So will Kotler practice what he preaches and remove himself from the Earth? 

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

What everyone here must realize is that Steven Kotler is a nobody.  He has no advanced degree, is not a psychologist, and only claim to fame is 2 books (one fiction, one opinion) and a blog.

He's the kind of kook that should be discredited and ignored.

-Dave

Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.

Can we start with MSNBC?

I'm currently 21 weeks along with baby number 5.  My husband works very hard to support us all, and I help out as much as I can to support him in his hobbies to offset the stress.  I guess I'm just a burden to the planet.

...one can only hope they NEVER have ANY children EVER.

Less of you on this planet, more space for me and my heathen brethren!

Please God take them!

I need some breathin' room!

Odd Job

...but seeing as how he doesn't really have pair to begin with, the procedure would be entirely symbolic.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Sir Winston Churchill

It is well known by now that "visionaries" like Margaret Sanger and H.G. Wells were raving eugenicists who thought Hitler was on the right track, he just went a little overboard and made the whole movement look bad, just for a while.

The problem for eugenicists, from the beginning, has been how to make "...the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit'and "...the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective" (as stated by Margaret Sanger) palatable to the masses upon which it was to be practiced.  Hitler was obviously not a good spokesperson- he did not know how to be subtle about it.  "Hitler's determination to establish his "Master Race" was embraced by German eugenicists. *17 And eugenicists elsewhere failed to criticise the Germans. In the United States, the Birth Control Review praised the effectiveness of the Germans, and published articles by Rudin and others. *18" 
But, what I find very interesting is that since WWII, "the eugenics movement continued to thrive, without reform:
The development and promotion of birth control was a major eugenic success...  The discovery of the population explosion and the hysteria about the need to control it was a major eugenic success...  The field of genetics grew faster than fruit flies in the 1950s, and although the accumulating knowledge was valuable, the field was dominated by eugenicists, who could use their knowledge for eugenic purposes.
UNESCO, founded in 1948, was directed by Julian Huxley, a determined eugenicist who used his global platform very effectively...  The welfare state in Britain was based largely on the work of Richard Titmuss, John Maynard Keynes and William Henry Beveridge, members of the Eugenics Society" (www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html#history)

And of course, in 1973, the eugenicists were handed the keys to the kingdom when the U.S. Supreme Court discovered the "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the constitution.  But here , in the words of one of the major movers of eugenicists, is the openly stated plan:
"Voluntary Unconscious Selection"
excerpt from Frederick Osborn's Galton Lecture

Conclusion:

"It is eighty-six years since Galton published his Hereditary Genius; eighty-six years since he gave us the hope that the average of human intelligence and character could be raised to the level of the upper five or ten percent today; since he envisaged the eugenic movement as something that would sweep the world and make man at last the master of his own destiny on earth. It has not happened. The eugenic movement is nothing but a few small handsful of men in various countries; here in England, in the United States, in India, in France. They are not influencing public opinion. The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters. Yet I still believe in Galton's dream. Probably most of you do. We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?
           I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character is formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused, and we have all but killed the eugenic movement.
          People will accept the idea of a specific hereditary defect. They will go to a heredity clinic and ask what is the risk of our having a defective child. They balance that risk against the chance of their having a sound child, and they usually come up with a pretty sound decision. But they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation.
          Given the right circumstances, people will have children in proportion to their ability to care for them. If they feel financially secure, if they enjoy accepting responsibility, if they have warm affectional responses, if they are physically strong and competent, they are likely to have large families, provided they have reasonable psychological conditioning to this end. If they are unable to feed the children they have, if they are afraid of responsibility, if their affectional responses are weak, people don't want many children. If they have effective means of family planning, they won't have many. Our studies have shown this to be true all over the world. On such a base it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.
          It seems to me that if it is to progress as it should, eugenics must follow new policies and state its case anew, and that from this rebirth we may, even in our own lifetime, see it moving at last toward the high goals which Galton set for it."

More from the same site:

The influence of the eugenicists on abortion in America is perhaps best seen by comparing Roe v. Wade and a book by Professor Glanville Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law. The book is cited in the 1973 abortion decision, but the citations alone do not reveal the full extent of the influence. The central ideas in Roe v. Wade are about personhood, and that section is virtually plagiarised from Williams. Justice Blackmun lifted his whole argument from Williams, including the history of abortion, ancient attitudes, the influence of Christianity, common law, Augustine's and Aquinas' teaching, canon law and English statutory law. Williams was a member of the Eugenics Society. *19 Roe v Wade was based on eugenics.

...The influence of the eugenicists on abortion in America is perhaps best seen by comparing Roe v. Wade and a book by Professor Glanville Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law. The book is cited in the 1973 abortion decision, but the citations alone do not reveal the full extent of the influence. The central ideas in Roe v. Wade are about personhood, and that section is virtually plagiarised from Williams. Justice Blackmun lifted his whole argument from Williams, including the history of abortion, ancient attitudes, the influence of Christianity, common law, Augustine's and Aquinas' teaching, canon law and English statutory law. Williams was a member of the Eugenics Society. *19 Roe v Wade was based on eugenics.

...

