James Lee and the Myth of Overpopulation


Yesterday, an armed and disturbed leftist named James Jay Lee entered the Discovery Channel office building in Silver Spring, Maryland and held employees hostage for hours until he was ultimately fatally shot.  As he stated in his “manifesto”, Lee was protesting what he saw as irresponsible programming by TLC, which is part of the Discovery Channel network.  TLC has a line-up of shows such as “Kate plus 8” and “19 Kids and Counting”, which are centered on multiple birth families.

Lee subscribed to a belief which is attributed to Thomas Robert Malthus, an upper-crust English “intellectual”.  Malthus claimed that the human population was increasing exponentially while food supplies were changing incrementally.  In his estimation, the world population would not be sustainable past the year 1890.  The solution?  Well it was Malthus’s belief that the upper classes had the responsibility to rid the world of the undesired classes; this would ensure robust food supplies and adequate land proportions for the former.

This belief, though now proven incorrect, was picked up by “Progressives” worldwide.  In the dawn of the 20th century, the United States began systematically sterilizing these certain “undesirables”.   Women were forced, many times with approval of our federal court system, to endure brutal, painful and often debilitating surgery all in the name of mitigating overpopulation of the poor, “feeble minded”, “idiots”, “imbeciles” and ultimately racial minorities.  Often there was little to no evidence to support claims of institutions that “patients” were in fact “feeble minded”.

Eugenics was taught in school biology classes which suggested “policies of immigration restriction, sterilization and race segregation.”1 There were a number of influential eugenics groups with prominent members.  Ivy League schools offered classes in eugenics:

“After 1914, courses on eugenics were being offered at some of America’s leading universities. Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Brown were among those listing courses that included eugenics. In the 1920s, the National Education Association’s Committee on Racial Well-Being sponsored programs to help college teachers integrate eugenic content in their courses.” [Ibid]

There were popular books of the time dedicated to eugenics.  Wealthy Progressives, judges, politicians and professors all supported and often encouraged the practice.  This was by no means a secretive or underground society.  States passed laws allowing eugenic experiments and procedures.  Newspapers published favorable articles on the subject.  As Governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson signed into law the state’s eugenics bill.  It was American scientists who influenced and in some cases assisted the National Socialists (Nazis) of Germany in their eugenics program which would come to be known as the Holocaust.

Other prominent eugenicists included Progressive party member Theodore Roosevelt who claimed, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce.”  In a now famous Supreme Court ruling which upheld the state of Virginia’s legal authority to sterilize Carrie Buck against her will, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the majority opinion, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”  This after failing to prove that imbecility was a Buck family “gene”.  Alexander Graham Bell, the “inventor” of the telephone was an ardent supporter as was Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger developed Planned Parenthood and kick-started the birth control movement for the purpose of eliminating “undesirables”.  Sanger was an open racist who addressed at least one Klan rally.  Ultimately, she set out to achieve black genocide masked in “reproductive rights”.  This mindset was confirmed in a fairly recent interview with Justice Ruth Ginsburg who said of Roe v. Wade, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The exposure of the German National Socialist party’s treatment of Jews brought to light the horrors of eugenics.  Its popularity faded.  Eugenics laws remained on the books for decades following World War II, but sterilizations largely went unpracticed.  All in all, about 50,000 cases of forced sterilization in the United States have been documented.

In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, professors John Ehrlich and his wife Anne, wrote a textbook entitled, “Population, Resources, Environment.  Issues in Human Ecology”.  In it, the authors advocate reduced individual liberties, government regulation of reproduction, forced sterilization and the “de-development of the United States”; all to stop the “crises” that is overpopulation.  Many of the statements made by the Ehrlichs are eerily similar to those of Lee’s manifesto.

In the acknowledgments the authors give thanks to physicist John Holdren, our current Science Czar appointed by President Obama, for his help with the publication.  Holdren would later co-author an updated addition of the book with Ehrlich which espoused the same ideas as the addition previously published.

It seems that the Progressives manufacture this crisis so that they can legitimize their desire to rid the world of “undesirables” and for government control of our everyday lives.  They couple it with environmental policies and claim it is for our own good.  But what do the facts tell us?

