Science tends to ignore verbal arguments that don’t involve observation or measurement (and regards even math with suspicion) because we’ve seen so many false arguments that look reasonable on paper. Take the argument that “Our current pattern of growth cannot be continued indefinitely.” What does that mean? It can’t just refer to population, since technology and gender equality tend to reduce population growth. (We can easily find modern conservatives moaning about shrinking populations. More on them in a second.) “Growth” appears to mean energy use. Certainly oil will run out at some point. But from where I stand, past evidence suggests we can find replacement sources of energy (and fertilizer) if we actually put some money into it. At this point the rules of science don’t seem to answer the question one way or the other. (Go ahead and form tribes if you want to, this may have value even if I’m right.)

Tim, in one comment you mention “survival of the fittest” and “Darwinism”. I think I’ve said before that the scientific theory of evolution doesn’t include a damned word about fitness, unless we take it to mean the chance of reproducing in some specific environment (one that includes humans cutting ivy, in the case you mention). Nor does it necessarily mean that humans must compete with each other for survival. Darwin compared his theory with Rev. Malthus’s in Origin of Species, but he also said that Malthusianism does not logically follow from Darwinism (nor does the unholy union of Rev Malthus and Machiavelli). You must know that when Stanton refers to his nationalistic plan as “the Darwinian approach”, he simply misuses the name to give his words an undeserved air of science and reason. Stop letting him get away with it. If you must abuse Darwin’s name, at least modify it and speak of Pop Darwinism.

They are banking on the idea that we will all become so sick and cynical that we will practically beg them to come out into the open and admit that.

The rules of science say “they” do not exist. (Remember what I said about leaders in the real world? Stanton and friends have no power, but even they seek moral or quasi-religious justification to calm their instinctive aversion to mass murder.) W and Cheney et al do not have any grand plan to survive a Collapse. I doubt they even bother to justify their assumptions the way Rev Malthus did. They seek power and wealth because they instinctively assume ‘we’ need to compete with other humans, with no scientific examination whatsoever. Although they have an argument of sorts for their views in other areas, this argument tries to obscure Machiavellian competition rather than justifying it. And it has little to say about international relations. When thinking of the world at large they just automatically assume one group will seize all the resources (as someone hinted in a later thread). And far from pushing depopulation, they argue for more white babies to help seize resources while forcing Americans into their baby-centric Right Way of Living. No part of their position seems derived from positivism, much less science. It owes a lot more to some fool’s interpretation of Genesis. And its claims of rationality seem like later additions motivated by the weakening of religious authority.

Reclaim civilization in the name of love and optimism! Sentimentality forever!

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The greatest weapon us ‘hungry hordes’ possess is the strength of numbers.

Whoa, holy shit! You’re right. I mean I knew this, but seeing it put into this context - of course they’re in favor of depopulation, because they know their armies and their weapons and their propaganda can’t reach all of us for ever. Hence, wipe us out and consolidate the survivors into concentrated centers to more easily administer and control

I would prefer it if they just came out and said, “I am the hand of death. You die now.”

That’s my point exactly. They are banking on the idea that we will all become so sick and cynical that we will practically beg them to come out into the open and admit that.

I have no problem with natural selection as such

I actually do. Or rather it is with the concept “survival of the fittest.” Because it ignores happenstance. I was thinking about this at work the other day as we cut back a bunch of ivy teeming with potato bugs and spiders.

That these bugs lost their home (and probably died) had nothing to do whatsoever with their fitness. Rather, it had to do with purely chance occurrences: the chain of events linking a person to purchase this property, to choose to hire my company, to choose to remove the ivy, to pay me to do so. Darwinism speaks nothing about any of those events

William Stanton’s logic is insane, he has a poisoned ego- and must be marginalized.

I tend to agree with you that this thinking needs to “marginalized” and hence my recent crusade to that effect. Thinking about it though, how do viewpoints get marginalized by mainstream media? It is not by proving that they are logically contradictory or that they are damaging to the human soul. Instead it is by linking people to dirty laundry and discrediting philosophies by destroying people’s characters.

And maybe that’s what conspiracy theorists who are bent on uncovering proof of satanism and pedophilia are doing - taking a cue from mainstream media and how they marginalize people through character assault. Funny that its coming, of course, from the margins.

For if his thinking becomes accepted his insanity will spread to the nations.

It is my belief that his thinking HAS been spread to all the nations, and it happened possibly as long as 250 years ago but in a different form. It has been the goal, since then, to slowly erode the institutions and belief systems which stand in the way since then. My ultimate fear of the Technocracy movement is that they seem to be advocating that the Malthusian/Machiavellian bastards finally come out of the closet and give us the “hard truth” - at the barrel of a gun of course.

We are of course, getting closer every day to that: see the sexualization and fetishization of terrorism and of repression:

http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent/1403878.html

Why don’t we work on lessening the massively disproportionate environmental impact of the first world (aided, in large measure, by our technology) and work on effective birth control?

