Posted on 06/14/2011 10:44:04 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
Perhaps one of the most persistent and pervasive myths that have shaped the thinking of many people and, subsequently, public policy is the myth that the world’s population is spiraling out of control and that it will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life.
This whole concept of “overpopulation” can be traced to Thomas Malthus, the British scholar and Anglican clergyman (albeit a very misguided one) who, without any specific knowledge other than his own speculations, predicted in 1789 that the planet’s rapid increase in population would soon outstrip the planet’s ability to produce food, resulting in massive worldwide starvation.
Malthus’s predicted famine never materialized, of course; he could not have predicted the industrial revolution or the enormous impact subsequent technological innovations would have on our ability to produce food. Recall that today our federal government actually pays farmers not to grow crops due to the abundance of food produced on considerably less farmland than existed just a century ago.
Even the United Nations, historically a rabid advocate of population control, has conceded that the world’s current infrastructure is capable of supporting a worldwide population of more than 9 billion people.
Furthermore, according to the most recent estimates, the planet’s population will most likely continue to climb from its current level until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion; other predictions have the world’s population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In either case, global population levels will begin a sharp decline sometime during the middle of the twenty-first century. Present fertility rates actually indicate a massive underpopulation crisis is coming, particularly among Western nations.
The question of overpopulation is not merely a topic for conversation; it is a burning matter of policy and action at the local, national, and international levels. Our national government is actually committed by law and by international agreement to reducing the worldwide rate of population growth.
Government officials, such as former Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration, Timothy Wirth, insist that this effort must also apply to the population of the United States. Wirth, as you may recall, was at the center of controversy when the Clinton administration decided to deport 13 Chinese women who sought asylum in the United States to avoid forced abortion under communist China’s notorious one-child policy.
By offering asylum to these women, Wirth explained, “we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying ‘I don't want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum.’” Apparently, Wirth believes government-forced abortions and sterilization constitutes “family planning.”
Today, there are governments that compel their citizens to undergo sterilization and abortions, often with financial help from the United Nations and U.S. government-supported private agencies such as Planned Parenthood.
Motivated in part by the overpopulation myth coupled with Darwinism, Margaret Sanger, who in 1934 was the founder of the American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood), advocated contraception and abortion as means of “negative eugenics” in order to limit the population of what she termed “the lower races.” (Positive eugenics was the form employed by the Nazis in their attempt to eradicate the Jewish people.)
For this reason Sanger opposed helping the poor. Humanitarianism and philanthropy, she wrote merely “perpetuate constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents.… These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste.” This same sentiment was common to Darwin and his early advocates, who saw Christian compassion as counterproductive to “natural selection” and human evolution. Recall the original full title of Darwin’s now-famous work, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Frankly, if one wants to be consistent with evolutionary theory, one is compelled to think this same way and not borrow from Christian morality and ethics, as these have no logical place in the naturalistic worldview. Darwin very clearly understood this fact.
Ironically it was Thomas Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population that had a profound impact on Charles Darwin and proved instrumental in the development of his theory of evolution. Darwin attests to this in his autobiography:
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work.
The myth of overpopulation first put forth by Malthus, coupled with Darwinian theories that promote propagation of the “fit” and reduction of the “unfit,” has been instrumental in legitimizing abortion, forced sterilization, government subsidized contraception, and, in the most extreme cases, eugenics as practiced by the Nazis and others. (The term eugenics-meaning “good births”-was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Eugenics, he believed, would encourage more children from the fit, and fewer or no children from the unfit, with the ultimate goal of engineering the evolutionary ascent of man.)
In every case these false notions undermine God’s commandment to “multiply” and further serve to undermine the intrinsic value of every human as being made in the image of God.
An important set of facts to know IN THE FACE OF the globalist commie’s depopulation goals and efforts.
Thx thx.
END TIMES PING.
BTW, What ever happened in that most famous Aussie case of “The Dingo Ate My Baby” claim?
Actually, a partial small group of the
END TIMES PING.
I don’t believe that “the world’s population is spiraling out of control and that it will will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life.”
I do believe that out of control Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Communist policies will ultimately lead to catastrophic shortages of the essential resources necessary to sustain life because of their proclivity to discourage entrepreneurship, work and creativity.
The desire and the will to improve one’s lot in life is what spurs on civilization and continuous improvement of the human condition (I hate the Libs for making ‘Progressive’ a word non-grata).
When government becomes the expected engine of the improvement of people’s day to day existence that progress of improvement will slow to a crawl. It will slow to the pace of bureaucracy.
bttt
Judging by what this last 100 million people have done to the quality of life in the United States, I prefer less population, and a better life, to learning to adjust to an ever growing, never ending, crush of humanity.
We aren’t farm animals that merely need food, water and shelter, we want to breathe, we want our children to be able to fish, hunt, camp and play within a bicycle ride or short drive of their city home.
Going outdoors shouldn’t be a travel trip. I grew up in a big city, Houston, and now I think of that childhood as almost like living in the country compared to today. Now even traveling from city to city is like commuting on a long urban route of non stop humanity and development.
Thanks thanks.
Will check it out.
What is your connection to such cases?
Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding !
If Wirth & Co. are so worried about overpopulation, why are our borders open to all and sundry? Why are we forced to accept 1 million legal immigrants a year? This story doesn’t compute.
Try driving from Ft. Worth, Texas to Las Vegas, New Mexico. Lots of open country on that trip. Lots of abandoned towns, as well.
I understand your point, but if you live along one of the coasts, and never travel inland, you have a perverted view of the world.
One that the 'population zero' crowd would like for everyone to have.
Comfortable carrying capacity for the land area on this planet is 25-60 Billion. Don't whine because the east coast is packed within 100 miles of the coast. Move somewhere where your nearest neighbor is a half-mile away. Still lots of those places left.
/johnny
Of course, there's only a limited supply of land so the dubious assumption does seem to be common-sensical. But, increases in wealth provide the capital base for improved food production due to technical advances.
If we wanted to, anyone with a house could have a backyard fish farm and eat the fish; agricultural technology has gone that far. Prey animals grow at an exponential rate too.
Soylent Green is people!
Great post!
I promise not to let the flattery go to my head. (At least until I can get some sleep)
If my math is correct:
The world’s population could fit in the state of Rhode Island giving each person a 2 foot square to stand in.
The world’s population could live in the state of Texas if you grouped everyone in families of 4, with 75 acres, and a 1500 square foot house.
You could feed the world with produce grown in the valleys of California. (If you grew the right kind of produce.)
Overpopulation of the world is a lie too often propagated by those with ulterior motives.
****Present fertility rates actually indicate a massive underpopulation crisis is coming, particularly among Western nations.****
Not sure ‘fertility’ rates can be quantified - but contraception, abortion and copulation between same-sex species has got to reduce offspring.
The truth is Welfare Queens are over-populating the Earth. They typically have anywhere from 3-11 children we get stuck paying for.
I get 4.89 square feet.
The world’s population could live in the state of Texas if you grouped everyone in families of 4, with 75 acres, and a 1500 square foot house.
6.92 billion people in 268581 square miles is over 40 per acre, so if they were grouped in families of 4, every family would have 1/10 of an acre.
Overpopulation of the world is a lie ...
In my lifetime I have seen many negative effects of the increase in population. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.