The people saving us today from Covid and economic collapse also “saved” millions from being born or dying of natural causes.

Remember when Kissinger called Luke Rudkowski “a sick person”? Here’s what that was all about:

The origins of the Commission are traced to a concern with the consequences of U.S. population growth on the part of such key individuals as John D. Rockefeller 3rd and Paul Ehrlich. Because the Commission was a statutory creation of Congress, its membership included 4 Congressmen in addition to 20 distinguished citizens representing a spectrum of groups and views. The evaluation of the consequences of growth, as opposed to the means of reducing fertility, became the major concern of the research effort. Several issues led to differences within the Commission: 1) A narrow versus a broad definition of the scope of the report; 2) differing perceptions of the population problem as manifested by the ecological view, the “unwanted fertility” school, and the social justice view. The social science work contracted by the Commission had a significant impact on the final report’s substance: 1) the demographic work on population projections was crucial to the analysis of the consequences of growth; 2) evaluating the demographic capability of national “growth center strategy” had an influence; and 3) the need to eliminate unwanted fertility was confirmed as a necessary priority. The basic thrust of the Commission’s report was to recomment slowing growth in order to maximize the quality of life.

C F Westoff, “The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future: its origins, operations, and aftermath“, 1973

A History of NSSM 200: Key People and Events that Led to the Development and Implementation of NSSM-200

SOURCE

In some ways, the history of NSSM-200 is just a restatement of the history of the world over the course of 250 years or so.  With so much information having a bearing on the subject, we can do no more than plant some sign posts for the reader to use in doing their own research.  It should be noted that this ‘history’ often reflects points of interest that the advocates for population control themselves indicate.  In fact, in order to generate some of the most pertinent details of this timeline, we merely started with the writings of the population control advocates themselves, noted the individuals and events that they stated were formative, and worked backwards through time.   Darwin quoted Malthus, the eugenicists cited Darwin, the population control advocates invoked the eugenicists, and so on

———–

Malthus

Darwin — quoting Malthus

Eugenicists — quoting Darwin

World War 1 —  Germany in particular saw the conflict as the fitness of one culture prevailing against another.  (Until they lost!)

Period between WW1 and WW2 —  a full on push for eugenics starts winding down.  Eugenicists begin switching their emphasis to ‘population’ studies

Margaret Sanger … The Pivot of Civilization

Guy Irving Burch … A staunch eugenicist, Burch founded the Population Reference Bureau in 1929 and was widely consulted on ‘population matters.’  His book, Human Breeding and Survival (also published as Population Roads to Peace or War – 1945)  cites Malthus approvingly and was well regarded by other ‘founders’ of the population control movement, namely William Vogt.  His eugenic perspective and belief that birth control, population control, and evolutionary principles go hand in hand are on display in the following passage from PRPoW, pages 73-4:

There is one tremendous value of birth control knowledge which deserves special emphasis when it is widespread instead of a class privilege.  Where contraceptive knowledge has been democratized and has reached all economic and social levels of the population the most responsible and intelligent parents have the largest families. […]

Drs. Huntington, Whitney, and Phillips have found the same trend in their studies of Harvard and Yale graduates; and Dr. Thompson found similar evidence in his studies of the fertility of Negroes in our Northern cities.  The most successful parents had the largest families.  Here we find an intelligent and peaceful substitute for the bloody and destructive laws of the jungle which can make possible the continued evolution of human life.  This is, indeed, a Vital Revolution.  References for most of these studies may be found in Dr. Warren S. Thompson’s book, Population Problems, 1935, pp. 386-387.

World War 2 — Nazis enthusiastically apply eugenics principles, albeit filtered through a nationalistic prism.

Immediately after World War 2 — overt eugenics falls completely out of favor.  They turn to ‘crypto-eugenics’, explicitly turning the direction of their efforts to the most ‘politically acceptable’ alternatives that were consistent with eugenics principles:  family planning and population control.

Fairfield Osborn

Fairfield Osborn had already spent decades in the eugenics movement before pivoting to population control advocacy, presiding, for example, over the 1921 International Eugenics Congress.  His book Our Plundered Planet is frequently mentioned by population control advocates in the decades following its publication in 1948.   Fairfield Osborn was the uncle of Frederick Osborn, a president of the American Eugenics Society and the Population Council.  In Our Plundered Planet, on page 204, Osborn thanks William Vogt for “his philosophical approach to the problem”, which is to say, he acknowledges that there is an ideological underpinning to the whole population control mindset (which he shares), and on pgs 205-206, he thanks Guy Irving Burch for providing “information regarding human populations”.  One should begin to get the impression that eugenicists, birth control advocates, and population control agitators are all peas in the same pod.

William Vogt

Vogt was the National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1951 to 1962.  His 1948 book, Road to Survival, was extremely influential.  Given his prominent station at Planned Parenthood for such a long period of time, and in particular dovetailing into the 1960s, when the ‘population crisis’ was a veritable froth, it is absurd to believe that he did not imprint his population control mentality on that organization.  On page 146 of his book, he uses the sub-heading “Too Many Americans.”  This may have been the inspiration for Lincoln and Alice Day’s title of their book by that very name (see below).  Vogt is a good illustration of the historical fact that there was direct continuity and perfect compatibility between ‘birth control’ advocates and population control activists and the eugenics movement itself.

His book lists Guy Irving Burch first in his entire list of references, saying that he was “indebted” to him, saying:  “Foremost among these are […] Guy Irving Burch, who not only granted permission to quote from Human Breeding and Survival (originally published as Population Roads to Peace or War), of which he is co-author, but who has also been extraordinarily helpful with advice, bibliographic suggestions, and critical discussion.”

Not coincidentally–and again, illustrating a continuity within the ideology, Vogt mentions Malthus approvingly.

Vogt’s book is introduced by Bernard Baruch, a wealthy and influential progressive, involved in making the Federal Reserve a reality, and supporting the United Daughters of the Confederacy (which may be of particular interest to modern readers who intone a one to one correspondence between racism and the Confederate flag).

Population Control imposed on the Japanese people by the United States

1950s — Eugenicists-now-turned-population-control-advocates consolidate their change of emphasis, eschewing ‘eugenics’ per se, and focusing on genetic counseling (hereditary clinics) and calling attention to ‘over-population.’

Charles Francis Darwin

Harrison Brown

“Among the more important books designed to be read by the general public are:  Our Plundered Planet by Fairfield Osborn, The Road to Survival by William Vogt,”

Grounds his arguments extensively on Evolution.  Explicit eugenicist.

Cites Charles Galton Darwin at length, approvingly.

Cites Malthus approvingly.

Frederick Osborn

Frederick Osborn was a propaganda officer during World War 2.  After the war, he first focused on advocating for eugenics, serving as the president of the American Eugenics Society.  The AES found their work to be difficult in a post-Holocaust era.  He advocated for ‘crypto-eugenics,‘ for example calling for the establishment of heredity clinics and the ‘genetic counseling’ profession to persuade people to make eugenic decisions without knowing they were doing so.  He called this ‘voluntary unconscious selection.’  Later, he served as the president of the Population Council, succeeded by Bernard Berelson (who is more directly implicated in NSSM-200).   He never stopped thinking in eugenic terms, but, like the expert propagandist that he was, was always ready to bend and twist as circumstances warranted it.  Guy Irving Burch cited him approvingly in his PRPoW in reference to linking birth control to population control:  “one of the latest and most authoritative books on the subject of population [… Preface to Eugenics … by Frederick Osborn, says] the control of births can–if we will–be used to further all efforts to improve the conditions of human life.”

It may be wondered why abortion was not more frequently listed as a eugenic or population control measure, but this is not strictly true.  It was a political hot potato and contemplating its use in these ways was only useful in theory to them, because it was not yet legal throughout the United States.  A telling quote by Frederick Osborn testifies to the ‘crypto-eugenic’ path that the eugenicists took after WW2 as well as the recognition that abortion (and birth control, of course) had ‘eugenic effects’:

“The name [of their eugenics journal] was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”

H.J. Muller

Julian Huxley

1960s — Population Control advocates are firmly entrenched in public positions, but lack the political support to enact their proposals.   Wealthy adherents launch numerous advertising campaigns to win over the public.

Hugh Moore — (see:  Lawrence Lader — Breeding Ourselves to Death)

Lincoln and Alice Day — Too Many Americans

Paul Ehrlich — The Population Bomb

Bernard Berelson — President of the Population Council (replacing Frederick Osborn)

Frank Jaffe — Vice-President of Population for Planned Parenthood

Richard Nixon — in 1969 calls for a national population policy and directs money to be spent for that purpose (eg, Title X, in 1970)

1970s

Nixon commissions the Rockefeller Commission on Population in 1972, but does not implement its findings

Nixon orders Kissinger to study how ‘over-population’ in “developing countries” threatens the U.S.  Kissinger’s highly classified report is turned in December of 1974

Nixon is impeached.

Gerald Ford signs an executive order implementing NSSM-200.

The Global 2000 Report under Jimmy Carter is released in 1979.  The report accepts every premise of the population control advocates.  Noteworthy participants include John Holdren (at present, the chief ‘science’ officer in the Obama Administration.

1980s

Ronald Reagan, in the so-called “Mexico City” policy, forbids the use of taxpayer dollars to fund any international program that promotes or finances abortions… population control advocates have a royal conniption that lasts to this very day.  Evidently, without abortion on demand, they feel they can do very little to achieve their goals.

1990s

George H. Bush re-implements the Mexico City policy.

Bill Clinton reverses the Mexico City policy.

NSSM-200 is declassified as the result of a Freedom of Information Request, which itself was spawned by suspicions overseas that certain programs were in fact population control programs.

2000s

George W. Bush reinstates the Mexico City policy.

Barack Obama revokes the Mexico City policy.

Population
and the American Future

The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

March 27, 1972

To the President and Congress of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit for your consideration the Final Report, containing the findings and recommendations, of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, pursuant to Sec. 8, PL 91-213.

After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person.

The recommendations offered by this Commission are directed towards increasing public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change, facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement, maximizing information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family, and enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.

To these ends we offer this report in the hope that our findings and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration of an issue that is of great consequence to present and future generations.

Respectfully submitted for the Commission,

John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Chairman

The President

The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

The Commission

Chairman

John D. Rockefeller 3rd

Vice Chairman

Grace Olivarez

Executive Director

Food for All, Inc.

Vice Chairman

Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., M.D.

President

The Institute for the Study of Health and Society

Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.