Or, you could skip that step altogether and, as you almost suggest - destroy the first world! Not that I’m suggesting that, just that it seems like a logical conclusion to this line of thought…

I imagine that the proponents of primitivism today use the same reasoning; that equality and liberty cannot persist in the unatural state of national boundaries and “patriotism.” Are they too proponents of a one world socialist government?

I think this speaks more towards what they are all about, or at least one of the central conflicts in their philosophy.

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/09/15/anti-civilization-flame-war/

Look up green anarchy or anarcho-primitivism for more on them, I think.

They do not seem to be in favor of a world socialist government. They instead seem to favor the collapse of civilization altogether, upon what I believe is the misguided notion that civilization will simply vanish and none of the drives which caused it be a problem any longer. They seem unable or unwilling to recognize that there are many who are actively preparing/promoting for such a fall and are waiting in the wings to take over when it happens…

He should put his money where his mouth is

That’s exactly what he wants, except not for him - for you!

John: Holy shit! Did you notice that movie comes out on Christmas day, a day associated with both birth and with saving the world?

it is becoming more difficult for the poor as energy costs increase.

I have no problem with natural selection as such; I know why I’m alive and where my food comes from. But when people use the term ‘natural selection’ in relation to people it makes me very uneasy. Some random thoughts:

1) ‘Natural’ is just a thinly veiled moral justification for being the selective agent, so let’s be honest and just call it ‘Selection’. I would prefer it if they just came out and said, “I am the hand of death. You die now.” Of course they won’t do that because then we’d be justified in defending ourselves pre-emptively, hmm?

2) In the ‘cold logic’ of natural selection there is no ‘greater good’, so any moral justification for ‘management’ of the population is hollow and self-serving and can rightly be regarded as irrelevant. It’s about actions, not intentions.

3) Notice how these grand plans always deny the masses the possibility of being the selective agent? Piracy and guillotines, bad. State-administered nuclear genocide, good. If natural selection really is the guiding principle here then I strongly suggest we all have at it with no holds barred.

4) The greatest weapon us ‘hungry hordes’ possess is the strength of numbers. No wonder the PTB feel a little overwhelmed right now. We have their backs against the wall, and their shaking fingers hover above the nuclear button not for any reason other than blatant fear.

5) If they fear us then they’re not as powerful as they claim. Managing a large, intelligent, caring population must simply be beyond their feeble capabilities. They can only manage a small population of savages. That they would kill us all is a sure sign that we’ve outgrown them, and that they’ve given up.

Ha ha! We will accept the challenge. We will try where they have failed. We will suffer and bleed in order to live. If we must cull, we will start with the pessimists.

People of Earth, strike now while the iron is hot! Reclaim civilization in the name of love and optimism! Sentimentality forever!

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”

Nietzsche

Kind of an ironic statement considering Nietzsche died insane
William Stanton’s logic is insane, he has a poisoned ego- and must be marginalized. For if his thinking becomes accepted his insanity will spread to the nations.
I try not to hate anything (I have my dislikes) but I feel something close to hate when I see the word ‘eliminative materialism’ and its attempt to reduce being to something so mechanical and what not. And I have felt my entire being opposed to this type of pure positivism. I do not want to see humanity locked up in a perverse logical prison.
There are people out there that can change the world for the better, but they have compassion and have actually have a soul not decimated by logic. So, looking at Stanton’s cold logic- I raise my middle finger emphatically at it.

I fail to see how massive genocide is less painful than continued war due to starvation, etc. They both look equally horrific from where I’m standing, except for the added horror of the obviously Hilter-esque reasoning being used in the first case. It is of course “them” and not “us” who are the problem, and who will die. Ironically enough, Stanton himself would be one of the very first victims if his idea of “cold logic” were taken to rightful end. Let’s face it, it’s far more practical to kill the relatively small number of people in the first world who are causing by far the most strain on the earth.

Why don’t we work on lessening the massively disproportionate environmental impact of the first world (aided, in large measure, by our technology) and work on effective birth control? Condoms, not genocide!

Rousseau was Adam Weishaupt’s main influence, and he taught his Illuminati disciples a version of this philosophy mixed with a tinge of revolutionary fervour. Weishaupt’s concept of virtue stems from his Rousseauian influences. Jean-Jacques Rousseau equated true virtue with the purity of mankind in its infancy before it was corrupted by civilization. This virtue was still apparent in the “savage” races that were being encountered by explorers in the forests and jungles of North and South America. By comparison, the despotism of western culture, with its class structures and inherent inequality, was considered inferior and contemptible. When Weishaupt says, “man must see sensible attractions in virtue”, he means that his disciples must appreciate the sensibility of destroying civil society, controlled by “the protectors of disorder”; instituting in its place a more virtuous ideal: the restoration of a primitive, utopian, egalitarian society based upon natural law.

