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.
Tuesday, May 2, 2000
by Anthony LoBaido
By Anthony C. LoBaido
© 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
It is perhaps the single greatest disinformation campaign in human history: The planet is grossly overpopulated, and unless something is done to limit human population growth, calamity will ensue.
Hunger, famine and resource depletion are often mentioned as the major reasons to justify limiting human reproduction. Unfortunately, few can summon the facts to repudiate this erroneous, non-scientific assumption.
Paul Ehrlich, mentor of U.S. Vice President Al Gore, wrote a landmark book in 1968 called "The Population Bomb." He predicted, "We will breed ourselves into oblivion."
Based on this assumption, American taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on population control programs around the world -- most of them in Third World countries populated by people with brown, yellow, red and black skin.
Going down?
Yet, while the one-billionth citizen of India was born last year, Japan, if it continues its current abortion policies and fails to raise its average birth rate of 1.4 children per married couple, will have fewer than 500 people by the year 3000. This is not a prophecy of the mad Aum Shinrikyo cult, but rather a pronouncement of Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare.
 |
| If these two Hong Kong children, Stephanie and Shan Shan, had been born a just few miles north of Kowloon Island, in mainland China, they would very possibly have become victims of the Asian gendercide of abortion. |
There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The planet's population will most likely continue to climb 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, it will then go into a sharp decline. The world may soon be facing an under-population crisis -- a prospect that has all but escaped media scrutiny.
Malthus was wrong
Thomas Malthus is a British historical figure of great note. His most studied work, "An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvements of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of M. Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers," was first published in 1798. Its thesis -- that overpopulation would destroy the world unless war, famine and disease rose to check human growth -- has proven to be dead wrong.
Malthus reasoned that, since people increase exponentially and food production only increases arithmetically, food production could not possibly hope to keep up with more and more empty stomachs. Ironically, he predicted mass starvation on the eve of one of the biggest farming expansions the world has ever seen. For free countries, hunger has effectively been eliminated.
Rather than booming, as one might expect in the face of such plenty, the world's population is aging and in decline. As fertility rates fall and abortion, contraception and life spans increase, the world will soon enter a new paradigm in which the elderly outnumber the young. In 1975, the mean global age was 22. In 2050, it will be 38. Europe, South Korea and Japan will be particularly hard hit by this phenomenon.
With fertility rates low and anti-foreigner sentiment rising in Europe, the United Nations recently released a study that suggests Europe will need mass migration from the Third World to populate it. The report, written by the United Nations Population Division, states that South Korea, Japan, Europe and Russia are facing population crunches.
By 2050, the population of Russia will be down to 150 million. In the 1970s, Russia's population rivaled America's, at more than 225 million people.
Europe's population plummets
In 1950, 32 percent of the world's population lived in developed countries in the West, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Today that figure has shrunk to 12 percent. Europe had 25 percent of the world's population in 1900. By 2050, Europe will have only seven percent. In 1900, Europe had three times the population of Africa. By 2050, Africa will have three times the population of Europe.
When it comes to the overpopulation lie, Spain serves as a prime example. Abortion is rampant in that nation, one that in relatively recent history helped to spread the Catholic faith to the four corners of the Earth. Today, however, Spain is caught in a moral decline. It is legal, for example, for grown men to have homosexual sex with children as young as 12 years of age.
While in the past generation, Spain "blossomed" from a right-wing dictatorship to a liberal democracy, it has also plunged to the bottom on the United Nations report of worldwide birth and replacement rates.
"Spain is in last place," says Florentina Alvarez, a demographer at the National Statistics Institute. Spanish woman have on average 1.07 children, far below the 2.1 needed to maintain the population. Spain has today 39.4 million people, a figure that will begin to drop in coming decades. As recently as 1976, under the much-maligned reign of Francisco Franco, Spain had a fertility rate of 2.6.
'Gendercide' in Asia
The major cities in Asia -- Bangkok, Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo and Hong Kong -- are overpopulated, but prosperous nevertheless. Overpopulation does not lead to poverty.
 |
| A young boy rides an ox in Laos. The hill tribes of the region are decreasing in population due to the genocidal policies of the Laotian government, as well as their being targeted by the United Nations with a population control campaign. |
For example, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan are very densely populated and are some of the richest nations in Asia, if not the world. Taiwan has a population density of 1,460 per square mile, while China has a population density of 360 per square mile. Yet, according to the CIA's "World Factbook 1999," Taiwan's per capita gross domestic product is $16,500, while China's is $3,600.
The communist government of China has had a one-child policy for much of its history, but even now the Chinese government is beginning to question that policy. As most Chinese want sons, they abort the females on a massive scale. It is not uncommon for a Chinese family to murder its two- or three-year-old daughter if the mother becomes pregnant again with a boy. Within 100 years, China will have far more boys than girls. Will the men then decide to become homosexuals, or will they march out of China, as did the Mongol horde, in search of wives?
