A new study published in the Lancet confirms what people like myself have been saying over and over again for years: that the human population is unlikely to get much bigger than it is right now, and will in fact begin declining in the latter half of this century as more and more women obtain money, education, and reproductive sovereignty.
“It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility,” BBC News explains. “Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.”
The mass media have been discussing these findings with shock and alarm, because such information is likely to be new and surprising to anyone who has never gone through the all-consuming herculean effort of motherhood. To anyone who has, the idea that most women would choose to have two or fewer children if given the resources, information and freedom to do so is just self-evident common sense.
Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born https://t.co/mlpyoRKb5I
— BBC Science News (@BBCScienceNews) July 15, 2020
For decades, the absurd belief that the world population will keep exploding until we either choke the planet to death with tens of billions of humans or figure out how to send people off to live in space has been promoted everywhere from the mass media to Hollywood to oligarchs just saying it themselves. Preventing overpopulation was the driving motivator behind Thanos, the ultimate supervillain of the Marvel Cinematic Universe who featured in Avengers: Endgame, the highest-grossing film of all time. It has also been the foremost stated concern of plutocrats like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, the latter of whom revealed last year that his grand vision for humanity is to send most of the world population off planet and have a trillion human beings living in giant rotating space cylinders.
And, like so much else in our crazy world, this delusion is ultimately due to the male supremacism which has been interwoven throughout the fabric of our society’s development since the dawn of civilization. Because women have been excluded from the design of our society until only the most recent few generations, there is a built-in assumption underlying much of our thought that men are just going to keep shooting sperm into women and women are going to keep shooting out babies for as long as there are humans.
It would never occur to someone who has thrived in such a pervasively patriarchal society like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos that women will not always exist as breeding livestock, and would instead at some point begin putting themselves and their interests first. Someone like Bezos just naturally assumes “Well obviously we’re going to keep blowing our loads in these bitches and they’re going to keep getting knocked up, so the only possible solution is to have all those trillions of babies living offworld in giant rotating Amazon Space Phalluses.”
Bezos Reveals His Ugly Vision For The World He's Trying To Rule https://t.co/PGRRvFpUL4
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 12, 2019
Look at those things. He honestly expects people to reproduce on those. If given the choice I don’t even really feel safe enough to have a baby if I’m living in an apartment, let alone floating through the vacuum of space in a giant dildo surrounded by an infinite yawning abyss of instant death.
Billionaires, as we discussed recently, are not smart. They certainly should not be in charge of the future of our species.
Now that another major plot hole has been punched in the establishment myth that brown-skinned babies in impoverished nations are going to ruin the world, establishment voices are taking this opportunity to yell and scream in the other direction, claiming population decline is a dangerous emergency.
“Declining rates of working-age populations could lead to a dramatic shift in the size of economies, the research says, with China set to replace the U.S. with the world’s largest gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035,” warns CNBC.
Oh no! But unipolar US world domination has been working out so great for all of us!
“Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?” asks BBC News.
You mean humanity’s future is going to require a system where we’re not all competing with each other to win a stupid made-up game of who can get the most imaginary numbers in their bank account by selling the most useless junk for us to throw in the ocean? That we’re going to have to create a system where more of us stay home from our gear-turning cubicles and we actually collaborate and take care of needful people instead? Sounds… obvious.
“Population collapse is second biggest danger to civilization after AI,” tweeted billionaire Elon Musk, adding, “Mars needs people!”
What the hell is it with these idiotic tech plutocrats always babbling about flinging everyone into space? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that any arguments against continuing the unsustainable rapacious ecocide and consumerism which makes the billionaire class possible can be spun as irrelevant if we pretend we can just move to space after we destroy our home world.
The main thing billionaires get out of having a space program is a narrative management op which helps market their insane economic doctrine of infinite growth on a finite planet. It doesn't matter what the billionaire class does to our home because we can all just move to space.
— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) July 6, 2020
Of course we are still going to need to find a way of collaborating with our ecosystem in a much healthier way than we are now, even if the global population doesn’t get a whole lot bigger. The new study predicts that our population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064 and then begin falling back down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century, which we simply cannot sustain under our current way of operating.
One way we can get the population to fall a whole lot faster is by removing all societal expectations from women that they be career girls and mothers at the same time. If we as a society collectively stop subscribing to the ridiculous power-serving notion that it’s possible to be a good mother and obtain all of one’s life ambitions and career goals in the same lifetime, far fewer women will opt for motherhood and will pursue their own interests instead.
This would mean treating motherhood as its own career, with an ample wage and benefits provided by the collective. We’ve already established that we’re going to need a lot more caregivers staying at home for the aging population, so we way as well prepare to compensate the caregivers of the young as well. Producing physically and psychologically healthy members of society is the most important job there is, and women shouldn’t have to depend on the charity of a man to be compensated for it.
In any case, we’re going to have to find a much better way of collaborating with each other and with our ecosystem than we are now. As long as we’re being propagandized into consenting to the perpetuation of the status quo it won’t matter if the population peaks at a few billion, we’ll still likely meet our end via climate collapse or nuclear war. It is clear that big changes are going to be needed in the new world that’s to come, so we’d better find a way to force those changes to happen.
______________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
128 responses to “So It Turns Out ‘Overpopulation’ Was Always A Stupid Patriarchal Myth”
Western Europe manages to achieve negative population growth for its native population, so what do the “enlightened ones” who continually preach the benefits of eugenics and reduction of population do? Of course… they initiate attempted regime changes in countries to the south through programmed and paid for “civil” wars while claiming the goal is to spread “democracy”, at least what they call democracy so long as they fully control the election outcomes. One apparent unstated goal is to start and fully support the forced mass migration of millions of now homeless southern peoples seeking refuge. Where to? Why to Western Europe of course! So much for their stated “dream” of lower population growth! If the common people don’t breed fast to replace themselves the elites will simply arrange to import other groups of new and perhaps more controllable “service units”. This works basically the same way in the Western Hemisphere with promises of having a better life to the north away from the elite driven active economic warfare and crass political corruption… the added benefit being to shift the “democratic” political spectrum towards a better nailing down of the desired status quo. Yep, open all those borders and “un-elect” any politician or judge who disagrees with these policies. Obviously we need more people!
There is also another myth associated with over population, the idea that there is not enough for everyone. We live in a world of abundance, and when divided with integrity there is plenty for everyone.
I have accidentally posted my comment elsewhere, so I need to repost it here:
I have read and respected Caitlin’s commentaries for several years now, mostly on CounterPunch and Russia Today. I admire greatly independent journalists and have valued them always as superior human beings, the same way as I have always admired artists for the beauty they create in this meaningless and often brutal world.
But Caitlin’s recent post about overpopulation being “a patriarchal myth” hit me like a sledgehammer. Similar to the effect one would experience after reading an article by, say, Carl Sagan or Neil deGrass Tyson, arguing that our planet is flat. That Caitlin would consider overpopulation being a “myth” is beyond my comprehension. Does she really think that adding almost 6 billion people in less than 70 years is OK?
Does she really want to live in places with standing room only? And overflowing with filth and excrement, as in Calcutta, Mexico City, Mumbai, Dhaka, or Delhi or any of the dozens and dozens of monstrous metropolitan areas constantly growing like cancers all over the planet?
Maybe she does. But I don’t. Like famous American wilderness writers, I am no longer interested in living in a world where I cannot find a wild lake anymore and cannot listen to a loon crying over moonlit boreal forest.
Even much less am I interested in reading such an irresponsibly and staggeringly stupid article. One is enough. I’d like to leave when I can still remember only one such comment by Ms. Johnstone.
“there is a built-in assumption underlying much of our thought that men are just going to keep shooting sperm into women and women are going to keep shooting out babies for as long as there are humans.”
It’s not so cavalier though, is it?
The main reason for the low life expectancy before the modern age was infant mortality.
A family needed to have 5, 10, kids, to stand a decent chance that some of their genes would survive.
That is not the equation we face now.
Shooting sperm (erotic play) and sex (production of children), are two different things. The former was not widely endorsed at all until the 20th century anywhere, and humans engaged in sex – in makimg offspring.
It’s not that women have gained power over their reproductive rights (and the right to unquestionably kill another genetic code as they feel), but that women (and men) have been freed from having to see 80% of their children die before the age of 5.
This is good. Our population explosion only really took place whilst this risk was still extant, and we had not adjusted to quality over quantity, so to say.
The Earth’s population will top out at this tech level, but it will be half African by the end of the century, because they have not yet adjusted to the decrease in infant mortality.
the name of the article is grossly misleading. Obviously the overpopulation IS a real threat; all you need to do is wake up and look around in the big city you are living and really think about the environment you ‘re in. Dirty air filled with cancer causing pollution from automobiles and industry, stressed out people, food with little nutritional value, radiation from cell towers, water with chemicals, crime, media filling your mind with garbage, government waging wars in our name on the other side of the planet and so on. If you don’t think thats a problem you are a complete liar.
Yes, the tide is finally turning and yes humanity will slowly go down in numbers and it should be. We have lived in a very specific time frame aided by two things the world never had before: antibiotics and abundant food supply. Now antibiotics aren’t working anymore and food supply is getting scarce. We are 7.8 billion people on this planet. Capitalism needed “consumers” but not any longer; now most humans are a useless baggage. Deal with it.
And what does the article do? Focuses on Bezoz, an easy scapegoat instead of discussing the real problems: the poor and the destitute in both 3rd and 2nd and 1st world. THE idea of the space cylinders isn’t negative in any shape or form; why does the writer attacks it? Obviously they aren’t realistic due to a small one word problem: radiation. Seem the writer only dislikes them because Bezos talks about them.
Sorry but yes we DO need to cut the human population in half. Sorry but thats the truth. We are simply way too many people. Truth isnt pleasant. The West is doing everything in their power to remove as many people as possible.
‘For decades, the absurd belief that the world population will keep exploding ..’.
Centuries.
“Over-population, our Lords and Masters say, is another cause of our misery. They mean by this, that the resources of the country are inadequate to its population. We must prove the contrary, and during a holiday take a census of the people, and a measurement of the land, and see upon calculation, whether it be not an unequal distribution, and a bad management of the land, that make our Lords and Masters say, that there are too many of us.” – William Benbow, 1832.
John Boyd Orr, former director of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, was candid in stating: ‘a world of peace and friendship, a world with the plenty which modern science had made possible was a great ideal. But those in power had no patience with such an ideal. They said it was not practical politics’ (Daily Herald, 29 July 1948).
‘Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth’ (Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First, huffpost, 05/02/2012).
Irrelevant to the real issue which is sustainability
One way or another, sustainability tends to work itself out. RR was just pointing out that the idea of run-away population growth has been around for longer than a few decades. He is also pointing out that for centuries, narrative-manipulators have been using the threat of run-away population growth as a distraction from real solutions. Where is the harm in that?
It does, by eliminating the unsustainable parts which in this case may be humans. The harm is that the real solution is reduction in consumption and that consumption is a factor of population size as well as consumption patterns. Merely thinking that only some people have to reduce consumption is in the same category as thinking only some people need to be reduced. Sustainable consumption levels are a factor of desired level calculated by resources divided by population. We do not need any population reduction if the max level of consumption was enforced at less than 25% of what the average American or Canadian consumes. Are we ready for that?
http://zorq.org/oped/eprob.html
http://zorq.org/oped/fancorn.html
Overpopulation was always the patriarchal hierarchy’s mask to avoid discussing the real problem – a commodified culture of overconsumption by rich and middle class (mostly white) people. Human population is indeed going to be declining by the end of the century – if not sooner – not because of a fertility decline but because of collapse of the planet’s environmental life-support systems which will crash the commodity-consumer economies. It’s not likely however, to happen by the end of the century but by the end of the decade.
if the planet is not overpopulated, who is consuming all those resources?
We are. That problem is due to over-consumption, rather than over-population. Consumption is not equal amongst the people of the world. The West sets a truly bad example.
Its a capitalist myth, as well…
http://socialistreview.org.uk/448/are-there-too-many-people-planet
“The population’s going to drop because women will be more educated and choose careers and small families”? I wish I could be that optimistic. The population’s going to drop because there won’t be enough food available to feed billions of people with no connection to land they can grow their own on, and because growing food in the destabilized climate period we are entering is going to become an increasingly dicey proposition. It’s not going to be a friendly place to bring a new human into, and a great many members of coming generations of humans are going to die young and unpleasantly.
I agree we guys do A LOT of goofy shit, but the weird part is that too many women still go for it. Marry a guy with money, “labe-shaves” and fake tits, make-up, parenthood (which has become an increasingly obvious but still socially-acceptable expression of ego), war & it’s always useful cousin “law” that long ago stopped being about the all-too-common fetish of “safety” and became the preference(s) of private interests and the focus on aesthetics rather than function in damn near every public project.
Marketing jumped the shark decades ago, and our fair sisters went for so many silly lines, outdated expectations, and ridiculous actions it’s become almost depressing for some of us wang-danglers to watch. At the same time, our valuable sisters have been sold third-wave feminism which is about as empathetic as a rock-face and forgiving as crotch-rot.
My one complaint with this piece, which rarely happens with anything CJ writes, is that the impossible standards of beauty, achievement and community will be assumed by those that are still (unconsciously) pandering to us fellas, modeling their efforts on a system they oppose [meet the new boss!], resenting our disinterest in those carefully crafted and unattainable goals, and attempting to establish control of the dynamic when we acquiesce in the interest of some semblance of a peace at home.
Collaboration IS the goal, but control IS the model for most. As such, those capable AND willing to work together are still a minority, regardless of gender or race, and every promoted presentation of the problem fails to offer anything like a solution, preferring instead to encourage theft the outlined throne and then employment the same tactics from against a different group in the same old ways.
Authority, rather than equality, is all that is possible when respect is conditional.
“Because women have been excluded from the design of our society until only the most recent few generations, there is a built-in assumption underlying much of our thought that men are just going to keep shooting sperm into women and women are going to keep shooting out babies for as long as there are humans.”
.
Before any man shoots his stuff into a woman, both of them should seriously think about the kind of world their child is going to be living in very shortly. The word Hell might quickly come to mind. Picket fences and happy communities and stable jobs and rational people and being free to live without interference and scrutiny are things of the past. A heavily controlled world run by technocrats without conscience is the kind of world children will spend their lifetimes in. It’s almost here now. That could be called child abuse.
.
“You mean humanity’s future is going to require a system where we’re not all competing with each other to win a stupid made-up game of who can get the most imaginary numbers in their bank account by selling the most useless junk for us to throw in the ocean?”
.
We might continue competing for other imaginary things, like fame and power. Fame is an illusion since most people won’t know or won’t care that we lived upon this rock for however any days we are given. Even should one make the history books – if we even have history books after Cancel Culture has had its way with us – no one cares about any of those names in books after a while as young men will be too busy shooting their stuff into woman and woman will still be letting them do it. Same for power. No one cares how much power any person amassed after they are gone because they took none of that faux power along with them. Back to square one, sucker. You spent your lifetime abusing others to amass power for absolutely nothing, dummy.
Dear C. (you brazen hussy): i’ve been saying that for years. each time i say grrrls i get kicked outa da car….that i’m drivin’. let alone something about women’s lib meaning getting to act like man. LEAN IN and all that. i object. doubling the size of the worker pool…is fascism as grifter art. and do it NOW. willie nelson wrote a hit called “Are you Sure this is where you wanna be?”
and then there is always know thyself and to thine own self be true…who said that?
Grrrls is fair word it is not derivative vs. Boys. no other language i can find has this innate problem. English does: WO-men means woe-man. or some say wif-man. and i say man has nothing to do with it. and the woe is from MENstruation, i guess, but for sure childbirth, in which, when our language was being formed, femmes died.
so they were expendable and needed to be replaced or backed up with multiple wives. say, 4 or as many as you could afford. islam says 4 no more than Mohammad (fact check that.). anyway, homme et femme are perfect words. independent and equal. mensch und frau, almost as good. mujer, and hombre. but cows go moooo. so not great as hombro means shoulder, and hombron means thug.
so as you say, grrrls have this special roll to play and they might be quite capable of expanding it if they did not have the strict physical requisites of 9-5 (see the movie) or staying after work to get the job done.
one thing i noticed while living in the suburbs. a very large number of kids are left home alone because the schools get out at 3:30 and the parents do not get home until 6.
bad scene.
i have stories about that. Home Alone is not mine, but gets the idea. and the little boy in SanFrancisco in a nice big home with a large basement with 2 pit bulls behind the closed door i guess got curious as to their condition while mommy went to the grocery store. well, she returned to find him half eaten. dead for sure.
so yes. it is important to note. she was obviously doing too much. So what does France do? And show me Denmark and Norway. what do American Indian families do…or did
they do? What would a child psychiatrist say today knowing all this?
Liberation is to be allowed to strive to become the best that you can be for your own happiness. Not to emulate nobody. Rumi said it best: when asked by youths what should we choose…he said, “Do what you love.”
As one extra point…it is my opinion…just to avoid argument…not a fact…that teachers and nurses are the only jobs where sainthood should be permitted. this is the pool of angels that we have. there are no others. even doctors are usually not very humble.
And the Church used to burn las femmes at the stake for posing as EMT’s or pharmacists when they were only discovering herbal cures and perhaps penicillin in the soil.
Regarding your proposal that women (perhaps even women-with-vaginas) being paid to care for children and older family members:
Pick One:
1) You, Gender-Fascist, off the platform and into that corner with JK Rowling and a dunce-cap!
2) “The old ways are the best ways”. Mr Natural
http://www.johndayblog.com
Clearly, sustained growth over a long period is absolutely unsustainable on a planet with limited resources. The endless boom and bust cycles of an economy based on growth are evidence of this.
~
Years ago I remember watching Dr. Albert Bartlett’s lecture, “Sustainability 101, Arithmetic, Population and Energy. Opened my eyes. He talked about the exponential function and doubling time. At a conservative growth rate of 1.4 percent per year, the population will double in less than 50 years. I’m fairly sure it has about doubled over the past 50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ghHia-M54
~
I believe the billionaire controlled think tanks, have known this fact for a very long time and have based much of their social planing and manipulating on it.
~
In my opinion, any reduction in population at this time, is a direct result of having reached peak population for our planet and elite control.
~
As far as I can tell, any so called solutions the billionaires are coming up with amount to creating a global police state and genocide.
~
I believe some of the solutions lie in our ability to become skilled at accessing and focusing on our positive human qualities and figuring out and recognizing all the ways we’re being influenced, manipulated, divided and controlled. Finding ways to curb our immediate (negative) reactions, in the moment (something I have trouble with.) Creating less division. Looking for solutions in all of our actions and interactions with people. Practicing what we say we want the police to do, de-escalate instead of escalating tensions. Treating each other with dignity and respect, understanding and forgiveness.
Love. Peace.
The Limits To Growth did a very good analysis in 1972, with the new science of Systems Theory, and MIT’s biggest computer. They created a model of human societal growth, resource consumption, births, deaths and pollution accumulation going forward a century or so. It is still tracking remarkably closely, though both deaths and births trended a bit lower. Population remains on track. We have just passed peak industrial output, peak services and peak food per capita.
http://www.johndayblog.com/2020/06/nobodys-in-charge.html
A few simple facts plus mathematics tell us that our expanding population on an ancient planet with finite resources will eventually consume resources faster than we can replenish them; if this is not already our situation. The timing is unpredictable but nations end up fighting for control over remaining, diminishing, polluted resources. Then wars escalate and population growth is curbed by missiles, bombs, radiation sickness, starvation and disease. POPULATION PROBLEM SOLVED! Survivors will then build a better civilization. Readers will be angry to hear me say so but this scenario is more or less what the world’s Great Liberator predicted.
Pray tell, who or what is the “world’s great liberator?”
His Hebrew name “Yeshua” derives from the word meaning LIBERATOR, but the Roman Catholic Church made up a meaningless name “JESUS” to disguise the real meaning of His name. For 1700 years Christians twisted, corrupted, and mistranslated His lectures and strategies which are so brilliant, exceptional and powerful that this is way above the mental abilities even for highly intelligent and well-educated people who fail to grasp what he said and meant.
For 1700 years Christians MISTAKENLY followed the twisted, corrupt fairy tale invented by a Pharisee Jew to destroy Christ’s teachings.
Reality; what a concept.
Well while there is no question part of what you surmise is true if you stop and consider the spaces most humans live in are against everything natural then of course over population is real.
It has been a reality for hundreds of years in my opinion.
IE Living in square boxes stacked on top of each other is not only insane it’s unhealthy and has led to the world we currently have.
In my humble opinion defacing the Earth with houses and buildings is wrong and against nature itself. The Indians lived in Teepees. They could pick up and relocate the tribe without a disastrous effect.
The Egyptians built pyramids as they found that the shape enabled something for their souls to move on to higher planes with ease.
In the study of life and living the square boxes we live in seem to not be conducive to good health. The angle used in a pyramid are exactly what is so it is said. The Teepees are very close to that same angle.
Imagine if our homes were blended into the world by being partially underground with just windows exposed so we could get sun and light hopefully from at minimum north and south but even better from all four directions.
The fact it is mostly underground eliminates most of the need for heating and air conditioning as the Earth is an amazing insulator. By building carefully and gently we need not destroy the habitats we decide to move into taking into consideration exactly what creatures exist already before tearing into the Earth with our monstrous machines.
That said I am sure most find this idea insane yet how do you build a world that does not destroy the existing world without such forethought?
Unquestionably it is clear as a species develops they must make mistakes. That said I agree we have done some good over the years. That said has anyone stepped back and said holy shit wait, this is fucked. Absolutely they have yet they are ridiculed and their ideas are tossed away as you cannot make any money doing that.
Hence the age old dilemma arises over and over again. Materialism has almost destroyed this planet and is certainly a problem with the human race. If you go back a bit let’s say 170 years or so you will see that it was around 1850 when a resurgence of materialism took hold.
I have not done deep research into when it occurred prior or if though I am going to guess it must have. That said if you look into Rudolph Steiner and his statement around 1920 that it has become extremely difficult to be Human today that single man should lay a good description of an idea I believe was well founded then.
