[cia-drugs] Sentimental Depopulation

[norgesen]

Sentimental Depopulation | Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:21:53 -0300 | Source: www.timboucher.com Found via RigInt: an article entitled Oil and People: Reducing Population in step with Oil Depletion by William Stanton. His argument is that as oil runs out, we will have to reduce to population levels before the Industrial Revolution, in which oil allowed us to boost our population upwards. The funnest part of the whole thing though is that he claims that people who will resist the “cold logic” of his active depopulation scenario are nothing but “sentimentalists.”  He knows however that his viewpoint is not altogether popular: If, in this article, I discuss ways in which a global population reduction of some 6 billion people is likely to take place during the 21st Century, precedent suggests that nearly everyone will ignore me. “He must be mad”, media reviewers concluded when they read my first probes into the subject two years ago and effectively blacklisted the book But I would suggest that these types of views are actually gaining traction little by little lately, courtesy of a bump upward in visibility of primitivist philosophy. Not that I think any primitivists are yet actively promoting depopulation, but they certainly do seem all agree that its ecologically “necessary” if not specifically desirable. In any event, Stanton also raises the possibility of, essentially, merciful genocide as food begins to run out: It may well be that, in the West, the same argument will affect the thinking of militarily powerful nations. “If billions must die, and we have the technology to ensure that they are others, not us, why should we hold back”? Instantaneous nuclear elimination of population centres might even be considered merciful, compared to starvation and massacres prolonged over decades. He sees that as a “worst case” scenario though, unless “enlightened governments and their peoples” figure out something better. I would wager that as discussion of these topics heats up, we are bound to see more and more people crossing the line of what was previously moral indignation over ideas like this, and see an increase in active discussions of this kind. He then begins to analyze what he probably sees as harsh truths and which he believes that he is one of the few people man enough to engage in this kind of thinking: Probably the greatest obstacle to the [more peaceful “natural” population reduction] scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless. Survival in a Darwinian resource-poor world depends on the ruthless elimination of rivals, not the acquisition of moral kudos by cherishing them when they are weak. See also eliminative materialism and positivism, which all have their roots in this same Enlightenment/Industrial Revolution period that Stanton suggests we need to move, in spirit, back beyond. It has, as far as I can tell, only ever been the “masses” who were fed the line about human rights and the sanctity of human life. The master caste, big brother, has never really adhered to any of these airy-fairy “sentimental” principles because they have greater freedoms which we do not have. But it is in their interest and the interest of social cohesion to foist these “sentimental” ideals on us. He continues: So the population reduction scenario with the best chance of success has to be Darwinian in all its aspects, with none of the sentimentality that shrouded the second half of the 20th Century in a dense fog of political correctness (Stanton 2003 page 193). It is best examined at the nation-state scale. The United Kingdom will serve as the model. To those sentimentalists who cannot understand the need to reduce UK population from 60 million to about 2 million over 150 years, and who are outraged at the proposed replacement of human rights by cold logic, I would say “You have had your day, in which your woolly thinking has messed up not just the Western world but the whole planet, which could, if Homo sapiens had been truly intelligent, have supported a small population enjoying a wonderful quality of life almost for ever. You have thrown away that opportunity.” The Darwinian approach, in this planned population reduction scenario, is to maximise the well-being of the UK as a nation-state. Individual citizens, and aliens, must expect to be seriously inconvenienced by the single-minded drive to reduce population ahead of resource shortage. The consolation is that the alternative, letting Nature take its course, would be so much worse. So in other words, he is saying that it’s our fault - yours and mine - that our sappy sentimentalism, belief in human rights and “wooly thinking” has gotten things so screwed up. And it’s not actually the fault of those people who have been actively operating according to the type of technocratic “cold logic” he has been arguing for here all along. The point that he is obscuring - the part that he is lying about - is that our sentimentalism was EVER given a chance to run things, that it ever truly won the day. It almost did. Sort of. A couple of times, in a few isolated instances. But it did NOT catch on as a principle of governance. However, it did catch on as a system of morality to control the wage-slave population. But how that is our fault, I have no idea. Further, Stanton talks about what will happen if a nation actively (without resorting to overt genocide against its own citizens) depopulates, that it will become the envy of its neighbors, who will then wipe themselves out: Initially the greatest threats to UK security would come from rogue nations unwilling to curb traditionally high birth rates but lacking the means to feed the ever-growing numbers of new mouths. In the past, these were the poverty-stricken nations that repeatedly received humanitarian aid and famine relief, which did nothing to reduce the birth rate. In a Darwinian world, Nature would take its course. In consequence, their populations would reduce particularly fast and their threat would fade away. After four or five decades the populations of the UK and other nations following the same scenario would probably be halved. In the rest of the world, where Nature was doing the reduction in an ambience of massacres and destruction, the proportionate fall would be greater and the pain would have been terrible. In the UK, in contrast, where orderly population shrinkage would have outpaced resource shrinkage, a relatively comfortable quality of life would have been enjoyed throughout the period. There would have been no loss of technological expertise, but it would no longer be employed in grandiose energy-wasteful projects. Instead, there would be intensive research into cost-effective methods of renewable energy recovery. Enter the Technate stage right. If you haven’t been understanding my obsession with technocracy before this, pay attention now, because it is what he is describing in no uncertain terms. It is a system whereby a region isolate itself in a “comfortable quality of life” and waits patiently while the savages outside the gates starve themselves to death and brutally destroy one another. I’m sure I already have people reading this, thinking: “Well, what’s wrong with that?” What can I say? I guess you don’t share my sentimentality. One closing note, he adds at the end: Another problem is likely to be the residual opposition to population reduction from sentimentalists and/or religious extremists unable to understand that the days of plenty, when criminals and the weak could be cherished at public expense, are over. Acts of violent protest, such as are carried out today by animal rights activists and anti-abortionists, would, in the Darwinian world, attract capital punishment. Population reduction must be single-minded to succeed. Remember that thing I said a couple days ago about opposition being built and manipulated into a usable position. These “violent acts of protest” would of course be useful rhetorical means to culturally link “sentimentalists” and “religious extremists” (which I now belated realize is a coy reference to people who believe humans have a soul) to an outmoded destructive attitude which is no longer usable now that our “days of plenty” are long past us.” You either buy into their program or become tomorrow’s terrorist. [Also see the “humorous” videos of Nina Paley on overpopulation over on the Aftermath blog and tell me that primitivism doesn’t dovetail neatly with what’s being described above!] http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/09/14/sentimental-depopulation/ http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/News/ __._,_.___ Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM SPONSORED LINKS Independent broker dealer Independent director Central intelligence agency Central intelligence agency employment Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___