South Korea faces a similar problem. Because of abortion of females, kindergartens in Seoul today have around 60 percent boys. In the future, South Korean boys may well have to marry North Korean girls to perpetuate their race.
The overpopulation lie
The U.S. State Department and the United Nations are major players in this population game. Their measures are funded in large part by top U.S. foundations like Ford and Rockefeller. Ted Turner, founder of CNN, is also a major population-control sugar daddy for the United Nations, having cut a $1 billion check to the world body when conservatives in the U.S. Congress threatened not to pay off America's back dues to the U.N. if those dues would be used to set up abortion clinics overseas.
Make no mistake: Abortion and depopulation are a top priority for the powers-that-be in the West. And it's not just about women's sexual freedom and independence, as many claim. ...
The preceding excerpt is the first third of an in-depth analysis featured in the May edition of WorldNet Magazine. In the balance of the article, WorldNet's roving international reporter Anthony LoBaido details attempts by the U.S., U.N. and other entities to foster the overpopulation myth and explores the economic, political and spiritual reasons why so many powerful forces are pushing for depopulation. Readers may
subscribe to WorldNet by visiting WorldNetDaily's online store.
bump
Thanks Eaglet! I think GeronL had a good one last night. I'll see if I can find it.
You're welcome. The "overpopulation" myth has been used to indoctrinate relativists into "justifying" abortion and government funding of it. It also is used as a philosophical basis for enviro-socialism.
It is a majorly flawed premise.
The irrational fear of growing population is a disease that afflicts virtually all billionaires. I don't don't know how it happens, but it seems that just about everyone of them gets converted to the population control religion and at some point gives hundreds of millions or even billions to population control and pro-abortion causes.
I believe it was Packard of hewlett Packard fame that left what was not so many years ago 6 BILLION dollars (probably much more by now) to a trust devoted largely or primarily to population control. He explicitly included pushing abortion as part of the population control efforts. Warren Buffet has also explicitly supported pro-abortion efforts, and is quite proud of it.
"Spain serves as a prime example. Abortion is rampant in that nation"
Abortion is NOT rampant in Spain. Have relatives there. Abortion is illegal unless in case of rape, health, incest, or something of that nature. Even so, you'll still have a hard time finding a doc to do one, since most refuse on grounds of conscience
I've always wondered why rich white guys like Ted Turner and Al Gore are so worried about overpopulation in non-white countries. Al Gore, father of four children promotes the abortion of dark skinned persons in the third world. Anyone who questions him on this is assaulted (no joke) by his followers.
I think this ties in well to Clinton's classifying of AIDS as a "national security threat." These people will do anything they can to justify their agenda. And talk about an overpopulation myth! I just heard recently that you could give every man, woman, and child in the world 1 acre of land and fit them all in the state of Texas. That's hardly a population problem. I guess the question is, what drives people to perpetuate these lies? Do they really believe this nonsense or are just seeking more power and control?
I just heard recently that you could give every man, woman, and child in the world 1 acre of land and fit them all in the state of Texas.
I believe it's both.
Well, here's a little good news for all of you who are sick of the ridiculous population propaganda. I work as a DJ and Music Director for our rock segments on Freed-Hardeman University's radio station. Because we are an educational radio station (not for profit), we end up airing a lot of socially conscious commercials as opposed to corporate advertising.
Recently, I had been very concerned about a few of our commercials. They had to do with the Population Institute and their "family planning". I finally went to our station manager and refused to play them anymore on my shifts. He had been unaware of these commercials, and upon hearing of them, he instructed me to tell our Program Director to completely take out all of our commercials dealing with the Population Institute and their message from our play rotation. He does not agree with the immoral things that this group advocates any more than I do. Besides, the University is a Christian-run operation and has strict moral codes for all of its operations. Our radio station is now population propaganda free!
Malthus failed to foresee the technological genius of the Western world, which would manage to keep pace, generally speaking, with population growth up to the present time. A vast infrastructure that delivers food to cities of millions is necessary to keep the planet from widespread starvation, but even this infrastructure has its limits, and there is starvation in the areas that it doesn't reach. A breakdown in this infrastructure would cause widespread starvation.
Malthus also predicted that as the population grew too large, we would face all the crime and social ills that we so often decry on Free Republic.
Abortion is certainly not the answer. Abortion is just digging us deeper into our moral decline. And the two issues should not be confused. It's possible to be pro-life and still think the planet is overpopulated. Abortion is another symptom of the moral breakdown caused by overpopulation, not the solution to overpopulation.
The asbestos coveralls are on their way from the cleaner's. . . .
