The last 50 years, and especially the early decades of the 21st century, have become pervasively and increasingly dominated by the broadly held perception, in the minds of alleged “liberal progressives” in particular, of a supposedly “dying planet” marked by ever-dwindling finite resources, mass species extinctions and widespread environmental degradation. This, in turn, has led to the over-arching and obsessive belief in the absolute inevitability of ecological disaster on a grand scale resulting from massive global overpopulation, now approaching 8 billion people and broadly predicted to reach its crescendo at some time during the coming century.
As a consequence of this fear of an impending eco-apocalypse, there has been a troubling recrudescence of the once discredited demographic belief system known as Malthusianism, which derived from the writings and philosophy of Thomas Malthus in the early 1800’s (and was latterly resuscitated by the Club of Rome in its influential, if not notorious, 1972 “Limits to Growth” publication). Of even greater concern to many, this alarmist philosophy has become more closely entwined with that of another egregiously misanthropic doctrine: the Eugenics movement. Eugenics gained prominence and indeed flourished amongst the Left wing intelligentsia from the 1890’s into the early decades of the 20th century, and was only finally derailed by its most prominent societal application: in justification of the promotion of an Aryan “master race” by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists in the 1930s. This example, and the hideous crimes against humanity made in its name, led to its apparent demise as a viable doctrine, or so we were led to believe, following Germany’s abject defeat at the end of WW2.
Nonetheless, these two closely aligned movements have now arisen, Phoenix-like from the ashes of their respective chequered pasts to become an increasing influential tandem in the collective mindset of the “progressive” elite, gaining undue and disturbing prominence amongst certain members of the political and academic classes, in spite of neither philosophy demonstrating any previous practical application to a properly functioning, humane or cohesive society.
Malthusian beliefs have historically shown a demonstrable lack of accuracy in predicting the parameters of our contemporary global society, which should therefore give little cause for confidence in its being able to now predict any of society’s future outcomes. Malthusianism can therefore be seen to be an entirely counterproductive and ultimately fruitless intellectual blind alley for humanity, which effectively stifles progress, curtails ingenuity and thwarts the aspirations of the many for the unvalidated concerns of the allegedly enlightened few. These beliefs, at the very least, vastly underestimate, if not completely fail to envisage the seemingly unrelenting progress brought about by mankind’s ingenuity and innovation being made in such diverse areas as agricultural techniques, crop fertilisation and pest control improving productivity, in medicine and health promotion, and in birth control and genetic engineering/modification.
Malthusianism lacks the intellectual rigour to take into account the significant and perpetual impact of a multitude of technological advancements that have been, and continue inevitably to be, developed across the entire range of human activity (whether it be industrial, medical, scientific or social), but also it undervalues the flexibility and adaptability of human systems in answering every challenge (within geopolitical limits) that our rapidly increasing population has thus far posited, or is likely to into the future. Linear extrapolations of futurist demography are therefore shown to be a highly flawed concept, taking too little account of human resourcefulness and ingenuity, nor accounting for the declining birth rates that inevitably come with affluence, nor the effect of the inevitable march of progress that must necessarily occur as the pool of human knowledge expands inexorably merely with the passage of time.
From a philosophical standpoint, the Malthusian belief system remains conspicuously rooted, in my view, in an overly Utopianist mindset that heavily romanticises the traditions of the past, worships the primitive over the modern, and the pre-industrial feudal society over the post-industrial, predominantly egalitarian and largely democratic, while yearning instead for a simpler and supposedly less complicated existence that avoids the rapid evolutionary change to which we have become increasingly accustomed.
Eugenics, on the other hand, is a set of philosophical beliefs and practices that aim to modify and improve the genetic quality of the human population by actively selecting and promoting desirable genetic traits, while simultaneously reducing or eliminating the prevalence of so called undesirable, or merely less desired traits. This may be, in its more benign forms, through genetic screening, birth control, and the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or through reduced rates of sexual reproduction and/or sterilization of people with allegedly less-desired or undesirable traits (negative eugenics), or both. However, this becomes increasingly open to coercive and restrictive policies by those political movements and governments who could exploit the false legitimacy of its roots in scientific methodology and reasoning. Inevitably, these Eugenics policies and programmes eventually come to potentially incorporate such prejudicial and punitive actions as gender selection, marriage restrictions, racial segregation, compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, and even on to the extreme human rights abuses of enforced euthanasia, “ethnic cleansing” and genocide.
