Human Population Control

[timeparticle]

Gee I wonder if this lady has ever considered how lucky she is that her mother did not think along those lines....

As a mother I can say honestly that to deny yourself the moment to act in the natural nature of the creative force of life is truly sad....to do this for the earth is mere earth worship which is nonsence because the earth can take care of itself as long as we do not abuse her nature....


Regards Mikal

Hi, Mikal. Earth worship, as you say, does seem pointless in this context. But, an alteration, possibly to higher level, in the way humans behave, might be an answer to the problem.

[Mikal]

As Paulo Freire stated..."over concern for human behavior is the force to humanize humans, it has always been humanities' central problem and by consequence it holds the possibility for de-humanization."

Maybe our first objective in this thread should not be concern for human behavior but instead to determine if there really is such a thing as Global warming because the ideology that humans cause this has led to the Coppenhagen concern for Population Control.
I am presently reading the new book, "HAARP" by Jerry E. Smith. This new human military and scientific technology combined with Russia's Woodpecker program is all you need for weather modification. Those low elf frequencies you discuss in the above post need to be understood...


Regards Mikal

[timeparticle]

As Paulo Freire stated..."over concern for human behavior is the force to humanize humans, it has always been humanities' central problem and by consequence it holds the possibility for de-humanization."

Maybe our first objective in this thread should not be concern for human behavior but instead to determine if there really is such a thing as Global warming because the ideology that humans cause this has led to the Coppenhagen concern for Population Control.
I am presently reading the new book, "HAARP" by Jerry E. Smith. This new human military and scientific technology combined with Russia's Woodpecker program is all you need for weather modification. Those low elf frequencies you discuss in the above post need to be understood...


Regards Mikal

Global temperature deviations may be slight, one way or the other. Big money interests disrupt the flow of data on both sides of the argument. The topic probably should remain in another thread. Population control seems to concern the world's leaders as they included the topic in their summit. What do they have in mind for the solution?

HAARP and ELF are high tech WMDs whose destructive power can influence population numbers in dark ways. Have the leaders of governments decided to solve the population problem in unscrupulous manners, already? Can we still overcome such motives and still solve such a dilemma?

Human behavior, as it remains, leaves us with great concern. It is the foundation for our lives, our co-existence with each other. Each of us will decide our own direction in this matter, as a personal choice. And that choice affects all of us, as a group. What are the choices?

[Mikal]

Thank you TP, I have measured your words and I completely agree that big money interests are complicating the issue of global temperature and of course this preoccupation has swept the issue to the Copenhagen summit.
You ask what they have in mind for the solution. I think one only needs to focus on their admiration of the Chinese communist program which has driven that country into some very complex human problems. It might be wise here to understand this is the model of top-down control of the lives of the general masses which is a downward pointing arrow of communalism-coercion-obedience. This is a radical swing from the bottom-up model based on a societies’ ideal to create community. This model is an upward-pointing arrow representing freedom-the individual-cooperation-community. A lot has happened to move countries from the one model to the other.

It does not matter which way you look at the HAARP Program. The immensity of its power is life threatening whether that entails scientific exploration which is playing around with natural systems that ensure life on this planet, whether altering weather patterns that disrupt the natural food production of any nation or whether you examine any insidious possibilities it may be used for. It simply comes down to the basic principle that we have something among us with incredible potential to do harm. Any person, who takes up the gauntlet of study into this program, is taking the first step to be responsible for any unrealized or realized unscrupulous motives.
The new book HAARP by Jerry E. Smith documents the concentrated efforts of all smaller regions in the Alaska territory who are cooperatively and together attempting to solve this very grave issue. It is a fallacy that communities of people cannot understand their own social complexity.

As for your 3rd question, let us not underestimate human decency and determination. I will use my grandson’s and about twenty-two of their friends ranging in age from 17 to 19 as an example. Some of them are first and second year university students who have already taken up the gauntlet of study and research into this very issue, some of them have dropped out of university saying that any educational system that gives you exams based on A, B, C, and D choice questions in an environment called “higher learning” is not encouraging the development of critical thought and have dropped out, not willing to carry a debt load that can go as high as $50,000.00 for nothing.
I call them the Band of Little Men…smiles…and as they have so boldly told me, “the future quite rightly is theirs.”

