
Phantom — in comments, recently — mention at the basis of all the leftist policies is the idea of overpopulation: the Malthusian hot mess that believes humans, like some kind of fungus will reproduce till the Earth can’t support them.
I’d never realized that. It is true sort of, though it’s perhaps based on an even crazier premise which in turn is at the very heart of not just socialism/communism but the idea that anyone gets to arrange all of human life from the top down, to spare individuals’ making wrong decisions. Which is, objectively, an idea so crazy that you can’t figure out how any human alive can think it.
And yet, if your theories tell you that humans are too stupid to stop reproducing when they’re starving, then any level of intervention is justified, because, OBVIOUSLY humans are brainless.
This tells me, btw, that good old Malthus understood bupkis about human biology. People can reproduce on relatively poor nutrition, but if actively starving, your body will reabsorb the embryo. And with anything short of the pretty decent nutrition of say the late 18th early 19th century (much improved over previous centuries due to among other things relatively cheap world-wide commerce) not only will you have trouble getting pregnant, but also you’ll have trouble raising that child to adulthood. So, when Malthus was getting his freak out on it was due to an increase in the ability to feed people that led to an increase in successful pregnancies and raising children to term.
No? Go read any story of a village or biography of a normal person, in early to modern times. Getting pregnant at all was difficult, birth was often lethal, and you often needed to have 10 kids to raise two or one.
But Malthus saw the increase in his time and thought “this goes on forever” and people can’t think or control themselves. Which makes perfect sense of the fact that he hooked up with Marxist ideas to become foundational to the left.
That it is wrong goes without saying. I actually don’t have any idea what the population of the world is, which is fine, because neither does anyone else, including those who’ve made their entire career out of proclaiming we’re eight and a half billion.
In fact, no one knows, because this data is collected by international organizations designed to pay per-capita to “struggling” nations. (Or struggling people in general. I think our underclass numbers are vastly exaggerated, which might be the point of importing more via open border.) Struggling nations can no more count their population than they can do anything but enrich half a dozen kakistocrats. So they estimate what will bring those kakistocrats more money and attention, internationally. For that matter, chest-beating would be empires (snort) like Russia don’t really have the ability, or interest in counting their population. Instead they come up with a highly flattering number and fly that. I’ll point out the fact they admit they have demographic trouble tells you it’s actually much worse. Same for China, and for that matter Arab countries. Look, if most of the real patriarchies of the world sent out a survey, it would go mostly to men, right? (Even in Portugal when I was little it went mostly to the head of the family. I.e. a male.) And if you think any male in the third world patriarchal cultures is going to write down he has fathered less than 10 kids, you’ve never met one of them. For context, though dad wasn’t Latin enough to claim more kids, he did report my weight wrong when he went to register me as being born at home, because being a tall and broad shouldered male, he assumed if he reported less than 3.5 KG everyone would think he’d been cuckolded. Look, he had scientific training. This doesn’t mean the culture wasn’t in there, giving him rats in the head that even his very premature daughter had to be big or people would assume she wasn’t his.
That’s a very minor incident of data corruption, and dad is not backwards, and Portugal wasn’t really third world. Now apply that to most of the world. Then tell me why you trust the statistics and numbers that come from these places.
So, I don’t know what our population is. But I know we’re not 8.5 billion. We’re probably not 5 billion. And I suspect the replacement of population worldwide has been in free dive from the early seventies and only higher longevity for the elderly has masked it. That and attributing high birth rate to the places of the world that not only absolutely can’t count but get paid for estimating more people.
And no, most people haven’t been not having kids because of world population. Most people have curbed childbirth because children are expensive, emotionally and physically demanding, and having a kid is as one of you said “Consigning a part of your heart to running around in someone else’s body forever.” And frankly, the state is already taking so much from each of us, not only in money, but in the labor required to even file for tax calculation, that most of us are running full tilt eyes closed before children. This might be intentional on the government’s part, or just their tendency to take every dram of available time and energy, so you can’t rebel, anyway. And that’s worldwide, btw, at least in places that function well enough to have even a government as such, and not a mob that claims to be a government.
Speaking of, Malthus was sure we’d run out of food. I’m not sure we would have, even without the wonderful innovations in agriculture and refrigeration and processing. Someone with more time and patience for the research can do it, but in the famines I’ve researched, from the 18th century on, almost all were what I’d call political famines. There wasn’t a lack of food. Your government/tribe/conqueror/despot just didn’t let your group have any. Absolutely nothing with too many people for the world to feed.
