Commentary by: Roger Landry (TLB)
We at The Liberty Beacon project constantly push back against eugenics, genocide or programed population reduction, and will continue to do so going forward. We know, given the total population, and considering the total arable land mass of this planet, that this planet is far from overpopulated … but is that an inevitability?
Our global resources are finite and dwindling at an alarming rate, but to sacrifice your legacy, your ability to choose when and if you shall have a family, and leave this decision to the mercy of a cold, calculating, privileged global bureaucrat, is something that most of us would rebel against.
What will the criteria be for the granted privilege of parenthood, intellect, health, social standing, longevity, racial purity? And what assurance will we have that this privilege will not be corrupted and confined to those who consider themselves elite, as we already see in the wholesale corruption and complicity that festers in our governments today?
We suspect (and in many cases can prove) the mechanisms of population reduction are already in use on the global population with the USA not only immune to none of this, but is in fact the focus of many of said mechanisms. Among these we can include vaccines, GMO’s, pharmaceutical drugs, Geo-engineering and bio-toxins (just to name the top dogs). We have no say in any of this, and the poisons perpetuating this project are all legal and in many cases recommended by our very government and many other governments.
This is being facilitated by such entities as the UN (Agenda 21), WHO, Big Pharma, Monsanto, FDA, EPA, CDC etc… Research the risinginfertility rate in the USA for a real shock, and the rest of the globe is not far behind. Your right to procreate may be fading fast without your knowledge or consent, driven by the ideals of this self proclaimed elite.
Liberty is our root drive in TLB, the liberty to make the decisions that affect us personally and our families. But what if these decisions combine to have a serious impact on the world as a whole, then what is theanswer? I for one would never acquiesce my right or ability to procreate, to a global corporatocracy.… But for how much longer will this be a decision I will be allowed to make.
What we present to you here (attached below) is a different view and one we do not necessarily agree with. We present it to you because our mandate at TLB is to eradicate programed ignorance through education, and if you don’t know what those you disagree with are thinking, considering or planning, then you can never defend or push back against it until is is too late.
The information in this (attached) commentary is compelling, and some of the argument is based on a solid foundation, while other concepts are based on future technological innovations. It should all be considered to be within the realm of possibility, either today or in the near future. And those possibilities all directly effect the future of humanity in both positive or catastrophic fashions.
We are entering the realm of “the global good” infringing on personal rights and freedoms in a very large and dominant way, and once we traverse this path there is no turning back … outside bloody revolution.
This is a topic that must be discussed and debated if we are ever to leave a viable planet and peaceful society to the children we may or may-not be allowed to have.
Please read on …
In this transhumanist future, should everyone still be allowed to have unlimited children whenever they want?
EDITOR’S NOTE: THE ABOVE ARTICLE IS A RESPONSE TO THE GLOBALIST INSPIRED ARTICLE, BASED UPON DEPOPULATION, LISTED BELOW.
It’s time to consider restricting human breeding
By: Zoltan Istvan
Given the number of children that starve each day, dwindling planetary resources and the coming transhumanist era, it might be time to consider restricting human breeding, argues futurist Zoltan Istvan in this guest post
A few years ago, I was at a doctor party, the kind where tired residents drop by in their scrubs, everyone drinks red wine, and discussion centers around medical industry gripes. I wandered over to a group of obstetricians and listened in. One tall blonde woman said something that caught my attention: with 10,000 kids dying everyday around the world from starvation, you’d think we’d put birth control in the water.
The controversial idea to restrict or control human breeding is not new. In 1980, Hugh LaFollette, Ethics professor at the University of South Florida, wrote a seminal essay on the topic titled Licensing Parents. Since then, philosophers and even some politicians have considered the idea, especially in light of China, the most populated country in the world, implementing a one-child policy that is in effect today.
For most people in the 21st Century, however, the idea of restricting the right to have offspring for any reason whatsoever seems blatantly authoritarian. Telling a person when and how many children they can have violates just about every core value we possess in a free society. It’s a thorny issue made even more complicated by the coming transhumanist era, which is almost upon us.
The transhumanist age — where radical science and technology will revolutionize the human being and experience — will eventually bring us indefinite lifespans, cyborgization, cloning, and even ectogenesis, where people use artificial wombs outside of their bodies to raise fetuses.
Breeding controls and measures make more sense when you consider that some leading life extensionist scientists believe we will conquer human mortality in the next 20 years. Already, in 2010, scientists had some success with stopping and reversing ageing in mice. The obvious question is: In this transhumanist future, should everyone still be allowed to have unlimited children whenever they want?