The Edward Wisner Professor of Public Health

Tulane University Medical Center

David E. Bell

Executive Vice President

The Ford Foundation

Bernard Berelson

President

The Population Council

Arnita Young Boswell

Associate Field Work Professor

School of Social Service Administration

University of Chicago

Margaret Bright

Professor

Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Dept. of Epidemiology

School of Hygiene and Public Health

The Johns Hopkins University

Marilyn Brant Chandler

Housewife, Volunteer, Student

Paul B. Cornely, M.D.

Professor

Dept. of Community Health Practice, College of Medicine

Howard University

Assistant to the Executive Medical Officer

Welfare and Retirement Fund United Mine Workers of America

Alan Cranston

United States Senator

California

Lawrence A. Davis

President

Arkansas Agricultural, Mechanical & Normal College

Otis Dudley Duncan

Professor of Sociology

University of Michigan

John N. Erlenbom

United States Representative

14th C. District of Illinois

Joan F. Flint

Housewife, Volunteer

R. V. Hansberger

Chairman and President

Boise Cascade Corporation

D. Gale Johnson

Chairman

Department of Economics

University of Chicago

John R. Meyer

President

National Bureau of Economic Research

Professor of Economics Yale University

Bob Packwood

United States Senator

Oregon

James S. Rummonds

Student

Stanford School of Law

Stephen L. Salyer

Student

Davidson College

Howard D. Samuel

Vice President

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

James H. Scheuer

United States Representative

22nd C. District of New York

George D. Woods

Director and Consultant

The First Boston Corporation

This report represents the official views of the Commission, particularly as to the listed recommendations. Clearly, in the case of a Commission with such diverse membership, not every Commissioner subscribes in detail to every suggestion or statement of policy.

[…]

Because he deepened our conviction that each individual has a unique contribution to make to the dignity and worth of all mankind, the Commission and staff dedicate this report to the memory of our colleague, staff member, and friend.
Ritchie H. Reed

1941-1971

Preface

For the first time in the history of our country, the President and the Congress have established a Commission to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future. In proposing this Commission in July 1969, President Nixon said: “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.” The Commission was asked to examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy, and our resources and environment, and to make recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact.

In our Interim Report a year ago, the Commission defined the scope of our mandate: “. . . to formulate policy for the future”— policy designed to deal with “the pervasive impact of population growth on every facet of American life.” We said that population growth of the magnitude we have experienced since World War II has multiplied and intensified many of our domestic problems and made their solution more difficult. We called upon the American people to begin considering the meaning and consequences of population growth and internal migration and the desirability of formulating a national policy on the question.

Since then, the Commission and staff have conducted an extensive inquiry. We have enlisted many of the nation’s leading scientists in more than 100 research projects. We have heard from more than 100 witnesses in public hearings across the country and have met with experts in many days of executive meetings. And we are aware that population has become an active subject of consideration in a number of states in our country concerned about their future. We have come to recognize that the racial and ethnic diversity of this Commission gives us confidence that our recommendations—the consensus of our members—do indeed point the way in which this nation should move in solving its problems. Because of the importance of this matter, the Commission recommends that future federal commissions include a substantial representation of minorities, youth, poor citizens, and women among their members, including congressional representatives, and the commission staffs and consultants include significant numbers of minorities, youth, and women.

We offer this report in the hope that our viewpoints and recommendations will stimulate serious consideration and response by the citizens of this nation and of nations throughout the world to an issue of great consequence to present and future generations.

Chapter 1: Perspective on Population

In the brief history of this nation, we have always assumed that progress and “the good life” are connected with population growth. In fact, population growth has frequently been regarded as a measure of our progress. If that were ever the case, it is not now. There is hardly any social problem confronting this nation whose solution would be easier if our population were larger. Even now, the dreams of too many Americans are not being realized; others are being fulfilled at too high a cost. Accordingly, this Commission has concluded that our country can no longer afford the uncritical acceptance of the population growth ethic that “more is better.” And beyond that, after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that no substantial benefits would result from continued growth of the nation’s population.

The “population problem” is long run and requires long-run responses. It is not a simple problem. It cannot be encompassed by the slogans of either of the prevalent extremes: the “more” or the “bigger the better” attitude on the one hand, or the emergency-crisis response on the other. Neither extreme is accurate nor even helpful.

It is a problem which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the pressure of population reaching out to occupy open spaces and bringing with it a deterioration of the environment. It can be viewed as the effect on natural resources of increased numbers of people in search of a higher standard of living. It is the impact of population fluctuations in both growth and distribution upon the orderly provision of public services. It can be seen as the concentration of people in metropolitan areas and depopulation elsewhere, with all that implies for the quality of life in both places. It is the instability over time of proportions of the young, the elderly, and the productive. For the family and the individual, it is the control over one’s life with respect to the reproduction of new life—the formal and informal pronatalist pressures of an outmoded tradition, and the disadvantages of and to the children involved.

Unlike other great public issues in the United States, population lacks the dramatic event—the war, the riot, the calamity—that galvanizes attention and action. It is easily overlooked and neglected. Yet the number of children born now will seriously affect our lives in future decades. This produces a powerful effect in a double sense: Its fluctuations can be strong and not easily changed; and its consequences are important for the welfare of future generations.

There is scarcely a facet of American life that is not involved with the rise and fall of our birth and death rates: the economy, environment, education, health, family life and sexual practices, urban and rural life, governmental effectiveness and political freedoms, religious norms, and secular life styles. If this country is in a crisis of spirit—environmental deterioration, racial antagonisms, the plight of the cities, the international situation—then population is part of that crisis.

Although population change touches all of these areas of our national life and intensifies our problems, such problems will not be solved by demographic means alone. Population policy is no substitute for social, economic, and environmental policy. Successfully addressing population requires that we also address our problems of poverty, of minority and sex discrimination, of careless exploitation of resources, of environmental deterioration, and of spreading suburbs, decaying cities, and wasted countrysides. By the same token, because population is so tightly interwoven with all of these concerns, whatever success we have in resolving these problems will contribute to easing the complex system of pressures that impel population growth.

Consideration of the population issue raises profound questions of what people want, what they need—indeed, what they are for. What does this nation stand for and where is it going? At some point in the future, the finite earth will not satisfactorily accommodate more human beings—nor will the United States. How is a judgment to be made about when that point will be reached? Our answer is that now is the time to confront the question: “Why more people?” The answer must be given, we believe, in qualitative not quantitative terms.

The United States today is characterized by low population density, considerable open space, a declining birthrate, movement out of the central cities—but that does not eliminate the concern about population. This country, or any country, always has a “population problem,” in the sense of achieving a proper balance between size, growth, and distribution on the one hand, and, on the other, the quality of life to which every person in this country aspires.

Nor is this country alone in the world, demographically or in any other way. Many other nations are beginning to recognize the importance of population questions. We need to act prudently, understanding that today’s decisions on population have effects for generations ahead. Similarly, we need to act responsibly toward other people in the world: This country’s needs and wants, given its wealth, may impinge upon the patrimony of other, less fortunate peoples in the decades ahead. The “population problem” of the developing countries may be more pressing at this time, but in the longer perspective, it is both proper and in our best interest to participate fully in the worldwide search for the good life, which must include the eventual stabilization of our numbers.

A Diversity of Views

Ultimately, then, we are concerned not with demographic trends alone, but with the effect of these trends on the realization of the values and goals cherished as part of the American tradition and sought after by minorities who also “want in.”

One of the basic themes underlying our analysis and policy recommendations is the substitution of quality for quantity; that is, we should concern ourselves with improving the quality of life for all Americans rather than merely adding more Americans. And unfortunately, for many of our citizens that quality of life is still defined only as enough food, clothing, and shelter. All human beings need a sense of their own dignity and worth, a sense of belonging and sharing, and the opportunity to develop their individual potentialities.

But it is far easier to achieve agreement on abstract values than on their meaning or on the strategy to achieve them. Like the American people generally, this Commission has not been able to reach full agreement on the relative importance of different values or on the analysis of how the “population problem” reflects other conditions and directions of American society.

Three distinct though overlapping approaches have been distinguished. These views differ in their analysis of the nature of the problem and the general priorities of tasks to be accomplished. But, despite the different perspectives from which population is viewed, all of the population policies we shall recommend are consistent with all three positions.

The first perspective acknowledges the benefits to be gained by slowing growth, but regards our population problem today primarily as a result of large numbers of people being unable to control an important part of their lives—the number of children they have. The persistence of this problem reflects an effective denial of freedom of choice and equality of access to the means of fertility control. In this view, the population problem is regarded more as the sum of such individual problems than as a societal problem transcending the interests of individuals; the welfare of individuals and that of the general society are seen as congruent, at least at this point in history. The potential conflict between these two levels is mitigated by the knowledge that freedom from unwanted childbearing would contribute significantly to the stabilization of population.

Reproductive decisions should be freely made in a social context without pronatalist pressures—the heritage of a past when the survival of societies with high mortality required high fertility. The proper mission for government in this matter is to ensure the fullest opportunity for people to decide their own future in this regard, based on the best available knowledge; then the demographic outcome becomes the democratic solution.

Beyond these goals, this approach depends on the processes of education, research, and national debate to illuminate the existence of any serious population “problem” that transcends individual welfare. The aim would be to achieve the best collective decisiOn about population issues based on knowledge of the tradeoffs between demographic choices and the “quality of life,” however defined. This position ultimately seeks optimize the individual and the collective decisions and then accepts the aggregate outcome—with the understanding that the situation will be reconsidered from time to time.

The second view does not deny the need for education and knowledge, but stresses the crucial gaps between what we claim as national values and the reality experienced by certain groups in our society. Many of the traditional American values, such as freedom and justice, are not yet experienced by some minorities. Racial discrimination continues to mean that equal access to opportunities afforded those in the mainstream of American society is denied to millions of people. Overt and subtle discrimination against women has meant undue pressure toward childbearing and child-rearing. Equality is denied when inadequate income, education, or racial and sexual stereotypes persist, and shape available options. Freedom is denied when governmental steps are not taken to assure the fullest possible access to methods of controlling reproduction or to educational, job, and residential opportunities. In addition, the freedom of future generations may be compromised by a denial of freedom to the present generation. Finally, extending freedom and equality—which is nothing more than making the American system live up to its stated values—would go far beyond affecting the growth rate. Full equality both for women and ‘for racial minorities is a value in its own right. In this view, the “population problem” is seen as only one facet, and not even a major one, of the restriction of full opportunity in American life.

