Rest?”, The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 274, no. 6, pp. 61-84, December.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. 1990. The Population Explosion. New York: Simon and Schuster. . Grant, Lindsey. 1992. Elephants in the Volkswagen: Facing the Tough Questions About Our Overcrowded Country. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Hardin, Garrett J. 1992. Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hornby, William F. & Melvyn Jones. 1993. An Introduction to Population Geography (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, Robert D. 1994. “The Coming Anarchy”, The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 273, no. 2, pp. 44-76, February.

Lutz, Wolfgang. 1994. “The Future of World Population”, Population Bulletin, vol. 49, no. 1, June (Population Reference Bureau).

Moffett, George D. 1994. Critical Masses: The Global Population Challenge. New York: Viking Penguin.

Negative Population Growth, Inc. 210 The Plaza, P.O. Box 1206, Teaneck, New Jersey, 07666. (various publications)

The Population Reference Bureau, Inc. 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 250, Washington, D.C., 20009. (various publications)

Quick, Horace F. 1974. Population Ecology. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill (Pegasus). Westoff, Charles. 1995. “International Population Policy”, Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 11-15, May/June.

Worldwatch Institute. 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036. (various publications)

******************************

NPG

There is no remedy that can possibly avert disastrous Climate Change and Global Warming unless we first address the problem of world population size and growth, and its impact on the size of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. That means that we need to address the population size and growth of each nation, which together make up the world total.

World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now. In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!

From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem. None at all. So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one? What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 28623
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: E-Sermon #9, by The Church of Euthanasia

Postby admin » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:40 am

Global 2000 Study Statement on the Report to the President
by Jimmy Carter, XXXIX President of the United States: 1977-1981
The American Presidency Project
July 24, 1980

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Shortly after assuming office in 1977, I directed the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of State, and other Government agencies to study the profound changes that may take place in our world's population, natural resources, and environment through the end of the century. Never before had our government or any government attempted to take such a comprehensive, long-range look at interrelated global issues such as world population, agriculture, water resources, forest resources, energy needs, and the overall environmental quality of the Earth we live on.

The Global 2000 study is now complete. Its report projects global conditions which could develop by the end of this century, assuming that present trends and patterns around the world continue. Many of the report's findings must be of great concern to all of us. These findings point to developments related to the world's peoples and resources that our prompt attention can begin to alleviate. We will make use of the information from the Global 2000 report in carrying out public policy wherever possible. In addition, we must continue to analyze the serious issues it raises.

It is important to understand that the conditions the report projects are by no means inevitable. In fact, its projections can and should be timely warnings which will alert the nations of the world to the need for vigorous, determined action at both the national and international levels.

The United States is not alone in responding to global population, natural resource, and environmental issues. The recent Venice summit declaration committed the Western industrial nations to cooperate with developing countries in addressing global food, energy, and population problems. The summit nations agreed on the need for a better understanding of the implications of resource availability and population growth for economic development. In the United Nations many of the key issues raised in the Global 2000 report are being included in the formulation of a new international development strategy.

A number of U.S. and international responses to critical global issues are already underway. For example, since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, our Government has contributed actively to a series of world conferences on these issues, and to followup actions.

Nonetheless, given the importance, scope, and complexity of the challenges set forth in the report, I believe America must provide special leadership in addressing global conditions. I am therefore today appointing a Presidential Task Force on Global Resources and Environment, to be chaired by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and to include the Secretary of State, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs and Policy, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Task Force will report to me as soon as possible with recommendations for action in problem areas needing priority attention. I am directing other Federal agencies to cooperate with and support the Task Force's efforts.

I am also directing the State Department to raise the issues and problems identified in the Global 2000 report in all appropriate international meetings, and I myself will raise them as well. For example, in my second environmental message last August, I expressed my concern about the loss of tropical forests. For immediate action on this critical problem, I am directing all relevant Federal agencies to respond within 60 days to the Interagency Task Force Report on Tropical Forests, which was submitted to me last month. In their responses, agencies will detail the steps they will take to carry out the report's recommendations. In receiving these reports, the Interagency Task Force on Tropical Forests will operate as an arm of the Presidential Task Force on Global Resources and the Environment. Finally, I am requesting the Commission of the Eighties to give careful attention to these global issues.

There are less than 20 years left in our 20th century. The time to look forward to the world we want to have in the year 2000 and leave to succeeding generations is now. It is my firm belief that we can build a future in which all people lead full, decent lives in harmony with a healthy and habitable planet. And I believe that the skills, experience, vision, and courage of the American people today make the United States a natural leader in charting and guiding humanity's course towards a better world tomorrow.

Note: The report is entitled "The Global Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-First Century" (Government Printing Office, 3 volumes—Volume One, The Summary Report; Volume Two, The Technical Report; Volume Three, The Government's Global Model).

Citation: Jimmy Carter: "Global 2000 Study Statement on the Report to the President. ," July 24, 1980. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44808.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 28623
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: E-Sermon #9, by The Church of Euthanasia

Postby admin » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:49 am

COPE holds first national meeting: Congress on Optimum Population and Environment pounded out many resolutions but couldn't agree on definition of environment
Chem. Eng. News, 1970, 48 (26), pp 34–35
Publication Date: June 22, 1970
Copyright © 1970 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Abstract

The first national Congress on Optimum Population and Environment (COPE) convened in Chicago a fortnight ago and proceeded—with truly prodigious enthusiasm—to pound out resolutions on everything from A (atomic energy) to Z (zoning). About 1200 delegates attended the meeting over which ex-Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz presided as temporary chairman.

From the outset, the congress was marked by schismatic movements, high-pressure tactics by special-interest groups, and difficulty in agreeing on just what is meant by the word environment, Mr. Wirtz himself added to the congress's politicalization when early in the meeting he called for formation of a new third political party consisting of people under 25 and over 55. Mr. Wirtz, who is 58, said that people from 25 to 55 were too concerned with their own ambitions to effect significant political or social change.

Shortly thereafter, chairman Wirtz and the 16 other members of COPE's board of directors offered a resolution ...
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 28623
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Sadism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest