“Liberty, in the Jeffersonian sense, cannot survive a continual packing-in of people. If our numbers continue to rise on a resource base that expands but little, the future inevitably holds ever-greater restrictions on individual freedom. Our descendants will not be able to live as we live and our free American and European ways of doing things will seem like poems of the past. Liberty will fall progressively as the numbers rise, and obedient compliance with the majority must take the place of individual initiative. Perhaps some politician cleverer than the rest will arrange this necessary peaceful compliance and call it “free.” Paul Colinvaux, The Fates of Nations: A Biological Theory of History, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1980, p. 349.
First off, a principal should be obvious to everyone, but apparently it is not:
“Be fruitful and multiply” does not mean “reproduce like rabbits until you burn out the planet.” No more so than “All you can eat buffet” means “feel free to vomit into the salad bar.”
So rigorous family planning is essential everywhere, no matter what a bunch of Dark Age yahoos may have to say about it, who appear to be in charge these days despite their criminal stupidity (stupid criminality? I can’t tell any more).
We should take into account this forgotten truth: children are the most promising recipients of mass devotion. It may surprise you, but raising a healthy child, or at least not hindering that child’s development, may be the ultimate worldly sacrament. Every infant should be a gift from heaven, not:
· a wish fulfillment;
· compensation for loneliness and neglect;
· a desperate shot at immortality;
· submission to family and state pressure;
· an outlet for childhood torments;
· mass produced cannon fodder;
· the inarticulate expression of mother- or fatherhood;
· mucilage for a shaky marriage;
· a blend of medical virtuosity and misplaced longing. (Grandmothers bearing their grandchildren to term—does this planet not produce enough orphans?);
· a biological old-age pension, (“God’s own Social Security” as one fundamentalist put it—dead serious, he was);
· the only permissible outcome of sex; or
· the legislated outcome of unwanted pregnancy.
Throughout history, irresponsible people have been favored to breed. In Medieval Europe as much as anywhere else, such arrangements were commonplace. Those more gifted with brains (both men and women) were set aside for religious celibacy, while titled bullies and peasant brutes (mostly illiterate) were tapped for militant fertility.
Nowadays, in Germany and elsewhere, studious, hard-working young women lack the time and support to have children while they pursue their professional ambitions. Motherhood is more likely among women who have their first child before they finish High School. Learners will provide day-care and financial support for professionals who want to take time off to have children, and intensive education for teenage moms and their offspring.
Earlier on, creative minds got sucked into the first cities. Downtown, grimy turmoil and overcrowding ensured higher mortality and lower birth rates, on average, than in the countryside where rural folk and their fertile progeny took their chances with sporadic famine, banditry and terminal boredom.
Generally speaking, the brighter the creature, the less likely it would breed under adverse conditions. Captive animals refuse to raise cubs if excessive noise, malnutrition and overcrowding prevent them from doing so. Heightened stress induces physiochemical imbalances in the reproductive cycle of neurologically gifted species; it increases the likelihood of sterility, stillbirth, infant mortality and perhaps mutants, sociopaths and infertile offspring; it lowers immunity and increases vulnerability. The pathetic history of humanity reflects this sterilizing level of stress―at least for those of us smart enough to notice it.
The human genotype seems tough enough on average to churn out relatively smart beings. There’s no telling how much smarter our ancestors were, compared to us. Are we breeding ourselves for stupidity as well as aggression? The two traits tend to merge, don’t you think?
Has humanity canceled out eons of true-bred endurance during a few millennia of liquor-sodden weapon management? Very fragmentary ancient literature offers few clues as to which Age – ours today or one prior – displays superior mentality. The suppression of sacred wonder among us is a dependable sign of modern senescence, as are the exponentially growing ills of weapon mentality.
If we don’t restrict the human genotype to a few idealized clones – the way we’ve done so insanely with crops and livestock – genetic diversity should sire a dependable bell-curve of intellect fit for higher pursuits.
Disparities between human “races” are rather like those between two automobiles of the same make and model but sporting different paint jobs and option packages. Some weapon mentors claim they’ve uncovered racial differences more significant than those caused by obvious environmental variables: pollution, starvation, cultural isolation, enslavement, etc. Repeated attempts to document these claims have failed despite elaborate methodologies bankrolled by bigoted weapons elites.
Any group that deviated markedly from the human norm would have been reabsorbed or ejected from it. It would either have displaced lesser humans through superior adaptability or disappeared through incompetence, monstrosity and genocide.
Human sexuality has blended the genetic milkshake much more briskly than we care to admit. Whether by commerce and marriage or by warfare and rape, human lineages have mixed eagerly. A racial pureblood these days is a statistical freak and a geographic anomaly; “racial purity” is more a function of self-delusion than of DNA.
A good farmer will tell you that crossbreeds are more robust than purebreds. The “purer” the noble blood and the more restricted the genetic pool it could draw upon, the weaker and dumber its offspring, vulnerable under all but the best circumstances. In spite of adverse conditions, weeds thrive due to their genetic independence.
Learners will find little interest in “purifying” human eugenics. Natural diversity and freedom of choice should be promoted within a flowering of good conscience and vedic architecture. Any lesser goal is just slow motion suicide.
Quite often in the past, fanatical bigots have flung themselves into the depths of psychosexual pathology and annihilated entire peoples, simply for having “wrong blood” and curious habits. Fortunately, those who attempted this stunt have allied the whole world, horrified, against them. Their execution of the Other earned them nothing more than their own. “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matthew 26:52, the Bible. Many have attempted this stunt in the past, and many more would like to try it again. It’s a free world, after all.
Hitler and his crazed cronies explained thispathology quite aptly.
“Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number, subjugated foreign peoples and, stimulated by the conditions of life which their new country offered them (fertility, the nature of the climate, etc.), and profiting also from the abundance of manual labor furnished them by the inferior race, developed intellectual and organizing faculties which had hitherto been dormant in these conquering tribes. Within the course of a few thousand years, or even centuries, they gave life to cultures whose primitive traits completely corresponded to the character of the founders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of the soil and the characteristics of the subjugated people. But finally the conquering race offended against the principles which they first had observed, namely, the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and they began to intermingle with the subjugated people. Thus, they put an end to their own separate existence; for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by the expulsion of the guilty parties.
“After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of those former masters may then be found in a lighter tint of the skin which the Aryan blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and in a fossilized culture of which those Aryans had been the original creators. For just as the blood of the conqueror, who was a conqueror not only in body but also in spirit, got submerged in the blood of the subject race, so the substance disappeared out of which the torch of human culture and progress was kindled. In so far as the blood of the former ruling race has left a light nuance of color in the blood of its descendants, as a token and a memory, the night of cultural life is rendered less dim and dark by a mild light radiated from the products of those who were the bearers of the original fire. Their radiance shines across the barbarism to which the subjected race has reverted and might often lead the superficial observer to believe that he sees before him an image of the present race when he is really looking into a mirror wherein only the past is reflected.
“It may happen that in the course of its history such a people will come into contact a second time, and even oftener, with the original founders of their culture and may not even remember that distant association. Instinctively the remnants of blood left from that old ruling race will be drawn towards this new phenomenon and what had formerly been possible only under compulsion can now be successfully achieved in a voluntary way. A new cultural wave flows in and lasts until the blood of its standard-bearers becomes once again adulterated by intermixture with the originally conquered race.
“It will be the task of those who set themselves to the study of a universal history of civilization to investigate history from this point of view instead of allowing themselves to be smothered under the mass of external data, as is only too often the case with our present historical science.” Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. II, Chapter 6.
Take your local bigots (take them from me, please!). Replace the designation “Aryan” with their preferred race (their own), replace the flowery palaver quoted above with words rendered incoherent by rage and ignorance, and you will have heard something similar from people just like them in your own hometown. It doesn’t matter where those bigots came from, what language they spoke or what they looked like. Their worship of bloodline nobility is just another manifestation of the reptilian limbic system that we are all heirs to, but they alone are enslaved by.
No one dogma or genotype will be entirely satisfactory under every circumstance and from every point of view. The pursuit of happiness is everyone’s personal business. It cannot be controlled from above in a realistic or effective manner. At best, government may offer to accelerate our withdrawal from misery. Eugenic “improvement” holds no interest for Learners. The CO2 farts of the world’s human overburden have confirmed our torid adaptation to it.
Average birthrates have fallen somewhat in developed nations. Unfortunately, each First World child burns up more resources and generates more garbage than dozens of children from impoverished nations. Thus, when rich couples choose to conceive another child, they actually spawn many more consumer-equivalents. "Lower, more praiseworthy" birth rates in First World still amplify overconsumption and waste. Compared to it, the higher birth rates of the Third World are equal or lesser burdens, though their eventual development threatens to use up several Earth’s worth of resources.
There is no valid reason to worsen this traffic jam—whether among First or Third World peoples. Chinese couples have submitted to a birth limitation of one child: a limit Learners would go well beyond.
More and more liberties may become customary in the future, that we would consider anarchic and unmanageable today. Only one sphere of human activity will require regulated strict regulation: the one exempted all this time: having and raising babies. Of course, any suggestion of this kind will draw accusations of heresy, blasphemy and outrage.
The moment these rules were adopted, thriving criminal syndics will see to it that the worst crimes imaginable fester in black markets of illegal human childbirth, cloning and enslavement—driven by the darkest of human compulsions. Compared to it, the American Prohibition of alcohol and then drugs will seem like an annoying squabble at a county fair.
Show me some valid alternative and I will be gladly drop this topic like a hot brick. Government regulation will be necessary – whatever nightmare that implies – because those wise enough to comply will be worthy of having children, while many of the rebellious, much less so.
It would have been better if we had developed this argument gradually into a matter of morality and guilt feelings over a decade-long stretch of complex philosophical discussions. Too bad we have run out of time for such lengthy debates. A widespread dialogue on these issues, however brief, might promote a consensus large enough to establish such laws voluntarily and better manage their worst consequences.
What follows is written categorically. It remains to be seen whether it can be adopted without compromise, given enough time. In the meantime, these principles should be applied much less dogmatically and only insofar possible provided peace prevails, in incremental steps and after bitter debate. The years we should have taken to reason them through to everyone’s satisfaction, have shrunk to a few short months.
How dreadfully well we have confirmed our collective madness! How beyond a doubt Learner genius will have to prevail, to assure our long-term survival.
Here goes. Everyone will undergo reversible sterilization at puberty as a rite of passage into adulthood with its privileges and obligations. This might involve supervised drug dosages or a reversible minor surgery.
Countless licenses are issued to drive, to practice law, to go fishing and for a thousand other pursuits. Alas, there is no supply or demand for advanced training in raising a healthy child. No-one bothers to note that child-raising is a far graver responsibility and obligation than those other, carefully licensed tasks. Please consult Adrian Raine, The Anatomy of Violence.
Those who insist on having children should undergo training in childcare, internships serving the elderly and disabled, and in-depth psychological testing; they should vow to care for children as a lifelong priority. Each graduate’s fertility would then be restored for a full-term pregnancy. Newborn children will join an extended family of natural and surrogate parents, both fertile and sterile.
No adult should have to endure the toil of childcare single-handed, and no “difficult” child should be left in the hands of impatient, hostile and indifferent biological parents: a recipe for adult criminals and warriors in large numbers. Children should be taught socialization skills by the best role models that can be recruited and by age-peers as well treated. Learners will not tolerate child abuse of any kind: accidental, institutional or criminal. There will be fewer “regrettable” exceptions that current societies mass-produce.
Indeed, the amazing success of education in Finland may show us the way. They shut down all their teaching colleges with mediocre “if you can’t do, teach” standards and replaced them with elite degree programs in eight universities as hard to get into as MIT and as honored as the astronaut program. Child test scores improved by two or three standard deviations, a result solemnly declared impossible elsewhere.
This new childbearing priesthood will invite talented amateurs to join on a full- or part-time basis either temporarily or permanently. Such communities will require the same financial support we lavish on the military today, including a generous allotment of life necessities, special services and full-time salaries. If necessary, couples bearing more than one child would hand over additional offspring to these extended family groups: safe havens for orphans, runaways and other young victims of abuse.
Even though parents certified to be reliable after their delivery will be spared this fate and allowed to raise their children naturally. The love between a child and its parents is one of the strongest forces of nature. Learners must neither stand between them without good reason nor refuse to do so if good reason exists.
This text advocates these extraordinary measures for five reasons:
1. We need to reverse humanity’s historic selection for fertility and aggression.
3. Note: guilt, not shame. Guilt is inner-directed; it promotes empathy for victims and leads to repentance and an urge to make reparation. Shame is impersonal and objectifying. Those who suffer from it turn themselves into victims and blame everyone else, which triggers additional rage and violence. With a few exceptions, history’s shadists, tormentors and criminals – both petty and imperial – grew up as children abused by violence and shameful humiliation. Interestingly, so did many great Learners, guilt-driven despite the shameful abuse they endured.
4. The human population needs to shrink to a fraction of its current, useless bulk—calmly, quickly, and voluntarily. The fastest way to do that would be to halve birth rates immediately worldwide and halve them again several times within the next few decades, inducing a net decline across every human population.
5. Are you still awake?
It might seem to us that such stern measures could do nothing more than lighten, at enormous social costs, the enormous human mass that burdens us today. There are seven billion of us, soon to add up to ten billion or more: a quite heavy footprint on planet Earth. When a certain species leaves such a heavy footprint, it invites global disaster; a lighter one would allow us more flexibility. But this is not the only reason. It is not so much the mass of humanity that impinges on the Earth today, as the shoddy quality of our thought and culture with its ensuing waste per capita.
Nature could trim down our numbers to acceptable levels at a toll of enormous misery brought on by the unforeseen consequences of corporate greed and subsequent mass-casualty disasters. The above-listed measures would still be worthwhile even if humanity were hammered down to a few fertile couples (the way world-dominant species have been in the past—once their footprint grew too heavy for the world ecology to support, but rarely before). We should transmit those instructions numbered above, if only to ensure that our rare replacements never repeat our mistakes during prolific generations to come.
According to Richard Chatwin, in The Anatomy of Restlessness, our constitutional freedoms were built into the lifestyle of ancient hunter-gatherers, mainly because primal mothers and relatives carried their infants everyplace they went during the first five years of each baby’s life.
On the island of Bali, for example, it is bad luck for an infant’s feet to touch ground while relatives remain awake. All other things being equal, prolonged handling and a mobile perspective from adult height would enhance the neurological development of infants. Healthy communities of healthy adults raising healthy children would serve best to promote our cherished freedoms.
It was only with the– and its inescapable hyper-fertility, wife abuse and child neglect – that our social problems began to fester in earnest.
If our children were as rare as fat diamonds, we would treat them like royalty, as is their due. Because we consider them as common as dirt, we abuse and neglect far too many of them. It is not surprising that so many survivors of this neglect and abuse grow up to be treacherous and/or sickly adults.
“Irrational nature selects wastefully and with the maximum of pain and misery, requiring innumerable individuals to be born in order that they may struggle and perish. Rational humanity would economize and humanize this struggle by substituting a rational, social test of parenthood for the destruction of children by starvation, disease or weakness.
“To prevent reproduction from bad stock, however difficult and dangerous it may be, is obviously the first duty of an organized society, acting alike in its own self-defense and for the interests of its individual members. It is not necessary for the safety and progress of society that “unfit” children should die, it is necessary that they should not be born, and ultimately the society which prospers most in the character of its members will be the one which best fulfills this preventive duty.” From J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1948, pp. 163-164.
Criminal negligence has baffled Humanity for so long that we face the choice of a desperate surgeon. Forty years ago, humanity needed to get its teeth cleaned. Nothing doing; “too busy.” Thirty-some years ago, informed that a painful, restorative procedure was necessary, we opted to do nothing but bemoan expenses and pain. Twenty years ago, several teeth needed to be filled. Once again, we let nothing happen. Ten years ago, again nothing, despite the growing pain. Last year, some rotten teeth needed to be pulled. Still nothing.
Nowadays, the equivalent of open skull surgery is offers the last chance to reverse cerebral sepsis. No time remains to whine and dine in pathetic indecision: what humanity seems to do best.