It sure seems that around that exact space and time the powers of our planet were financial. These “Men”, if they were actually human, like Rockefeller and Carnegie developed the rules for a world they created that has been destructive, if that is enough of a word, to the Earth and the Human race.
Carnegie created a lie that enabled a system of medicine completely opposite of what was already known to work. Rockefeller was the hand that created what many believe is what was called the Spanish Flu. By adding the testing of a Malaria vaccine, after disastrous results with the Small Pox Vaccine, to World War 1 they were able to start the process of the events that are playing out now.
The Electrification of the Earth started before WW1 but it was 1917-1918 when the power of Radio was released on the Earth. To nullify the effects of Radio they blatantly induced a Malaria type illness through a disastrous vaccine used on Soldiers in the US Army.
Nonsense most would say. You cannot prove that comes from others. I agree is my response. I cannot prove that.
Unluckily you cannot prove anything and for my beliefs that sure appears like the route we went as a race. We have destroyed so many species for the push forward out to space which was most likely 100 times more advanced then we are today 12000 years ago.
But I cannot prove it.
Yet proving it is false is equally impossible, isn’t it.
Just saying.
99% of all species ever appearing on this planet are extinct. Going by reality, the goal of life is death.
That being said, the emergence of homo sapiens has been moved back some 250k years now; we barely have a grasp upon the history of the last 10k. The closest we’ve come to extinction was a super-volcanic explosion around 72k ago, based upon the genetic chokepoint established by researchers into the Human Genome.
Speculation is all well and good, but it doesn’t change the cards you’ve been dealt; play the game or fold
Most of what we are seeing today is all about depopulation–let this distinguished international writer [Dr. Coleman] deliver the news:
https://beforeitsnews.com/agenda-21/2020/07/they-want-to-kill-six-billion-of-us-heres-how-theyll-do-it-2648.html
Elon Musk might just be the biggest moron in the world. The thing he’s good at is getting tax payer subsidies from the US ruling class.
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
I agree wholeheartedly that the fantasies of megalomaniac oligarchs are pure garbage. OTOH, the idea of overpopulation is not. There are already more people on planet earth than can be supported by its limited resources and ecosystem. Killing the rich and redistributing all wealth equally will not solve that problem (not to mention the fact that it is unattainable). As developing countries grow richer, their peoples will want more of the comforts and conveniences that are commonplace in more developed countries. I see no way of stopping that trend. Hence, reducing the total number of people in the world is as essential as reducing wasteful consumption by wealthier nations.
Yes, eight billion people is probably six billion too many for a sustainable human society, at least in any manner which most humans likely aspire to.
http://zorq.org/oped/eprob.html
The best published research on the subject found that the sustainable carrying capacity of Earth for humans is around a half billion to one billion. That was calculated for a pristine earth, so today’s figure would be somewhat degraded.
The resource thing is no small matter either…
Sources?
Yes. Caitlin is not looking at this obvious side of the population problem. A glaring omission on her part.
Right on Rob!
Reduction of the population is probably already happening. It is said to be true of the US, where increase in population is driven only by immigration — the natives don’t reproduce fast enough to replicate themselves. I am astonished, in fact, that this is supposed to be news, since I saw similar reports years ago.
Go to any large mall in America and count the babies most of them are white and their mothers consider themselves of the middle class. Politics shaped views and reality constantly clash
I saw an interesting report from the U.N. years ago that attempted to answer the question of what human population number is sustainable. I wish I could find the link. The answer they came up with was that it depends on their average consumption (of course). They calculated that if we all consumed at the rate of the world’s poorest, the Earth could conceivably sustain a population of 20 billion. If we don’t want to live like the world’s poorest, we’d better find a way to not get that overpopulated. It’s great news that empowerment of women seems to be making some progress. I only hope it’s enough. The U.N. calculated that if we all consumed at the rate of the world’s richest (richest countries, not individuals), then the magic sustainable number is 2 billion. We are currently at 7.6 billion. Obviously the richest countries are consuming way more than their share. It should be obvious that we need a major reduction in per capita consumption by rich countries, and also that it would be a major disaster if poor countries increased their per capita consumption to the levels of rich countries. That is assuming no population change. To continue human life on Earth at the current population, rich countries have to reduce their per capita consumption a lot, and poor countries have to not increase their per capita consumption a lot. I see a sinister motive for the world’s most greedy oligarchs to keep poor people poor, or depopulated, or both. I believe a combination of lifestyle changes and existing technology could possibly be used to make a world liveable to 7.6 billion with resources distributed fairly, but the bigger that number gets, the harder it will be, and at some point it will be impossible, if it isn’t already. Some point probably between 2 billion and 20 billion.
http://zorq.org/oped/eprob.html
I don’t know, ROB. You say killing the rich won’t solve the problem, but are you really sure? It sound’s kinda fun, and you never know – it MIGHT work. I mean, compared to tin-cans in space. Anyway, if we need to reduce consumption AND population, we need to start somewhere, right?
.
I am always very wary of solutions that involve population reduction. I understand the imperative, and the numbers, but if it becomes a plan, then you need to ask Who decides which people get to live and which ones get to die (or die younger, or not reproduce)?
.
Caitlin is suggesting that women (am I still allowed to say that?) will choose to have fewer (or no) children, in part because they will be more wealthy(!). I wonder if that’s likely. In the other comments, some have suggested that war, famine and pestilence will do the trick. I suspect the later is more likely, unless we ALL wake up real quick.
.
Can’t help but notice that we have already managed to kill off much of the existing non-human population of the planet, so it also feels like too little, too late.
.
Does anyone know where we’re going to get all the tin from to build those space-condos? And how do we get it up there? Solar-powered rockets? And where does the tin come from to repair them when they break down?
.
T-Shirt: Bezos got condos in space, and all I got was this lousy pandemic.
I love you, respect you, and you have my sympathy, Caitlin. It is so sad that the traumas you have been subjected to at the hands of complete male a**holes has led you to this degree of misandry. I hope in your search for inner growth you find the healing to see the damage we all do to one another is based on ourselves as individuals, and not solely due to gender.
It is going to take billions to get crews on to Mars but that sure won’t be the first time the war mongers etc. wasted billions. After those heroic crews die for the obvious reasons the population of space will look a lot less enticing.
Good article. It all just goes to show we should pay no attention to media’s steady stream of drivel, or the oft-quoted billionaire class. The establishment’s mission has never been to solve anything. They work hard to generate worry, fear, and panic through war, chaos, hoaxes, and staggering layers of deception.
—
I’m not concerned in the least about climate collapse, nuclear war, or anything happening in “space”. Like pretty much everything else in this world, these are manufactured hoaxes.
—
As Caitlin has often said, our primary goal is to grow inwardly. From the outer world they impose fear and worry to distract the masses, suppressing the expansion of human consciousness. But as individuals we can choose where to apply our conscious attention. This is what THEY fear.
It must be nice to be unconcerned about nuclear war, climate disaster, etc. Too bad that those of us aware of these very real threats must endure some discomfort for our realistic stance.
Do the research, e.g. faked government nuke testing videos. You may come out with a different perspective.
—
We can all agree how difficult it can be discussing dogma with a religious fanatic. Their unwavering faith and complete confidence in what they “know” makes it virtually impossible for them to entertain any idea conflicting with their emotionally-held beliefs.
—
However, today there exists one exceptionally popular theology with the majority of adherents completely unaware of their fanaticism. Scientism. Essentially the idea that science has exclusive access to the truth. But wait. “Science” is information about our “reality” shared by its priesthood (government, media, corporations, education, and other managed institutions). If the New York Times publishes a “science” article, of course it must be true. If NASA provides data and artistic renderings of what’s “out there”, we’re getting some rock-solid facts to incorporate into our understanding of what’s true.
