"Population Problem" - An artificial construct

From: http://www.trufax.org


According to the present-day Scientismic establishment, the major threat to the species, and the planet itself, is over-population. Inventor of the "population problem" was the Rev. Thomas Malthus, who opined in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798/1803) that populations tend to increase by geometrical rate, whereas the means of subsistence increase at only an arithmetical rate. Populations thus represent, Malthus concluded, a threat to civilization of awesome magnitude. [See Malthus, Thomas]

The Malthus view was an instant success among the aristocrats of Europe, who were perplexed and alarmed by "people power" demonstrated in the American and French revolutions. Malthus declared that insurrection was an inevitable result of over-population. The common people are ignorant. Put enough of them together, and the result is the Beast Anarchism.

By 1803, Malthus had modified his theory somewhat. As Julian Simon remarks, "we must recognize that Malthus came to recognize. After he published the short simplistic theory in the first edition of his Essay on Population and after he had the time and inclination to consider the facts as well as the theory, he concluded that human beings are very different from flies or rats. When faced with the limits of a bottle-like situation, people can alter their behavior so as to accommodate to that limit...." [The Ultimate Resource (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 177]

In his last years, Malthus shifted away entirely from his famous doctrine. In 1830, he was no longer classifiable as "Malthusian." Nevertheless, the simplistic doctrine of '98 continued to survive and flourish in the minds and theories and political policies of all who hoped to stop, and reverse, the rising power of the masses. Nineteenth century "Malthusianism," in economics and politics, was an institutionalization of the Rev. Malthus' recommendations of 1798, especially the recommendation to "increase the mortality rate of the poor." [See Malthusianism]

Behind the genocidal and eco-cidal drift of our civilization, of our species, in the twentieth century is the false, and endlessly repeated proposition that population represents the planet's big problem. It is the source, we are told, of all the other problems.

For many of those in the current ruling elite, the planet's populations are seen as nothing but cancers. Writes Julian Simon: "Perhaps the ugliest of the biological analogies [for populations' was dreamed up by Alan Gregg, the emeritus director of the Rockefeller Foundation's Medical Division. 'There is an alarming parallel between the growth of a cancer in the body of an organism and the growth of human population in the earth ecological economy.' Gregg then asserts that 'cancerous growths demand food, but so far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it.... The analogies can be found in our plundered planet.' And the policy implications of this analogy are quite clear. Gregg then goes on, in his paper invited by the most eminent scientific journal in the U.S., to observe 'how nearly the slums of our great cities resemble the necrosis of tumors." And this 'raised the whimsical query, Which is the more offensive to decency and beauty, slums of the fetid detritus of a growing tumor?'" [Ibid., p. 176]

The current major popularizer of neo-Malthusian doomsaying is Dr. Paul Ehrlich. The following quotations, relating to Ehrlich, are pulled from Simon's The Ultimate Resource:

*"Paul Ehrlich ... has said, 'If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the years 2000.' I imagine he would find many takers." [p. 27]

*"Or Paul Ehrlich: 'We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out.'..." [p. 311]

*"Anti-natality views get enormously more exposure than do pro-natality views. Paul Ehrlich has repeatedly been on the Johnny Carson show, and for an unprecedented hour [appearance], but no one who holds contrary views gets such media exposure. This is also clear from a casual analysis of the titles of articles listed in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature." [p. 318]

*"Along with one of the Mead letters came a reprint of Paul Ehrlich's 'Eco-Catastrophe,' a dramatically frightening doomsday document. It predicted--for the 1970s!--'the end of the ocean,' falling agricultural yields, smog disasters for New York and Los Angeles ('nearly 200,000 corpses'), 'birth of the Midwestern desert'; and 'both worldwide plague and thermonuclear war are made more probable as population growth continues; ... 'population control was the only possible salvation suggested.'" [p. 329]

*"A small number of scientists have convinced a great many politicians and laymen that rational population policies with respect to fertility, mortality, and immigration can be deduced directly from actual or supposed facts about population and economic growth. The persuaded politicians have come to believe it is 'scientific truth' that countries should reduce their population growth. And the persuading scientists want the politicians to believe that such judgmental propositions really are 'scientific.' For example, the front page of the handbook of the population control movement in the U.S., The Population Bomb, says Paul Ehrlich, a qualified scientist, clearly describes the dimensions of the crisis ... over-population is now the dominant problem ... population control or race to oblivion?'" [p. 332] [Nota bene: Like many good scientists, Simon is unaware that the ruling sector of the scientific community is "scientismic," i.e., devoted to the elitist agenda of the Church of Scientism. First item on that agenda is population control.]

*"A few minutes before, the same speaker had said, 'If voluntary restraints on population growth are not forthcoming, we will be faced with a need to consider coercive measures'--not very different from Ehrlich's 'by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.'" [p. 315]

*"Similar examples of widely publicized alarming forecasts could be multiplied by the dozens.... Perhaps the most influential was Paul Ehrlich's first lines in his best-selling book, The Population Bomb: 'The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.'..." [p. 55]

*"And Paul Ehrlich: 'I can't think of any reason for having more than one hundred fifty million people [in the U.S.], and no one has ever raised one to me.'" [p. 10]

One would assume that the scientifically reputable critiques of Simon and others would have slowed down the doomsday motor-mouth of Paul Ehrlich. The critiques had no effect. Ehrlich, the Church of Scientism's equivalent of Revelation John, continues to spout his alarmist nonsense.

In a recent episode of the "Sightings" television program, Ehrlich resolves the mystery surrounding the fate of the last society inhabiting the Easter Islands. The last people of the islands went "out of balance" with the environment, Ehrlich claims, his only "evidence" the fact that palm trees once grew on the island and now there are none. The Easter Island people cut all their forest cover, Ehrlich suggests, and as a result lost their prime source of food. After that, Ehrlich announces, the people turned to cannibalism. They ate each other,--and that was the end.

The "big problem" with our world today is not population. The planet could support a population many times the size of our current population, if resources were managed responsibly. Our most mis-managed resource is human intelligence. On the basis of my personal experience, I conclude that most of those in the West's ruling "elite" have brainwashed themselves into thinking that their vast machinery of population suppression and natural resource exploitation is "scientifically responsible." Most of the commoners are no better; they are strung out on one or more of the many drugs and/or suppressive mind-sets that are now available. In short, our biggest problem is that we have a huge intelligence deficit that we are barely able to see. We are failing to utilize our brains, and our hearts, to find our way through our present difficulties into a new and better era.

Perhaps the most insidious of the Darwinian doctrines by which we live (sic) is that which declares victory in the struggle of life goes to those in possession of the most advantages. Even a small advantage, a "grain in the scale" in Darwin's phrasing, can mean the difference between survival and extinction. The Grain of Sand Doctrine has encouraged the ruling powers of the modern West do strive to monopolize all technological innovations; and the end result of this process is the sad fact that we current representatives of We the People are dependent for survival upon the "latest technologies" of the last century! For instance, the internal combustion engine--the number one polluter of the planet--should have (and could have) been history over seventy years ago.


(c) Leading Edge Research Group.  Posted by permission