The third position deals with the population problem in an ecological framework, one whose primary axiom asserts the functional interdependence of man and his environment. It calls for a far more fundamental shift in the operative values of modern society. The need for more education and knowledge and the need to eliminate poverty and racism are important, but not enough. For the population problem, and the growth ethic with which it is intimately connected, reflect deeper external conditions and more fundamental political, economic, and philosophical values. Consequently, to improve the quality of our existence while slowing growth, will require nothing less than a basic recasting of American values.

The numbers of people and the material conditions of human existence are limited by the external environment. Human life, like all forms of life on earth, is supported by intricate ecological systems that are limited in their ability to adapt to and tolerate changing conditions. Human culture, particularly science and technology, has given man an extraordinary power to alter and manipulate his environment. At the same time, he has also achieved the capacity virtually to destroy life on earth. Sadly, in the rush to produce, consume, and discard, he has too often chosen to plunder and destroy rather than to conserve and create. Not only have the land, air, and water, the flora and fauna suffered, but also the individual, the family, and the human community.

This position holds that the present pattern of urban industrial organization, far from promoting the realization of the individual as a uniquely valuable experience, serves primarily to perpetuate its own values. Mass urban industrialism is based on science and technology, efficiency, acquisition, and domination through rationality. The exercise of these same values now contains the potential for the destruction of our humanity. Man is losing that balance with nature which is an essential condition of human existence. With that loss has come a loss of harmony with other human beings. The population problem is a concrete symptom of this change, and a fundamental cause of present human conditions.

It is comfortable to believe that changes in values or in the political system are unnecessary, and that measures such as population education and better fertility control information and services will solve our population problem. They will not, however, for such solutions do not go to the heart of man’s relationship with nature, himself, and society. According to this view, nothing less than a different set of values toward nature, the transcendence of a laissez-faire market system, a redefinition of human identity in terms other than consumerism, and a radical change if not abandonment of the growth ethic, will suffice. A new vision is needed—a vision that recognizes man’s unity with nature, that transcends a simple economic definition of man’s identity, and that seeks to promote the realization of the highest potential of our individual humanity.

The Immediate Goal

These three views reflect different evaluations of the nature of the population problem, different assessments of the viability of the American political process, and different perceptions of the critical values at stake.

Given the diversity of goals to be addressed and the manifold ramifications of population change throughout society, how are specific population policies to be selected?

As a Commission and as a people, we need not agree on all the priorities if we can identify acceptable policies that speak in greater or lesser degree to all of them. By and large, in our judgment, the policy findings and recommendations of this Report meet that requirement. Whatever the primary needs of our society, the policies recommended here all lead in right directions for this nation, and generally at low costs.*

Our immediate goal is to modernize demographic behavior in this country: to encourage the American people to make population choices, both in the individual family and society at large, on the basis of greater rationality rather than tradition or custom, ignorance or chance. This country has already moved some distance down this road; it should now complete the journey. The time has come to challenge the tradition that population growth is desirable: What was unintended may turn out to be unwanted, in the society as in the family.

In any case, more rational attitudes are now forced upon us by the revolutionary increase in average length of life within the past century, which has placed modern man in a completely different, historically unique, demographic situation. The social institutions and customs that have shaped reproductive behavior in the past are no longer appropriate in the modern world, and need reshaping to suit the new situation. Moreover, the instruments of population policy are now more readily available—fuller knowledge of demographic impacts, better information on demographic trends, improved means by which individuals may control their own fertility.

As a Commission, we have come to appreciate the delicate complexities of the subject and the difficulty, even the impossibility, of solving the problem, however defined, in its entirety and all at once. But this is certainly the time to begin: The 1970’s may not be simply another decade in the demographic transition but a critical one, involving changes in family life and the role of women, dynamics of the metropolitan process, the depopulation of rural areas, the movement and the needs of disadvantaged minorities, the era of the young adults produced by the baby boom, and the attendant question of what their own fertility will be—baby boom or baby bust.

Finally, we agree that population policy goals must be sought in full consonance with the fundamental values of American life: respect for human freedom, human dignity, and individual fulfillment; and concern for social justice and social welfare. To “solve” population problems at the cost of such values would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. The issues are ethical in character, and their proper solution requires a deep sense of moral responsibility on the part of both the individual family and the national community: the former in considering another birth, the latter in considering appropriate policies to guide population growth into the American future.

A separate statement by Commissioner James S. Rummonds appears on page 164.

For our part, it is enough to make population, and all that it means, explicit on the national agenda, to signal its impact on our national life, to sort out the issues, and to propose how to start toward a better state of affairs. By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future. In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.

Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

RICHARD NIXON

37th President of the United States: 1969 ‐ 1974

May 05, 1972.
SOURCE

THE Commission on Population Growth and the American Future has formally presented its report to me today, thus completing its 2 years of work.

The men and women on this panel have performed a valuable public service in identifying and examining a wide range of problems related to population, and have contributed to an emerging debate of great significance to the future of our Nation.

I wish to thank the able and energetic Chairman of the Commission, Mr. John D. Rockefeller 3d, for his tireless efforts, not only on this Commission but in other capacities, to focus the Nation’s attention on these important issues.

The extensive public discussion already generated by this report clearly indicates the need to continue research in areas touching on population growth and distribution.

While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.

In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortion policies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.

I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals–and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.

While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission’s recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.

The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission’s report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.

Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions.

Note: The report is entitled “Population and the American Future” (Government Printing Office, 186 pp.).

Commission Chairman John D. Rockefeller 3d and members Graciela Gil Olivares and Christian N. Ramsey, Jr., met with the President at the White House to present the report.

Richard Nixon, Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/254752

Gerald Ford Directive to Implement NSSM-200, Memo NSDM 314

Brian Clowes of Human Life International on NSSM 200

There are surprisingly few people who have tried to research the extent to which NSSM 200 is official US Government policy to this date.  One example is Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International.

You can download his full report, here:  Kissinger-Report-A-Retrospective-on-NSSM-200

Original Source

 

NSSM 200 and the world population explosion

The Journal of social, political, and economic studies, Spring 1995

S D Mumford

Abstract

This paper was published in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical ‘Evangelicum Vitae’, which condemns abortion and contraception. The author describes how, in the mid-1970’s, the Vatican blocked the implementation of President Nixon’s ‘National Security Study Memorandum 200’, which was intended to combat global overpopulation. The author explains that excessive population growth is considered threatening to U.S. security interests, and concludes that “papal security-survival along with the influence of fundamentalist Protestant opposition to birth control is now pitted against the U.S. and world security-survival.”

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NSSM 200
How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy
by Stephen D. Mumford (1996)

INDEX TO CONTENTS

And all that has everything to do with this:

“I HOPE THE DEPOPULATION WILL OCCUR IN A CIVIL AND PEACEFUL WAY” – WEF MASTERMIND AND CLUB OF ROME FOUNDER, IN RESURFACED 2012 INTERVIEW

And this:

BUSTED! GEORGIA GUIDESTONES BUILT ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, A MYSTERY ONLY DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA COVER UP

And probably 90% of everything we’ve ever published.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We will perish as a species if people don’t immediately come to terms with the fact that our society is a human farm managed by communazi eugenicists, and the population culling is real and habitual.

Dennis Meadows is his name. Look him up, not a secretive guy, more like his own trumpet.

He touches on almost everything we see happening today, from Sri Lanka to The Netherlands and Canada. I’ll comment at the end of this report.

The whole thing recalls this:

“THE QUESTION IS ONLY WHETHER WORLD GOVERNMENT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY CONSENT OR BY CONQUEST” – WARBURG / ROTHSCHILD PROGENITURE IN 1950 US SENATE HEARINGS

Meadows is very appreciated in Germany, unsurprisingly:

‘Limits to Growth’ Author Dennis Meadows‘Humanity Is Still on the Way to Destroying Itself’

Der Spiegel (Germany) 07.12.2012

In 1972, environmental guru Dennis Meadows predicted in his seminal study “The Limits to Growth” that the world was heading toward an economic collapse. Forty years on, he tells SPIEGEL ONLINE that nothing he has seen since has made him change his mind.

People scavenging at a dump in India: Where are the limits to growth?
People scavenging at a dump in India: Where are the limits to growth? Foto: Daniel Berehulak/ Getty Images

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Meadows, 40 years ago you published “The Limits to Growth” together with your wife and colleagues, a book that made you the intellectual father of the environmental movement. The core message of the book remains valid today: Humanity is ruthlessly exploiting global resources and is on the way to destroying itself. Do you believe that the ultimate collapse of our economic system can still be avoided?

Meadows: The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Several central forecasts you made in the book have come true, the exponential growth of the world’s population, for example, and widespread environmental destruction. Your prediction regarding economic growth, namely that it would ultimately cease and the global economy would collapse, has not yet come to pass.

Meadows: The fact that the collapse hasn’t occurred so far doesn’t mean it won’t take place in the future. There is no doubt that the world is changing, and we will have to go along with it. There are two ways to do that: One is, you see the necessity of change ahead of time and you make the change, and the second is that you don’t and are finally forced to do it anyway. Let’s say that you’re driving a car inside a factory building. There are two ways to stop: Either you put on the brakes or you keep going and hit the wall. But stop you will, because the building is finite. And the same holds true for Earth’s resources.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That sounds convincing, but is it really true? Will not private companies react to dwindling resources with innovation in an effort to maintain profitability?

Meadows: The really big changes don’t come from inside of established industries. Who made the iPhone? Not Nokia, not Motorola, nor any of the other established mobile phone producers. It came from Apple, totally outside the industry. There are many other examples of this kind.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about in areas that are under state control or regulation?

Meadows: That’s even worse. Our history with fishing shows that we are destroying the oceans’ ecosystems, for example. And we’re using our atmosphere as a free industrial waste dump. Nobody has an incentive to protect them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is not the desire for humanity’s survival enough of a motivation?

Meadows: You see, there are two kinds of big problems. One I call universal problems, the other I call global problems. They both affect everybody. The difference is: Universal problems can be solved by small groups of people because they don’t have to wait for others. You can clean up the air in Hanover without having to wait for Beijing or Mexico City to do the same. Global problems, however, cannot be solved in a single place. There’s no way Hanover can solve climate change or stop the spread of nuclear weapons. For that to happen, people in China, the US and Russia must also do something. But on the global problems, we will make no progress.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you not underestimating people and the reaction when our backs are to the wall? Australian businessman and environmentalist Paul Gilding, for example, argues in his book “The Great Disruption” that while a crisis is coming, humanity will mobilize to fight it as seen during times of war.