  • The population as of last official estimates is about 6.6 billion people
  • The square mileage of Texas = 268,601 (that is equal to 7,488,166,118,400 sq. ft)
  • That means that every person on earth could have a 1,100+ sq ft living space in a land mass the size of Texas
  • The land mass of Texas is equal to .004% of Earth’s total land mass
  • The rate of population growth has steadily decreased over the decades (see graph from UN)
  • The average family size has decreased from about 4.8 to 2.3 over the past century.

These facts are all conveniently left out when we discuss the crises (myth) of overpopulation.  Do your research, draw your own conclusions, but never ignore the facts in front of you.


Category: , ,

RSS feed

16 Comments Leave a comment

The Modern Equivalent of The GeoCentric Theory

Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 10:05AM EST (link)

Malthusianism is the modern equivalent to the Geo-Centric Theory. It fits a small, incomplete data set perfectly, leads to an emotionally satisfying conclusion and makes no sense whatsoever when applied to the world around us when a more total set of data is available. The key here, is that the conclusions of Malthusianism are emotionally satisfying. Therefore, a more complete data set gets chucked. If it makes Algore happy, “The Science is settled!!!”

” I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer.” – C.S. Lewis

 

But that isn't the whole story

Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 10:52AM EST (link)

Sure, we have plenty of space for the population of the Earth, but the real question is how many people can we support with a “American” lifestyle. The Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc are all striving to be more like us and there is a real question of how many people that can be supported at a higher standard of living before our standard of living begins to decrease from the competition that drives up resource costs.

What's An American Lifestyle?

Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 10:58AM EST (link)

1) Who Says We Support Anyone who doesn’t deserve a high level of lifestyle?

2) Assuming all these evil, filthy, greedy pigs can’t have an orgy-porgy American lifestyle, how does this in anyway justify a theory predicting mass starvation? It doesn’t. No Malthusian event has ever taken place. The population has increased logarythmically at a rate far beyond what Malthus espoused when he predicted the mass die off.

3) Malthusianism is based on a false assumption that population increases are inexorable and technological progress towards meeting these demands is fixed. If it were, you and I would both have sore backs and calloused hands after a hard day’s work behind the plow. Be thankful that Malthus, and his modern-day Peak Oil disciples are feckless morons who believe what they believe out of a sense of self-righteousness.

” I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer.” – C.S. Lewis

They say we will support them

jackbenimble (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 11:38AM EST (link)

“Who says we support anyone who doesn;t deserve a high level lifestyle?”

I pay a very heavy tax bill most years and in my opinion I am ALREADY supporting a lot of people who don’t deserve a high level lifestyle.

The problem is whenever you pack people together fairly densley and give them the opportunity to vote, they CHOOSE to vote for socialism. It is no accident that the red states are rural and the blue states are urban.

I don’t care if Malthus was wrong about the carrying capacity of the Earth. A densley populated world is going to be a less free world characterized by socialism or worse. I don’t support eugenics or forced sterilizations or forced abortions. But anything that encourages the world’s poor to voluntarily curb their reproductive habits is a good thing and will mean the world will be better for my progency.

“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat

Wealth and leisure seem to do a good job of curbing "reproductive habits."

Achance (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 1:34PM EST (link)

The subsistence agricuture practiced in most of the poor countries in the World is a poverty trap, a population bomb for cheap labor, and an environmental disaster. Getting the people of Africa, Latin America, much of Asia off the north end of a southbound ox or goat is the most important single thing that could be done for both prosperity and something like democracy in those places.

That’s what much of both the New Deal and the Great Society were about; ending small scale farming and provoking a diaspora of the unhealthy, unskilled, and uneducated farm labor principally in The South and Appalachia. On that count, it worked, though many, especially rural Blacks, have failed to assimilate into the mainstream economy and culture and remain dependent.

In Vino Veritas

I think if we give all the world's poor a free subscription to World of Warcraft it might curb population growth

Beaglescout (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 8:44PM EST (link)

It certainly seems to do a good job of preventing reproduction or a social life for those who play it now.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton
 
 
 

I don't agree with Malthus per se

Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:09PM EST (link)

1) I wasn’t making that claim at all, merely pointing out that competition for resources as the world continues to develop/westernize will impact “us” more than “them”

2) I agree that Malthus was quite wrong in terms of his projections.