Advances in genetic engineering, gene selection and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis have conspicuously increased the possibilities for such beliefs to reach new levels of sophistication, and enhanced its opportunities for its broader application, and therefore this emergent technology provides a renewed impetus to rekindle this social philosophy in spite of any negative connotations of its past associations. Fortunately, for those who value the rights of the individual, the reputation of the Eugenics movement remains, at least for the present, indelibly tarnished by the atrocities and genocide committed by its foremost proponents in the early 20th Century, which remains the only practical example thus far upon which to assess the likely outcome of its widespread application should this ideology ever regain intellectual gravitas and attain popular appeal.
The Eugenics movement is predicated upon a completely flawed concept, in that a narrow genetic definition of normality or perfection is more desirable for the benefit of human evolution. This presupposes the rather unlikely possibility that ideal genetic traits could in fact be predicted accurately to maximise our developmental adaptability, beyond of course the clearly beneficial elimination of certain serious genetic diseases or harmful mutations that could alleviate needless suffering. The hypothesis ultimately founders on the failure to comprehend that the vast array of diverse genotypes and phenotypes that comprise the total variety of human characteristics is entirely necessary to humanity’s future survival and prosperity, and this diversity represents a strength that renders our species more resilient and adaptable to a multiplicity of environmental and situational variables. Narrowing the gene pool in the fruitless quest for supposed perfection or the illusion of some optimal genetic composition is a poorly conceived idea which assumes a credibility that it scarcely deserves, given it is essentially a pseudoscientific concept that has very little precedent or other objective evidence to validate it.
Eugenics advocates mine a similar vein of anti-humanism to the Malthusians in proposing the need for a scientifically planned society in order to arrest the supposed genetic decline of humanity, which comes predictably at the expense of individuality, freedom of choice and the complete suppression of basic human rights. Eugenics at its heart derives from the misapplication of Darwin’s evolutionary theories to human society (in what would come to be euphemistically termed as “Social Darwinism”), and was unfortunately supported at one time or another by such eminent thinkers as H.G Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell, Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and many of the various founding members of the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society, originating in the 1880’s, remains a highly influential organisation promoting Marxist ideology and global governance through what they term “quiet gradualism” (as opposed to violent revolutionary activity) and has been instrumental during the course of the 20th century in driving the formation and hegemony of the United Nations (and the League of Nations before it), but also in establishing such bodies as the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
While this outwardly benign organisation ostensibly promotes “international peace, love and brotherhood”, the emblem of their society (a shield with a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing) hints at a somewhat darker purpose, with their putative social justice agenda hiding a more sinister vein of unabashed elitism, laced with at times overtly racist, segregationist and even fascist overtones (see prominent member George Bernard Shaw’s quotes below as but one example).
Eugenics also gained widespread traction among the political and scientific establishment in the early 20th century, backed by supreme court justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes, august bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, major universities like Harvard and Yale, and was actively advocated by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations. The Fabians also attained a significant degree of infamy among the more cognisant members of society for their pivotal role as serial apologists for the worst atrocities and injustices perpetrated by Joseph Stalin’s Bolshevik totalitarian regime, including the deliberate starvation of around 10 to 12.5 million Ukrainians in the Holodomor genocide.
However, Eugenics reached its zenith when adopted, with tremendous zeal, by Germany’s National Socialist movement, whereupon Adolf Hitler’s plans to establish a global “Aryan Master Race” led predictably to conspicuous levels of mass-murder and ethno-religious genocide, to the eventual discredit of Eugenics as a concept by its egregious association. One can also see from the 1932 International Eugenics Congress proceedings quoted below that an undercurrent of overtly misanthropic and Neo-Malthusian philosophical concerns were central to their belief system also, and these same underlying anti-Capitalist and eco-centric ideas have conspicuously and returned to the fore with renewed vigour in the last 20-30 years or so, if somewhat more covertly and subtly than under the Nazis.
A decade of Progress in Eugenics, Proceeds of the 1932 International Eugenics Congress, p30-31 “The outstanding generalizations of my world tour are what may be summed up as the “six overs”; these “six overs” are, in the genetic order of cause and effect:
1.Over-destruction of natural resources, now actually world-wide;
2.Over-mechanization, in the substitution of the machine for animal and human labor, rapidly becoming world- wide;
3.Over-construction of warehouses, ships, railroads, wharves and other means of transport, replacing primitive transportation;
4.Over-production both of the food and of the mechanical wants of mankind, chiefly during the post-war speculative period;
5.Over-confidence in future demand and supply, resulting in the too rapid extension of natural resources both in food and in mechanical equipment;
6.Over-population beyond the land areas, or the capacity of the natural and scientific resources of the world, with consequent permanent unemployment of the least fitted”.