Meadows: He is right. But will it succeed? It could, if the delays were very short. But unfortunately, they are not. In climate change, for example, the delays are very long. Even if we were to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero today, warming would still continue for centuries. The same is true for soil, which we are destroying globally. Recovery can take centuries.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Surely technological innovation has served to reduce the impact of some long-term problems. Since your book appeared four decades ago, for example, modern medicine has increased life expectancy and reduced infant mortality rates. New technologies have dramatically increased harvests and computers and the Internet have brought the world closer together and improved access to education.

Meadows: Technology doesn’t invent itself. These achievements were the results of decades of hard work, and someone has to pay for these programs. One big source of money is the military. Another is corporations, and they are not motivated to solve global problems, they’re motivated to make money. The drug companies in the United States spend more money on hair-loss prevention than on preventing HIV infections. Why? Because rich people go bald and poor people get HIV.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But imagine the profits that would accrue to the inventor of a new, clean and limitless source of energy.

Meadows: I hope you’re not talking about fusion, because that’s bullshit. I think we will discover a major new energy source. But afterwards, it would take decades for it to make an impact. Even if there was no resistance, even if there were no environmental impacts and even if it wouldn’t make a lot of people bankrupt — still it would take a long time. So if someone tells you that technology is going to save us just like that, he does not know how technology is developed.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about resources. Past forecasts predicted that there would be hardly any oil left by 2012, but there still seems to be plenty available. Recent estimates even show that the US might soon produce more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Meadows: That may very well be. But the oil reserves we are talking about are scarce and very expensive to exploit. And they, too, will be depleted one day. And then we have a problem. Here’s an example: I have a neighbor, she’s rich. Her electric bill is, let’s say, 1 percent of her income. Then comes Hurricane Sandy, and suddenly she had no electricity in her house. Does her quality of life go down by 1 percent? No! Her food is spoiled; she can’t turn on her lights; she can’t work anymore. It’s a disaster for her. Take a look around. The chair you sit on, the glass windows, the lights — everything is here for one single reason: We enjoy cheap energy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Let’s assume that you are right and that the collapse will arrive in this century. What will it look like?

Meadows: It will look different in different places. Some countries are already collapsing, and some people won’t even notice. There are almost a billion people who are starving to death these days, and people here basically aren’t noticing. And there is the issue of speed: The difference between a decline and a collapse is speed. The rich can buy their way out of a lot of things. The end of fossil energy, for example, will be gradual. But climate change will come to the industrial countries no matter what. And the geological record clearly shows that the global temperature doesn’t increase in a linear way. It jumps. If that happens, a collapse will occur. But it would be nothing new, of course. Societies rise and fall. They have been doing so for 300,000 years. 

Interview conducted by Markus Becker

“The original Limits To Growth (LTG) study published in 1972 1 , the “Report for The Club of Rome‘s Project on the Predicament of Mankind”, insistently urged humanity to act. Its vivid and almost haunting description of the consequences of exponential growth which is confronted with finite resources, is still as perspicuous as it was back then: continuous economic and demographical growth will hit the limits of naturally provided resources and very likely lead to overshoot, collapse, and radical decrease of most people’s standard of living, accompanied by international crises, conflicts and catastrophes. The study was supported by the German Volkswagen Foundation”

– Volkswagen Foundation

WolksWagen, you know, Hitler’s cars…

Here’s a presentation he did for The Smithsonian in 2012, important to view because he makes some points about assumptions and limits of growth, almost outing his own scam.

“Dennis Meadows was appointed to the MIT faculty in 1969. In 1970 he assembled a team of 16 scientists to conduct a two-year, computer-model based study on the long-term causes and consequences of physical growth on the planet Earth. That project was funded by the Club of Rome and lead to 3 reports, one of which, The Limits to Growth, was presented for the first time to the public in the Smithsonian Institution Castle in March 1972. The book was eventually translated into about 35 languages, and it was selected as one of the most influential environmental books of the 20th century. He worked subsequently with Jørgen Randers and with Donella Meadows, senior author of Limits to Growth, to produce a second edition in 1994 and a third edition in 2004. Before becoming Professor Emeritus of Policy Systems in 2004, Dennis Meadows was a professor for 35 years at MIT, Dartmouth College, and the University of New Hampshire earning tenure in schools of engineering, management, and the social sciences. He has received numerous honorary doctorates in the US and Europe for his contributions to environmental education. His many awards include the 2009 Japan Prize. He has co-authored 10 books and designed numerous computer-based strategic planning games that are used in many nations to teach principles of sustainable resource use. He remains very active, especially in Europe and Japan, speaking, writing, and advising corporate and government leaders on issues related to growth.” – The Smithsonian

MIT as in…

COMPUTER MODELS? MIT HAS ONE THAT PREDICTED SOCIETAL COLLAPSE STARTING 2020

Btw, after a lengthy whole media-tour by Meadows in 2012 this happened:

IN 2013, A MILITARY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION PREDICTED A MASSIVE GLOBAL DEPOPULATION (50-80%) BY 2025 [UPDATED 2021]

That’s just an anecdotal association I made above, to contribute the huge web of connections and influences that observably radiate from this massive con artist. But my anecdotes prove more factual than their news, over time.
It’s incredible how easy it is to bullshit the rich inbred bullshitters in politics and above!

You can also observe that our owners cranked up the insanity after 2012. He sounds more like a press secretary at a press conference on societal collapse, but he’s definitely to blame for providing the elites with these propaganda concept. I bet many elites started to consume from their propaganda stash, the dumbing down trickles up eventually.

And almost all these expert brainfarts are just gas. Gases and mirrors.

I should’ve have made a separate article about what’s wrong with the “Infinite growth on a finite planet” scam, but, instead, I just dumped the concept in the trunk of this report

HUGE! OIL MOGUL JUST ADMITTED OIL IS NEITHER FOSSIL OR SCARCE. NOT EVEN FINITE


And I don’t mean the nature of oil, but the nature of energy. It’s all in the link above, in one little red pill. I could make a book out of it, but if you won’t read and spread that thing, you surely won’t buy the book.

Btw, don’t ever spend a dime on this scumbag! Let me help:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This isn’t trying to take a side in the abortion debate.
This is about pealing one more layer off this stinky onion.

Long ago, I came to the conclusion (unchallenged ever since) that both sides in the televised abortion debate are equally and symmetrically wrong, hypocritical and irrational about it. And those sides are all you will hear from, because both will forcefully exclude you from the discussion if you attempt to introduce new o more nuanced perspectives.

I have many reasons to suspect this by design, an Overton Window that is built to never allow a view to truth and solutions, also serving as backdoor to the collective mental.


So I am siding with neither.


But the moral balance between the two camps is inclined by a major factor that has nothing to do with the debate itself:
While one side holds its position on religious / ideological grounds with honestly held beliefs, the other camp seems to weaponize abortion as a mean to ulterior motives. And that’s when it gets to the next level of danger and villainy.


So I dug up a few pieces of history and put them together to incite, as always, deeper analysis and more personal conclusions.

And the long course:

The real Jane Roe exposed by ABC Nightline 1995

‘Jane Roe,’ from Roe v. Wade, made a stunning deathbed confession. Now what?

Washington Post, May 20, 2020

Image without a caption

What to make of Norma McCorvey?

This week, a new documentary drops a boulder into the already complicated legacy of the woman better known as “Jane Roe” — the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion in America. In the mid-1990s, McCorvey had made a public religious and political conversion. She was baptized on television in a backyard swimming pool; she wore overalls and came out beaming. She declared herself newly pro-life and spent the last two decades of her life crusading against the ruling her own case had made possible.

But in “AKA Jane Roe,” premiering Friday on FX, McCorvey turns to the camera with an oxygen tube dangling from her nose and tells director Nick Sweeney, “This is my deathbed confession.”

She never really supported the antiabortion movement, she tells Sweeney, in a scene filmed in 2017. “I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say, and that’s what I’d say.”

“It was all an act?” the director asks.

“Yeah,” she says. “I was good at it, too.”

The revelation comes 60 minutes into the 80-minute documentary. By minute 70, McCorvey has died, succumbing to illness, leaving the people she knew on both sides of the most polarizing cultural debate in America slack-jawed and stunned.

McCorvey never had an abortion. A lot of people don’t realize that. By the time the Supreme Court handed down its decision, she’d been forced to carry out her pregnancy; the child had already been adopted.

It was her third time giving birth. One daughter had been primarily raised by McCorvey’s mother; McCorvey placed a second child for adoption. McCorvey strung together low-paying jobs in Texas and at various points struggled with substance abuse; she wasn’t prepared to become a parent. Her desperate circumstances were what made her a suitable plaintiff. If she’d had money to travel to a locale where abortion was already legal, her attorneys wouldn’t have been able to argue that the current state-by-state solution placed an impossible burden on their client.

So “Roe” didn’t help McCorvey, but it helped other women like her, and one evening, a Dallas abortion provider named Charlotte Taft was holding a public event at her clinic when a petite, curly-haired woman approached her and said, “I’m Jane Roe.”

The abortion rights movement had the law on its side now. Its supporters didn’t need a public face. “But she put herself out here to say, here I am,” Taft says in an interview.

McCorvey’s life had been hard. Her mother hit her. As a girl, she ran away with a female friend, and when they were caught kissing, she was sent to reform school for punishment. She escaped a marriage to a man who she said abused her and found a long-term partner in Connie Gonzales, but the 1970s and ’80s weren’t always welcoming times for lesbians. Now, though, there was a movement that saw her as a hero. She was offered speaking engagements — local ones at first, and then she met famed feminist attorney Gloria Allred, and the engagements became national. She was funny and vulgar and had the wry, weary wit of an early Roseanne Barr. When a reporter at a news conference asked how much money she made as a maid, she shot back: “Why? Anybody here need a good housecleaning?”

In the early 1990s, a new tenant moved in next to the abortion-related nonprofit where McCorvey volunteered. It was a branch of Operation Rescue, the prominent antiabortion group helmed by a minister who took a special interest in McCorvey.

“When I think about Norma, one of her yearnings in life was to be good,” says Taft. “Being the poster child of the pro-choice movement — she got to be a hero, she got to meet celebrities, she got to have applause and give speeches. But with them, they told her she was finally good.”

Rob Schenck, then a leader in the antiabortion movement in Washington, D.C., remembered opening an email in 1995 from a professional acquaintance in Texas. Norma McCorvey had been saved, the email said. She would be on their side, now.

“I regret now that I thought this,” Schenck says in an interview. “But Norma was the equivalent of a world-class trophy.”

McCorvey’s conversion was a cinematic story, a morality play, and who you thought was good or bad depended entirely on what you thought of abortion. McCorvey was either bad then became good, or she was good and then became bad.