—
So I rarely converse with Scientism’s devotees. They’re quite comfortable with their “rightness”, and few risk exposure to information threatening their faith.
Well, Caitlin, another brilliant piece. Brilliantly conceived, rational logic and and lovely writing style.
What I continue to say to my people is that, it is time the human species recognized and treated its member female and male constituents as equal partners in the game of life.
Well said ,I agree completely!
True, but Caitlin seems to believe that females are morally and ethically superior to males. I’m hoping someday she’ll realize that we are equal in that realm as well.
“Billionaires, as we discussed recently, are not smart. They certainly should not be in charge of the future of our species.” One of the most corrosive effects of capitalism is the mass confusion of “smart” with “shrewd.” The former does not necessarily translate into wealth- and power-accumulation, often works against it. The latter, on the other hand, is generally the precondition for effective self-aggrandizement.
Exactly. All my life I’ve watched people taunt others with, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” — as if the greatest, or indeed the only, goal in life is the attainment of wealth. I always think of scientists, historians, poets, philosophers, artists, social workers, inventors, wood workers, writers, explorers, teachers, musicians and others whose work itself provides interest, challenge, satisfaction, connection and fulfillment. As if “buy and sell” were in any respect nobler or grander.
Wow ! A reality denying exercise in wish thinking ? Demagoguing to a constituency that does not exist.
Why do complex societies collapse? There have been a number of theories proposed to address this conundrum. The one that I believe to answer the question best is archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s that he puts forward in The Collapse of Complex Societies. Here’s his theory in a nutshell (hope I’ve interpreted it accurately):
1) Complex societies are problem-solving organisations that tend to pursue the most ‘economical’ solutions (i.e., easiest-to-access/retrieve, cheapest-to-exploit, etc.) to the problems they encounter;
2) Solutions soon experience the Law of Marginal Utility and endure diminishing returns on their investments and must use more and more resources, especially energy, to maintain and/or grow;
3) Increased resource use soon depends upon using surpluses that were meant for ’emergencies’;
4) A series of crises of some nature arise that cannot be dealt with adequately since surpluses have been consumed, requiring citizens to invest greater and greater resources to maintain society;
5) Citizens eventually choose to ‘withdraw’ their support of society by halting their continued investments in complexity and look for more ‘economical’ (i.e., simpler) alternatives;
6) Without increasing investments by citizens, sociopolitical collapse/decline ensues.
Overpopulation is but one way in which we have consumed our surpluses; in fact, one could argue that it’s not so much global overpopulation but ‘overpopulation’ of the most conspicuous consumers (i.e., so-called ‘advanced’ economies). Could we sustain current, or larger, population levels if resources were more equitably distributed? Perhaps, but that would most certainly require significant sacrifices by those who benefit from the status quo–i.e., citizens in advanced economies.
Personally, I believe we’ve already well surpassed the planet’s natural carrying capacity and began experiencing diminishing returns some decades ago, but have been able to kick-the-can-down-the-road through some pretty awful shenanigans (e.g., financialisation of our economic system via massive credit/debt expansion; geopolitical and economic exploitation of ‘subservient’ nations/people/regions; etc.). Sociopolitical decline/collapse has likely already started and there’s probably no way we will ever reverse it.
Predicting the future is, of course, impossible but if thousands of years of previous experiments in complex societies shows us anything, it’s that they all eventually fade from existence. There’s little reason to believe we are any different–except to reduce the cognitive dissonance that arises from this realisation. My only hope is that we can mitigate some of the worst negative consequences of chasing the infinite growth chalice on a finite planet…problem is, some of the worst sociopaths are in charge of some of the most destructive weaponry in human history.
Debt is simply a measure of over consumption of means. Thus deeper the debt the more you are existing above your means to produce. Collapse inevitable.
Agreed, and if people are depending upon advanced-economy levels of ‘wealth’ to control and bring in sustainable population production levels they are dreaming in technicolour since this ‘wealth’ has been built upon the unsustainable practices of credit/debt expansion (to the tune of hundreds of trillions so far), overexploitation of resources, and geopolitical/economic tyranny. It cannot and will not continue for much longer regardless of ideal ‘solutions’.
Very good points Steve.Thank you.
Precisely. I first heard about this from John Michael Greer (formerly of Arch-Druid Report), and he also said that the collapse tends to happen in stages, as different aspects or layers of complexity are expunged from the society. Apparently, there are many civilisations that have shown this pattern. By the way, John doesn’t believe in sudden catastrophic collapse of the West, but a series of compounding collapses over a century or so.
.
I think it’s obvious both that the society is undergoing collapse, and also that there are externalities like climate disruption, pollution, mass extinction, resource depletion, biosphere depletion, micro-plastics, radioactive pollution and more, which will exacerbate the situation. Not to mention peak oil, upon which our entire society relies absolutely – including for any mitigation or transition.
.
So your final point is in fact the most relevant. Given that collapse is inevitable, our job is to mitigate the worst negative consequences. We still have choices in that area. From memory, John recommends learning, teaching and practising 1. critical thinking 2. collective democratic decision-making and problem-solving and 3. I forget the other one, so maybe you need to google it or put in an idea of your own. Something practical I guess. I suspect we are already at the stage where local solutions and actions are the most effective.
Here is an entertaining introduction to John Michael Greer’s thinking (15min):
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=michael+john+greer&t=hk&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhkwjTa3Wdn4
There is a decent message in this article, but it is drenched in misandry and feminist rhetoric. Is it possible for anyone schooled in the social sciences not have hate as a starting point
Hi Caitlin,
Great article. Kindly, a tiny suggestion here for the article today, please edit the second last paragraph ~ third line, where you have misspelled, ”may” for, ”way”.
Keep up the good work. Cheers! 🙂
That is what you got out of this article.
This response alone should validate my statements wholeheartedly.
The real issue is the letter W or is it M.
God help us all as WE ARE SO FUCKED BASED ON THIS ONE COMMENT.
I HAD NO CLUE IT HAS COME THIS FAR.
All caps because yes I was screaming.
You screamed because someone pointed out a spellinge error?
Indeed, when resources are readily available, and life becomes easier, the population is not so desperate to create progeny to assure continuation of the species. 100+ years ago in the US, families with 7-10 children were not uncommon, because most of them would not survive to adulthood. Now nearly all of them do. It’s entirely possible there is a gene that causes us to become less fertile in time of plenty and ease. Frantic reproduction is simply not necessary.
The notion put forth by a number of women that our culture is “male supremacist” is another fantasy. Women have a vagina. They have always had significant control, and since rape was outlawed and aggressively punished, they have been in complete control. Just exactly why do you think men tend to be so acquisitive? Could it be to attract sexual partners, or to please the one they have, and so gain access to that most desirable vagina? Could it be at the direction of said possessor of the vagina, holding sexual favor in lieu of such acquisition?
Such accusations rarely have any real foundation. Like “white supremacy”, “male supremacy” is more likely an excuse than a cause. “My life is hard, whose fault is it? Certainly not mine.” Never mind that blacks insist on supporting a political party with a long history of racism, and are in complete control of the worst hell holes for blacks. Never mind that a great many women have trouble with combining career with motherhood, even though it’s their own desire to have both that is the source of their trouble. Want to see the source of most of your trouble? Look in the mirror.
So true but isnt it always easier to shift the blame to someone else for our own failings.
Then it’s not so true?
Make up your freaking mind!
It’s so true but.
