
If there is one thing that I’d enjoin you to remove from your mind, for the sake of humanity, please, if this idea that people are widgets who can be molded, twisted, packaged, arranged, engineered!
The proximal cause of this post is Paul Ehrlich’s death, but that’s only part of it. I might or might not, later, write a post about Ehrlich, the man who was always wrong and an actual contender for History’s Greatest Monsters, easily edging out Carter’s considerable credentials and bidding fair to compete (if in a different way) with people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Heck, he bids fair, just in lives distorted, maimed and never born to compete with Karl Marx himself. (And as a very minor footnote scared the screaming bejeezus out of me when I was a little kid, reading him.)
However, the cause of this post was a comment on an x post about Ehrlich. This man was well intentioned, I think, and trying to say “whoa, Ehrlich went way too far.”

But this what I mean by “Marxist rats in people’s heads.” This man needs a few glue traps in there to capture the rats.
Of course, I went after it hammer and tongues, in my gentle, persuasive (cough) way. That is, I started jumping up and down and metaphorically speaking throwing shoes at his head.
But on the serious side, look at all the words there. “Sensible population approach” “Nations should determine” “Sustainable population level” “Encourage/discourage”.
This man might disapprove of Ehrlich, but he’s going down the exact same pathway to hell.
The problem with Ehrlich wasn’t Ehrlich. Yes, he was a complete amoral lunatic who only didn’t encourage sterelizing agents in drinking water because that would sterilize other species too, not just human, but humanity has had plenty of immoral lunatics and immoral people, and lunatic people, including a lot of them with ineradicable self-hatred and an overarching messianic complex that have not done the damage Ehrlich managed, and in fact who, in the end did more harm than good. At least I knew one of them, who worked a decent trade, had a wife and family and was a kind father and a fun grandfather. It was only when he got to speaking about how most people in the world were a waste of space and how the world would be so much better if you eliminated 2/3 of them that you saw the madness peek out of his eyes. The difference is he didn’t have the power to sell his toxic ideas, and the credentials and ability to make entire governments either believe them or act on them because they believed it made them seem “smart and progressive.”
Now we can’t eliminate people who write persuasively — take that dagger off my back, thank you, it stings — but what actually allowed Ehrlich to do harm was this idea — which the poor man (I’m convinced he has not idea how toxic he sounds) above echoes so exactly: the idea that governments CAN AND SHOULD determine how the people of the nation should live: how many people should be born, how many die, what’s “sustainable”, what they can eat, what they can’t, how much they should exercise, what type of work they should do, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum and ad vomitus.
Without this bizarre idea that a handful of people at the top should determine all this stuff; that the smart and “enlightened” should decide when the rest of us can wipe our asses, and how many ply the toilet paper should be, Ehrlich would have been just another harmless madman, foaming at the mouth and screaming into the void — or perhaps the college classroom, which comes much to the same — without influencing mass media, the culture, and outright governments like India, China, and a bunch of countries in poor, benighted Africa.
I do understand the temptation — lead us not into — of thinking you’re smart and better read and more enlightened than the rest which fed both Ehrlich and those who fell for his load of week-old, rancid maltusian fish. I get it because I think I and most of those reading this blog fell into that trap when we were teens. We read a lot, and we were smarter than our classmates (Which, unfortunately wasn’t very hard) so we thought we should have more say in how people lived than the run of the mill kid still reading picture books in fifth grade.
Then we grew up. And in growing up we came to realize that though — by and large, and with exceptions — we could run circles and figure eights around most people in the fields we were really good at, even with half a brain tied behind our backs, there were things that were utterly impossible for us that other people did easily. And I’m not talking about the bane of my existence in middle school, aka, “dribble a basketball” but things that are needed for every day life. I’m complete and utter drawers at assembling any structure more complex than ikea furniture. Do not under any circumstances let me lose with any process that is primarily visual (I’m okay if I can handle the pieces of something, but just icons on a screen? ick) like a bunch of programming systems. And I had to invent ways to figure out what pieces of wood I needed to cut that didn’t involve measurements, because 543 and 453 and for that matter 345 become the same thing in my head, once I walk away from my notes. (The way I figured leaned into mom’s trade of making clothes patterns. I use massive sheets of newsprint and cut a shape of the piece I need, then tape that to the wood, and cut. Yes, it’s stupid but it works.) Meanwhile people who found “See Spot run” a challenging read could do all of the stuff that bedeviled me (including dribbling a basketball. Sigh) with trivial ease.
