(OT) Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need To 'Cull' The Surplus Population

solookup

Membership Revoked
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html

Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need To 'Cull' The Surplus Population

Prison Planet| June 10 2004

Here is a re-cap of some of the things "HIS ROYAL VIRUS", Prince Philip has said in public concerning "culling the population"

Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.


Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.

I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.


Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.

It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.


Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] ... that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.


Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.

I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the ``cull'' to the size of the surplus population.


Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.

The great difficulty about ``life'' is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively.... It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.

...|When the Bible says that man shall have ``dominion'' over God's creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in ``having power over,'' or dominion as ``having responsibility for.''



"Conflict Between Instinct and Reason"

Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.

The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man's affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind's physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. ``Adapt or die'' is as true today as it was in the beginning.


Introduction to ``Exploitation of the Natural System'' section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.

It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world's natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.

The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.


Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24 1969.

We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.


The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.

If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.

I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.


Introduction to ``The Population Factor'' section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.

What has been described as the ``balance of nature'' is simply nature's system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation--and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism--are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.

Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world's human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.

Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival

Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.''

Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?

A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed--not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.


Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.

I do believe ... that human population pressure--the sheer number of people on this planet--is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world's climatic and atmospheric systems.

The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches six and then 10 billion.... All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.


Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony, July 16, 1973.

There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.


Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London, Feb. 18, 1981.

I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.


The survival of the "most important"

Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.

Q: Is birth control part of the solution?

A: Yes, but you can't legislate these problems away. You've got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they're at the receiving end. They've got to accept the measures.


The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.

As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today's total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.


Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.

So long as they [birth control methods] ... remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.

In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.


Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.

The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.


The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.

The object of the WWF is to ``conserve'' the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.


A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.

It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes' time have believed in and advocated the control of society by ``philosopher kings.'' According to Plato, ``its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,'' but--realistically--he added, ``and the greatest aptitude for war.'' Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.

====================


Pray for the persecuted. Visit Voice of the Martyrs. Be sure to sign up for their newsletters: http://www.persecution.com/?CFID=277091&CFTOKEN=40560694
 

USDA

Veteran Member
This guy, excuse me, this Royal is an Oligiarch...rich and privilaged...and they all think alike...

The planet is their's and their view is being blocked by too many unwashed bodies.

So...the answer is always the same...off with their heads.

:dvl2: "These privilaged and rich are my favorites...they think the way I do...which is Satanic, of course....!" :dvl2:
 

Jumpy Frog

Browncoat sympathizer
Actually, he does bring up some good ideas/points, regarding over population and the impact the "civilized west" has had on the native populations around the world.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Actually I think a more accurate description of the man would be a cowardly, Godless, ignorant, brainwashed, self-centered elitist. But that is just listing his good points.
 

Bill P

Inactive
The Prince must be reading Jay Hanson's http://dieoff.org.

I do think it is too late to accomplish a meaningful population reduction on a global scale. The key word being "meaningful" as in asjusting population sufficiently downward to reduce the depletion of critical resources like oil, water, arable land.

Prince Charles is also rathyer outspoken on "Sustainable Development" which is another part of the Overpopulation/Depletion dilema. So I suppose this shows there is real, ongoing discusssion by many of the elites as to what to do about the Problem.

Their problem is they are vastly outnumbered and need much of the general populace to maintain a meaningful economy and their place of privelige.

When the real SHTF, I think this elitist will Fall like the rest and the survivors will be much more practical, democratic and egalitarian.
 

Onebyone

Inactive
The virus could start with his royal hine ass and his children and family line then they would not have to worry about the issue now would they?
 

Bill P

Inactive
Cross post from RunningOnEmpty2@yahoogroups:

Peak Oil/Overpopulation is being debated in the Halls of New Zealand's Parliment as per the following excerpt from their official, on the record transcript:



JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance:
Has Treasury revised its assumption that crude oil prices will ease
back to an "equilibrium" price of US$19 per barrel; if so, what are
the Government's current assumptions for oil price trends between now
and 2020?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Treasury is yet to begin
its revised forecasting round for the December Economic and Fiscal
Update. When that happens it will specifically identify the need to
revisit the assumption for oil price trends.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What planning, if any, is the Government doing to
reduce the dependence of the New Zealand economy on oil, in light of
the fact that the price of light crude today is nearly US$48 a barrel?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My colleague the Minister of Energy is working
hard on sustainable energy options. It would be helpful if some of
those options, such as hydropower and wind power, were more
enthusiastically supported by the Green Party.

Rodney Hide: Given the concern over high petrol prices, has the
Minister sought the advice and guidance of Mr Jim Anderton, the
self-styled "Minister for Lower Prices"—as he told this House on 30
March, 2000—or is Mr Anderton missing in action on this one, as well?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Anderton has certainly expressed concerns to
me about the impacts of rising oil prices. Perhaps we could all hope
that the various elements in this House will use their best endeavours
to ensure, for example, that the Middle Eastern situation settles down.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What does the Minister understand by the term
"peak oil", and when does he expect it to occur?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have to confess that, for once, the member
has floored me; I do not understand what is meant by the term "peak oil".

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree, then, that the price of
any commodity is likely to rise over time, when demand is increasing
exponentially while supplies are being restricted by physical limits;
and does he agree that oil is a commodity that has just such
characteristics?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In theoretical terms, yes; in practical terms,
no. We have yet to reach the point where it is at all clear that new
discoveries in oil—and I now think I understand what the member was
getting at before—fall below the level of the projected demand for
oil. At the present time, the production of oil is actually outrunning
demand, and stockpiling is occurring. Prices are high because of,
primarily, the uncertainty in the Middle East, plus the growing demand
from China, plus the somewhat confused situation—to put it
kindly—surrounding oil and gas companies in Russia.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister been advised that the current
oil demand is 81 million barrels a day and the total capacity of the
world's oilfields to produce oil is 82.5 million barrels a day; and
does he think that that provides sufficient headroom for demand to
continue to increase—for example, with China's 40 percent increase in
demand in the last year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, therefore, the member has confirmed
what I have just said: supply is actually exceeding demand at the
present time. And, as prices rise, that will encourage both new
exploration and also new exploitation of known reserves that were
previously uneconomic to exploit—for example, the extremely large
Canadian oil shale reserves.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister been advised that for some time
now oil discoveries have been running at the rate of one barrel for
every four that are burned, and how long does he think that that can
continue; further, has he been advised that Canadian shale and tar
sands oil will be extremely expensive compared with current supplies,
as well as a lot dirtier?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Certainly on the last point, given the nature
of the area there are severe environmental issues, and exploitation
would certainly be more expensive. But it does seem to me rather odd
that a Green Party member would bemoan a rise in price for a limited
product.
 

chickenrancher

Veteran Member
The "newest" reference was 1988

Surely there are more updated remarks by him? I find it hard to believe he's kept his self-serving comments to himself.

Maybe he'll be reincarnanted as an ant, and we can have the fun of squishing him and his family, and thereby decrease the population.

:lol:

cr
 

fruit loop

Inactive
This is nothing new

Prince PHilip has been sticking his foot in his mouth for years. He's made crass public remarks about rape and child abuse too.

Do what the Brits do - roll your eyes and go on with your life.
 

Phil Ca

Inactive
What can you say about a guy that wishes he were a "feminine hygiene" product so he could be closer to Camilla Parker Bowles??? .....and he needs to do something about those ears too!!! :lol:
 

north runner

Membership Revoked
It almost sounds as if the Prince is bemoaning the powerlessness of the elites.

Can elites produce more oil when its peaked - no

Can they get birth control & abortion accepted over religious objections - no

Can they stop the immigration flood into the u.s. - no

Can they stop the species dieoff and environmental destruction - no

Is democracy going to destroy the planet - yes

Can overpoulation be stopped by man made measures - no

[I can't find much to disagree with there.]
 

Scrapman

Veteran Member
Damn good Idea

Lets start with the super rich that contribute nothing to mankind ,But pisspoor opinions and stupid advice .. :fgr: All in agreement Say {I}
ROYAL ASSHOLE :fgr:
 
ainitfunny said:
Actually I think a more accurate description of the man would be a cowardly, Godless, ignorant, brainwashed, self-centered elitist. But that is just listing his good points.


Since abortion to include late term abortion is legal. How late can it be applied? Can it be "grandfathered"?

"Judge not lest ye be judged." Let God sort it out. Frist you die then the judgement. But my human-ness wants to :sldr: help God out. :shk: So much for us solution oriented males!!!
 

fruit loop

Inactive
Phil Ca....

....that was Prince Charles, not his father.

The only royal who really worked was Diana. She hustled her hiney off doing charity work.

And Fergie. Fergie had a real job, and they made her quit. Ditto for Sophie Rhys-Jones.

God forbid they should have to work!
 

Snipe Hunter

Veteran Member
Say is'nt Prince Philip the British poster child for birth control :)

Since he wants to cull the population .......then I guess he would'nt mind being FIRST

I am sure he would want to set a good example for everyone else :rolleyes:
 

Phil Ca

Inactive
Fruit Loop: You are right,.........just shows how much credance I put in any utterances by the so-called "royals" or their brats. thank goodness my English ancestors bailed when the did, or i might be speaking English with an accent! :lol:
 

A.T.Hagan

Inactive
If this is all there is to get worked up about it must be a slow day.

North Runner,

Good observations.

.....Alan.
 

Dancr

Inactive
In all fairness to Prince Philip...

... he does not seem to have said the words "We need to cull the surplus population" as insinuated by the title of this thread. At least, he did not say that in so many words in any of the many Prince Philip quotes provided in the Prison Planet article by the same name: <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html">Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need to 'Cull' the Surplus Population</a>

I'm willing to bet that he did not say it at all, considering that Prison Planet seems to have done a very thorough job of searching throughout his publications and transcripts of his various speeches. If they had found such a quote, surely they would have included it.

Instead, what we have is a possibly inaccurate interpretation of his position presented as a quote. Not only is it presented as a quote but it is preceeded by the phrase "in his own words."

This is a dishonest tactic. It is alright to present one's own interpretation of what someone else has said. But it is not right to present a derivative product as the original person's "own words."

I have a different understanding of Prince Philip's position, even though it is based only upon the selected quotes that appear in the Prison Planet article. By my reading, Prince Philip wishes to avoid the widespread human suffering of war and hunger and disease by bringing runaway population growth under control. Whose control he does not say. He does not specify that he means under 'his' control, under state control, under UN control, under women's control, under control by space aliens, or whatever. I get the impression that he probably would prefer a solution along the lines of developing world culture that recognizes the limitations of our resources that works out how to make sustainable use of them.

It's hard to know how to take the 'virus' comments, since they are presented out of context and broken up by elipses. They may be exagerations, or he may be speaking from the point of view of another species that is being displaced from its habitat.

<img align=left src="http://www.lacarte.org/images/miniminipearl.gif">From: <a href="http://www.lacarte.org/calamity/">Calamity, à la Carte</a><font size=-2><a href="http://www.lacarte.org/about/copyrights/" title="Copyrights, à la Carte: Policies About the Use of Others' Work">©</a></font> by <a href="http://www.lacarte.org/tracie/" title="Tracie, à la Carte: Where I Get to Talk about Me-e-e-e">Dancr</a> (<a href="http://www.lacarte.org/about/monalisa" title="Meet Dancr">pic</a>), near <a href="http://www.monterey.com/" title="Visit Lovely Monterey, California">Monterey</a>, <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Hgd"> California</a>-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·</i></c></a></b><a NAME="dancrend"></a>
 

Jesse

Membership Revoked
Morning!

HRH Prince Philip is no different than many who support depopulation. I recall Jacques Cousteau saying (IIRC) that we need to reduce the world's population by at least two thirds. That was just shortly before his death in 1997. In fact most of the supporters of the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit agree with him, and many advocate a reduction of 90%. Prince Charles is amongst that group, and wrote the forward to the book (mainly about that summit) "Save The Earth," by Jonathon Porrit.

These people are not monsters though, just misguided in their methodology. They want to end human suffering and misery. They want to "Save The Earth." These are noble goals to be sure. Most of them are atheists though, and believe that man is the answer to the problems we now face. I disagree, though do agree that man *did* cause the problems in the first place, and continues to. ("And I will bring to ruin those ruining the earth." )

The 90% population reduction figure is a popular one amongst those who favor depopulation. Thing is, that would only slow things down for a while, since the pyramid effect would start again immediately, and the problem would just be someone else's a little way down the road. Clearly this is not the answer.

OTOH, it *is* true that at least 30% of N. American college age young men are sterile at the time of this writing, and that percentage has been steadily rising for the past several decades. It's the food we eat, the pesticides we use, the cleaning products we employ, and the general poisoning of the planet. Interestingly, the so-called "developing nations" do not suffer from the same lack of fertility because they are not exposed to the same level of industrial and chemical contamination.

There is no doubt that we are paying too high a price for what we call "progress." I agree that we are poisoning the planet (and ourselves) and exploiting it's natural resources unnecessarily. I watch it everyday. To that extent I am an ardent environmentalist. However, culling the human population is *not* something I am in favor of. I do believe if left to itself though, mankind will kill off on a regular basis hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people via wars, abortion, deliberately imposed poverty and genetically engineered diseases. And what mankind doesn't do, the next supervirus (or two or three) will.

All of the above is based on the length of the waiting period for the return of Christ. If He tarries (and the Bible says He will) I think we are all in for some global misery, if we are spared. And it didn't have to be this way... :(

Dee.
 

delta lady

Inactive
This is nothing NEW...this debate has been going on for close to two hundred years...

Nobody here has heard of Thomas Malthus?

http://desip.igc.org/malthus/principles.html

Rationale and Core Principles
In 1830, when the English political economist, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766- 1834) was still alive, the world's human population reached an estimated one billion. It took about a hundred years for the population to double to two billion. By the end of the 20th century, less than 70 years later, four billion more humans brought the total to more than 6 billion. In the early years of the 21st century, we are adding an estimated 73 million people every year. At this rate, a billion more people will be added in less than 14 years. Tragically, the larger our numbers, the harder it is to gain control over population increases while the devastating human impacts on our environment continue inexorably.

Since prehistoric times the institution of war has persisted in spite of its terrible danger and unbounded tragedy. Why have humans never solved the problems of poverty, inequality, and oppression? We are fortunate to have had Malthus to explain in simple terms the connection between population pressure and misery, which he defined as famine, poverty, disease and war. To promote his findings, to explore the lessons that may be derived from his core principles, and to provide a forum for discussion, the International Society of Malthus was launched in 1997, in time for the bi-centennial celebration of the publication of his 1798 classic, An Essay on the Principle of Population.

The Core Principles of Malthus:
Food is necessary for human existence.
Human population, if not checked, tends to grow faster than the power in the earth to produce subsistence.
The effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.
Misery is the mechanism that balances human requirements and available resources.
Nature's requirement that the imbalance between demand and supply be resolved forms the "strongest obstacle in the way of any very great improvement of society," and thus makes "the perfectibility of man and society" a theoretical and practical impossibility.
The Principle of Population, i.e., the inevitability of misery due to the power of population to overwhelm resources, provides the mainspring behind the advance of human civilization by creating incentives for progress.
Malthus’s great contribution was to emphasize the findings of those of his predecessors such as the author of Ecclesiastes, Tertullian, Richard Cantillon, Robert Wallace, David Hume, Adam Smith and others who recognized the power of population to overwhelm the means of subsistence. Malthus drew from their understanding that there must necessarily be checks to the great power of population, or else, as Wallace put it, the “earth would be overstocked and become unable to support its numerous inhabitants.” Or as Malthus put it, “The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds, in the course of a few thousand years.”

In his “Preface,” Malthus observed that while other writers had noticed that population cannot grow beyond the supply of food, no author before him had inquired particularly into the mechanism which kept population down to the means of subsistence. Malthus also taught that the balancing phenomenon achieved by misery is a “constantly operating” and cyclical occurrence. During good times human numbers increase to the point where available resources are overwhelmed, at which point misery acts to reduce the numbers. Malthus understood that “this necessary oscillation, this constantly subsisting cause of periodical misery, has existed ever since we have had any histories of mankind, does exist at present and will for ever continue to exist…”

Malthus and the structural basis of poverty
Malthus explained how it happens that misery does not fall evenly on all sectors of the population, but falls mainly on the poor. In Chapter II he writes that there is a

constant effort towards an increase in population [which tends to] subject the lower classes of society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition…The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population …increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food, therefore which before supplied seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. (Chapter II)

Malthusian theory: a window on history
Malthus’s notion of a constantly operating check on population provides a lens through which to view all of history and politics, which can be defined as the struggle to control resources. For example, in Chapter III, Malthus employed the principle of population to explain the growth of those forces that were responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.

Want [scarcity] was the goad that drove the Scythian shepherds[ii] from their native haunts, like so many famished wolves in search of prey. Set in motion by this all powerful cause, clouds of Barbarians seemed to collect from all points of the northern hemisphere. Gathering fresh darkness and terror as they rolled on, the congregated bodies at length obscured the sun of Italy and sunk the whole world in universal night. These tremendous effects, so long and so deeply felt throughout the fairest portions of the earth, may be traced to the simple cause of the superior power of population to the means of subsistence.

Malthus asserts that the famous leaders of the Central Asian steppes may have been fighting for glory but the “true cause” that drove them was the more fundamental power of population.

An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, Italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it.


