Anti-humanism, Environmentalism and the Overpopulation Myth

Control: Communism, Environmentalism and the Overpopulation Myth.    

 

The roots of environmentalism go back to the eighteenth century in the form of the overpopulation myth of Malthusianism, which was all about limiting the human population to prevent a predicted Malthusian Catastrophe, i.e. mass starvation, and for genetic purity, especially among supposedly genetically inferior groups e.g. certain races, cultures and the chronically poor. This is based on the progressive beliefs in materialism, (i.e. there is no spiritual side, only the material we can see and touch), and humanism, (i e. man is the measure of everything and determines morals to suit his circumstances).  From these progressive philosophies grew socialism, communism, fascism, the eugenics[1] movement and environmentalism, all of which are about control of the masses by an elite few, and all are basically anti-human, anti-development and anti-freedom.

In 1798 Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principles of Population[2]  in which he predicted future starvation based on the assumption that the rate of population growth would far surpass the growth rate of food supplies. Using this, he proposed draconian measures to “fix” an assumed overpopulation problem at a time when world population was below one billion.  Malthus made two major erroneous assumptions:

  1. Genetic inferiority and enhanced fertility of less accomplished peoples
  2. No improvement in crop yields per acre.

He assumed that the only way to grow more food was to increase the number of acres under cultivation, which limited the total “carrying capacity” of any region and indeed the world. We now know that yields have improved by orders of magnitude through things such as introduction of more prolific, disease resistant plant varieties and high yield hybrids, nitrogen and mineral fertilization, mechanization and control of insect and rodent pests. Nor did he foresee the natural reduction of family size that usually occurs when people are raised beyond near-starvation subsistence, and when diseases are controlled so that high childhood mortality is reduced.

Using these false assumptions as a “reason,” he advocated government measures to reduce population growth rates among the poor such as regulating marriage, educating for moral abstinence, as well as birth control and sterilization. However, he opposed nutritional relief and improved hospital access that would have reduced infant mortality and extended life spans among the poor.  In his opinion, helping the poor only made the supposed overpopulation problem worse.  He extended this same philosophy to Africa where he observed that the Tsetse fly and Malaria helped to keep human population numbers and lifespans low, which he saw as a good thing.

This same upside down philosophy persists today among progressives who only typically want to manage the poor while keeping them poor.  Malthus was pushing evolution and eugenics long before Charles Darwin[3] and Frances Galton[4].   In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin assumed that the superior races (white Europeans) would eventually cause the extinction of the inferior races (black and brown). Francis Galton coined the term eugenics for a theory about improving the human race through selective breeding and exclusion from reproduction of supposedly genetically inferior groups.


“At some future period, not very distant as measured in centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.

—Charles Darwin, Descent of Man


Because genetic inferiority of certain races, cultures and the poor has largely been rejected by more enlightened geneticists and the public in general, (but apparently not for powerful population control supporters), along with vastly improved food production rates, environmentalism is the latest cause celebre to cover brutal inhumanity to man in the form of forced or coerced population control in places like China, lndia and Africa.  The shift from eugenics or racial purity to environmentalism is based on the false assumption that the world is overpopulated, resulting in harm to the environment.  This makes environmentalism and population control a perfect match and a good fit for the progressive elite seeking control.

Is it true that the world overpopulated? Only if agriculture had remained as it was in the eighteenth century.  However, the advances in crop yields are more than enough to feed the world.  There is more than enough food for all.  The reason for starvation and poor nutrition is usually political mismanagement or worse, such as well-meaning environmental and population control philanthropic societies, NGOs, UN and local governments intentionally keeping the poorest in their disease ridden squalor without adequate infrastructure to provide for basic needs in order to control the people.  A healthy and educated population is much harder for a dictator to control and thereby remain in power.