“The thing is, we want our stories to be tidy,” Taft says. “And humans aren’t tidy.”

McCorvey certainly wasn’t.

Something that abortion rights activists might not realize: In the 1980s when McCorvey was on their team, she would sometimes call Taft late at night. Usually she’d been drinking, sometimes she was introspective, occasionally she seemed to regret the starring role she’d played in America’s morality play. “The playgrounds are all empty, and it’s because of me,” Taft says McCorvey said one night.

Something that antiabortion activists didn’t realize: In the 1990s, when McCorvey was on their team, she would still tell evangelical leaders that she supported a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester — the procedure that accounts for the majority of all abortions. “We managed that by saying she’s a brand-new convert; she needs time to mature in her faith and in her understanding of the pro-life ethic,” Schenck says. “We thought, just give her a little time and she’ll mature.” Eventually, they got her to stop saying it publicly, but they didn’t know whether she’d actually changed her mind.

The activists on both sides who knew her found her charming — and found her maddening. She rewrote stories into fantasies. She could be mercenary, and always needed money. Maybe the best word for her was “survivor,” multiple people decided independently. After a rough life, she’d now do whatever it took to survive. At one point in the FX documentary, she chuckles that she’s always “looking out for Norma’s salvation and Norma’s [butt].” At times, she seemed to be exactly what their movements needed. At times, she seemed hellbent on complicating an issue that they found to be absolutely simple and clear.

This made her the perfect Jane Roe, the perfect figurehead of the abortion issue, because it wasn’t simple for a lot of people. Antiabortion activists with accidental pregnancies suddenly find themselves calling Planned Parenthood, convinced that their situations are exceptional. Pro-choice women who terminate pregnancies can move through unexpected grief. At various points in her life, Norma McCorvey represented the issue in all of its complexities and untidiness.

This also made McCorvey a difficult Jane Roe, because movements want their heroes to be pure.

Nick Sweeney wasn’t sure that McCorvey would agree to his documentary. She’d been turning down interview requests for years or demanding payment, which is journalistically unethical (Sweeney says he gave her a “modest licensing fee” to use her family photos and personal video footage in the documentary).

He thinks she agreed to participate because she knew she was nearing the end of her life and because Sweeney hadn’t approached her with an agenda. He didn’t want to make an abortion rights or antiabortion film; he simply wanted to know about her as a person. “There’s a temptation to reduce her to something like a trophy or an emblem, but it’s important to know there was someone who was a real person,” Sweeney says. “People on all sides wanted her to be the person that suited their aims, and in a lot of ways, she just wanted to be herself.”

Does Sweeney believe that McCorvey was telling the truth in her bombshell revelation that she was just faking it for the antiabortion movement? Yes. But does he also believe that she had experienced a sincere religious conversion? Yes.

Did he ask her whether she regretted anything about her choices over the past 20 years? Yes.

And what did she say?

“She said no.”

There’s a scene in the documentary when the clip of McCorvey’s revelation is played back for all of the other participants, one by one. Robert Schenck, Charlotte Taft, Gloria Allred — they all hear McCorvey say, “I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say.”

One by one, they all gasp.

“It felt like such a betrayal,” Taft says in an interview. “The stakes were so high.”

“Seeing it was shocking to me,” Schenck says in an interview. “Not because of what it revealed about her, but what it revealed about me and the movement. She forced me to be honest with myself.”

The antiabortion movement had used her, he thinks now. They’d used her image, and her story, and her regret, and they’d shaved off all the rough edges, turning her into a perfect poster girl instead of a person.

Which is so easy for people to do with abortion. Get so caught up in scrambling for the moral high ground, you forget about the women underfoot.

In recent years, Schenck has had his own reckoning with abortion. He used to be an absolutist: no exceptions, no excuses, no justifications. In recent years, his position has softened; he understands why some people’s life circumstances might make abortion the best option for them. And he’s grown disillusioned about the public debate around abortion.

“Realizing how much the political leaders on both sides had exploited the issue — that seemed to be very problematic, morally and ethically,” Schenck says. “I’m not ready to celebrate abortion; I still think it represents a tragedy and a failure. But I think the human realities around it make it understandable.”

So, what to make of Norma McCorvey? Maybe she works best as a symbol of a different kind of struggle — personal, not political. It’s the struggle that comes with trying to reconcile our untidy, doubt-ridden, trophy-seeking inner monologues with the roles we inhabit in America’s morality play.

In the end, McCorvey seemed to make a sort of peace with the legacy of Jane Roe. “Women have been having abortions for thousands of years,” she says near the end of the documentary.

“If it’s just the woman’s choice, and she chooses to have an abortion, then it should be safe. Roe v. Wade helped save people’s lives.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Funny to watch the boss of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Stefan Oelrich, scrambling and sweating as if he was realizing what he says only after he said it.

So yeah, they’re fine and dandy and back to killing off… I mean ‘managing the growth’ of poorer populations. If they’ve ever taken a break from it. Watch this!

Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made this statement at 2021’s World Health Summit, held in Berlin from October 24-26.
But what if I told you this is not even his greatest gaffe in that speech alone?!
Incoming, stay tuned! 😉

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

In an increasingly baby-minded world, I had to pull out the crayons again.
I feel embarrassed for the human race that I have to explain this and so many people need to see it.

These guys are funded by Bill Gates btw

Is It ‘Eugenics’ to Abort Unborn Babies with Down Syndrome?

By Alexandra DeSanctis, staff writer for National Review and a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

“On the legal blog Dorf on Lawin an article by Sherry F. Colb, a Cornell University law professor. Colb argues that, because eugenics is defined as “a movement . . . aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race,” it is inapt to call selective abortions “eugenic,” because a woman who chooses abortion after a Down-syndrome diagnosis “understands that she is thereby doing virtually nothing to alter the human genome.”

But Colb ignores another meaning of the adjective “eugenic”: “relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring.” Though the term “eugenics” undoubtedly evokes a program of controlled, selective breeding to reshape a population, it is entirely accurate to describe as “eugenic” an individual choice to eliminate a child deemed “unfit,” even in just one instance.

Colb concludes with this argument:

What if everyone pregnant with a DS fetus terminates? What then? Do we want to live in a world in which DS people are extinct? No. There is no question but that people with DS, like people with all sorts of other challenges, enrich our world and teach us to tolerate those who differ from ourselves. It would indeed be sad if the world contained no one with DS. But just because we want a group of people in the world does not entitle us to conscript individuals to create such people in their wombs.

But of course, forbidding abortions chosen on the basis of disability cannot rightly be described as “conscripting individuals to create such people in their wombs.” When a pregnant mother receives a prenatal Down-syndrome diagnosis, she has already created a human being who might have Down syndrome (though such tests have been known to be wrong). Forbidding a woman from actively killing her unborn child based on its disability is not the same thing as conscripting her into creating that child.

That defenders of legal abortion are reduced to such arguments is telling. In the end, it doesn’t matter much whether we can rightly label certain abortions “eugenic” or whether one side of the debate has the most accurate history of racial discrimination and population control.

What matters is that, in Ohio, lawmakers have laid down a marker establishing that it is wrong and therefore that it is now illegal to end the life of an unborn human being simply because he or she is diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality. Supporters of abortion refuse to respond to this argument, because to do so would expose the logic of all abortion, which, regardless of disabilities, grants some human beings the power to declare the lives of others not worth living.”

Gates conducted an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS to explain the rational for his charitable contributions:

MOYERS: You could have chosen any field, any subject, any issue and poured billions into it and been celebrated. How did you come to this one? To global health?

GATES: The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population… reproductive health.

And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that’s still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down.

You know I thought it was…before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.

And the fact that health leads parents to decide, “okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing.

So Gates is interested in improving health because he believes that would reduce the amount of people on the planet.  His goal is not to help people but to eliminate them.  He states that if people are healthy that they will want fewer kids but he doesn’t offer evidence to support this and frankly it doesn’t appear to make much sense. Why would a sick person who could die at anytime want to have kids if they knew there was a good possibility they wouldn’t be around to support the child?   Does Gates really believe this or is this just his cover story so not arouse any suspicions about his true motivations?  Gates also admits that he notes that he previously shared the opinion with Malthus that health should not be improved because that would encourage population growth.  If you remember Malthus wanted villages built near sewage to encourage disease.  Now he doesn’t disagree with Malthus that population growth is bad he only disagrees on how to reduce population.

I don’t believe that Gates’ actually thinks that improving health reduces population.  I think that he is using global health as a stalking horse to eliminate population.  Gates’ could donate money to provide basic healthcare to poor Africans like Doctors Without Borders, he could build hospitals, and he could help provide low cost health insurance to the millions who can’t afford it.  Bill Gates money could be spent improving access to safe drinking water and providing sanitation services.  His money is spent on any of this noble The elites of the world choose to spend the tax dollars of the American middle class on contraceptives, abortions, and vaccines.  Kenyan gynecologist Dr. Stephen Karanja observed, “USAID and other Non-Governmental organizations funded mainly by the U.S. Government have targeted our people with a ruthlessness that makes one shudder. Our health sector has collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, most of which are supplied with American money.”

“Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to the poor health services…. Malaria is epidemic in Kenya. Mothers die from this disease every day because there is no chloroquine, when instead we have huge stockpiles of contraceptives.” – SOURCE – I used this not for authoritativeness, but for logic and because it very much speaks my mind too. And I fact-checked it.

IT WORKS BOTH WAYS, AS YOU BALANCE AND STEER IT.
SOURCE

THE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON IT

Population Control is GENOCIDE

(This interview with Sister Aset was first published in Global Africa Pocket News (GAP News) Vol. 1, No. 7 Sept. 1994. It was submitted to Caribbean Times in January ’96 but never published) #14
SOURCE

What is population control?


The United Nations Population Fund would like us to believe that it is a benign process of ‘voluntary’ application of ‘family planning’ to control the ‘rate of growth’ of the world’s ‘sustainable’ population within ‘manageable’ levels in relation to the amount of ‘food’ and ‘consumable goods’ the earth can produce. That is as far from the truth as the divide between the very richest and the very poorest people on this planet.
The truth is that population control is the process by which Global Europe (whites, Caucasians, Aryans) seeks to guarantee its perpetual domination of the rest of the human race because of its own fear of annihilation. According to Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, it is this fear based on the fact of their numerical minority status and their low level of surface melanin, which drives them to commit the most atrocious crimes against humanity, in particular, the most feared nation of all, Global Africa (Black people).


Is it true that the world is over crowded and moving towards an unsustainable population level?


