Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: Population control Message-ID: <26500048@inmet> Date: Mon, 25-Aug-86 18:03:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.26500048 Posted: Mon Aug 25 18:03:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 20:05:34 EDT References: <543@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 132 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle.UUCP:-54300:inmet:26500048:000:5998 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Aug 25 18:03:00 1986 [carnes@gargoyle.UUCP ] /* ---------- "Population control" ---------- */ [discussion of "Nazi-like" statements of Ehrlich on coercive population control] >In his writings Ehrlich (for what it's worth, his mother's name >is Rosenberg) has emphasized the necessity for avoiding the >focusing of population control measures on particular ethnic or >minority groups or other relatively powerless groups (see any of >his writings on the population problem). The maiden name argument is worth little, mainly because no one accused Ehrlich of anti-semitism; but it happens that (for what it's worth) the name of chief Nazi ideologist was also Rosenberg. >An important argument he adduces in favor of planned population >control is that it will help to *prevent* Nazi-like regimes from >arising, seeking Lebensraum for their populations, and practicing >"population control" through genocide. So he wants to be there first. How does shipping a poor country batches of poisoned (sterilizing) food differ from genocide is too subtle for me. This method is commonly used against rats and other pests. Of course they may refuse the food (and so may rats) - that's provided he'd warn them... >Jan's principal error here seems to be relying on Tom Bethell as a >source for anything [...] >Bethell is clearly a busy man and has no time to read Ehrlich's >actual writings, and consequently he turns to the New York Times >Index. However, the Index's summary in this instance is mislead- >ing. Following are the relevant portions of the article to which >it refers [NYT, Nov. 25, 1969, p. 19, by Gladwin Hill]: >[Ehrlich] urged establishing a Federal Population Commission >"with a large budget for propaganda," changing tax laws to >discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control >instruction in public schools. >He also urged "changing the pattern of Federal support of biomed- >ical research...." >If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might >resort to "the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, >or to the water supply," with limited distribution of antidote >chemicals, perhaps by lottery. >Although it might seem that such a program could be started by >doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, "the >solution does not lie in that direction" because "other people >already are suspicious of our motives." In other words, doing it is all right, but they might suspect our motives, so let's start somewhere else. >Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid >to countries that do not try to limit their populations. >Thus, according to the NY Times, he did not advocate doctoring >foods sent to UDCs or adding anything to their water supply. >porary sterilant to food or water was prefaced by: "If such steps >are unavailing, the nation might resort to...". That is, he >presented this as a hypothetical possibility, and by implication >the only justification for such measures is in the case that they >are necessary to avoid a catastrophe that would be a considerably >worse prospect. But *that* would be, according to him, a sufficient justification. And since he's never stopped predicting catastrophes, the justification is always available. I am grateful to Richard for putting Bethell's quote in context, but the context did *not* change its implications. >Ehrlich was hardly unaware of the difficult pol- >itical and ethical issues this would raise (apart from the ex- >treme unlikelihood of the discovery of a sterilant chemical that >would fill the bill). Still, he thought it worth while to prepare us morally for using it - *because* of the political and ethical issues and *in spite* of the unlikelihood. >In the second edition of *The Population >Bomb*, which appeared in February 1971, Ehrlich wrote [pp. 130- >131]: >So the first task is population control at home.... One plan >often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to >water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be >carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired popu- >lation size. Those of you who are appalled at such a suggestion >can rest easy. The option isn't even open to us, since no such >substance exists.... Apparently between 1st and 2nd editions he had had some response... >Technical problems aside, I suspect you'll agree with me that so- >ciety would probably dissolve before sterilants were added to the >water supply by the government. Just consider the fluoridation >controversy! Some other way will have to be found. Here, I agree with Ehrlich. It looks like his first proposal was a trial balloon, and then he realized it would be politically unfeasible. The comparison with fluoride makes his own position clear: it would be fine if people would only stand for it. >So Ehrlich did not advocate taking these measures; he merely >described this proposal and implied that the situation would have >to be fairly desperate, with catastrophe impending, before such >steps could be seriously considered. I confess that I am unable >to understand how this shows Ehrlich to be a crypto-Nazi. Nazi-like, not crypto-Nazi. Someone is Nazi-like if he shares important features of their Weltanschauung. Someone is a crypto-Nazi if he's a Nazi but pretends not to be. The conviction that the individual should be sacrificed to the goals of the race (be it even the human race); and that the state embodies these goals, and in particular, that conception and birth are to be viewed as an individual's service (or disservice) to the Race and the State, are Nazi-like convictions. To be sure, some non-Nazis (crypto or otherwise) have them too, among them Ehrlich. I don't expect Richard to agree, but I am certain that the future of mankind is safer with the kind of person who'd refuse to sa- crifice another person to that future. Jan Wasilewsky