More importantly in the process of growing up I figured a lot of “my people” came up with absolutely bizarre and perverse theories from all that reading, and were wholly unamenable to argument once it was in their head. And I found — and you guys probably found too — that I actually got along with a lot of people who didn’t really enjoy fiction reading, or abstract theory, but whose hobby might be building cool engines, or building interesting furniture, or even things like gardening or cooking. I could relate to them on that plane, and often found more in common with them than with the people who were more like me.
Because, HEAR ME OUT: People are not widgets. They aren’t even easily classifiable into types. Heck, Dan and I are obviously the “same time of person” and can usually figure out the reasoning the other followed to get where he got. Except he can think in math and doesn’t switch digits, and scares the living daylights out of me when he and younger son sit down and start discussing their ideas for a time machine. I’m fairly sure they do it only to annoy me, but seriously I wouldn’t be surprised if I came downstairs some fine morning, and they told me they had built a time machine — in the basement, of COURSE — and had brought Master Shakespeare forward so I can meet him.
That’s the other thing, she grumbles ceiling-ward, younger son! He is the one whose thought processes are more like mine, but what he chooses to think about might as well be alien. And he came from inside me. I know, I was there. It hurt.
But he’s like me, and yet utterly different. Like his father, and yet utterly different. Second verse, same as the first, brothers and sisters, sing from the top of the hymnal: PEOPLE ARE NOT WIDGETS.
Eugenics is inherently evil and counterproductive, whether you’re religious or not, because you can’t weed people out. You just can’t. Genius birth morons (and vice versa) and geniuses have places in which they are utter morons, while morons are genius of its kind. Even if you set out to sterelize everyone who has some supposedly wholly harmful characteristic, like say a high cancer tendency, or depression, you might find out you’d eliminated a most of your creative people. (I have theories, I do.) BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NO WIDGETS.
Social engineering is just as evil. Start with that post above: Who determines what population is “sustainable”? Sustainable according to whom? And for whom?
Sustainable so people don’t outstrip resources, which was Ehrlich’s insanity? But what are the resources? Do you know? Because Malthus, that horrible man, has been wrong all along the line. More humans means more creativity (law of averages) which means an ability to create ways to feed all of us, which yes, in theory leads to more humans, but in reality doesn’t seem to. So, again, sustainable according to whom?
The government might seem like a good idea — at one point in defending his comment this guy told me we needed honest politicians. But he’s wrong. We’d need demi-gods for this — but even if we had very smart, honest and kind leaders, the platonic ideal of civil servants, say, WHERE WOULD THEY GET THE KNOWLEDGE. How would they know what population was sustainable? Forget knowing when the population will throw a genius that changes the game, how can they tell what the game is or what the pieces are? I swear the illusion that the government has accurate counts of everything is one of the crazies delusions begat by the 20th century. Never has this been true, and never will it be true. Let’s say someone goes out to determine how much edible foodstuff there is in a small village: they’ll come back with a count that doesn’t even vaguely approach reality. Because some people will inflate what they have for social purposes; some people will undercount out of sheer paranoia; some people will lie without meaning to, because they were distracted and just spit out a number. And some people will lie because they made mistakes on what they had (Take the five items for a greatly discounted price that our grocery store runs. We tend to buy things like detergent then, because well… it’s cheaper. The other day, late at night, I was in a panic because I’d run out of dishwashing soap and the store was already closed. I’d looked everywhere… Except husband had moved two large packages into a different area of the basement… But if you’d asked, I’d have said “We’re out” and lied unintentionally.)
This is why (among many other reasons) communist governments fail. Because the people at the top can’t get an accurate count of anything including people in general. And they’re even worse at predicting what will be needed. Which is why the furthest a government interferes in the economy, the more likely immiseration and collapse. This is known as “the knowledge problem.” People at the top can’t KNOW what millions of people need, can do, or even are up to. It’s impossible. (I believe, for instance, lying to government busybodies is one of the beatitudes. Well, it is one of the beatitudes in USAianism. Because I say so. So there.)