They are a good example of very constructive and healthy young participation in their own society. Aside from them, there are hundreds of thousands across the globe involved in a peaceful revolution of problem solving. This would not be possible if this exceptional technology of communication we are talking on were not here and available to us all.

We could also remember the story of Pandora’s Box and how the only thing left in there is hope, and hope always walks behind the shadow of insidious intention….


Regards Mikal

[timeparticle]

Initially, China's post-1949 leaders were ideologically disposed to view a large population as an asset. But the liabilities of a large, rapidly growing population soon became apparent. For one year, starting in August 1956, vigorous propaganda support was given to the Ministry of Public Health's mass birth control efforts. These efforts, however, had little impact on fertility. After the interval of the Great Leap Forward, Chinese leaders again saw rapid population growth as an obstacle to development, and their interest in birth control revived. In the early 1960s, propaganda, somewhat more muted than during the first campaign, emphasized the virtues of late marriage. Birth control offices were set up in the central government and some provinciallevel governments in 1964. The second campaign was particularly successful in the cities, where the birth rate was cut in half during the 1963-66 period. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution brought the program to a halt, however.

In 1972 and 1973 the party mobilized its resources for a nationwide birth control campaign administered by a group in the State Council. Committees to oversee birth control activities were established at all administrative levels and in various collective enterprises. This extensive and seemingly effective network covered both the rural and the urban population. In urban areas public security headquarters included population control sections. In rural areas the country's "barefoot doctors" distributed information and contraceptives to people's commun members. By 1973 Mao Zedong was personally identified with the family planning movement, signifying a greater leadership commitment to controlled population growth than ever before. Yet until several years after Mao's death in 1976, the leadership was reluctant to put forth directly the rationale that population control was necessary for economic growth and improved living standards.

Population growth targets were set for both administrative units and individual families. In the mid-1970s the maximum recommended family size was two children in cities and three or four in the country. Since 1979 the government has advocated a onechild limit for both rural and urban areas and has generally set a maximum of two children in special circumstances. As of 1986 the policy for minority nationalities was two children per couple, three in special circumstances, and no limit for ethnic groups with very small populations. The overall goal of the one-child policy was to keep the total population within 1.2 billion through the year 2000, on the premise that the Four Modernizations program would be of little value if population growth was not brought under control.

The one-child policy was a highly ambitious population control program. Like previous programs of the 1960s and 1970s, the onechild policy employed a combination of propaganda, social pressure, and in some cases coercion. The one-child policy was unique, however, in that it linked reproduction with economic cost or benefit.

Under the one-child program, a sophisticated system rewarded those who observed the policy and penalized those who did not. Couples with only one child were given a "one-child certificate" entitling them to such benefits as cash bonuses, longer maternity leave, better child care, and preferential housing assignments. In return, they were required to pledge that they would not have more children. In the countryside, there was great pressure to adhere to the one-child limit. Because the rural population accounted for approximately 60 percent of the total, the effectiveness of the one-child policy in rural areas was considered the key to the success or failure of the program as a whole.

In rural areas the day-to-day work of family planning was done by cadres at the team and brigade levels who were responsible for women's affairs and by health workers. The women's team leader made regular household visits to keep track of the status of each family under her jurisdiction and collected information on which women were using contraceptives, the methods used, and which had become pregnant. She then reported to the brigade women's leader, who documented the information and took it to a monthly meeting of the commune birth-planning committee. According to reports, ceilings or quotas had to be adhered to; to satisfy these cutoffs, unmarried young people were persuaded to postpone marriage, couples without children were advised to "wait their turn," women with unauthorized pregnancies were pressured to have abortions, and those who already had children were urged to use contraception or undergo sterilization. Couples with more than one child were exhorted to be sterilized.

