Birth Rate Collapse Possible As Sexbots Become ‘AI Girlfriends’

Men are increasingly giving up on real women as AI-driven sexbot dolls become more lifelike and available. Creating these substitutes is Technocrat lunacy because it could lead to an entire population collapse of some cultures. Japan is the first shocking example. ⁃ TN Editor

Realistic sex robots programmed to speak, learn and move on their own have been generating interest as technology becomes more deeply rooted worldwide.

Artificially intelligent androids designed to resemble humans have primarily been developed by tech companies to serve sexual purposes for men and woman.

A debate about the rise of these machines has focused on several inventions, including Realbotix’s Harmony, Synthea Amatus’s Samantha and Roxxxy’s True Companion.

Despite the efforts of these companies, androids being developed by inventors are generally considered to be expensive sex toys used exclusively for pleasure.

But as technology becomes more advanced, there are concerns among AI experts about the social and moral justification for creating sex robots.

In Japan, for example, parallels have been drawn between the rapid population decline and the rise in popularity of technological devices, such as sex robots and “AI girlfriends”.

Demography experts have partially blamed “a national mood of loneliness and alienation” on the rise in sex doll usage among Japanese men seeking sexual gratification.

Others have sought more meaningful bonds with technology, among them Akihiko Kondo, a 35-year-old school administrator who married Hatsune Miku, a virtual reality singer.

The peculiar case of Kondo, while not the norm, nevertheless highlights the extent to which technology has become embedded within Japanese society and culture.

Dr Kate Devlin, senior lecturer in social and cultural artificial intelligence at King’s College London, said the question of technology usage among males is proving to be a cause for concern in Japan.

“There are fears that in countries such as Japan, where loneliness is a big social problem, robots could make things worse. Already there are AI ‘girlfriends’,” she told Daily Star Online.

Last year Japan suffered its biggest population decline on record, underlining the birth rate crisis facing the country.

Read full story here…




Population Expert: Falling Fertility Rate Should Be Welcomed

What kind of human mind can revel in the fact that since 1980, the world has aborted over 1.5 billion pregnancies, which doesn’t include infanticide committed over China’s One-Child policy. Then there is the issue of reduced sperm count because of adverse environmental factors like pesticides, drugs, hormones, etc.  ⁃ TN Editor

Declining fertility rates around the world should be cause for celebration, not alarm, a leading expert has said, warning that the focus on boosting populations was outdated and potentially bad for women.

Recent figures revealed that, globally, women now have on average 2.4 children in their lifetime a measure known as total fertility rate (TFR). But while in some countries that figure is far higher – in Niger it is more than seven – in almost half of countries, including the UK, Russia and Japan, it has fallen to below two.

Such declines have been met with alarm, with some warning that the “baby bust” puts countries at risk of a depopulation disaster.

But Sarah Harper, former director of the Royal Institution and an expert on population change, working at the University of Oxford, said that far from igniting alarm and panic falling total fertility rates were to be embraced, and countries should not worry if their population is not growing.

Harper pointed out that artificial intelligence, migration, and a healthier old age, meant countries no longer needed booming populations to hold their own. “This idea that you need lots and lots of people to defend your country and to grow your country economically, that is really old thinking,” she said.

Having fewer children is also undoubtedly positive from an environmental point of view; recent research has found that having one fewer child reduces a parent’s carbon footprint by 58 tonnes of CO2 a year.

Capping our consumption, said Harper, was crucial, not least because countries in Africa and Asia, where the fastest population rises were occurring, would need a bigger share of resources if global inequality were to be curbed.

“What we should be saying is no, [a declining total fertility rate] is actually really good because we were terrified 25 years ago that maximum world population was going to be 24bn,” said Harper, who has three children herself. She said estimates now predicted the population would reach somewhere between 10bn and 12bn by the end of the century.