Similar to Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality of Mankind, Weishaupt had prepared his own dialogue which was read upon initiation into the grade of Illuminatus Dirigens. It is a plagiarized version of Rousseau combined with Machiavelli. Weishaupt:

Nature makes us begin at infancy, from infancy she raises us to manhood. She at first left us in the savage state, but soon brought us to civilization … At that period men enjoyed the two most inestimable blessings Equality and Liberty … An infortunate germ soon vivifies in the breast of man, and his primitive peace and felicity disappear … PROPERTY started into existence; men chose habitations; agriculture made them intermix … LIBERTY was ruined in its foundation, and EQUALITY disappeared. … Nationalism, or the love for a particular nation, took place of the general love … it became lawful to abuse, offend, and despise foreigners, to attain that end—and this virtue was styled patriotism … the origin of states and governments, and of civil society, has really proved to be the seeds of discord, and Patriotism has found its punishment in itself. …Diminish, reject that love of the country, and mankind will once more learn to know and love each other as men.

I imagine that the proponents of primitivism today use the same reasoning; that equality and liberty cannot persist in the unatural state of national boundaries and “patriotism.” Are they too proponents of a one world socialist government?

Weishaupt went on to tell his disciples that they, the Illuminati, were destined (and the only one’s competent enough) to lead mankind back to virtue - much in the same manner as the technocratic elite, proposed by Saint Simon and his pupil Auguste Comte.

Suggested additional philosophical reading would include ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli, ‘Brave New World Revisited’ by Huxley, and ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ by Nietzsche. Ecological readings should include ‘Collapse’ by Diamond, the series of ‘Limits to Growth’ books, and ‘The Population Bomb’ by Ehrlich. Finally, a good grounding in the phenomenon of ‘Hubbert’s Peak’ aka ‘peak oil’ is essential. Several recent books have been published on the topic including ‘Beyond Oil’, ‘Powerdown’, ‘Twilight in the Desert’, ‘Out of Gas’, and ‘The Oil Age is Over’.

Ok, if you can handle the truth, here it is.

All the required reading for fellow-Malthusians. Interestingly, Nietzschean Lady reccommends Machiavelli as her first choice. The depopulation crowd’s ideological bedrock is indeed the Machiavellian/Weishauptian “the ends justifies the means”.

From Machiavelli to Weishaupt, and then to the Jacobins in French revolutionary France - the Jacobin Club took the philosophy to heart. After the revolutionaries gained control, one of the first order’s of business was to address the overpopulation of France. They wanted to reduce the population by one third: from 25 million to about 8 million. According to Nesta Webster, quoting the revolutionary Babeuf:

“In the eyes of Maximilien Robespierre and his council,” says Babeuf, “depopulation was indispensable because the calculation had been made that the French population was in excess of the resources of the soil and of the requirements of useful industry, that is to say, that with us men jostled each other too much for each to be able to live at ease; that hands were too numerous for the execution of all works of essential utility — and this is the horrible conclusion; that since the superabundant population could only amount to so much … a portion of sans-culottes must be sacrificed; that this rubbish could be cleared up to a certain quantity, and that means must be found for doing it.” (World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization, p. 56)

Same exact arguments by the elite Club of Romers today. Back in revolutionary France though, the means to cull the population was still relatively barbaric. Prudhomme, again according to Webster, estimated that 300, 000 people during the Reign of Terror were either drowned, guillotined or shot.

Trust - me - they’ll even get the born agains to green light birth control and abortions for the ‘undesireables’.

It’s all so repetitively depressing … groan. This guy’s a real berk isn’t he?

And as to woolly thinking, he should look to his own brain. Perhaps if we’d tried the sentimentalist ideas - you know - like human rights, abortions and birth control for everyone - TRUE right to die - investigation of other means of energy (there’s plenty you know if we go about it the proper way) - REAL recycling - actual education - O I could bore you and go and on - perhaps we might not be in the fix we’re in.

This shite-wipe doesn’t seem to realise that it’s the ‘masters’ thinking that got us here.

Honestly …

D.

well, kind of:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/childrenofmen/large.html

pretty interesting I think. 1984 + some kind of depopulation scenario!

when criminals and the weak could be cherished at public expense

When did “criminals” (no specific type specified) and “the weak” become one and the same. What is weak? People who are crippled? Need glasses? This guy is a real piece of work. He should put his money where his mouth is - I am all for population reduction for him. He should stop talking and start forming a short line for the “pop-reducto” machine, then jump on in. What about an attempt at reduction of consumption before population decimation. 300 million americans consume a hell of lot more resources than 200 million Brazilians, for example. Does the logic extend to the point where those “mighty” countries have to reduce in proportion to what they use, or is it a considerable scenario only if it’s them not us?