Here's a guy that was worried about it in our OWN country and probably was a pioneer in linking "healthcare" with abortifacient birth control (if not actual abortion) ... especially for women.
|
We need to make population and family planning household words. We need to take the sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be usedby militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather, are using it as a political stepping stone. If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter. Rep. George Bush, 1969 |
|
Most important is that legislation be recognized as ... a health-care service mechanism and not a population control mechanism. Rep. George Bush, 1970 |
|
As we amended the Social Security Act in 1967, I was impressed by the sensible approach of Alan Guttmacher, the obstetrician who served as president of Planned Parenthood. It was ridiculous, he told the committee, to blame mothers on welfare for having too many children when the clinics and hospitals they used were absolutely prohibited from saying a word about birth control. So we took the lead in Congress in providing money and urging -- in fact requiring -- that in the United States family planning services be available for every woman, not just the private patient with her own gynecologist. George Bush (Foreword to World Population Crisis by Phyllis Piotrow), 1973 |
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
I would like to know that if we have such a population problem in the world, why do we continue to fund research to try to find cures for cancer, AIDS, and other diseases? If supporters of population control were to follow their own brand of logic they would be against any method for prolonging life. Instead, we are continuing to pump more and more money into medical research. Isn't that a little hypocritical?
Great. Just when the story was getting interesting it stops.
Kind of reminds me of that ancient short story, "The Marching Morons" ...
Population is self-adjusting -- once society develops above the subsistence level, people tend to have fewer children in order to provide a higher quality of life for each.
I have an open invitation to any greenies who actually think we are overpopulated. The invitation is to come to South Dakota on a cold winter's night, without any survival gear. I get to drive them North or South of I-90 for about five miles before letting them out on foot. They get a small reward after they get back on I-90. Haven't received any takers yet.
Interesting article. I love the country, and I love low-population areas. Consequently, I get agitated by urban sprawl. But urban sprawl is not really a problem caused by too many people, it's caused by a lack of imagination. There's no need for cities to be set up the way they are; but that's another related subject.
The fact is, population dynamics are a lot more complicated than people have been led to think. This article brings out that truth well.
Once, a Chinese gentleman told me that his government's brutal population control effort were a necessary evil, because there were too many people there. Aside from the fact that China has a lower population DENSITY (the last amlanac I checked) than the US, an important question is how they got such a large population in the first place.
My Chinese friend, who knew the history of his nation fairly well, answered that question accurately, when I asked him. The answer is that their population got so large through eons of polygamy. Thus, IF overpopulation IS a problem anywhere, the likely cause of the problem, historically (and in Africa currently), is each man having too many wives, not large faithful monogamous families. We were never intended to breed like deer. If we would listen to God's Word, we wouldn't have underpopulation or overpopulation - everything would work out.
Actually, I think the forces of nature (including human behavior) will regulate the population no matter what. Paul Elrich should know, being an entomologist, that there is no instance in natural history where a species went extinct because its population grew too large!
But the "gendercide" mentioned in this article going on in Asia is going to sure enough create a nightmare. Of course, it's a current nightmare in itself.
According to my encyclopedia, there are 268,601 square miles in the state of Texas. At 640 acres per, that's 171,904,640 acres (more or less). For all 5,000,000,000 people on the planet to live in TX, each acre would have 290 people living on it. (Unless I misplaced a decimal point somewhere!)
China is roughly the same size as the continental US. However, much less of its territory is suitable for agriculture or for people to live on. (Steep mountains, deserts, etc.) With roughly 5 times the US population, they probably are ooverpopulated. However, it's a huge leap from the few true local instances of overpopulation to saying that the planet is too crowded.
Nature has an amazing ability to cut down populations when they exceed their carrying capacity. (The Four Horsemen, etc.)The concept of overpopulation cannot be reconciled with scientific ecology because a population cannot exceed its carrying capacity for more than a very short period.
For a related article by Ronald Bailey ("The Law of Increasing Returns") go to www.freerepublic.com/forum/a390f23a82b4d.htm
My Chinese friend, who knew the history of his nation fairly well, answered that question accurately, when I asked him. The answer is that their population got so large through eons of polygamy.
I had never considered that. I agree with your points about following God's plan, which does not include government "family planning" programs.
each acre would have 290 people living on it
So how long would the line to the Keg be? =)
For a related article:
Russia’s Dwindling Population Ensures Rigid Foreign Policy
Source: Stratfor.com; Published: April 13, 2000
My Chinese friend, who knew the history of his nation fairly well, answered that question accurately, when I asked him. The answer is that their population got so large through eons of polygamy.
I'm not sure it is possible for polygamy to cause massive growth of population as compared to monogamy. Obviously, a single man can keep a lot of women pregnant if given the opportunity. However, for each man that has two or more wives, at least one other man will not have a wife at all and therefore will not reproduce. This is assuming roughly equal sex ratios. Of course, China has an ancient history of female infanticide and neglect of female children, so presumably its female population has always been somewhat lower than the male population. Scientifically, the limiting factor in population growth is the number of fetile females available for impregnation.
One man with ten wives may have more children, but its unlikely the total population growth would be greater than if each of the women had her own husband. Also, in most societies where polygamy is practiced, it is limited to the wealthy. China's massive population has always been composed of poor peasant farmers. It is doubtful many of these were able to afford more than one wife.
A countervailing factor is that in polygamous societies, a lot fewer women end up unmarried and childless.
here's a different thread with the same article
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |