Andrew D Atkin
In standing back and taking an holistic view of this globe of ours, I can say that I think there are, basically, two opposing forces in our world that are driving public policy, and the formation of our future/s. One is the drive of the individual to live a prosperous and self-determined life, and the other is the need for those individuals to be managed; and yes, managed somewhat like an animal.
So which of the sides are the goodies and badies? Neither, I believe. The scientifically-orientated minds that are driving much of our public policy today (as I believe) are bound to be serious realists. They will know that population control must be a necessity, in time. They will know that humans are not above natural law (and so there will be a price to pay for providing support for the 'weak' to reproduce, over the long term). They will know that there are millions of corporate psychopaths out there itching for the opportunity to grasp power. They will know that child abuse is the true great social problem of our time. And they will know that the world we are developing is becoming ever more volatile with respect to its capacity for self-obliteration.
My point? I'm afraid us humans need to be managed, at least to some degree. Up to a point, having contempt for democracy can be the right position to take, all depending on the populace's capacity to be realistic and reasonable.
I have spoken specifically about this before:
The libertarian position is respectable. Everyone in principle should have a self-determined life, have the fair opportunity for prosperity, and have the state out of their face and off their backs to the greatest degree possible/reasonable. But you can't make a religion out of this truth. Freedom and self-determination can still only exist within the boundaries of what is workable, for both the short and long term. Hard truths must come even before democracy.
Now because of this, if I was to engage in and/or develop a political party I would insist on one key top-down policy: Reproduction licences.
With reproduction licenses we can develop the most most humane, efficient and effective form of "third way" position between libertarianism and human management. We can calmly solve the problem of population control, negative eugenics, and even serious child abuse by direct prior-screening for parents, and regulating reproductive quantities.
If the public can accept the "great intrusion" of reproduction licences, then we can remove the controls on so many other levels. We can get rid of compulsory schooling as we know it, we can get rid of [deliberately?] engineered hardship, and we can let people live where and how they want.
But what if people can't come to accept this? What if they insist on having as many children as they want, regardless of developing resource scarcities, and even if they are a total psychological/biological mess themselves? Then that is the point where I for one would say "screw democracy". Because then only an arrogant and maybe even brutal world government could save us from ourselves.
-----------------------------------------------------
Addition: 25-4-11
It appears I have an open seconder, Professor David Marsland. He also makes my key points, and very well.
Reader, if our domestic society was built with glass walls, then I would say 98% of the opponents to people like David Marsland and myself would seriously reconsider their views. If you could directly see the black hell that tens of thousands of children are (unnecessarily) born into, you would probably come to appreciate that there's a place for the intelligent application of reproduction licences.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteWhile the dynamic of freedom vs. control will be the debate of the 21st century, I believe your solution would only exacerbate a perilous situation.
You have mentioned in previous articles that we all suffer from some type of abuse from birth. Based on this premise, how would anyone be fit to reproduce according to your standards?
And if corporate psychopaths are as prevalent as you state, wouldn't your agenda be an ideal program for them to manage?
The responsible position I believe is the middle ground. One must be intelligent enough to appreciate freedom and understand the responsibility that goes along with it while at the same realizing with the number of people and divergent ideas on the planet, some level of rules (i.e. control) must be accepted.
Getting people to understand this though has proven to be a cast-iron bitch.
Hello vandiver49,
ReplyDeleteGood post. I'll explain my totalitarian outlook a bit better.
We are all very not perfect, including myself of course. My idea is to block maybe the "bottom" 10% from having children to achieve progressively better outcomes (and yes I know that sounds horrific - but I like simple speech). Humanity won't get the bulk of its (prolific) neurosis out of its system for many generations to come, but we can make steady progress nonetheless.
Corporate psychopaths are a big problem, but it's ultimately a manageable problem I believe. You might like to look at my recent 'psychopath' post.
You say: "One must be intelligent enough to appreciate freedom and understand the responsibility that goes along with it".
Exactly! The big question is, Are we? I'm really not too sure.
The question is will the public support reproduction licences?
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. In response to your question of public acceptance I would have to say that in the U.S. the answer is yes and no.
Your position is one of those 'unspoken truths' that permeate society. The majority of people are able to identify someone who should not have kids for a bevy of reasons, but no one would what to assert the position here at least b/c the conversation would veer immediately to eugenics and racism.
However, I do believe on the whole we are mature enough to to enjoy liberty and understand how to act in a modern society.
Over here the murder rate is 6/100,000 people. For 308,000,000 thats 18,400 people. More people are killed in car accidents (~40,000) than violent death. That number has been going down since 1996.