Declines in total fertility rate have been seen time and again after national economies develop, public health improves, and infant mortality falls, and women find themselves raising larger families. “This is a natural process,” said Harper, adding that drivers for such declines included huge strides in family planning and women’s education – with girls staying at school and entering the workforce – allowing women to delay childbearing and choose how many children to have – if any.

But there is still a ripple of alarm spreading among countries where total fertility rates have dropped below so-called replacement levels – the magic figure of 2.1.

Read full story here…




Huxley Or Orwell: Will You Get To Choose Your Own Dystopia?

The debate rages on as who which dystopian future is preferable: Brave New World vs. Nineteen-Eighty Four. Technocracy leans toward Huxley but has elements of both. However, this is a dangerous dialectic because it leaves out freedom and liberty in a Constitutional Republic. ⁃ TN Editor

One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.

In fact, as the only truly oppressed intellectual group, the Dissident Right are the only ones in a position to offer a valid opinion on this, as no other group of intellectuals suffers deplatforming, doxxing, and dismissal from jobs as much as we do. In the present day, it is only the Dissident Right that exists in the ‘tyrannical space’ explored in those two dystopian classics.

But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further afield. Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they too are under the heel of the oppressor’s jackboot. In fact, they feel so oppressed that some of them are even driven to discuss it in the pages of the New York Times at the despotically high rate of pay which that no doubt involves.

In both the Left and the Dissident Right, the consensus is that Huxley is far superior to Orwell, although, according to the New York Times article just alluded to, Orwell has caught up a lot since the election of Donald Trump. Have a look at this laughable, “I’m literally shaking” prose from New York Times writer Charles McGrath:

And yet [Huxley’s] novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now, especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment, than does Orwell’s more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea. Or it did until Donald Trump was inaugurated.

All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily echoes of Orwell in the news…The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new president’s repeated insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in fact true, and then his adviser Kellyanne Conway’s explanation that these statements were not really falsehoods but, rather, “alternative facts.” As any reader of “1984” knows, this is exactly Big Brother’s standard of truth: The facts are whatever the leader says they are.

…those endless wars in “1984,” during which the enemy keeps changing — now Eurasia, now Eastasia — no longer seem as far-fetched as they once did, and neither do the book’s organized hate rallies, in which the citizenry works itself into a frenzy against nameless foreigners.

The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny.

But to return to the notion that Huxley is superior to Orwell, both on the Left and the Dissident Right, this is based on a common view that Huxley presents a much more subtle, nuanced, and sophisticated view of soft tyranny more in keeping with the appearance of our own age. Here’s McGrath summarizing this viewpoint, which could just as easily have come out of the mouth of an Alt-Righter, Alt-Liter, or Affirmative Righter:

Orwell didn’t really have much feel for the future, which to his mind was just another version of the present. His imagined London is merely a drabber, more joyless version of the city, still recovering from the Blitz, where he was living in the mid-1940s, just before beginning the novel. The main technological advancement there is the two-way telescreen, essentially an electronic peephole.

Huxley, on the other hand, writing almost two decades earlier than Orwell (his former Eton pupil, as it happened), foresaw a world that included space travel; private helicopters; genetically engineered test tube babies; enhanced birth control; an immensely popular drug that appears to combine the best features of Valium and Ecstasy; hormone-laced chewing gum that seems to work the way Viagra does; a full sensory entertainment system that outdoes IMAX; and maybe even breast implants. (The book is a little unclear on this point, but in “Brave New World” the highest compliment you can pay a woman is to call her “pneumatic.”)

Huxley was not entirely serious about this. He began “Brave New World” as a parody of H.G. Wells, whose writing he detested, and it remained a book that means to be as playful as it is prophetic. And yet his novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now, especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment, than does Orwell’s more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea.

It is easy to see why some might see Huxley as more relevant to the reality around us than Orwell, because basically “Big Brother,” in the guise of the Soviet Union, lost the Cold War, or so it seems.

But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley’s superiority can be dismantled.

Most importantly, Huxley’s main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through “entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies” is not actually absent in 1984.