The philosophical conundrum of controlling human procreation rests mostly on whether all human beings are actually responsible enough to be good parents and can provide properly for their offspring. Clearly, untold numbers of children — for example, those millions that are slaves in the illegal human trafficking industry — are born to unfit parents.
In an attempt to solve this problem and give hundreds of millions of future kids a better life, I cautiously endorse the idea of licensing parents, a process that would be little different than getting a driver’s licence. Parents who pass a series of basic tests qualify and get the green light to get pregnant and raise children. Those applicants who are deemed unworthy — perhaps because they are homeless, or have drug problems, or are violent criminals, or have no resources to raise a child properly and keep it from going hungry — would not be allowed until they could demonstrate they were suitable parents.
Transhumanist Hank Pellissier, founder of the Brighter Brains Institute, also supports the idea, insisting on humanitarian grounds that it would bring a measured sense of responsibility to raising kids. In an essay, he notes professor and bioethics pioneer Joseph Fletcher saying that “many births are accidental”. Accidentally getting pregnant often leaves women unable to pursue their careers and lives as they might’ve hoped for and wanted.
Naturally, some environmentalists, such as American educator Paul L Ehrlich, author of landmark book The Population Bomb, also advocate for government intervention to control human population, which would be one sure way to help the planet’s fragile and depleted ecosystems.
One of the most comprehensive works about the idea of restricting breeding is Peg Tittle’s book Should Parents be Licensed? Debating the Issues. It’s a balanced collection of essays by experts with various views on the subject.
There’s no question that some of the ideas of licensing parents make sense. After all, we don’t allow people to drive cars on crack cocaine. Why would we allow them to procreate if they want while on it? The goal with licensing parents is not so much to restrict freedoms, but to guarantee the maximum resources to those children that exist and will exist in the future.
Of course, the problem is always in the details. How could society monitor such a licensing process? Would governments force abortion upon mothers if they were found to be pregnant without permission? These things seem unimaginable in most societies around the world. Besides, who wants the government handling human breeding when it can’t do basic things like balance its own budgets and stay out of wars? Perhaps a nonprofit entity like the World Health Organization might be able to step in and offer more confidence.
I see near-term hope in what can be called a new transhuman-inspired birth control device originally developed at MIT and now backed by funding from Microsoft founder Bill Gates. The implanted microchip lasts for up to 16 years — three times current implantable devices, including IUDs — and can deliver hormones into the body via an on-off switch on your mobile phone. It’s not a huge jump to imagine governments seeing opportunity in using this. Many children born into poverty end up costing taxpayers billions. Sadly, a high percentage of those same kids will end up on the streets, in gangs, or in prison after they become adults. Just as legalization of abortion has helped drive down crime rates, licensing parents would likely have the same effect.
The approximate 10,000 starving child deaths a day that that the aforementioned doctor cited come from various reports and studies, all of which point to the fact that well over 50 million kids have died due to hunger and malnutrition in the last 30 years. That’s a lot of kids.
What’s more, 15 percent of kids in the US — the supposed wealthiest country in the world — suffer from hunger. A large portion of them are born to families that don’t have the resources to properly raise a child. After all, if you can’t feed a child, you probably shouldn’t have one. Licensing would’ve restricted many of those births until the parents were more able to deal with the challenges of procreation, which is undoubtedly the most intense and serious long term responsibility most human beings will face in their lives.
As a liberty-loving person, I have always eschewed giving up any freedoms. However, in some cases, the statistics are so overwhelming, that at the very least, given the coming era of indefinite lifespans and transhumanist technology, we must remain open-minded to consider how best to move the species forward to produce the happiest and healthiest children for the planet. Anything less will leave us with millions more preventable deaths and incalculable suffering of innocent kids.
Zoltan Istvan is a futurist, philosopher, journalist, and transhumanist. He is the author of the bestselling novel The Transhumanist Wager.
TLB recommends you visit Wired for more articles and information.
8 thoughts on “Forced Population Control: Present and Future”
Wolves will not have a family for a season or seasons if there is not
enough prey or they cannot locate a safe environment. Whether this
is a conscious or innate decision is unclear. How curious.
Wolves are highly intelligent.
Agreed. “How curious” was meant as sarcasm.
2nd cup, and I’m still half-asleep. 😳
Not the only excuse I have, either. 😉
How can one tell; there is no emotion in typing.
Nite Shift? All nite party? LOL
Neither. Don’t drink anymore, so I’m not much for partying these days. Work is normal hours 8 – 4:30/Mon. – Fri.
Good excuses for some, though.
Also, instinct is a very powerful motivator.
African Bushmen do the same, even though it requires abstenance from sex with their wives.