The one-child policy enjoyed much greater success in urban than in rural areas. Even without state intervention, there were compelling reasons for urban couples to limit the family to a single child. Raising a child required a significant portion of family income, and in the cities a child did not become an economic asset until he or she entered the work force at age sixteen. Couples with only one child were given preferential treatment in housing allocation. In addition, because city dwellers who were employed in state enterprises received pensions after retirement, the sex of their first child was less important to them than it was to those in rural areas.

Numerous reports surfaced of coercive measures used to achieve the desired results of the one-child policy. The alleged methods ranged from intense psychological pressure to the use of physical force, including some grisly accounts of forced abortions and infanticide. Chinese officials admitted that isolated, uncondoned abuses of the program occurred and that they condemned such acts, but they insisted that the family planning program was administered on a voluntary basis using persuasion and economic measures only. International reaction to the allegations were mixed. The UN Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Association were generally supportive of China's family planning program. The United States Agency for International Development, however, withdrew US$10 million from the Fund in March 1985 based on allegations that coercion had been used.

Observers suggested that an accurate assessment of the onechild program would not be possible until all women who came of childbearing age in the early 1980s passed their fertile years. As of 1987 the one-child program had achieved mixed results. In general, it was very successful in almost all urban areas but less successful in rural areas. The Chinese authorities must have been disturbed by the increase in the officially reported annual population growth rate (birth rate minus death rate): from 12 per 1,000, or 1.2 percent in 1980 to 14.1 per 1,000, or 1.4 percent in 1986. If the 1986 rate is maintained to the year 2000, the population will exceed 1.2 billion.

Rapid fertility reduction associated with the one-child policy has potentially negative results. For instance, in the future the elderly might not be able to rely on their children to care for them as they have in the past, leaving the state to assume the expense, which could be considerable. Based on United Nations statistics and data provided by the Chinese government, it was estimated in 1987 that by the year 2000 the population 60 years and older (the retirement age is 60 in urban areas) would number 127 million, or 10.1 percent of the total population; the projection for 2025 was 234 million elderly, or 16.4 percent. According to one Western analyst, projections based on the 1982 census show that if the one-child policy were maintained to the year 2000, 25 percent of China's population would be age 65 or older by the year 2040.




The restriction the Chinese government put on their people, ambitious as it is, seems devoid of human compassion. I would think there is something more elevating, more inspiring to follow than just government ruling.

[timeparticle]

Radio-controlled sperm 'tap' turns off vasectomies

16:27 28 January 2008 by Belle Dumé
A radio-controlled contraceptive implant that could control the flow of sperm from a man's testicles is being developed by scientists in Australia.

The device is placed inside the vas deferens - the duct which carries sperm from each testicle to the penis. When closed, it blocks the flow of sperm cells, allowing them to pass again when it is opened via a remote control. The valve could be a switchable alternative to vasectomy, the researchers say.

Although women can choose from several long-term contraceptive methods, for men vasectomy is really the only option. With this procedure, the vasa deferentia are cut or blocked, a process that requires surgery and can require a week of recovery. The procedure cannot be reliably reversed, leaving some men to later regret their decision.

Now, a team from the University of Adelaide, Australia, may have come up with a more easily reversed alternative. They have designed a small radio-controlled valve that would "push-fit" snugly inside the vas deferens and block the passage of sperm.

The silicone-polymer valve can be flipped between open and closed positions with a pulse of radio waves. A set of conducting "fingers" on the valve act as antennae and convert the signal's energy into sound waves that travel through the polymer and create stresses inside the device.

Remote control

"Since it is flexible, the polymer either contracts or expands as a result, and this movement allows the valve to be opened or closed as needed," explains team leader Said Al-Sarawi.

"It will be like turning a TV on and off with a remote control," added team founder Derek Abbott, "except that the remote will probably be locked away in your local doctor's office to safeguard against accidental pregnancy or potential misuse of the device."

----------------------------

My local doctor will not have access to that remote....heck no. I just hope I don't get the implant remote mixed up with the car remote....

Is contraception the answer to the greater issue of overpopulation?

[Mikal]

The China policy is unprecedented State intrusion. Women of child-bearing age are routinely subjected to monitoring of their menstrual cycle by Family Planning officials. Sounds like the certain death of privacy from the State. Married couples must apply for a birth permit. Wonder how much that puts into the State coffers. The one child policy privileges the wealthy and punishes the poor.

Tying reproductive choices to the State is Draconian measures and represents an intolerable intrusion into one of our most sacred personal freedoms.

Are you aware that the lady who began Family Planning in the U.S. is a Eugenics follower? Are you aware that most UN members involved in the Population Control Agenda are Eugenics followers?

Elaine Dewar of Canada authored a book (The Second Tree) on a spectacular study into genetics and eugenics. She did comment that eugenics rather proposes people are like corn and flies and it also advocates selective breeding. The early Eugenics office in the early part of the twentieth century committed atrocities to those considered disenfranchised from society. The notion that eugenics is a science has all but been forgotten and so we are vulnerable to these forces being disguised into population control agendas. In fact it is well known now that when eugenics was forced out it simply continued to exist but changed its name to Family Planning.
Anyone interested should also be aware that this eugenics force in our society has no respect for the Family as a model for society because the family by nature encourages difference of individuals whereas the state by nature employs enforced and coercive societal consensus of sameness.

Your post on radio-controlled sperm taps reveals just how strong this scientific/medical dictatorship we are under has really become and clearly shows that this force let loose in our society has the potential to lead to the extinction of the human species.

Its quite clear we need to educate ourselves in the history of eugenics and all the different means and methods that this force can disguise itself in as per what the State sees as necessary population control or de-population agendas.

I do think we are being led down a slippery slope that is equivalent to willingly jumping off the edge of a steep cliff because we are told too….


Regards Mikal

[timeparticle]

Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ. Widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, it has largely fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

Assessing the work of Charles Darwin, and pondering the experience of animal breeders and horticulturists, Francis Galton wondered if the human genetic make-up could be improved: “The question was then forced upon me - Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?” This concept of eugenics - a term he introduced- soon won many adherents, notably in North America and England. First practical steps were taken in the United States of America. The government under Theodore Roosevelt created a national Heredity Commission that was charged to investigate the genetic heritage of the country and to “(encourage) the increase of families of good blood and (discourage) the vicious elements in the cross-bred American civilization”. Charles Davenport supported by the Carnegie Institution established the Eugenics Record Office. Further significant funding for the eugenics movement came from E. H. Harriman and Vernon Kellogg. In an effort to eradicate unfit offspring sterilization laws were passed, the first one in Indiana (1907), then in other states, many strictly for eugenic reasons, "to better the race," allowing for compulsory sterilization. Other eugenic laws limited the right to marry.



This subject is filled with controversy. It's roots are based in the science of Biology, however it's implications from it's dark history and power from it's manipulation of genetic dynamics make the subject sensitive and difficult to explore. Eugenics range from altering genetic material to improve human characteristics, to imposing force on the population for "cleansing". It becomes a repulsive science for many, but with discussion and understanding, we may grow more wary and perceptive on the subject within global government affairs.

[timeparticle]

This is the case of Carrie Buck... The U.S. Supreme Court sentenced her for sterilization.