You have to admit, for over 6 billion people on one planet, there isn't as nearly as much death as one would expect.
vandiver49,
ReplyDeleteYes and agreed. Reproduction licences might be a more interesting thing to push for in a country like New Zealand.
I think New Zealand is essentially an agnostic nation. I personally know of only one true religious fundamentalist (a Jehovah witness).
New Zealand is also plagued with appalling levels of child abuse, at least in relation to what has been and can be measured.
Yes it's extremely sensitive on the racial front. In New Zealand (again) we have much greater levels of child abuse amongst the Polynesian communities, as compared to others. So in turn it would be inevitable that proportionally less Polynesians would win their reproduction licence. Unfortunately many would not see the suggested programme in the right way, though it would of course have nothing to do with race in itself.
As for unspoken truths, I think that's part of the problem. They should be spoken.
we need a new type of 'nazi'. one who recognises the main causes of the problems....someone who is tough enough to make a stand, but not so stupid as to assume that the blame lies with all the "jews and niggers."
ReplyDeletewe need someone who has the strength to start a following; a movement towards global control. yes that's what i said.....control....not freedom. freedom has never existed within any group of humans since the time when we first walked on two legs. we need humane control, systems designed to give free health care to everyone on this planet, and compulsory sterilization to all unfit parents. wise people must humanely control ignorant people - control their land, their food supply, and even their ability to reproduce. we need control - not freedom. we need a new type of nazi party. we need a new world order.
and if the new world order is corrupt....we are doomed.
there is no in-between, no gentle compromise. it's do or die. we need a strong leader - a leader who can be controlled....someone who's skin is brown enough to satisfy the majority of people in the world. it's not enough to satisfy a small number of white people.
we need to form a global currency - a strictly regulated global economy. to do this we must destroy the economies in all powerful countries. we must regulate the shipments of uranium and other materials used for weapon manufacturing so that eventually there will be virtually no weapon manufacturing at all. only a small amount of military force to eliminate any serious threat to the new world order.
we need this movement. it is an ugly movement, but it is necessary. mankind is insane. we must deal with this reality. we must control our insanity.
control means peace. peace means less suffering, less starvation, less disease....more opportunity to think about the future, and more opportunity for janovian primal therapy to spread throughout the world. when it does, we will be cured of our insanity, and then our global society will no longer need to be controlled so rigidly.
we need a new type of "nazi" movement. we are getting what we need. it's getting stronger every day.
Thanks for your view, Anonymous. Some truth in it, but I don't think we need to go quite that far. I hope.
ReplyDeleteHow far Andrew? The Nazis were cruel and stupid. They didn't think far enough. They were a part of the insanity. We need healthier people who can help to control the insanity. Unfortunately, healthy people are not attracted to the dull life of a politician. Is there really a New World Order on the rise? And if so, are they sane enough?
ReplyDeletePART 1:
ReplyDeleteAs regards population control, I definitely think we need it. We should not need leaders make us do it but should voluntarily do it. But I note this. Most European and white peoples have stopped growing in numbers as far fewer have had kids. But minorities like Mexicans have been breeding like rabbits and the powers have loved that, since it destroys the USA all the quicker. Powers speak with forked tongue. They say cut back pollution, yet they encourage it elsewhere. Stop populating yet they like it in certain places. They say what fits their agenda and never say the same thing twice.
I do not believe or trust the powers that be. They are never consistent. They are treacherous. As for Eugenics, I do not agree with it. If we can begin taking lives for no other reason than they are too old or not very useful anymore, then we can easily extend it at any time to eliminate anyone that makes it more convenient for those in power to get rid of. Its a very slippery slope.
As well, the bottom line is that there are amazing and very cheap cures for cancer totally suppressed. Amazing pollution free or nearly so, energy sources and production that are also kept suppressed because the top is not sincere in any thing it says or does. They just want to find excuses to control and manipulate us till they got their own uptopia and we are all enslaved to serve or to be eliminated.
Scott Irving
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you ever saw the Twilight Zone episode where benevolent aliens come along and offer to take people to their wonderful planet to see, share and get to know each other. They end up becoming food for the aliens. The Simpsons made a hilarious spoof of that episode on one of their Halloween specials. Beware when anyone says they are doing something for your own good. If they are, they are certainly looking out for their own interests as well, if not their own interests exclusively.