No. Absolutely not. Overcrowding can be measured by one method only that is whether there are too many people to fit in the space available. The most densely populated continent area in the world is Europe, (see GAP News #7, Population Figures), but do Europeans think there are too many people in Europe? Of course not. But they believe there are too many African and Asian people in Europe. That is not overcrowding that is racism.


What about all those starving Africans? If they can’t feed themselves surely, there must be too many of them.


No, that is not the case. Those “starving Africans”, Asians and other “Third World” peoples produce most of the world’s surplus food. Most of the food they produce are luxury or raw, unprocessed goods which are sold cheaply as exports and re-imported as expensive processed foods.
The main reason though, why there appears to be not enough food to go around is not because the so-called third world cannot feed itself, it is because Global Europe, less than 25% of the world’s population uses or wastes over 80% of the worlds food goods (consumables) but produces less than 15% of it. So the “third world” make up 75% of the world’s population, produce 85% of the world’s consumables and consume less than 20% of all that is consumed. If they consumed as much as they produced, Global Europe would be dying of starvation, not Africa.


Is the African population expanding too rapidly?


Let’s look at the evidence: After being systematically depopulated for 400 years, Africa is now the least populated continent in the world with a density one-sixth of Europe’s. Africa’s death rate is more than twice that of Europe. To be level pegging, Africa’s death rate should also be one-sixth of Europe’s. When these dishonest people talk about population they make reference only to birth rate. They show that Africa’s birth rate is nearly three times that of the European rate, but forget to mention that the infant mortality rate is 5 times higher in Africa.
They never talk about density except in reference to Asia or to say that “Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa”. They forget to say it was a quarter the density of any country in Europe. They forget also, to tell you that in order for Africa to get to the same population density as Europe (is Europe overpopulated?) the African birth-rate has to be more than 12 times that of Europe (6 times if the death rate becomes equal) for a whole generation.
So, when they talk about “equalizing” or reducing the African birth rate, while at the same time nurturing conflict, manufacturing famine, and importing disease to increase the death rate further, you begin to get the picture. If the birth rates were made equal and everything else remained the same as they are now, each time Europe’s population doubled Africa’s population would be halved. The world’s population may become “stabilized” as they like to say it, but the percentage ratio between the nations would continue changing to their advantage. (See GAP News #5)
It is understandable then, why Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a senior Vatican official cried that if the precepts of the UN Population Control Conference in Cairo were to be implemented the world would experience “the most disastrous massacre in history”. He should know, it was his organization, the Roman Catholic church, which sanctified the trade in African lives, resulting in the death of over 200 million people.
Some of the liars say that deaths in war time make very little difference to the population growth because after a war birth rates usually increase to compensate. Certainly, that is true when mostly male soldiers are killed. But when two thirds of the female population are murdered, like the Rwandan slaughter, it would take 4 or 5 generations to get back to where it was before the war. And that is the key. The women.
Global Europe have done everything they could to destroy our people but we are still here and still strong. They are now trying, through an apparently limitless line of African and Asian female mercenaries, posing as leaders, to co-opt us. To convince us that regardless of our particular environmental conditions, contrary to our own community’s social and economic needs, it would be in our individual interests to have fewer or no children at all.
Women have the power to determine the fertility or sterility of our nation. It is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to be misled into committing generational suicide. We carry the future of our nation in our hands. We are here because those before us gave us life. Let us give life to our children. We deserve to live.

SOURCE

FRAGMENT:

ABORTION FOR EUGENICS: CONSPIRACY OR SIMPLE CONSEQUENCE?

How one answers the question whether abortion is a tool of racial, gender, or disability eugenics depends very much on how the question is asked. Is legalized abortion a eugenicist conspiracy — a deliberate plot on the part of those favoring abortion rights to reduce the number of people of a given race, sex, or disability? Surely not. At the very least, such motivations form no part of the modern argument for abortion rights. Does unrestricted legal abortion-choice produce a disparate impact resulting in disproportionate numbers of abortions ending the lives of minority, female, and disabled fetuses? Undeniably. The aborted are disproportionately Black, female, and disabled. Is the right to abortion sometimes used, by those exercising the abortion-choice, for eugenics purposes — specifically for the purpose of aborting on the basis of race, sex, or disability? Unquestionably. Some — but not all — of the abortion–disparate impact is attributable to intentional decisions to abort based on a trait of the baby that otherwise would be born.

These are three different questions. Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Box keeps them distinct. Murray’s article, in attempting to critique Thomas, tends to smush these separate questions together in a mildly confusing way.

Begin with Justice Thomas’s Box concurrence itself. Thomas’s opinion compiles an impressive and rightly disturbing narrative of evidence that family planning and abortion advocates in the past embraced the desirability of abortion as an instrument for achieving racial eugenics and for culling persons with disabilities from the population. (There appears to be no evidence that early abortion advocates ever favored abortion for gender-eugenics purposes — aborting girls because they are girls.18×18. This is probably most simply explained by the fact that the technology for discerning the fetus’s sex before birth was not readily available until relatively recently. See, e.g., Juan Stocker & Lorraine Evens, Fetal Sex Determination by Ultrasound, 50 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 462, 465 (1977).

Han Chinese academics in Xinjiang in recent years have blamed the high birth rate among the Uyghurs and Kazaks for fostering religious extremism and poverty. According to Zenz’s research, government and academic papers have referred to the birth rate of ethnic minorities in the region as “excessive” and have claimed that the population growth and concentration of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang “weakens national identity and identification with the Chinese Nation-Race (Zhonghua Minzu).”

Population Research Institute

I’ve been meaning to put this together for this a long time now, but we owe it to An0maly that I arrived to finish it, he tipped me over with this great brand new video, where he kills it in his own terms. I just felt I need to round it up and bring more depth and definition that he can’t possibly achieve in his format. The guy is one of the clearest minds on Internet right now.

MORE References

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Can’t wait to make a video and see if YouTube bans this!

Remember “The Good Cabal” who “fortified the 2020 elections” in US, according to TIME? You think they stopped after successfully hi-jacking the US Government?
However, this group below has been described by mainstream media as “The Good Club”. Right.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

  • May 26, 2009, 11:57 AM ET

Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population, Report Says

buffettgates0526_E_20090526111421.jpg

Last week’s meeting of the Great and the Good (or the Richest and Richer) was bound to draw criticism.

The New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and others was described by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as an informal gathering aimed at encouraging philanthropy. Just a few billionaires getting together for drinks and dinner and a friendly chat about how to promote charitable giving.

There was no agenda, we were told. And no plan for a follow-up meeting.

But in an age of fallen wealth idols, it was inevitable that a meeting of billionaire minds would draw scrutiny. Surely all that money and power in one room had to spell trouble for the rest of us.

An article in the Times of London, headlined “Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb World Population,” said the issues discussed in the top-secret meeting included health care, education and–by far the most controversial–slowing the global population growth.

“Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” the article said, adding that “this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.”

Such a stand wouldn’t be surprising. Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people, rather than the projected 9.3 billion at which the population is expected to peak.

But some right-leaning blogs have started attacking the billionaires as forming a kind of secret sterilization society or giant ATM to fund abortions. It fed into time-honored fears of the rich using their wealth to reshape mankind in its preferred image. Some are raising the specter of eugenics.

I am not taking a stand on population control. But from what I was personally told about the meeting–and what the Times spells out further down in its story–population control was just one of many items raised during the meeting, as each philanthropist talked about what they were working on. It wasn’t the reason for meeting and there are no real plans for a follow-up confab.

The notion that this secret gathering was aimed mostly at shrinking the world’s population just doesn’t ring true.

That said, almost all of the attendees are politically liberal. Do you think this Star Chamber of Philanthropists is something to worry about or something to be grateful for?

Oprah Winfrey’s charity challenge

Eleven of the world’s wealthiest people, including Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, met in secret a fortnight ago to discuss the future of philanthropy in light of the continued global economic crisis.

By The Telegraph UK
Last Updated: 7:41PM BST 21 May 2009

Other attendees included Oprah Winfrey, the billionaire chat show host, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, Ted Turner, the media mogul, and George Soros, the man who “broke the Bank of England” in 1992.

Although details of the meeting are only now emerging, it is believed the group met to brainstorm how best to bolster charitable giving in spite of the recent reduction in wealth.

Despite market conditions, the 11 attendees still share a combined fortune of $120bn (£76bn), based on the Forbes 2009 list of the world’s richest people.

The meeting was held on May 5, at the private residence of the president of Rockefeller University on New York’s exclusive Upper East Side.

It is not known if the attendees discussed working together on a charitable basis, although all present have been involved in philanthropy in some shape or form.

Mr Gates has bestowed the majority of his $37bn fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while Mr Soros last week pledged $50m to the Robin Hood Foundation.

Article deleted and retrieved with the Wayback Machine:


Wednesday May 20, 2009 
America’s Top Philanthropists Hold Private Meeting to Discuss Global Problems
By Chronicle of Philanthropy 

In a quiet meeting closed to the news media and the public, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Sr., Oprah Winfrey, and other leading philanthropists met in New York this month to discuss ways to promote charitable giving and make their philanthropy more effective in fighting problems at home and abroad.
The unusual event, which occurred May 5 at Rockefeller University in New York, was an unprecedented gathering of the world’s wealthiest — and most generous — people. Together, the philanthropists in the room have committed a total of more than $72.5-billion to charitable causes since 1996, according to Chronicle of Philanthropy tallies.
While the meeting and its hush-hush nature has triggered intense speculation by the news media about what was discussed, Patricia Q. Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said it was simply a gathering of people who have a common passion for helping others.
“A group of philanthropists came together to discuss their giving,” said Ms. Stonesifer, who attended the meeting. “There’s really no secret about that. It was an informal get-together and a chance to exchange ideas about what motivates them and what they have learned so far.”
“There was an enormous amount of enthusiasm and excitement around their giving and that was a very big part of what they were there for,” she added.
Among the high-profile participants were Ted Turner, Warren E. Buffett, George Soros, Peter G. Peterson, Eli Broad, and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. (All of those philanthropists have appeared at one time on The Chronicle’s ranking of America’s most-generous donors.)Mr. Buffett, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Gates called together the elite group, sending a short letter of invitation to each of the guests. Mr. Rockefeller arranged the location — the private Manhattan residence of Rockefeller University’s president. (Mr. Rockefeller is an honorary member of the institution’s Board of Trustees.)
Ms. Stonesifer, who helped coordinate the meeting, said it started at 3 p.m. and lasted through dinner. Given the personalities in the room, the meeting touched upon a variety of philanthropy topics, said Ms. Stonesifer, who is currently chairwoman of the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents.“
It was a wide-ranging conversation,” she said, “but they each shared what motivates their giving, their areas of focus of their work, the lessons learned, and thoughts on how we might increase giving.”
Indeed, the philanthropic interests represented on that day were rather diverse. For example, Mr. Peterson, co-founder of a private-equity firm, is focused on changing the government’s financing of social programs and other fiscal issues, while Ms. Winfrey has primarily given money to education efforts in South Africa and elsewhere.
Ms. Stonesifer — and others who attended the event — declined to say what was specifically talked about. The former Gates foundation leader did say that the attendees are not working on a major collaborative charitable project but do plan to continue to talk to one another.“
It was a really great discussion, and we agreed to continue the dialogue in the future, but there were no specific action items out of the meeting,” she said.
With such a powerful guest list, some blog writers have fixated on the meeting as the origins of some international conspiracy. But Ms. Stonesifer objected to the meeting being described as a “secret” event with mysterious intent.“
It was a private gathering. There are often opportunities for each of these individuals to discuss their giving in public — and they often do. But this really was a conversation among friends and colleagues.”
She added: “People are automatically curious about these types of things. But they were all quite matter-of-fact about why they were there. It was like a gathering that you and I have, but it was just a different group of friends and colleagues discussing what they care about.”