The best way to stabilize population, if that is the goal, is to raise the standard of living by providing employment, transportation, electricity, medical care, education, clean water and adequate food. It is a well known fact that family size is naturally reduced when living standards are improved beyond the point where excess children are needed to insure replacement of those lost in early childhood to disease and malnutrition.  It can be argued that the population is too low in many areas to provide the cooperation and man power to provide better facilities without outside aid. Only cities are overpopulated, and that is usually by choice. As population numbers have grown, the world has seen an increase in the standard of living, as reflected in the global GDP per capita, due to division of labor and shared responsibility for both agriculture and developing infrastructure.  We should be doing all we can to raise the world’s poor out of poverty. Caring for the environment is the last thing on the minds of people who are having difficulty feeding their children.  Raising their standard of living is the best thing we could do to stabilize the population and protect the environment. Unfortunately, the progressives would rather do the opposite for ideological reasons.

I have seen the benefits of higher population and the negative side of low population myself. I grew up in an area of the Appalachian Mountains where population is low. Services that are available in the cities and towns a couple of hours away are not or only marginally available in these mountainous rural areas.  Even finding a plumber or electrician is difficult.  Although the situation is better now because of improvements in highways, many in the area still must travel to the cities for proper medical care.  Lower population means lower tax basis, fewer businesses, less opportunity. It has been difficult getting businesses, whether they are medical facilities, manufacturing, commercial or food and entertainment,  interested in locating in an area where the customer and workforce base are low.  It has been particularly difficult getting doctors to come and stay.  It hasn’t been that long since the first fast food restaurant came into the area.  I bring this up to illustrate the logic of raising the population to improve living standards.  Granted, this is a far cry from poor villages in other countries, but it still illustrates the point that higher population brings higher living standards.

[1] Eugenics is the “science” of improving the human race by selective breeding of genetically superior people and preventing supposedly genetically inferior people from reproducing.

[2] Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798, London

[3] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1858, London, The Descent of Man, 1871

[4] Francis Galton, 1865 article “Hereditary Talent and Character”, Hereditary Genius., 1869, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, 1883.

 

Solar and Wind are not reliable answers to clean energy

Are solar and wind power the answers to future clean energy needs? If not, why not.

  • Solar and wind power are NOT the answers to clean energy for the future.
  • If environmentalists were serious about clean power, they would support hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear power. All of which are clean, reliable and use well developed technologies.
  • If CO2 is not causing warming, (see previous post Why CO2 is not the cause of climate change ) hydrocarbons can provide clean energy with proper scrubbers to eliminate pollutants from smoke.
  • Solar and wind power, by their very nature, are intermittent and unpredictable. The sun is not always visible and the wind is not always blowing at ideal speeds.
    • You can’t run a hospital or a manufacturing plant on unpredictable intermittent and fluctuating power.
    • Fluctuating power can damage computers and electric motors in appliances like refrigerators, heat pumps, etc.
  • As primary power sources, solar and wind power require back up power from other more consistent sources. Their unpredictable nature makes it difficult to supply consistent power as needed through back up sources like fossil fuel and hydroelectric power plants, which cannot change their output quickly, and must run at less than peak efficiency to be ready when needed.
  • More realistically, wind and solar can only provide a small amount of supplementary power to other more reliable sources like fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants.
  • Solar and wind require covering large areas with turbines or solar arrays to supply power, which necessarily disrupts ecosystems.
  • Solar panels and wind generators require exotic “rare earth” minerals, whose extraction is very polluting due to the naturally dispersed nature of rare earths (thus the name).
  • Solar panels are very inefficient and short lived, e.g. typically less than 30% efficiency for 15 to 20 years with declining efficiency over time. Efficiency varies with the time of day/angle of the sun, latitude, prevalence of clouds and dust accumulation. Disposal of wastes are also problematic.
  • Solar plants using mirrors aimed at a steam generator are low tech but their high heat kills birds.
  • Wind turbines kill birds and bats and produce infra-sound that may be harmful to animals and humans.
Raptors sucked into wind turbine blades