3) Perhaps, but technological improvements can only go so far and may in the end actually be “harmful”. For instance, it is quite likely that in the very near future technological gains/efficiency improvements begin to dramatically impact the availability of jobs. Or that the enormous increases in Chinese car consumption impacts the availability of oil faster than we can find new sources/build infrastructure (not that we will actually “run out”, but that demand outstrips supply).

 

re: Peak Oil disciples

eastbaylarry (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:36PM EST (link)

I only today became aware that many scientists have concluded that petroleum is actually a naturally occuring, self-renewing substance, (not the result of squashed plants and animals), and no more limited than, say silicon sand, with a ‘peak’ at *least* 100 years into the future.
I’m appalled that I was blind to this for 63 years!

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27414

2+2=4 dammit!

 
 
 

You lost me at the end

jackbenimble (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 11:17AM EST (link)

The facts you posted at the end are rubbish because land mass is not the constraining factor on population. Antarctica is much bigger than Texas so we could fit the entire world’s population there too and give them a great deal more living space per person and even substantial acreages for the purpose of cultivating food. But guess what? The overwhelming majority of them would quickly die (just like they would if you crammed them all intoTexas). Land mass is obviously not the constraining factor on population so why mention it. One thing I am sure of though is that if you packed all the people of the world into Texas, it would be a blue state right up until we all drowned in our own filth.

I don’t support any of the forced abortion, sterilization stuff you talk about in this blog. But I am a conservative and I am convinced that the conservative movement is best served by low population densities.

Look around the USA and name the cities with over 1 million people that consistently vote for Republicans. There are precious few of them. High population areas overwhelmingly favor socialism. They not only vote for it for themselves locally but they try to force it on the rest of us nationally. I’m not entirely sure that they are not correct. I don’t live in one of those densely populated hell-holes but I am not sure that some form of government like socialism, fascism, totalitarianism that sharply limits personal freedom and greatly increases government control is not the ONLY WORKABLR ANSWER in those places that are tightly packed with people. The fact that the majority people who live in these high population density areas consistently vote for socialism suggests to me that it is probably the best system for that kind of human congestion. I am not so arrogant as to believe that a majority of these people are so stupid that they are voting for a system of governance that is against their own best interests. I want nothing to do with that form of government for myself which is why I live in Wyoming with very low population density and lots of freedom.

The USA is currently experiencing high population growth and it is driven almost entirely by mass immigration and the reproductive habits of recent immigrants. Our native born population has a fertility rate slightly below replacement level. Yet, driven by mass immigration, our population is expected to grow from 310 + million in 2010 to about 450 million in 2050. That is 50% growth in 40 years and not only will it be devastating for taxpayers to build the infrastructure to serve this growth (a lot of schools for example), it will be the death of conservatism.

How can conservatism possibly survive? California used to be solidly red. Republicans carried the Electoral College there every year from 1952 through 1998 with the sole exception of Johnson after the Kennedy assassination. Now, immigration driven population growth has turned it solidly blue. Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado are all wavering purple. Texas is a decade or two of more mass immigration away from being Blue. Florida is flipping from purple to blue. If we lose either Texas or Florida, there is no winning formula for conservatism at the national level. Demographics is destiny and the destiny of the conservative movement in a country dominated by states with immigration driven high population density looks pretty grim.

Until you can come up with a message THAT ACTUALLY CONVINCES people living in cities and densely populated areas that they are better served by conservative ideas rather than socialism and is then PROVEN TO WORK, I am thinking that America is going to be better off if we keep our population in check. That mainly means very limited immigration.

Unfortunately, most of the population growth in the world is happening in countries that are failing miserably at taking care of their existing populations. These countries are generally characterized by very low standards of living, high poverty, low educational attainment and generally a lot of misery. I see little reason to believe that that having a lot more people is going to make these places better so I suspect that as their populations grow there is going to be enormous desire for a lot of these poverty stricken ignorant people to emigrate to the nicer places in the world and I hope that the USA manages to remain one of those nicer places. Partially for the reason stated above and for other reasons, I don’t see how the USA will be much improved by admitting these people. They would be the death of conservatism in America

“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat

You're in favor of "...socialism, fascism, totalitarianism..."?

eastbaylarry (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:43PM EST (link)

I suppose you would include communism in the list also. I know, you’re talking about “high population density” countries/ares, but really?
My qustion for you would be: Where have you ever seen those systems *work*?