In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called “PornSec,” which mass produces porn for the Proles. One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford’s film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be ‘repurposed’ as porn.

In fact, Orwell’s view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and sophisticated than Huxley’s, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a parody of the naive “free love” notions of H.G.Wells.

While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, ‘anti-Sex’ is used to strengthen the hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left — and to a certain degree the Dissident Right — are the most undersexed.

Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell’s dystopian vision. While Brave New World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory Coffee, and Victory Tobacco — all highly addictive substances that affect people’s moods and reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:

The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the telescreens.

Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured with cloves, the speciality of the cafe…

In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.

But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing.

But most brilliant of all is Orwell’s prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed “thought crime,” to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their “Newspeak” dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.

Orwell’s insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley’s novel. The same can be said about Orwell’s treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today.

In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian empire. The concept of “three minutes hate” has so much resonance with our own age, where triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.

In Huxley’s book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed they are so clearly defined — in fact biologically so — that there is no conflict between them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean spheres.

In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself — a rational actor, controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled member of the British upper classes.

Orwell’s book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for it.

Read full story here…

 




Scientists: Human Race Faces Extinction As Male Sperm Count Declines

In fact, male sperm count has been falling year over year for some time, but this doesn’t warrant a prediction of man’s extinction; after all, it only takes a single sperm to fertilize an egg. In Huxley’s Brave New World, this was solved by growing babies in incubators instead of a mother’s womb. Technocrats will probably study that next. ⁃ TN Editor

Sperm quality is reducing by 2% per year according to a study of 124,000 men visiting fertility clinics in Europe and the USA – with experts blaming chemicals and modern lifestyles.

Male fertility is falling every year in the Western world — and experts blame chemicals and modern lifestyles.

A study of 124,000 men visiting fertility clinics in Europe and the USA found sperm quality reducing by almost 2% per year.

Separate research focusing on 2,600 sperm donors [men with above-normal fertility] showed a similar pattern.

While most men can still father a child, scientists say the human race faces extinction if the trend continues.

It follows a landmark study last year showing a 59% cut in Western sperm counts from 1973 to 2011.

Pesticides, hormone-disrupting chemicals, stress, smoking and obesity are seen as causes, along with too much alcohol, caffeine and processed meat.

The chemicals include some used to make plastics flexible and furniture flame-retardant – which can enter the food chain via plants or animals.

Experts also blame increases in testicular cancer, the number of boys born with one or both testicles missing, and changing testosterone levels.

Scientists in Valencia, Spain,and New Jersey, USA, carried out the first large-scale study of “swimming” sperm, known as the total motile sperm count.

Men were split in to three groups with low, medium and high counts. The TMSC of those in the highest US group declined by 1.8% each year.

The findings are causing alarm at an American Society for Reproductive Medicine meeting in Denver, Colorado, this week.

Read full story here…




Sex Robots Are Turning Japanese Into An Endangered Species

Humanity is in big trouble if this sex doll trend is not quickly reversed. In the Japanese culture, men prefer AI powered sex dolls over real women and marriage. This trend is also rising in popularity in Europe and England. ⁃ TN Editor

The rising popularity of human-like sex dolls in Japan is threatening to turn the population into a “endangered species” if the birth-rate continues to plummet, according to an expert.

features is growing across the world as technology becomes more advanced and prices drop.

In most countries they’re considered to be an expensive sex toy used by men and women to pleasure themselves.

But in Japan, there are fears the widespread use of silicone love dolls is accentuating the declining birth-rate and population.

Japan’s birth-rate fell below one million last year, a trend that has partially been blamed on the rise of sex dolls by some demography experts.

A documentary by RT, titled “Substitutes”, lays bare the concerning trend of men opting for sex dolls instead of women.

The film examines how sex dolls are reducing the birth-rate and fuelling “a national mood of loneliness and alienation”.