Then it’s not true.
God help us all. A planet of Morons WE ARE!
If you were expecting angels, you should have gone to heaven.
The reason the birth rate dropped from 7+ children (my great grandparents) to one and two (my grandparents) was that in 1914 Margaret Sanger stated aggressively promoting birth control (she invented the term) and distributing condoms.
You sure smacked a bees nest on this one. Nice work.
Not really. It’s a safe topic. People will fight with each other over the myth vs the truth of overpopulationism instead of criticizing CJ. Does she ever respond to constructive criticism?
It wasn’t criticism. Nice work.
I think we’ve all seen the picture of an American soldier in Vietnam of a civilian on his knees begging for his life, the soldier has a gun pointed at the man’s at very close range, and then pulls the trigger and kills the man. That’s what is going on in the United States. Total obedience or death.
Good for you. You deserve that pat on the back you’re giving yourself. You, Caitlin Johnstone, are also the recipient of some well-deserved imo criticisms in these comments. I’ll add another criticism in the spirit of “In all of history, we have found just one cure for error—a partial antidote against making and repeating grand, foolish mistakes, a remedy against self-deception. That antidote is criticism” (David Brin). The life lessons which you learned which made you correct about the overpopulation myth ought to serve you well to question the official narrative of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 myth.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/19/10-steps-to-turn-a-pandemic-into-the-brave-new-normal/
“10 Steps to Turn a Pandemic into the Brave New Normal” by Catte Black (19 May 2020 )
It’s incredible to me that a “rogue journalist” and someone who considers herself “woke” is not reporting on this massive power-grab based on a psychological warfare operation by the ruling elite to utilize fear-based group psychology and groupthink about a “pandemic”/a “public health” crisis or emergency to malevolently manipulate the masses to accept overt totalitarian social control implements in conjunction with “inverted totalitarianism” (Sheldon Wolin). What’s going on, Caitlin? Do you think that Catte Black is full of bollocks?
That is because she believes deep down thst it is real or is reslly just not sure. So the safest position to take is one of neutrality to wait and see. Otherwise she would speak of it.
Thank you
This article is 100% nonsense.
Caitlin you are a lovely young woman but either we are Spiritual Beings and none of the horrors going on in these physical bodies matters or we are spiritual beings but we try to test out ability to ascend by living in these bodies.
It cannot be both in my very humble opinion. Of course I admit I don’t know shit.
It sure appears you believe in this nonsense. If so you are Drunk. Take some LSD or Ayahuasca and let us know after ten or twenty trips if you still agree with the you that existed before those “Trips”.
You need to be like a feral cat to understand being awakened. Life is tough.
Thanks for the Off-Guardian link, Gary. It does feel as though we’re being manipulated via this pandemic, but to what end, I don”t know. However, official spokespersons appear to be invested in fostering fear and breaking groups of people apart. Here’s another link showing an aspect of it: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/florida-man-20s-who-died-motorcycle-wreck-labeled-covid-19-death-state
You’re welcome. It’s a complex situation, but not so overly complicated as to be impossible to understand. People have to have “ears to hear & eyes to see & hearts to understand” (so to speak), but once you see it, it becomes impossible to un-see. Just my 2¢ worth. Change happily given.
Hear! Hear!
I no nobody who always agrees with me. Nor anyone I always agree with.
The way to reduce population growth, for anyone really worried about it, has been known since at least the 1970s (I knew it then – I think it was in The Limits to Growth) – raise people out of poverty, empower women. The reason the action was never pursued on any significant scale is because it cuts into the profits of multinationals that exploit the poor countries. Thus the number one way to tackle population growth is to wrest control away from capitalism.
So the next time you hear someone worrying about population growth (in my experience most well-off people will raise it in discussions about environmental problems), point that out to them.
The problem has grown beyond what classical economists generally conceive of as “capitalism.” Finance, insurance and real estate (the FIRE sector) have gained control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments. There are capitalists and then there are financial imperial rentiers. Capitalists make profits from reinvesting capital wisely. If the investment is poor, no profit and business lost. Financiers make money from money. What we call “rent” is unearned income/the proverbial “free lunch”, i.e. no work/labor involved.
Michael Hudson — an American economist & Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City & a researcher at the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College & a former Wall Street analyst — rejects the idea that the contradiction of wage labor and capital is the core issue of today’s capitalism. The theory is that parasitic forms of finance have warped the political economy of modern capitalism. Hudson points to Marx’s view of capitalism as the historic force that tends to eliminate all forms of pre-capitalist rent seeking, i.e. land rent, monopoly rent and financial rent (usury). The original meaning of a free market as discussed by classical political economists was a market free from all forms of rent. The gist of classical political economy was to distinguish earned and unearned income (also known as rent or free lunch). The other form of rent is imperialist rent, flowing from underdeveloped countries to developed ones. Michael Hudson argues that, unlike Marx’s optimistic expectation, history did not go in the direction of eliminating all forms of pre-capitalist/feudalist rent seeking. Therefore, today modern capitalism is dominated by rentier classes. (I borrowed heavily to compose this, but I’ve been quoting Michael Hudson extensively on social media.)
Thank you for this. Michael Hudson’s is an important voice. So are Bill Mitchell’s and Stephanie Kelton’s, among other dissident economists who view our fiat money system through the clarifying lens of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The rich and powerful, while selling to the average citizen the false household model of federal finances, have long been wise to fiat money and have used FIRE to build and bolster plutocracy at the expense of the vast majority of us and the natural world. If we, too, understood the fiat money system, our demands for governmental policies and programs to save people and planet would NEVER be thwarted by the absurd, disingenuous question of how we would pay for vitally necessary governmental initiatives. They are paid for simply by deciding to do them.
Thanks for the mature response.
There is one thing that confounds me about fiat money and MMT. Why is America debt worth more than Zimbabwe debt. Why allow some countries to live lavishly and others to stay impoverished. If finance moved to the East because of the instability of the west would the eastern nations become the wealthy countries of the future while the west becomes impoverished. Fiat money is illusion so who determines tge pecking order of worth.
In my non-expert opinion, the “value” of the American fiat money is (1) a large portion of the world’s oil is exclusively sold in USD (2) the USD is much of the world’s reserve currency. Regarding #2, much of the world’s dependence on the stability of the USD effectively means that they are propping up the USA’s debt & deficit spending.
I’m no expert. I’m sure that you could get much better answers based on the extensive & superior knowledge others have on modern monetary theory.
That is pretty much it. In addition, the USA has backed it up with overwhelming force of satanic proportions. Eg Libya when Gaddafi was trying to set up an African Development Bank backed by gold, or Saddam Hussein when he tried to negotiate oil sales in other than US$. The US also controls the systems of global finance and governance, so you can include sanctions and IMF loans into that stick and carrot arsenal. The reason the US is so ruthless here is that without the reserve currency status, it pretty much looses all its power, including much of its military projection power. Maybe that’s why the CIA has developed alternative means of cash-flow. Of course, the US might itself just be a sock-puppet – who know?
Like you Michael Hudson is part of the problem in his self serving way.
This is the reply from a troll.
Thank you for revealing your true colors.
Does that mean the reply you like are good people and the reply you do not like must be a troll?
You may be right. I am simply posing a question not making an assumption.
Even if I believed the person who wrote the comment to be a good person, the comment itself was trollish imo.
My reply was probably too. When I call someone a “troll”, I could easily be projecting.
If it quacks like a troll and it waddles like a troll..