It reminds me of the proverbial guy on the prowl, who tells a naive or innocent woman what ever she wants to needs to hear in order to come across for the guy. In the morning, he is no where to be found. It was all lies to just get what he wanted. That's how power people play. They are psychopaths and psychotics. More treacherous that a grizzly bear.
there are many good reasons to do many thing being promoted in politics. But it is not their intention to honor those legitimately. Its just to get us to go along with harsh measures that impact us but not them. Let me give 2 good examples that happened in the state where I live, Maine. But in the early 80s, they wanted to impose seatbelts and baby seats on any child 4 and under. Emphatically, they assured us that this was not a foot in the door as some had accused. The public eventually went along with it. They they bumped it from 4 to 8, to 12, to 18, and now all. It was exactly as they said it was not. A foot in the door. After the first concession, they made 4 more bumps till they had it all. Then it was police can not pull you over for a belt violation exclusively. After 10 years or so, then let you get pulled over for just that reason. Recently they warned us they were going to get militant on seat belts for our own protection but so unsuccessful was it that now they are even saying to put back the no pulling over for seat belts alone. Now they want to serious bust for snow on cars and trucks.
Scott Irving
PART 3:
ReplyDeleteNo. 2. In early 90s, they wanted to create station to measure car pollution and cars that could not pass and be fixed and passed, could not longer be driven. This was to reduce pollution. But once they got it, then they revealed that they got pollution credits which industry could use to pollute more since we had cut back more on pollution. People got mad. So they took away the pollution test and punished us for giving them a hard time and made us use gas with MTBE in our gas, which actually hurts mileage and causes more damage to the engine. As well, it got into our ground water and they eventually had to ban it. But pollution was never their concern. Helping industry to continue pollute and pollute more was their real goal, without making industry pay for any of it.
J P Morgan, who ran the USA stock market and ever the country, secretly, said that they are 2 reasons for what someone will ask of you. The good reason and the real reason. He ought to have know since he helped form what was to become the Federal Reserve.
So what I say is, what is suggested is not nearly as important as why they are saying it and we have to look beyond their given reason. So much as I like population control or reducing pollution and becoming more energy efficient, I do not believe the powers truly want these things till they first have us under complete absolute control that we can not possibly escape from or resist. Like the Borg say, if they show Star Trek Next Generation in Kiwi, Resistance is futile.
Well, as for Art, he seems to be either very fearful or very hateful of anything that suggests too much corruption and bad intention in the powers and orthodoxies of the world. and what I would say to that is that if he is fearful, maybe he has been threatened. And if threatened, then also compromised, which I have not been, yet. If it is hatred, then it becomes far more suspicious. The world is corrupt. Why does he not want to hear it or let it be known. The main reason PT has gotten nowhere is that forces above us do not want it to advance. It is part and parcel of the Problems facing PT. It deserves to be part of the discussion and that he does not want it is interesting, to say the least.
Sorry about the length, Andrew. I know most people do not appreciate length but things must be said and the hardy can handle them and you do strike me as hardy.
Scott Irving
For the reader:
ReplyDeleteThe person referred to as "Art" in Scott's post is Dr Arthur Janov - a brilliant psychologist who has a blog, Janov's reflections on the human condition, which I frequently visit and contribute to.
http://cigognenews.blogspot.com/
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI thought I would add another thought on the individual. In the USA, you will hear about the rights of the individual or “the people.” It is easy to speak of rights of the people or of the nation. But as long as those little people do not have their own standing army as big as that of the government, along with all the super power technology that goes with the military, then the people have no balance of power.
ReplyDeleteA dispute between 2 parties can either be settled by an objective party stronger than either one of those in dispute, or the 2 parties in dispute need to be equally powered in order to enable a likelihood of respect for each other’s rights. The “people” are basically defenseless and unarmed. Soon they will be completely dominated and controlled and will be able to do nothing about it. TSA’s outrageous searches is the obvious example of that.
A good marriage is one where there is a fair amount of equality between the two. If one thinks they bring far more to the marriage than the other, then problems will result. If one thinks the other wants them far more than they want the other, they may use that as an advantage to take advantage of the other. Equality in relationships is vital. Each side needs equal bargaining power. That is a fact of nature, hard science! This is where most political philosophy fails in that it expects a government to honor whatever is stated in their promised rights. What a joke. There are no rights without accompanying powers to enforce them against the offender.
That is to say, the individual has lost all rights and all hope for he does not possess the incredible military powers that those who govern over him wield over him. This is now the plight of every individual on earth.
Well Apollo,
ReplyDeleteI suppose if your rights only exist insofar as your government gives them to you, then you don't really have any rights at all. It's just an abstraction extending from the fact of power.
I agree! ;-)
ReplyDelete