In face, our current afflictions are doing their level best to create a world wide famine, even if it necessitates sacrificing all agriculture to Gaia.
Which brings us back to okay, so we’re not overpopulated. There is no need to control humans from above to stop that kind of death for the species, but what about all the other stuff.
Scratch a statist and you’ll hear “Humans are stupid. I need to control them for their own good.” Which frankly always makes me want to ask them what is their species/planet of origin. Oh, they’re human? Well. Humans are stupid, shut up. (They are not wrong, btw. Humans are stupid. Which is why we can — barely — trust each human to do what’s best for him/her. Asking a single human to know what’s best for the entire species is just … bizarre. And impossible. Heck, asking a human to know what’s best for anyone beyond his immediate family — and even there the errors overwhelm the wins) is mental. BECAUSE humans are stupid. All humans. Perhaps particularly those who think they can decide for others.)
But a lot of socialism originates in “there is so much suffering in the world” from sob sisters — most of them male — who grew up well off and suddenly realize not everyone can afford bespoke shoes.
Seriously, a lot of early 20th century communists were motivated by their desire to elevate the poor, and make sure everyone had education, and everything they themselves had. Which of course starts with imagining everyone values what they do. (In that sense Pygmalion (or whichever was the original play) at least got some “poverty” was self inflicted. It came from a rooted belief the well wisher was superior to the object of his charity but it wasn’t ill intentioned, or at least not perceived as such by the person him/herself.
Of course, trying to eliminate suffering passed through redistributing everything, without attention to actually made or created and who were parasites, and it passed through feeding all the mouths, regardless of whose, by confiscating the food others grew to give to those who didn’t have it. In the process the idea that this “socialism” (I remind you the USSR itself never called itself communist) should also create a designed evolution of man, to eliminate what was viewed as the cause of suffering: self interest whether in work or sex or….
The end result was mass deaths, as it would be. Of course.
I don’t know how any of you were my kind of crazy as a kid, but I was always bringing back a bird (or puppy, or kitten or even mouse) who’d gotten injured/orphaned/was too young to live on its own, and ran makeshift infirmaries in cardboard boxes, bins or for older birds or birds almost well enough to be released, the upstairs bathroom.
Whenever I dragged one of my sad cases home, mom would flinch and say “You’re only going to prolong their suffering.” Which of course was true, except that my rate of loss was actually less than half. I mean, did they suffer more than just getting their neck swiftly wrung? Sure. But most of them recovered to go back out/be adopted/live their lives. Did they suffer more that way? Undoubtedly. If nothing else, they eventually died, because I don’t assume any of them became immortal. BUT they got to live for a while, most of them.
However, as Jordan Peterson says every human life ends in tragedy, and honestly every animal life too. So yeah, eventually they suffered more.
And that’s the problem. Eventually the only way to save humans from suffering is to kill them — even if your goal is to stop suffering, and not just to control everyone.
And this combines with the fact that once you make the state responsible for every individual, the individual becomes a debit instead of a credit in the column. The individual is always going to “cost” the state. Particularly if you let the individual get old. Particularly if the individual is not perfect. And if you believe there are already too many humans. There are always too many humans because they cost money.
Instead of being a credit, a self aware individual who makes enough for themselves and more, who creates and changes and enriches everyone, the individual at any age but the most productive becomes a debit. And from society’s POV it’s better if he’s dead.
And that’s why — as foretold in (my) prophecy — when the homeless start getting rounded up and killed, it will be the left doing it for “merciful” reasons. It’s already happening in Canada. When maladjusted, unhappy kids are killed without event he parent’s permission, it will be the left doing it. It’s also already happening in Canada. And when they round up the misfits, the gay, the trans, the too smart, the too dumb, the Odds, it will be the left doing it. After all, if they don’t fit in, the only way to spare them the pain of being a minority is to kill them.
When society decides it’s going to spare everyone suffering; when society decides everyone is a collective charge, a debit, then it becomes a ravening monster, swallowing humanity.
It always happens. And the collectivists have the nerve to look surprised and look for other reasons, like “nationalism” or “racism” or whatever. Every single time.
Each individual no matter how flawed adds something and is a credit, even if just by giving us someone to love and care for. And as such, every individual is indispensable and unique. You might not personally like someone, but it’s neither your duty nor your right to control their every decision and interfere in their every action. It is not your right nor your duty to dictate how your fellow man lives and dies. They can decide that each one by himself.
To value the individual is to value humanity. There is no other way.


