CRYPTO-EUGENICS

           In 1968, the Eugenics Review ran an article summarising some of the activities of the Eugenics Society. The article quoted a proposal made in the late 1950's by Dr. Carlos Paton Blacker, who had been an officer in the Eugenics Society since 1931 (Secretary, then General Secretary, then Director, then Chairman):

That the Society should pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means, that is by a policy of crypto-eugenics which was apparently proving successful in the US Eugenics Society. *22

          In 1960, Blacker's proposal was adopted by the Eugenics Society. A resolution which was accepted, stated (in part):

The Society's activities in crypto-eugenics should be pursued vigorously, and specifically that the Society should increase its monetary support of the FPA [Family Planning Association, the English branch of Planned Parenthood] and the IPPF [International Planned Parenthood Federation] and should make contact with the Society for the Study of Human Biology, which already has a strong and active memberships, to find out if any relevant projects are contemplated with which the Eugenics Society could assist. *23

          Planned Parenthood grew out of the eugenics movement. At the time this resolution was adopted by the Eugenics Society, Blacker was the Administrative Chairman of IPPF. When IPPF was founded in 1952, it was housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society.
          The dominant figure in the eugenics movement in the United States, considered by the English to be a model of crypto-eugenics, was Major General Frederick Osborn, a master propagandist. In 1956, he said people "won't accept the idea that they are in general, second rate. We must rely on other motivation." He called the new motivation "a system of voluntary unconscious selection." The way to persuade people to exercise this voluntary unconscious selection was to appeal to the idea of "wanted" children. Osborn said, "Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care." In this way, the eugenics movement "will move at last towards the high goal which Galton set for it." *24
          Osborn stated the public relations problem bluntly: "Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics." *25 He pointed to genetic counselling as a prime example: "Heredity clinics are the first eugenic proposals that have been adopted in a practical form and accepted by the public. ” The word eugenics is not associated with them." *26
          Osborn is often credited with reforming the eugenics movement after World War II, and purging its racism. However, during the tine of this "reform," he was President of the Pioneer Fund, holding that office secretly from 1947 to 1956. The Pioneer Fund is a notorious white supremacist organisation. Obviously, a secret racist wouldn't purge racism, he would purge open racism, leaving a policy that critics might call "crypto-racism"

Chilling stuff.

It appears Hitler never really died.  He was just a little too enthusiastic.  His proteges worldwide just put on more effective camoflage.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

The liberals are already aborting themselves out of existance, so I'm in favor of them not having children at all. Demographics actually favor conservatives because they're having more children already. The liberals make up for it with immigration (legal & illegal) and the brainwashing of our children in the schools. This is why they are so desperate to legalize the illegal aliens and they also want to give prisoners the right to vote!

We actually need more people and not less or we will not be able to compete with the China and India in the future.

Please check out my site below for ammunition to use in the fight!

www.CrusaderPatriot.com

I'm all for forced sterilization of Liberals, Enviro-weenies, or Green advocates.  We can use less of them, certainly.  I wonder if this guy gets his math from the same people who told Nancy Pelosi that we were going to lose 500 million jobs a month.

 Personally, I'm vey surprised that we haven't seen a Jonestown-style mass suicide from a bunch of hysterical Liberals who feel that it's the only way to save humanity or avoid the coming global conflagration.  Then again, how would they be able to tell us how to live our lives?

I am neither a Malthusian or--- a proponent of Ehrlich's predictions. However, there is truth in some of what they say. We are procreating at a geometric rate while subsistence is at an arithmetic rate. The third world people with no knowledge of birth control nor any practical ideas of how to make their country, or even their local area more productive are those with the highest reproductive rate. China, simply by the weight of its current population is producing more people than the land, economy or any facet of the human experiment can sustain. So, too in Central, South America and on.

So folks , what's the answer???? What is the most humane methodology?? Do you totally disagree and feel the earth can handle billions more?? Shall we go to the "Soylent Green " solution??? Do we strip the jungles of Africa and Brazil  for farmland???

I do not have an answer. I find  the solutions in the article above to be draconian. Do you here at Newsbusters believe that there is no problem of overpopulation??? Do you think Chinese officials are horrible to set one child per family?? (The Chinese are the most affected.) What solutions do the Chinese have??

Why did the Greeks and Romans reach out to create their empires?? Do you think it was because they just wanted to be in charge of the world??  Do you think there was any chance that they thought they needed the products of the earth to sustain them??? That is what a history professor posited to me back in the 50s.

While I do not agree with what the people above, (Malthus, Ehrlich, etal), I do believe that we have a problem of the nature being denied above.  

Finally, if anyone knows how many people the earth can sustain. please let me know.

Lest you think, I am a "no children" solution advocate--I am the father of 7, 5 are still living.

I simply do not know, but I lean toward population control. I do believe that war is one solution-not mine--but someone's. It has worked in the  past.

"God has created a world big enough for all the lives He wishes to be born."  Mother Teresa

...so Steven Kotler says to stop having children.

...God says be fruitful and multiply.

Hmmm...just who should we listen too?

v

"The child is the most beautiful gift of God to a family, to a nation. Let us never refuse this gift of God. My prayer for each one of you is that you may always have the faith to see and love God in each person including the unborn. God bless you."  Mother Teresa

Baseballmaven

These anti-human-ists crack me up--I'm glad they're not breeding--wouldn't want to perpetuate that blood line.

 Do they even realize that if we all stop having children (except, of course, for Islamists who continue to have children at a high rate), then we might as well deterimine that we'll be living under an Islamic reign in the next couple of generations.

Representatives of Western Civilization--the USA, Canada, Europe--had better wake up before we're all told to "convert or die."

(Read Mark Steyn's America Alone)