10. Why do environmentalists hate hydroelectric power, which is the cleanest and most reliable power source

  • Environmentalists oppose hydroelectric power for two reasons.
    • The first and real reason is that their socialistic goal is to cripple economies and reduce populations that these sources would support.
      • (“Giving society cheap abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich or paraphrased: “Like giving a loaded gun to a child”)
      • They dream of a return to idealized more primitive times, which were, in reality, brutal and polluting.
      • In reality, the best way to protect the environment and stabilize family sizes is to raise poor people in developing countries out of their disease ridden squalor. They’re not lazy, just sick. Poverty, not population size, is the cause of environmental damage.
      • Africa, for example, has largely untapped hydroelectric capacity beyond their energy needs for the foreseeable future, but that would support a larger population, which the environmentalists fight against.
    • The second “reason,” aka excuse, is disruption of the environment.
      • They don’t seem to mind the environmental disruption by wind and solar farms.
    • Hydroelectric power using large to small waterfalls provides reliable power with minimal impact.
    • Hydroelectric dams require reservoirs that fill slowly to cover formerly dry land, (so the downstream river is not starved in the process), which temporarily disrupts ecosystems that historically have quickly adapted.
      • They prevent periodic downstream flooding that causes misery and death.
      • They provide water for homes, industry and agriculture, and jobs from fishing and tourism.
        • If there is a shortage of fresh water in the world, as claimed by environmentalists, it is because reservoirs are needed.
        • Environmental groups have prevented the construction of over 200 hydroelectric dams in Africa alone.

Where Socialism and Communism got it wrong

Where Socialism and Communism got it wrong:

Assumption: Man’s nature can be molded to serve the state altruistically

Truth: Man’s nature is fixed; self comes first and work for the state fulfills self-interest, but only after his/her basic needs are met.

Assumption: People are only members of a supposedly uniform group

Truth: People are individuals and each has value; groups are not uniform

Assumption: Competition is bad and unfair

Truth: Competition is good; it produces more and better products and services at lower prices for all through incentives

Assumption: Winning is unfair to losers and all others

Truth: Winning is good for all; it encourages people to strive to do better and gives everyone a goal to strive for.

Assumption: Equal outcomes are more fair

Truth: Equal outcomes are unfair to achievers, but equal opportunity is good; outcomes will vary based on ability and effort; equal opportunity encourages people to try harder and to do better. Equal outcome penalizes people with more skills, talent and that work harder.  It is a “race to mediocrity.”

Assumption: The economy is a zero-sum game; the pie is a fixed size; if some get more it is because others are deprived.

Truth: The economy is a dynamic, growing system; the pie can expand with new opportunities, goods, services; success of one does not detract from future successes of others. A rising tide raises all boats.

Assumption: “The Rich” are evil and unfair; they are hoarding so others must do without

Truth: “The Rich,” aka successful people, invest, employ, build, improve and give charitably to humane and environmentally friendly causes.

Assumption: Big Corporations are bad; they’re only after the money and don’t care about the environment or the people.

Truth: See Truth: “The Rich” above; as models they incentivize others to compete for market share through innovation and extra effort. They also must live in the world they create so that care for society and the environment are naturally important to them.

Assumption: Big Corporations exploit workers

Truth: Corporations provide employees with income and benefits they otherwise wouldn’t have. It is in their best interest to pay people a wage that allows them to buy the goods produced or sold. To keep the best employees, wages are kept competitive.

Assumption: Big Corporations are greedy and keep profits for themselves.

Truth: Corporations provide wages and valuable goods and services, but wouldn’t stay in business if they got nothing from it. Corporations must have reserves to survive in bad times, meet payrolls, grow the business, provide secure retirement for employees, support advertising, research and innovation, invest or buy smaller businesses to expand product lines and grow market share.

Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science

Perfect Read for Christmas!

Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science[1]

by T Kiser (Author)

4.5 out of 5 stars 2 customer reviews on Amazon

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including the theories of evolution, origin of life, cosmology, and quantum physics.