Capitalism was not a great choice of word, but it was the best word I could think of at the time to evoke the world of rich and powerful people and corporations. I.e. the rich psychopaths (a corporation being psychopathic by design) who pull the strings, control the narrative, and who would do anything for a quick buck (or million). In this regard it’s not really relevant whether those powerful manipulators are heavily involved in the FIRE sector (I’m a big Hudson fan, BTW) or oil companies, mining companies, meat companies etc. Any such entity with a material interest in the resources or labor of poorer countries (or ‘imperialist rent’ to be had) will fight most attempts to improve the lot of the population of those countries as it threatens their profits, or potential profits (in different, sometimes complex, ways).
Thus I don’t see the problem as fundamentally one of economics – it comes down to power, which money can buy. I personally apply Hudson’s idea of parasitism (in Killing the Host) more generally to civilizations – it is the better side of human nature that makes them work and makes them successful but, with time, manipulative psychopathic types parasitize the system and eventually suck the life out of it.
I definitely shouldn’t have have said capitalism…
I find myself in agreement with this essay. Once we can give women (and families) economic security the emphasis on procreation is diminished. A large family is currently economic security for the old age of the parents. It boils down to [imaginary] money or lack of it. That’s why, imo, it’s so important to overthrow the current preposterous and usurious money system and replace it with one that does not propel the vast majority of the users of it into impossible to repay ‘debt’ slavery. It’s so simple. Abolish interest rates. Create our own money! Spend it into circulation without creating any nonsensical unredeemable debt at the point of money’s genesis out of thin air. Look up complementary currencies. Sideline banksters. Job done! Go forth and prosper. You’re welcome.
I’m 57 years old and male. I was educated at a comprehensive school in north London that came bottom of the table of academic achievement.
I was taught that if you want to prevent overpopulation then you simply raise the standard of living and education. It was a known fact back then that a smarter, well fed population have less children even in the worst school in the U.K. we knew that.
I admire your work, usually. Even in this piece regarding the key matter of overpopulation you and I have clearly been in the same camp, but. As a veteran MHRA [men’s human rights advocate, founder member of UK F4J Father’s for Justice], having studied this issue of gender intensely for several decades I can assure you that your assertions here of the ‘patriarchy’ and their phallus is a fallacy.
I would like to help you to overcome your prejudice. Let us set aside herstory, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Victoria, the Lizzies and Thatcher for one moment and examine male privilege today.
Men die significantly younger.
Baby boys may be legally genitally mutilated as infants.
Men constitute virtually all workplace deaths.
Men constitute virtually all military deaths.
Men are statistically paid less in like for like scenarios until age 45.
Statistically in the UK if men were treated like women 5 out of 6 wouldn’t be in Jail.
An accepted 2:1 male to female historical ratio for suicide has shifted to 4:1 in the modern era.
Men invariably pay more taxes and receive least government benefits.
In the UK we have identified 20 particularly striking areas where the state disadvantages men for the benefit of women and none where women are disadvantaged for the benefit of men.
In the Victorian era when men were the legal head of the family, most fail to mention that husbands would do jail time if they couldn’t pay the taxes and debts that their wife created independently.
Regarding Muslim society today, feminists fail to mention the many benefits afforded to women in the Koran itself which are the burden of men.
The, by now, international couple in a park experiment has shown that regardless of culture people will invariably run to the aid of a female being attacked, but hardly ever render aid to a man being attacked. I call that the effect on the id of tribe survival mathematics.
Unfortunately you are clearly a victim in your above article of this deep in built bias.
You act as if Chivalry [which we MHRAs now call manginosity, or white knighting thanks to feminism] never existed.
You have swallowed a diet of cherry picked cultural Marxist mantras and lost your way down this particular rabbit hole.
Some of the richest people in the world, e.g. Jabba The Hut the Australian mining tycoon, are and were women in herstory.
Also it’s called the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates foundation’ and not the Bill Gates phallus.
I’m bothering to tell you all of this because I like you. It would be a shame if your good work was tainted by your obvious prejudice against men.
Well said. I couldn’t agree more.
Yes, it is often hard to get feminists to see, as Cheech and Chong would put it, “Things are tough all over.”
Damn.
Now that’s a friggin beautifully stated reply.
God bless you and it sure sounds like you have not just woke up yesterday to the reality we live in. Barely live in.
Thank you. Caitlin I sincerely hope you are able to gain something from this versus work hard on a response that makes it appear incorrect and vulgar as I am sure is possible.
Try to not let the thoughts, which are NOT you change your feeling. IE let the gut rule.
Kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Grandparents are the best folks to raise and nurture children. It’s a win win if the family units stay closely connected. It gives the older folks meaning in life which keeps them healthier. No one wants to live in a “retirement home”.
This research relies on flawed projection of past trends in the context of a world that is fast approaching climate tipping points that could reduce global human carrying capacity to <1 billion.
This population projection: 'While the methods for these crucial components are now based on statistical models fit to past data, UNPD forecasts of long-term migration for each country remain arbitrary assumptions without uncertainty. The UNPD's latest forecasts used time alone as the determinant of future trajectories for fertility and mortality; they are sophisticated curve-fitting exercises, which do not allow for alternative scenarios linked to policies or other drivers of fertility and mortality'.
Climate science : 'Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, … believes if we go much above 2°C we will quickly get to 4°C anyway because of the tipping points and feedbacks, which would spell the end of human civilisation.
Johan Rockström, … warned in 2019 that in a 4°C-warmer world it would be “difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that'.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/
Computer models can say whatever you desire based on data input. Wake up. Climate change is a political agenda just like this Covid 19 Fear pandemic. Peoples gullibility never ceases to amaze me.
Yes, the tendency of folks to believe unfounded ideas in preference to well established science is amazing. Like thinking climate science is some sort of giant hoax.
Not quite. I write computer software, and as it turns out I used to work in a scientific organisation that did climate modelling. Now I accept that science can (and often is) biased, and can be (and often is) driven by agenda. But I know that the people I was working with were motivated by a sincere desire to know what was ACTUALLY happening in the real world, and modelling was one of the tools to do that. For that reason, they wrote the most accurate model they could, they fed it with the most accurate data they had and they continually refined their models based on cross-checking it with real-world data. The did not have a desire for any particular outcome, they just did the job to the best of their knowledge and ability. And they didn’t massage the data after the fact to make it more palatable. The other thing to take into account is that much of the climate alarm is coming not from models but from actual real-world measurements. In fact, for about five years now, the measurements have been overshooting the projections, which have some scientists really concerned. Keep in mind that only a few scientists really work in this field, not every scientist actually keeps up with or even understands the latest climate data. Of course, the science is also used as part of a political agenda, as is Covid 19, but I wouldn’t write off climate change as a hoax just because it gets used by con-artists to sell an agenda.
Yes as the others have stated you are Drunk.
We are entering another ice age.
Try learning about the Global Electric Circuit and the Sun’s cosmic Ray’s.
Add in the blanket of clouds created by Chem Trails and you get the fake global warming narratives.
Try seeing reality.
https://suspiciousobservers.org may help though I assume the EGO will block you ability to consider that fat smiling Avatar you posted will permit.
For such a smile your rap does not coincide. Sorry for being a dick but wake up bub, we are fucked big time.
Population of the United States by 2025 is estimated at 100 million.
Clearly someone is sure we have a population problem.
Unluckily killing people is a fucked up solution but it is already started. The way to stop it is the creation of the Gaia Grid. Yet will the Grid stop it or allow those ready to ascend to move on while the rest evaporate away. Time will tell.
I think the 100 million figure assumes America will become such a violent hellhole that most people will emigrate back to their home country while the rest kill each other in a civil war as America shatters.