2+2=4 dammit!

No .... I am not in favor

jackbenimble (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 2:45PM EST (link)

You apparently did not read my post very closely. I hate these systems which is why I am in favor of policies that keep our population density low and why I personally choose to live in Wyoming which is one of the least densley populated states.

When population density is high, apparently people conclude that these big government systems are desirable. Very few cities of over 1 million people vote for conservatism. Instead they usually voluntarily choose socialism and vote accordingly.

I don’t have a really high opinion of human intelligence but when I see millions of people who are all crammed tightly together, choose socialism over small government then it is hard not to conclude that there is a good reason for it. It is a pattern that repeats itself over and over in cities across the country. It is arrogant to conclude that the collective intelligence of millions of these urban dwellers is somehow inferior to my own. Apparently they have concluded that small government and personal responsibility and other conservative ideas are simply not going to work for their densley populated urban cities.

It is easy to understand why the poor vote for these big government systems. They like free stuff and because they are ignorant they do not understand it is an economic trap that will most likely keep them poor. It is harder to understand the wealthier voter who vote for socialism. Maybe they are just terribly fearful that if they don’t give the poor some minimum standard of living that the poor will rise up and kill them. I don’t really understand the why of it but it is an empiracle fact that densley populated areas vote blue.

Given that highly populated areas vote for socialism it seems to me as a conservative that I want as few of these areas as possible. I think policies that encourage population growth are destructive to the conservative way of life. Arguing for a larger population is like having a deathwish.

“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat

I forgot to answer your question

jackbenimble (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 3:26PM EST (link)

You asked, “Where have you seen any of these systems work”?

I have no desire to live under any of these systems (socialism, communism, fascism or totalitarianism. I much prefer the liberty and economic freedom that comes with small limited government. That is why I am a conservative.

I can’t think of any example of communism that works. It is apparently a pipedream. The regimes that call themselves communist are actually either totalitarian or fascist.

But European style socialism works fairly well and gives the people living in those countries a standard of living reasonably comparable to our own. Totalitarianism works in the sense that it functions and can be stable and enduring. It does not offer much for the citizenry and I’m glad I don’t live in one of these regimes but they work up to a point. Cuba has survived for a long time now. Fascism is an ugly system but it is certainly very efficient. Little Nazi Germany took on almost the entire world and almost won. Fascist efficiency allowed them to punch well above their weight-class. In China their current system, while nominally called communist, much more closely resembles fascism and it is working quite effectively. In the last decade it has lifted half a billion people out of abject poverty. I would not want to live under their system but it seems to be working pretty well.

Most of America’s cities are pursuing a socialist model as best they can at the local level and they have been muddling along at it for decades now. Right now many of them are in serious economic trouble. They are also screwed up in other ways like failing education systems. I’m not at all convinced that conservative limited government would be doing any better. It is highly reliant on a responsible, self-reliant citizenry and I think that a very large segment of the population found in our cities lacks these qualities.

This blog is about constraints on population growth and it particularly argues that Malthus had it wrong about physical constraints (food) on growth. I agree that Malthus was wrong. I think the real constraint on population is social. The earth can probably support more people physically, but as they get increasingly jammed together it becomes increasingly hard to organize society so that it works. Things like education and the rule of law start to fall apart. People are forced to give up individual liberty to collective solutions and more intrusive big government in one form or the other. And even with these big government solutions, nothing works very well. There are limits on the size of effective human societies and we have reached them.