As a result, however, of the stubborn adherence of an increasing number of prominent individuals to these failed doctrines, these prophets of doom have sought to impose a rigid framework of sustainability controls, most clearly represented by the UN Sustainable Development Plan (commonly referred to as “Agenda 21”) that seeks to inculcate a flawed and unscientific belief system upon the broader global society, the likely result of which would be an enforced reduction in the utility of resources (even those that are not immediately or even foreseeably finite), a diminution of effective development and industry, and the unwarranted compromising of individual freedom, self-determination and private enterprise, to the ultimate detriment of the human species.
This mindset, as most readily seen in the writings and quotations of the highly influential scientists, John Holdren (President Obama’s chief science advisor) and Paul Ehrlich (ecologist, and charismatic author of “The Population Bomb”), has become all-the-more pervasive among policymakers in the corridors of power in Western democracies (the USA particularly), and in the upper echelons of the United Nations, as well as in the ivory towers of various branches of academia. This has unveiled a deeply troubling propensity among these so called “pillars of society” to express the most misanthropic and cold blooded beliefs, which stand in stark contrast to any pretensions these groups might have to ethics or morality.
A sample of just some statements by prominent ideologues is found below demonstrating a blithe and, in my opinion, a clearly disdainful willingness to consign large swathes of humanity to an untimely demise, an ultimately blood-thirsty and murderous mindset masquerading behind a spurious concern for “the planet”.
“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
“A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910
Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. From the books he co-authored:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political”
John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.
“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”
John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “Introduction,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology, 1971, p.3.
“organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government” (1977: p. 5).
Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 954.
From another article:
“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”
Source: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I): UN Agenda 21 – “Sustainability”.
Quote by Henry Kissinger, Architect of the New World Order: “The elderly are useless eaters“. Source: from the book “the Final Days”.
Quote by Henry Kissinger (National Security Memo: 2/24/1974): “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”
Quote by Club of Rome: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.”
Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Quote by Club of Rome: “…the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.”
Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich: “The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery.”
Quote by Prince Philip: “I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the ‘Great Transformation’: “When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”
Quote by Jacques Cousteau, celebrity French scientist: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.”
Quote by UN Commission on Global Biodiversity Assessment: “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
Quote by John Miller, a NOAA climate scientist: “I would be remiss, as a scientist who studied this, if I didn’t mention the following two things: The first is that, most importantly, we need to do, as a society, in this country and globally, whatever we can to reduce population”…..”Our whole economic system is based on growth, and growth of our population, and this economic madness has to end.”
Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
Quote by Prince Philip: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “There are too many people, that’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff.”
Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of ‘Gaia’ concept: “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Quote by Nina Vsevolod Fedoroff, science advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, billionaire, and large CO2 producer: “Third world nations are producing too many children too fast…it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth…”
Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: “Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population – weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example.”
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”
Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat’l Park Services: “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”
Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
A common theme emerges in many of these quotations, namely that there are too many people struggling for existence on our planet, that “resources” are finite and fragile and it is somehow offensive to utilise them rather than leave them untouched by human hand in their “pristine natural state”, and that this means that passive neglect, or even active culling of “undesirables” or less worthy beings than themselves is somehow justifiable. Of course, few if any of the above social, business, academic or political leaders opts themselves to ease their burden of humanity upon the planet, nor I’m sure do they volunteer their family or loved ones for the ultimate sacrifice to Gaia. Rather, they intend for those nameless and faceless creatures in far-flung lands, or those in perceived lower socio-economic classes than themselves, who must therefore ultimately sacrifice their aspirations, their livelihoods and their lives on the altar of Nature for the sake of the “greater good”.
Meanwhile, many of these same people display a lifestyle unfettered by such concerns, with “carbon footprints” of often gargantuan proportions, as befits people of such nobility and importance as themselves, no doubt. As the character of Miranda, in William Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ (and later famously appropriated by Aldous Huxley for the title of his famous dystopian novel), prophetically opined:-
“O brave new world That has such people in’t!”.
It is apparent from all of the above, therefore, that the fear of dwindling resources and overpopulation, as well as the insidious intention of certain members of the intellectual and political elite to exert ultimate social control upon the “lesser’ members of society, are indelibly and inevitably linked to one another. While Eugenics was assumed by many to have been thoroughly and permanently discredited through Hitler’s murderous example, it still has its powerful, largely covert and highly influential advocates who are seemingly endeavouring to rekindled this ideology through propagating a mythology regarding the inevitable diminishment of the bounty and abundance of resources enjoyed in Western society in the latter half of the 20th century, enabled through the agency of modern technology and numerous pivotal scientific and technological advances. It should be plainly obvious, therefore, that the revival of such ideologies would likely lead to a similar trail of suffering and death to that exemplified by the evils of Nazism and Bolshevism, and as a consequence is to be resisted with the utmost vigour by those capable of understanding the lessons of history, and especially those determined not to allow this history even the remotest opportunity to repeat itself.