But you’re crazy to suspect anything malicious.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

How can you call yourself “intelligent” when you can’t understand simplest concepts like “consent” and you’re completely disconnected from human nature and feelings?
What better proof that the system is broken than the broken souls it produces industrially?

Fake news from Breitbart, Tucker didn’t tie him to human engineering, Tucker observed he’s so tied he barely speaks about anything else. More evidence below

You may have seen this show, yet Carlson gave you but a peak. I give you more than you can carry.
Warning: The only people who will not lose sleep over this are those who paid attention to this scandal when it started, almost a decade ago, highest echelon elites and the pseudo-people who clap at Jimmy Kimmel’s IQ-19 brainfarts.

This video has been recorded in 2013, but the guys was already making waves since 2012, see below.

Note from TED’s YouTube channel, under this video: Comments are disabled on this video. We made this difficult decision for the TED Archive because we believe that a well-moderated conversation allows for better commentary from more people and more viewpoints. Studies show that aggressive and hateful comments silence other commenters and drive them away; unfortunately, YouTube’s comment moderation tools are simply not up to the task of allowing us to monitor comments on so many videos at once. (We’d love to see this change, YouTube.) So for now, if you’d like to comment on this talk, please use Facebook, Twitter or G+ to discuss with your networks”

Dude’s credentials are almost as spectacular as his talk. Meaning this is what it takes to prosper in the scientific environment lately.

2007

He’s always been this freaky and obsessed with shortening people, he must be the polar opposite of tall.

The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making

by S. Matthew Liao , Julian Savulescu , and Mark Sheehan

“As a general point, it is entirely conceivable that in some natural, social, or psychological circumstances, having a normal body may be a disadvantage. In H.G. Wells’ short story “The Country of the Blind,” Nunez, a mountaineer in the Andes, falls and comes upon the Country of the Blind. Nunez has normal vision, but in this society of blind people, he is disadvantaged, and he eventually consents to have his eyes removed. Similarly, in a world of loud noise, being able to hear could be a disadvantage. In the case of apotemnophilia—a body dysmorphic disorder in which the patient feels incomplete possessing all four limbs—doctors justify amputation by reasoning that the patient’s psychology demands it. In Ashley’s case, having a normal-sized body could be a disadvantage.”

SOURCE

2012

Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers

Posted by Leo Hickman, Wednesday 14 March 2012 @ theguardian.com

Authors defend controversial academic paper saying their online critics have misunderstood nature of philosophical inquiry

Leo blog : Xbox game Deus Ex which is bio-modification of humans
Screen grab of a character from the computer game Deus Ex : Human Revolution, which is about bio-modification of humans. Photograph: deusex.com

Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed “unsettling”. Liao explained how his paper – entitled, “Human Engineering and Climate Change” – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how “biomedical modifications of humans” could be used to “mitigate and/or adapt to climate change“. The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy” to engender a better “correlation” with environmental problems.

Both the interview and the paper itself include a prominent disclaimer. As the paper says:

To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.

However, that wasn’t enough to prevent an extremely hostile reception to such ideas. Climate sceptics were the first to vent their anger. Somewhat inevitability, terms such as “eugenics”, “Nazis” and “eco fascists” were quickly being bandied around. One sceptic blogger said that the “sick” Liao and his co-authors should be “kept in Guantanamo”. Another said the paper “presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West”.

But prominent environmentalists were also keen to denounce the paper. Bill McKibben tweeted that the paper contained the “worst climate change solutions of all time”. Mark Lynas tweeted that he thought it was an “early April Fool”. It was hard to disagree.

So, were the philosophers who co-wrote the paper surprised by the reaction? Or had all their critics misunderstood what they were trying to achieve? I contacted each of the authors in turn, and a co-editor of the journal, and asked them.

Liao was the first to respond:

First, I think that our paper/position is being grossly misrepresented by some people online. As we specifically say in our paper, a) we are not necessarily endorsing any of the solutions we have canvassed; and b) if these solutions were available, it should be up to individuals to adopt them voluntarily. Ross Anderson, the writer of the Atlantic interview, also makes this clear.
Secondly, the term “eugenics” often gets brought up whenever people mention human enhancements. This is unfortunate because my co-authors and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort the Nazis had done in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). The way the term ‘eugenics’ is used by some of the people who are against our proposal, it seems that voluntary use of contraception would be a form of eugenics.
Finally, many people who are against our proposal explicitly deny that climate change is really a problem. Given this, it is not surprising that they would find our solution to what they perceive as a “non-problem” incredible. Indeed, some of these people have also said that encouraging people to drive less is an overreaction to climate change. Our paper is intended for those who believe that i) climate change is a real problem; and ii) who, owing to i), are willing to take seriously geoengineering. All bets are off if someone doesn’t accept i).

I then sent the following questions to Liao’s co-authors, Dr Anders Sandberg and Dr Rebecca Roache, both based at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. (Roache was at the institute when the paper was first being drafted 18 months ago, but has since left to be a “full-time mum”.)

Has your paper been misrepresented online? If so, how and why?

Sandberg: Most reactions are not based on what we actually wrote. People who comment on anything online have usually not read it, and then people comment on them, and so on. You are lucky if people remember the original topic, let alone any argument.
People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people. What we are actually saying is that changing our biology might be part of solving environmental problems, and that some changes might not just be permissible but work well with a liberal ethics.
Climate change and many other problems have upstream and downstream solutions. For example, 1) human consumption leads to 2) a demand for production and energy, which leads to 3) industry, which leads to 4) greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to 5) planetary heating, which leads to 6) bad consequences. One solution might be to try to consume less (fix 2). We can also make less emissive industry (fix the 3-4 link), remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (reduce 4), geoengineering that cools the planet (reduce 5) or adapt to a changed world (handle 6). Typically people complain about the downstream solutions like geoengineering that they are risky or don’t actually solve the cause of the problem, and say we should go for upstream solutions (where a small shift affects the rest of the chain). So, what would be the most upstream solution? Change human desires or consumption. While this can be done partially by persuasion and culture, there are many strong evolved drivers in human nature that act against it. But we can also affect the drivers.
For example, making people smarter is likely to make them better at solving environmental problems, caring about the environment, adopting a more long-term stance, cooperate better and have fewer children. It is of course desirable for a long list of other reasons too, and many people would freely choose to use enhancements to achieve this even if they cared little about the world. If there was a modification that removed the desire for meat, it would likely have not just green effects but also benefit health and animal welfare – again many might decide to go for it, with no external compulsion.

Roache: Yes. We argue that it might be worth considering making available some seemingly bizarre solutions to climate change, for people to use or not as they wish. We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it’s part of the learning process.

What do you say to those who are claiming you and your fellow authors are “eco Nazis”, “eugenicists” etc, for publishing this paper?

Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity. That probably disqualifies me from being an eco Nazi.
Certainly one can imagine nasty governments imposing various green policies on the population, forcing them to act in ways that benefit the environment. But our paper doesn’t give them any particular ethical support: if you are willing to infringe on people’s reproductory liberty, why not just prevent them from consuming as much as they want? Green totalitarianism might be possible, but it is hardly moral – because it is totalitarian and doesn’t respect individual rights.
Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them.
I think parents should be allowed to select genes for their children (“liberal eugenics” in the term of Nicholas Agar) – the reason eugenics in the past has been such a bad thing was because it was 1) coercive, 2) imposed centrally by the state, and 3) often based on bad science. If one can avoid these problems I do think it could be useful: in that sense I am an eugenicist. However, I suspect other technologies are going to change our species faster than genetics.

Roache: I say that they haven’t read the paper! We explicitly state that we do not endorse coercion, and that we envisage human engineering to be a voluntary activity. The solutions we discuss may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but that does not entail they are not worth exploring.

Did you predict this level/type of response?

Sandberg: A bit. When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling – I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper.
The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don’t think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking.
You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions. I’m not convinced about that: there might indeed be win-win enhancements that are both good for us individually, for society and for the environment, and they should be supported. What the paper does is to take environmental goals and collide them with some common bioethical intuitions (the sacredness of the natural, that human biology must not be touched, etc.) – that hopefully produces an uncomfortable itch that will stimulate some real thinking about what we want to give prioritiy. Could there be ethical reasons not to do things that would help the environment? Could there be environmental needs so pressing we would be forced to budge our biological policies?

Roache: It was always a possibility. Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly. The fact that we presented it as a response to the widely-discussed problem of climate change is also relevant here: it’s not unusual for philosophers to write about wacky and horrifying ideas, but non-philosophers are rarely interested in them because they often have no obvious bearing on real life. For example, I was working on this paper at around the same time as I was working on a paper about whether it is conceptually possible for more than one person to inhabit a single body; but the publication of the latter passed without comment from the Daily Mail.

Ultimately, what were you trying to achieve with the paper? Are
people interpreting it too literally, namely, believing you personally
would advocate for these ideas?

Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it – and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea… they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics.
The core idea is that we should not imagine that our biological nature is exempt from being part of a potential solution to environmental problems. In our opinion methods of changing people, habits, technology or the environment are all possible approaches, and what matters is whether they work, have good effects, are acceptable and practical, not what kind of method they are.
My personal view is that human engineering on its own is unlikely to fix climate change. The methods we mention are all too weak, indirect and slow. But thinking about out-of-the-box approaches is useful: too much of the climate debate has been forced into doctrinaire camps where any consideration of alternatives is heresy. Big complex problems are unlikely to have simple and neat solutions: we need to investigate (and perhaps use) a lot of approaches.
I do think that in the long run humanity has to become posthuman if it wants to be truly sustainable. I have a little essay about it here:
http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/03/a_really_green_and_sustainable_humanity.html
But this is not feasible for the next few decades, at the very least.