“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat

Oh, my... some thoughts

aesthete (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 10:12PM EST (link)

First, fascism has never “worked” anywhere it has been tried. This is an enduring, but irritating, myth. Unified Germany has been an economic powerhouse since at least Prussian unification, and even now, is a gargantuan, export model economy. It’s extremely difficult to destroy the German economy, and the Prussian military ethic is legendary. It’s tough to attribute efficiency to fascism either economically or militarily then, considering that Germany has always had those two attributes in abundance, and was greatly aided by missteps on the part of the Allies. Remember that before the US stepped in, it was essentially the UK and Russia vs Germany. It can hardly be argued that with a free market economy and the human capital represented by the German Jews, Germany would have fared much better in WWII. It is also forgotten that other countries implemented fascism as well and for longer periods, such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and (in a less formalized manner) various Latin American nations. None fared particularly well, with Portugal and Spain essentially remaining stagnant and limited success on the Italian front. China (and India, for that matter) are simply proof that lots of human capital can overcome all sorts of things. Even so, Hong Kong provides a good natural experiment which indicates that China could be utilizing its resources much more efficiently, and when India moved away from socialism, it fared much better. Fact is, such countries use resources highly inefficiently. Regarding other forms of totalitarianism, they are only functional if one holds longevity as the determinant of functionality. Europe has all of these qualities to a lesser extent; malaise is very evident in their polities. Again, longevity or existence isn’t a reliable measure of success; civilization isn’t an endurance race.

Concerning governance, it is instructive to look at those cities which have implemented relatively conservative and pro-business policies, and which have avoided overly generous forms of compensation for not working. Many of Texas’ cities, for instance, do very well at attracting investment, with exceptions doing poorly. Hong Kong does very well, while Macau (a city with similar characteristics, but more Portuguese influences) struggles. Singapore does very well, while Malaysia’s cities are rife with ethnic violence. There are plenty of natural experiments which seem to disprove your assertion that governance style doesn’t matter.

With respect, you don’t know much about cities. There are plenty of motivated individuals in any given city, and plenty of opportunities to improve on the governmental status quo. Cities only form because there is some productive advantage to forming them; it would make very little sense if the qualities of self-reliance and responsibility were not evident in institutions as complex as cities.

To briefly address the rural vs urban argument, counterfactuals to your assertion include those noted by Beaglescout, as well as Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, the UK, and many others. In addition, there are plenty of rural locales that have trended socialist, including China, the Balkan countries, parts of Russia, various African countries, and some Latin American countries. Judging by the Heritage Institute’s Index of Economic Freedom, a case can be made that there is a correlation between free/liberal societies and urbanization, not the other way around.

The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton

 
 

Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai?

Beaglescout (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 9:05PM EST (link)

Why is it that the most prosperous and populous city-states in the world are also among the most free places on the planet? Hong Kong was such a shining star that the ChiComms have (mostly) left it alone since taking it over.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton

Singapore?

catt (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 11:11PM EST (link)

Low overall tax burden, and very good “economic freedom.” But very strict gun control, very poor freedom of the press, and mandatory participation in a nationalized and tightly-controlled health care system. Religious freedom after a fashion, except for some religions that are banned. At the top level it’s often described as a “one-party system” or a “benevolent dictatorship.” Numerous ways in which you basically have a choice of conforming, or leaving.

 
 
 
 

You've described precisely why the Democrats are so opposed

Achance (Diary) Wednesday, September 8th at 12:50PM EST (link)

to closing our border and limiting immigration. They are literally using immigrants as an invasion force. This is exactly what happened with the Goths and the Roman elites thought they could control the Goths and use them to their advantage. Ultimately, the Goths had other ideas and sacked Rome.

We’ve at least talked about assimilating Blacks since 1865 and have spent trillions on the prospect since 1964, yet large segments of the Black population remain outside the mainstream econimic and social culture and remain wholly dependent. We’ve essentially given up on assimilating the American Indian population and much of that population seems destined for perpetual dependency. While many Cuban and other Hispanic immigrants have chosen to assimilate, the impetus is to not attempt assimilation but rather to encourage separatism through bilingual programs and such.

In my observation the ONLY non-European populations to almost universally accept and assimilate into the mainstream US culture has been the Asians, and even they in areas where they have a concentrated population tend to hew to the old ways, particularly the client-patron system of social and economic organization. Democrat immigration policy too often aided by Republicans who listen to the Chamber and other cheap labor advocates has in effect created a separate and hostile foreign nation inside the US’ borders. They think they can control and use that foreign mass. I think it is only a matter of time before the foreign nation inside our Nation sacks the Imperial City.

In Vino Veritas