The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:

Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?

Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?

If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?

Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?

Special offers and product promotions

Product details

·         Paperback

·         Publisher: World Ahead Press (July 28, 2016)

·         Language: English

·         ISBN-10: 1944212183

·         ISBN-13: 978-1944212186

·         Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.7 x 8.5 inches

·         Shipping Weight: 14.9 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)

·         Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars 2 customer reviews

·         Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,986,423 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

o    #3603 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Environmental Policy

o    #3820 in Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Climatology

o    #4591 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

 

 

[1] Excerpts from Amazon 11-9-2017

Political Corruption of Science Revealed in New Book

Perverted Truth Exposed cover image

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including  evolution, origin of life, cosmology, quantum physics and climate change.

The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:

  • Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
  • Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
  • If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
  • Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?

Available online from the following outlets in print and as an eBook.

Political Corruption of Science Revealed in New Book

Perverted Truth Exposed cover image

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including  evolution, origin of life, cosmology, quantum physics and climate change.

The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:

  • Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
  • Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
  • If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
  • Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?

Available online from the following outlets in print and as an eBook.

Genesis creation reconciled to an old earth

Creation Story reconciled to an old earth and scientific evidence:

The only disagreements between scientific truth and the Genesis account are based onmichelangelo-sistine-chapel-adam certain assumptions that everything, including the earth itself was created in the seven literal days described in the first chapter of Genesis. However, the first day of creation starts with Genesis 1:3.  According to Old Earth, Gap or Restoration creationists the entire history of the creation of the universe is contained in the Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” This reconciles the Genesis account with the scientific record, whether the seven days after that are assumed to be 24 hour days or longer periods of time. The original word “Yom” means both a single day and a longer time, as in “…in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, …”  – Genesis 2:4


“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” –Genesis 1:1


In old earth creationism, this includes the whole history of the creation and formation of the universe, the galaxy, the solar system and the earth in the ages before the seven days’ account. It includes the entire fossil and stratified mineral record of the earth.  According to ruin and restoration creationism, as our story opens, the earth has been devastated, wiping out most or all life.


“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” – Genesis 1:2


This could describe a ruined planet, not necessarily a new planet without a history.   Picture, for example, a planet after an asteroid impact that raised so much dust, ash, water and smoke into the air that the light from the sun was blotted out.  We are not told most of the details, whether it is in this period or the seven days period.  Genesis describes what happened, not the details of how it happened.


“And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightening fall from heaven.” –Luke 10:18


In this quote from Jesus, it is possible that Satan, after his expulsion from heaven, kept distorting God’s creation causing God to erase it and start over; or maybe it was just a stage in the long process of preparing the earth for us with fertile soils, minerals and metals, an atmosphere with the right mix of gases, moisture and temperatures, and oceans with the right mineral content to sustain life.

God valued freedom of will so much that even Satan was allowed freedom of action, but could only distort, not create anything.  After his expulsion from heaven, Satan’s goal has been to spoil everything God does or loves.

What about the common belief that death only entered when man fell?


“But of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” – Genesis 2:17


Since Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they disobeyed, what that meant was obviously spiritual death, not physical death, which would come much later. Death was known to Adam or the words would have had no meaning to him.  However, after the fall, it was necessary to remove their access to the Tree of Life to keep Adam and Eve from living forever in their sinful state.  This is probably why Adam and several generations after him lived so long (until the effects of the Tree of Life had diminished).  Outside the garden, life was already a battle for existence, so that their expulsion from the garden thrust them into a daily struggle for food and other necessities.  God created plants as the ultimate source of food, but also created predators and other carnivores that ate herbivores, which used plants for food.

Let’s look at the seven days in this scenario of a ruined earth being reborn

Day 1 – LIGHT


“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” – Genesis 1: 3-5


This could have been that the dust settled enough to allow filtered light through the cloud cover distinguishing night from day.