Carrie Buck (1906–1983) was a plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), and was ordered to undergo compulsory sterilization for purportedly being "feeble-minded" as part of the state of Virginia's eugenics program while a patient at Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. Carrie Buck was born in Charlottesville, Virginia, to Emma Buck. After her birth, Carrie was placed with foster parents, John and Alice Dobbs. She attended public school until the sixth grade and then continued to live with the Dobbs, helping out with chores around the house.
Carrie became pregnant when she was seventeen as a result of being raped. Subsequently, on January 23, 1924, Carrie’s foster parents had committed her to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded on the grounds of feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity. On March 28, 1924, she gave birth to a daughter, Vivian. Since Carrie had been declared mentally incompetent to raise her child, her former foster parents adopted the baby. Her commitment may have been due to the family's embarrassment since Carrie's pregnancy was the result of being raped by the Dobbs’ nephew.
Carrie Buck was paroled shortly after her sterilization was performed. Carrie eventually wed William Eagle, and they remained married for twenty-five years before he died. As scholars and reporters visited Carrie, it became abundantly clear to everyone that she was a woman of normal intelligence. Later in life, she expressed regret that she had been unable to have additional children. Carrie Buck died alone in a nursing home in 1983; she was buried in Charlottesville near her only child, Vivian, who had died at age eight.
Paul Lombardo, a Professor of Law at Georgia State University, spent almost 25 years researching the Buck v. Bell case. He dug through case records and the papers of the lawyers who orchestrated the case. Lombardo eventually found Carrie Buck and was able to interview her shortly before her death. During the course of his research, he found Buck’s school report cards and her daughter Vivan's honor roll record, which contradicted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s famous comment that "[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough". While studying the papers of a former eugenics expert, Lombardo discovered that several people had manufactured evidence to make the state’s case against Carrie Buck. Other records confirmed the case was not only a tragedy,[neutrality is disputed] but also a legal sham. Professor Lombardo was one of the few people who attended Carrie Buck's funeral. In 2008, his book Three Generations, No Imbeciles, a complete history of the case and all its peripheral actors, was published by the Johns Hopkins University Press.
A historical marker was erected on May 2, 2002, in Charlottesville, Virginia where Carrie Buck was born. At that time, Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner offered the “Commonwealth's sincere apology for Virginia's participation in eugenics.”

The legal challenge was likely collusive, brought on behalf of the state to test the legality of the statute. In an eight to one decision the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made clear that the challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved but on the process of the substantive law. The court was satisfied that the Virginia Sterilization Act complied with the requirements of due process since sterilization could not occur until a proper hearing had occurred at which the patient and a guardian could be present and the patient had the right to appeal the decision. They also found that since the procedure was limited to people housed in state institutions it did not deny the patient equal protection of the law. And finally, since the Virginia Sterilization Act was not a penal statute, the Court held that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment since it is not intended to be punitive. Citing the best interests of the state, Justice Holmes affirmed the value of a law like Virginia's in order to prevent the nation from being "swamped with incompetence." The Court accepted that Carrie and her mother were promiscuous and that the three generations of Bucks’ shared the genetic trait of feeblemindedness. Thus, it was in the state's best interest to have Carrie Buck sterilized. The decision was seen as a major victory for eugenicists.



It is not clear how many other states in the U.S. adopted this law for their own use. Also, it is not clear how many people in institutions around the U.S. have been sterilized under the law. So, the mindset of eugenicists have been in our culture for many years. Might the justifications for forced sterilization be formed into law for population control for the masses?

[Mikal]

I think it’s important to realize that this is not the first time the world population problem has been an issue. Population Control has a history.

In that history it has always been divisions between those who term themselves “experts.” It seems to rise from the root of apocalyptic pessimism and a dismissive smugness and the clash between that confrontation seems to dispel a genuine understanding of the nature of population problems.

More than two hundred years ago Malthus in 1798 wrote his famous Essay on Population. It was certainly a pessimistic vision, a strong propensity to see impending disaster and his anticipations were for terrible disasters. Two hundred years have proven Malthus was mistaken in his diagnosis as well as his prognosis.

Then this was followed by Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb.” Notice the stark words used certainly an indication that the work rose from an alarmist vision. We are simply influenced by words and what they imply.
Ehrlich, a eugenicist, structured his work under three headings;
Too many people.
Too little food.
A dying planet.

Amartya Sen presented a lecture at the United Nations in New York on April 18th 1994 warning then as to the creation of catastrophic images surrounding population problems and how these images encourage a tendency to search for emergency solutions which treat people involved not as reasonable beings and allies facing a common problem but as impulsive and uncontrolled sources of great social harm, in need of strong discipline.

She may have summed up nicely what happens when alarmism is allowed to dispel a genuine understanding of human population problems. There is every indication that her wise lecture and warnings fell on deaf ears.


Regards Mikal