The whole idea that governments not only can but SHOULD “social engineer” people is arrant nonsense. It is also evil, because while you can’t engineer people to the desired results, you can accidentally send them down some very weird paths. You can’t create homo sovieticus, who lives for the state and is utterly selfless, but you can create vast classes of people who have no idea how to survive without government handouts, or who would murder their neighbors for a snickers. More to the point, you can’t stop people drinking alcohol, but you can empower the mob because they’re the ones trafficking in the now illegal alcohol.
Because people are not widgets. They have decision power and agency, and if you herd them one way, they might not be able to go against you, but they will find other things to do that is not what you wanted.
For instance, the lockdowns were designed to steal the election for Biden and to convince us of how great this totally managed society was where the government could ban misinformation and force you to own nothing and be happy. This was the beginning of the reign of a thousand years… Or it would reelect Donald Trump who is now forewarned and forearmed and better able to be burr on the left’s posterior, of course. But they never saw that possibility coming because for them people are widgets, and therefore would just do as the plan said.
They also never foresaw that a vast contingent of people would not want to go back to the office afterwards, because they found they were more productive from home. Or that an even vaster contingent would see what Junior was learning at school and bring the kids home to learn. Oops.
Yes, the left thinks it scored early hits with social engineering. Mostly with racial integration. They forget that the races always wanted to integrate. It’s a basic humanity thing. Humans like strange. It’s why there were segregation laws.
They did score some hits with sending women into the workforce and making men less “aggressive.” Within my lifetime at that. They managed this through unrelenting propaganda, some of which is still messing up even my thinking, and I’m good at seeing the poison. The problem is that telling people that being wives and mothers was a betrayal, or letting down the side, and portraying women who wanted children as stupid was not enough. No. They had to portray family life as hell. They had to propagandize women and men to think they’re on opposite camps. They had to, in fact, destroy basic humanity to get there.
And even then, most women are in the work force due to a combination of high taxes (as is, in my family, I work mostly to pay our taxes, I think — gives a baleful eye to the tax papers… at least at my darkest moments, I’m convinced of that) and poor financial math ability. (Most women working entry level jobs are, if they were brutally honest about work clothes, fuel, second car, etc, costing the family money.) Or, of course, because they’re single because the left has propagandized people away from dating, let alone marrying.
You can call that a success. I call it short sighted. Since yes, it’s brought us to where we’re facing a demographic cliff. Which means in the next generation, even if women stay in the work force, there simply won’t be enough humans to do the necessary work.
No, I don’t know how many people there are. But I do know I see more elderly than kids, and that isles with kid stuff in the stores have shrank and shrank and shrank in my lifetime.
And that’s a problem. Because the fewer people you have, the more likely we won’t have that one rare genius who solves the problems that will need solved. And for that matter the more likely a virus will render us extinct. Not to mention that not reproducing is also a way of going extinct. (Not with a bang — definitely NOT with a bang. Or any bang — but with a whimper.)
It is imperative we take the stupid idea that humans are things that can be “engineered” out of our minds. It is important to eradicate the idea that a precious few have the knowledge to HERD and CULL humanity as though they were sheep.
Because humans aren’t sheep. Though they’re closer to sheep (no, really. Have you ever DEALT with sheep) than to obedient widgets who do as told every time and don’t come up with creative, insane, bizarre ways to obey your orders while utterly subverting them.
There are no special few, honest or dishonest, who know everything needed to deal with humans (or even sheep) except in very small groups (we call those families) that they know very very well. Other than that, mostly, governments should do as little as possible.
And every government office should have a plaque that says: People are not widgets. Don’t forget this. If you do the penalty is death. For someone.








































































































