Day 2 – ATMOSPHERE


“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” – Genesis 1: 6-8


Clouds, rain and seas appear as the air clears further.

Day 3 – DRY LAND; PLANTS


“And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear; and it was so.” Genesis 1:9-10


Seas, streams and dry ground appeared as the constant rain abated.


“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth ; and it was so.” – Genesis 1:11-13.


As soon as dry ground appeared, plants began growing.

Day 4 – SUN, MOON AND STARS


“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” – Genesis 1:14-19


The only way this makes any sense, logically, is if the sun, moon and stars were already there, but had been hidden behind thick clouds.  Since plants grew and there was light before this, it doesn’t make any sense for the sun not to be created until the fourth day.  It can only mean that the air cleared enough so that the heavenly bodies became visible on earth at that time.

Day 5 – SEA CREATURES AND BIRDS


“And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” – Genesis 1: 20-22.


Animal life in the seas and the air appeared.

Day 6 – LAND ANIMALS AND HUMANS


“And God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” – Genesis 1:24-25.


Animals on the land appeared.


“And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1: 25-27.


Men and women were created.


“And God blessed them and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1:28


God instructs men to multiply and replenish the earth.   This is a hint that the earth was formerly inhabited before the devastation occurred, whether by humans or only animals is not clear.  In some translations, the word is translated as “fill.” The other occurrences of the word in the Bible clearly mean to replenish or replace what was lost, not just to fill[1].   The verses that follow imply a vegetarian diet, but don’t explicitly say none of the animals would eat meat.

This description of the creation of humans has been debated by theologians for centuries. Is this separate from Adam and Eve? Were there other humans on the earth when Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden? Since Adam and Eve did not have children in the garden and were not told to replenish the earth, I would like to suggest that, after the six days of creation when man was first created, Satan again entered and distorted the creation, including man, into a wild, savage state. Whether Adam was included in this creation of man or was specially created later, is the only point debated. Most theologians today assume that this account is an alternate description of the creation of Adam as the first man.  However, in keeping with the text, it is possible that, after a day of rest, God created a special undefiled man (Adam) and placed him in a specially planted garden for his protection.


“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” – Genesis 2:7-8.


Note that Adam was made before he was placed in the garden. This implies that Adam experienced the savage, spoiled world before entering the garden.  The verses just before this say that there was no one to till the soil.  So if other men existed, they must have been hunter-gatherers or shepherds, not farmers. We are also not told how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before they aspired to be like God and fell from grace through willful disobedience.

Conclusions:  As you can see, it is fairly easy to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with known scientific facts.  God invented science, and He created an ordered and intelligible universe that man can study to learn its secrets.  Science is based on the assumption that the universal laws are the same everywhere and at any time in the past, present or future.  God, having created a logical world, doesn’t have to break these laws to accomplish His ends. God can use them to create, destroy or modify anything for His purposes.  Miracles, while outside our understanding, don’t necessarily have to break God’s laws either, only use them in unique ways we don’t understand.

To insist that the seven days described in Genesis 1:3-2:4 describe creation from nothing (ex nihilo) in contradiction to scientific facts, is at best naïve or traditional and at worst delusional. God didn’t ask us to suspend reason to believe in Him.  Nor is He a deceiver.  Young Earth beliefs are harmful because they ask Christians to reject science, make it difficult for thinking people to embrace Christianity and give our atheist, materialist enemies ammunition to discredit ALL of our beliefs, even a belief in the existence of God or any spiritual realm.

That is why our enemies would prefer us to reject science and insist on a seven literal days of creation from nothing, which was a straw man argument when presented by Darwin et al.  When we embrace science and reconcile it to the Bible, most of their arguments disappear.  In an effort to discredit the political arguments for Darwinian Evolution,  many Christians have fallen into the trap of embracing the straw man presented by our enemies instead of reasonably trying to reconcile science and the Bible.

[1] Isaiah 2:6; Jeremiah 31:25; Ezekiel 26:2