Feminism is a phenomenon of western society which is a minority of the world population. It is with this hubris that Americs and thr west operates trying to shove their values down the throat of the rest of the world. Thr sooner the west collapses the better off the rest of the world will be without their interference.
“Because women have been excluded from the design of our society until only…….”
Look, as a male, I fully agree, I worked in a 160 bed nursing care facility, of which there were 100 high care unit, of elderly. There was approximately 10-15 rotating full time nurses (1 male), with kitchen and 6 full time volunteers, mostly over 60yrs (0 males) along with approx 15-20 full time carers (2 males)
Just have a look at most of the Health Care Industry in general, 95% workforce are female, just have a look at Child Care, Disabilities, MOST by far are women.
So I ask the World to open their eyes to the genuine, loving, caring side of Humanity, that exists, today, here and now, while men fill their bellies with fat, with opulence and greed, for power and control, WOMEN HOLD OUR WORLD TOGETHER< IT IS MEN WHO DESTROY IT! my quote.
Got your mask on Folks?
https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/2020-06-12-healthy-people-should-not-wear-face-masks/
Too many people is not the problem.
Too many rabid consumers and omnivores IS the problem.
But that ain’t gonna change.
The Spirit we unconsciously seek does not come in a bottle or a shopping bag.
I love you Caitlin. You are one of the sanest voices out there. I applaud your perspective and your wisdom. Thank you!!
I would speculate that Jeff Bezos and especially Elon Musk’s interest in sending people to the moon and Mars is about securing mineral rights and establishing mines there. Similar to the colonization of Australia, those space capsules Bezos is touting will be full of political prisoners sent into space to establish and maintain mines on the moon and Mars. Just sayin’
Bezos and Musk went to the moon and to mars, and all I got was this lousy pandemic!
People, anyway the story about the two murdered covid-19 DNA experts in Philadelphia will probably never be found because I downloaded a few files from one of the victim’s website a few days earlier and now those files have been removed from my computer. So, who does such things? The US? Israel? Two and the same thing. I received an email from a US senator concerning a murder that Hillary Clinton had supposedly arranged. That too was later removed from my computer. That’s what the US is all about, rewriting the truth.
Say what? Who was murdered? and When?
Yeah, the overpopulation storyline has always been sort of a, “What? Those damned peasants want to have a say over their own lives, and keep some of their own stuff? Poppycock!!! There are simply too many of them, that’s the problem… Ladeeda…” kind of thing.
Basically.
I disagree with this article. I believe that the world has too many people and that rampant overproduction of children is as insane as rampant overproduction of anything. I had two abortions as a young woman because I didn’t ever want children and did not believe that anyone had the right to try and force me to do so. I would do it again if I were still of child-conceiving age. Fortunately, I am now 71 years old and no longer have to worry about that.
Now that there are many methods of birth control available, they should be used. But they do not always work. Condoms tear and diaphragms misalign and accidents happen. Forcing women to be incubators is, in my opinion, a form of slavery on behalf of the state. I do not believe that fucking is a sin or a crime, either.
Why didn’t you just get your idiot self spayed instead of murdering babies? Moron.
Ouch!
Carolyn, I always enjoy and respect your comments both here and at wsws, and so found it jolting to read the careless verbal abuse thrown your way by an apparently unhappy, angry commenter. Too bad it’s still not safe online to write honestly of one’s personal experience. But I appreciate your honesty and am of the firm belief that forcing unwanted children onto unwilling women is a recipe for one or two (or more) miserable lives. Women are the best judges of their readiness for motherhood.
Caitlin’s excellent blog, for some reason, seems to attract more than its fair share of such comments, either made in response to others who comment or just flung out there by themselves. I sometimes wonder if Caitlin’s blog is so good, so incisive, so revealing, that it has become a target for sabotage. Trolls abound on the internet, of course, but there is a difference between a blog having trolls and being trolled in concerted, coordinated fashion. Perhaps I’m being paranoid here, but my experiences with the commentary sections of other high quality blogs have been substantially different than with this one. I don[t know whether it’s possible, but I would love to see a blog that requires those who comment to use their real names or provide some other public indication of identity. THAT, I believe, would solve the trolling problem in a heartbeat and make everyone own what they say.
I think it’s partly due to Caitlin’s willingness to show vulnerability. For certain folks, any appearance of vulnerability is an invitation to abuse.
—
But I must disagree with you about using our real names in online comments. For many of us it’s necessary to keep our real life existence sheltered from intrusion and harassment by strangers who cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with them or thinks along unorthodox lines.
Good point. Re the offending comment, and the possibility of coordinated trolling, I think even a troll farm would have higher standards for abuse.
A great article Caitlin, but I wonder if you should have mentioned Bill Gates along with Jeff Bezos halfway through the article. The Lancet Study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which also is investing heavily in educating women and girls worldwide.
If you think Gates is some kind of selfless saint I have a bridge that you should buy.
I’m not sure Richard was thinking in those terms. If he hadn’t mentioned it, I wouldn’t have known. One of Caitlin’s recurring themes is manipulation of the narrative by the wealthy and powerful. Isn’t this an example of just that process?
.
I don’t think the MSM will ever make a story out of Bill’s machinations because what would they call it? BillGate just sounds silly. His entire adult life seems to be one long story of psychopathic behaviour – theft, coersion, bullying, lying, cheating and Windows. The words evil and perverse spring to mind. Still, lots of people think he’s really great, so that must mean something.
.
BTW, the thing about Windows is truly bad, and in my opinion a crime against humanity. The way I see it, we had a short opportunity in the last half-century to really make good use of computing, and we threw it all away by using Windows which is truly a completely crappy operating system that cripples your mind in much the same way crappy TV does. Or, like trying to run with your feet shackled together. It didn’t have to be like that. With the end of oil and gas, computers will die and we will have lost that opportunity forever. So much potential and none of it realised. Shameful, and for what?
In the future collectivist society (where many people would also be polyamorous), I think it might not be a good idea to preserve the conventional nuclear family structure. Rather, shouldn’t child-rearing be done mainly by professional caregivers and teachers in large boarding-house kindergartens, freeing up parents’ time so their lives don’t have to be monopolized, tyrannicized and hijacked by their off-spring? We’re already pretty much doing it with schools, so why not also relieve parents when the children are smaller? People should help each other far more than they do now. In a society that were collectively structured, with many communal activities, people would become far closer to each other instead of becoming the rampant narcissists we see so often today on all social levels.
Sorry, I cannot tell if you were being serious or sarcastic.
This is one of the sanest things I’ve ever read.
Herculean?? Now, now Caitlin. Surely an arch misandrist like yourself wouldn’t deliberately qualify childbirth using a male archetype as descriptor?
Now, now Bonoboboy, -Tim, Caitlin’s husband, certainly doesn’t think she’s a “misandrist.” What rubbish! Good article, Caitlin. Your sentiments about women’s agency are right on.
As readers of Caitlin’s articles, we are not obliged to choose between completely dismissing her, or unconditionally accepting her. We can also take her case by case, article by article. And just because we agree with her when she displays excellent thinking (like about Russiagate and foreign policy), doesn’t mean we need to respect her gender politics, or her views on coronavirus, or to agree with her when she writes like a traumatized woman.
Sure, sure, Air. Only that this time it was sheer genius; she knocked it out of the ballpark. I’d be surprised to hear these thoughts had already been formulated just as clearly. So surprise me. To what do we owe your warning, by the way, and which exactly of Caitlin’s writings are you instructing us to respect, or not?