Roache: We wanted to encourage people to think about a group of solutions to climate change that have so far been ignored, despite the fact that in many cases it would be scientifically possible to implement them. Human engineering may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but this does not mean it could not turn out to be feasible and promising: telephones, “test tube babies”, and personal computers are all important aspects of modern life that were once regarded as bizarre and unrealistic. Of course, human engineering may ultimately be unworkable; but this should be because it is impossible to implement, or because its costs outweigh its benefits. It should not be rejected merely because, at first glance, it seems unappealing. And discussing it is itself valuable: it is by exploring and assessing potential responses to a problem that we make progress towards solving it.

I also asked Benjamin Hale, assistant professor of philosophy and environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and co-editor of Ethics, Policy & Environment, why the paper is being published and whether the journal anticipated this sort of response. He said:

We accept submissions from scholars across the academic community. The article went through the same double blind peer reviewed process that all of our articles go through. We haven’t received any questions on it yet. You’re our first. By publishing this article, we are not endorsing it at all. We have circulated the paper widely and are publishing between seven to nine critical responses from ethicists across the field.
The things I’ve seen written on it so far appear to miss the point. The article was clearly not a positive policy proposal. Instead, it was a series of Swiftian philosophical thought experiments more designed to contextualize actively discussed schemes like geoengineering, written by a professor who is not otherwise engaged with the climate community. In the same issue, we will be publishing several other articles critical of geoengineering.

In total, the responses indicate that both the authors and journal stand squarely behind the controversial paper and believe its critics have woefully misinterpreted its contents and the reasons for publishing it. One thing is sure: they have certainly been successful in courting attention (not to be sniffed at in the world of academic publishing, or any form of publishing, for that matter).

But if their aim was to generate a pensive, wide-ranging philosophical debate on the subject of human engineering and climate change I’m not convinced they have been successful. Well, not yet at least, if the online reaction is anything to go by. There remains a danger, too, that the paper will be used in the future as a stick to attack any suggestion of environmental action: “Let them do this, and this will be next on their agenda.” However, I agree with the authors that we should not fear debating such ideas – even if the end result is that we still roundly reject them.

2015

2017

He returns to TED with optogenetics and other DARPA-funded nightmares. Remember optogenetics, because you’ll hear a lot about it in the near future, at least from us.

Also this shameless thing:

2018

SOURCE

2021:

Tucker Carlson: Is Google Funding “Human Engineering” Scientific Research?

 Fox News
On Date June 23, 2021

TUCKER CARLSON: How many other dangerous, potentially world-altering experiments are going on right now, in this and other counties, funded by the secretive daisy-chain of government health agencies, and powerful NGOs? Experiments you’ve never heard of but that could change your life forever? If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious, and oops, they escaped from a lab, what else are they doing? You’re not supposed to ask of course. You’ve been commanded to “trust the science,” and get back to watching Netflix. Only a Neanderthal asks questions. That’s been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it, it’s all good. But why should that continue? Now that we know liars and moral pygmies — people like Tony Fauci, and the soulless bots at Google HQ — and running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.

For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.

Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering.”

MATTHEW LIAO: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical robust framework I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically. But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems, one thing is climate change. Climate change is a really big problem we don’t really know how to solve it but it turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.

Here’s a tip: anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them. And you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”

Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul. People are living beings. They’re alive. They can’t be engineered. Liao the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this. He outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in the Journal of “Ethics, Policy & Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem, of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers, it turns out. How can we get people to stop eating hamburgers? Not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something, if they believed they did it, if they didn’t believe you, they didn’t. But it turns out that’s too time-consuming. The new model is we just use pharmaceuticals. Your kids are getting uppity? Dope them out, and they’ll obey. Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat. Given that climate change is an “existential threat,” that’s limiting our time on earth to 20 years, or 12 years, or 6 months, or pick your exaggeration, it’s hard to imagine a pill like that would soon become mandatory. Sound like a dystopian fantasy? It’s not. Liao is deadly serious. He said so at the “World Science Festival.”

MATTHEW LIAO: So here’s a thought, we have this intolerance for example I have milk intolerance, some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.

TUCKER CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.

Again, says the bioethicist, “human engineering” is the answer. But wait a second, you ask. Human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we decide this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again? True. But bioethicists have short memories apparently. And in any case, climate change is a pressing emergency. We don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.

So here’s an idea, said Liao at the World Science Festival: let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now. A race of dwarfs. They’d eat less, and be cheaper to transport. And that would reduce greenhouse gasses.

MATTHEW LIAO: So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people right. But if we are smaller just by 15cm, I did the math that about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller. So think of the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children. So that’s something we can do.

Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.

This is what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity. It’s a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real. In fact, Google might be funding it right now.

Same day Carlson picked on him and he responded with this tweet, guess what else he spent two hours on?
Discussing anti-natalism on YouTube with the Romanell Center for Clinical Ethics, who has three subscribers. Numerically.
As the name suggests, anti-natalism is hardcore eugenics that would make Hitler frown.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

They’ve pushed an old senile lady down the stairs. Literally.

The short course
SHARE THE VIDEO
The long course

UPDATE MAY 24M 2021

NYT HAS JUST CONFIRMED EVERYTHING AND BEYOND

But I’m not going to post that, I’m linking you to something better:

The New York Times has published a lengthy article revealing how the world is undergoing a “paradigm shift” of rapidly declining fertility rates, but fails to mention the possibility that environmental pollutants such as plastic chemicals are playing any role in the decline.

by Summit News

In an article entitled ‘Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications’, the NYT reveals how there is a global “fertility bust” which represents “a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.”

The piece notes how a demographic time bomb has the potential to cause social and economic catastrophe, but celebrates the notion that it would be good for the environment.

“A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women,” write the authors.

The authors highlight how virtually every area of the world except for Africa, where the population will continue to grow, will be hit by rapidly dropping fertility rates.

“Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating,” states the piece, adding, “Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.”

Nowhere in the lengthy article is it mentioned that there could be cultural or environmental factors causing the drop in birth rates or anything beyond prosaic economic factors.

As we previously highlighted, a top environmental scientist recently warned that plastic pollution is shrinking penises and making men infertile, meaning most of them won’t be able to produce sperm by 2045.

“Phathalates mimic the hormone oestrogen and thus disrupt the natural production of hormones in the human body, which researchers have linked to interference in sexual development in infants and behaviours in adults,” reported Sky News.

The chemical, which is used to make plastics more flexible, is being transmitted to humans via toys, food and other items.

Exposure to such chemicals has also worsened as a result of face masks becoming ubiquitous since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Last year, a CNN piece acknowledged that if sperm was an animal it might be “heading toward extinction in western nations” and that one of the potential causes of testosterone and sperm counts are plummeting across Europe and North America was “pollution and chemicals in our food, clothes and water.”

The establishment has also relentlessly promoted the ‘virtues’ of not having children to westerners for decades, one of the latest examples being a piece about “the benefits of being single” published by CNN on Valentine’s Day.

The NYT piece also completely fails to mention how many of the same people now pushing global warming alarmism also pushed the ‘population bomb’ myth for decades from the 1960’s onwards.

America’s fertility rate currently stands at 1.8 births per woman.

From 2007 to 2011 the fertility rate in the U.S. declined 9% in the space of just 4 years.

In 2016, the U.S. fertility rate fell to 59.8 births per 1,000 women, the lowest since records began.

Fertility rates for white women were down in every US state in 2017, while among black and Hispanic women, fertility rates were up in 12 and 29 states, respectively.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

History​ lessons we haven’t learned. After the Renaissance, most human abominations had been backed by fabricated “science​ consensus”, it became a good sales pitch in some cases. The idea that the health of the public is more important than the health of the individual is older, and it’s the perfect excuse for eugenics; it has been revitalized and modernized by Nazis, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution aka The Fourth Reich is normalizing it now​. Pharmafia​ and its lemmings are deeply involved in the Nazi experiments (Bayer/Monsanto/BASF especially).
No abuse could’ve happened without the participation of those who took on themselves to protect us from suffering. Today, the people who “care” have aligned behind our planetary kidnappers, and the people who science for health have since normalized cancer in kids. It’s a never-ending self-feeding pandemic​ of moral failure and low intellectual effort

“Cizik School of Nursing has created a REMI Platinum Award-winning documentary film that tells the grim cautionary tale of nurses who participated in the Holocaust and abandoned their professional ethics during the Nazi era. The 56-minute film, Caring Corrupted: the Killing Nurses of the Third Reich, casts a harsh light on nurses who used their professional skills to murder the handicapped, mentally ill and infirm at the behest of the Third Reich and directly participated in genocide.” – Cizik School of Nursing

The Cizik School of Nursing at Health University of Texas is ranked in the Top 12 Percent of graduate nursing programs nationwide, according to the latest survey results by U.S. News and World Report. Nurse Anesthesia master’s/doctorate program (at No.8) still is ranked by U.S. News in the Top 10 in the U.S. Since 1972, Cizik School of Nursing has granted more than 12,022 nursing degrees to its graduates. For more information, go to: https://nursing.uth.edu/

DOWNLOAD PDF

UPDATE;

AMAZING INTERVIEW WITH ‘HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR’ AND HUMAN RIGHTS CHAMPION VERA SHARAV CONFIRMS EVERYTHING WE’VE SHOWN AND MORE

Stand for Health Freedom recently had the honor of sitting down with Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav and capturing her personal story on film. It’s a story that every individual needs to hear.

Ms. Sharav is the founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a nonprofit public watchdog organization dedicated to upholding informed consent in medicine. A renowned champion of human rights and expert in biomedical research ethics, Ms. Sharav offers rare and valuable insights into the public health arena and state of emergency affecting each and every one of our lives. She also shines a light on the corruption plaguing our national vaccine program —  and the decades-long targeting of Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities for unethical medical experiments.

You can learn more about Ms. Sharav and her pioneering work to protect children and human research subjects at ahrp.org.

Also this:

DR. REINER FUELLMICH INTERVIEWS WW2 SURVIVOR VERA SHARAV ON COVIDIOCRACY AND THE HOLOCAUST
Exclusive: Bill Gates behind MTV’s “Holocaust Happened to People Like Us” – really spooky stuff

Epilogue:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!