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


Ecclesiastes:“When goods increase, they are increased who eat them.”
Tertullian (3rd cent AD church leader), “The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars, and earthquakes have come to be regarded a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.” -De Anima, quoted in Hardin, 1998, “Feast of Malthus.”
Richard Cantillon (d. 1734) Men multiply like mice in a barn if they have unlimited means of subsistence.
Robert Wallace (1761) Under a perfect government, the inconveniences of having a family would be so entirely removed that…mankind would increase so prodigiously, that the earth would at last be so overstocked, and become unable to support its numerous inhabitants.
[ii] A reference to the nomads of the Central Asian steppe. Malthus uses the terminology first applied by Herodotus (5th cent BCE).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

CarolynA

Veteran Member
Just about about every problem with civilization can be traced back to, you guessed it, overpopulation. But hey, we don't have to worry about it. Nature will take care of it. Animal, insect, & plant populations are self-limiting when then reach critical mass. Wipe out one factor, such as flu, and another one pops up to bring the numbers back down. That's just the way of Nature. Unfortunately, humans try their best to upset that balance. Just look at some of the grossly overpopulated countires like India, China, & California :D
 

Burntfish

Inactive
You may not like the Prince, but the fact is that that this planet is overpopulated.

The bigget problem is that the overpopulation is mostly by those who have the least ability to support a family properly, are uneducated, are irresponsible and, in general, got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't on duty! :shk:
 

Synap

Deceased
Burntfish said:
The bigget problem is that the overpopulation is mostly by those who have the least ability to support a family properly, are uneducated, are irresponsible and, in general, got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't on duty! :shk:

"bigget" ? freudian elitist pun?

Yeah the problem with looking into pools is that you see your own reflection first.
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Interesting that no one who bewails overpopulation is willing to set the fine example of exiting the planet. They always expect the poor, uneducated, unwanted, etc. to do their dirty work for them.

Nothing new there.
 

chairborne commando

Membership Revoked
I find it fascinating that when people speak about 'culling the population'
or 'zero population growth' they never seem to include themselves.

What they really mean is that 'we think you are having too many kids'
or 'we think it would be a really great idea if you cut your throat'.
 

MataPam

Veteran Member
With increased tech/affluence/control by women, birthrates drop. Those who wish to see the population fall need only work harder for the development of the third world and especially allowing women access to contraceptives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm

"In 1990 women around the world gave birth to 3.3 children on average, the report says.

By 2002, the average had dropped to 2.6 children - slightly above the level needed to assure replacement of the population.

The bureau's projections show the level of fertility for the world as a whole descending below replacement level by 2050.

It forecasts there will be nearly 9.1bn people by 2050, just under a 50% increase from the 6.2bn in 2002. "
 

AWatson

Inactive
Don't these people realize that by releasing a super virus
etc.that not only ddo they destroy others but themselves.Good post thanks.
 

gunnersmom

Veteran Member
Prince Phillip will get his wish. The bible tells us the population will be culled, but it is probably going to come to every neighborhood, not just the poor ones.

I have believed the royals were worthless eaters since the squdgy stuff started coming out.
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
Matapam has it right:

"With increased tech/affluence/control by women, birthrates drop. Those who wish to see the population fall need only work harder for the development of the third world and especially allowing women access to contraceptives."

and therein lies the driving force behind "globalization". it's not just the idea that corporations can make more money, but that those third worlders will be able to climb on board this amazing phenomenon of the "middle class" and suddenly count themselves as part of the mass of men who survive and ascend the ladder of society via education and a skilled job. And in so doing, acquire the understanding and means to self-limit their family sizes, thus ensuring a higher standard of living for themselves and a more promising future for their immediate descendents. there is no inherent immorality in a much smaller population; just perhaps in the means used to arrive there.

if we invested as much money in developing the ability to inhabit the equatorial zones [within 5° of the equator, there are almost never any hurricanes- according to "The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316771635/002-5744690-7509654?v=glance ] of the Earth's oceans as we do in space and militaries (or cosmetics, sports, and vacations...) we would have a far greater potential for growing a vast spectrum of resources, including energy, from the Oceans.

the vast spaces readily available out on the oceans (complete with clean air, sunshine and clean rainwater) remain an untapped New Frontier for habitation.

as usual the problem is not the numbers, but our tunnel vision.
 

Burntfish

Inactive
Synap wrote:
"bigget" ? freudian elitist pun?
Yeah the problem with looking into pools is that you see your own reflection first.


No pun intended...merely a typo...should have read biggest...

Also, my husband and I had 2 children who were raised in a loving stable family. We were able to afford to have 2 but decided not to have any more because we didn't feel we could afford to.

They were both honor students, have graduated from college and are an asset to society.

To see the kinds of people I am talking about all you have to do is to turn on Jerry Springer (or a similar show) and see the kind of trash that is portrayed there...and they come in all shapes, colors and sizes.

I think my reflection is just fine, thanks.
 
Top