Sex dolls sales have been increasing dramatically, according to Japanese firm Dutch Wives, which sold around 2,000 life-like dolls in 2017.

The fake plastic women, costing around £4,600 ($6,000), have removable heads and adjustable fingers and genitals, the company said.

Sex doll salesman Noburu Tanaka told RT that having sex with a silicone girl is better than the real thing.

He said: “It’s an amazing feeling. It looks like a doll, but you feel as though it’s really alive.

“When you make love to your wife, there can be some problems. With a doll, none of that matters.”

But experts claim sex dolls are dampening the birth-rate and creating a larger demographic of singletons shunning relationships with real women.

With a population of 127million, Japan’s fertility rate has been stuck on 1.42 for the past three years, statistics show.

Read full story here…




Berkeley: ‘Climate Emergency’ Worse Than World War II, Demands ‘Humane’ Population Control

Somebody should tell the Berkeley City Council that population is already ‘stabilized’ and headed down on a global basis and that global warming is a hoax. People who are given to receive delusion seem to have plenty to share with everyone else, and Berkeley is no exception.  ⁃ TN Editor

Berkeley’s city council declares a ‘climate emergency’ and calls for stabilizing the population; #Tucker takes on political commentator Anushay Hossain.

The Berkeley City Council on Tuesday night declared what it called a “climate emergency” with more global significance than World War II, and demanded an immediate effort to “humanely stabilize population” and “reverse ecological overshoot.”

The resolution, which invokes the global conflict between the Axis and Allies, charges that Americans bear an “extraordinary responsibility to solve the crises” facing the environment.

“[D]uring World War II, the Bay Area came together across race, age, class, gender and other differences in an extraordinary regional mobilization, building and repairing Liberty ships, converting car assembly plants into tank manufacturing facilities,” the resolution reads.

A similar effort is necessary today to confront an even greater threat, according to the document.

“[W]e can rise to the challenge of the greatest crisis in history by organizing politically to catalyze a national and global climate emergency effort, employing local workers in a mobilization effort building and installing renewable energy infrastructure,” the resolution says.

More than 60 million people died during World War II, according to most estimates — a huge portion of the global population.

But according to the Berkeley City Council, another thinning of the herd might be needed.

The resolution notes that “reversing ecological overshoot and halting the sixth mass extinction requires an effort to preserve and restore half Earth’s biodiversity in interconnected wildlife corridors and to humanely stabilize population.”

Read full story here…




UN Propaganda Brainwashes Women To Not Have Babies

The UN’s Sustainable Development propaganda parrots overpopulation is a major cause of environmental decay and is based on demonstrably false science. Women are seduced into this lie and then convinced that their most noble act is to give up their right to have children. ⁃ TN Editor

Oonagh Dalgliesh is the first to admit she feels broody. She is enchanted by the idea of watching a baby grow up, of marvelling at that first crooked smile, those tentative first steps and the fledgling attempts at independence that melt most mothers’ hearts.

Even so, she has decided she will never experience the joy of discovering she is pregnant.

At 32, Oonagh is certainly of child-bearing age. With a well-paid job as an events manager, she is financially solvent. And for the past year, she has been in a serious relationship with a man who is longing to become a dad.

So what has prompted this momentous decision? Put simply? Her desire to save the planet.

‘Humans are the greatest single driver of climate change and greenhouse gas contributions, of deforestation and the acidity of the oceans,’ she explains earnestly.

‘The only thing that will fix these problems is to have fewer people on the planet. I don’t see it’s justified to make more people than we already have. Yes, I have a maternal instinct, but I will never change my mind.’

Drastic? Perhaps. But, astonishing as it sounds, Oonagh is one of a number of British women who are deciding to remain child-free, not because of career aspirations or an inability to find a partner, but because they are concerned about the crippling impact of overpopulation on the Earth.

Crazy? They would urge you to consider the facts. The global population, they say, is growing at a rate of one billion every 12 to 15 years.

By the year 2050, it is estimated it will have grown by 30 per cent.

While much of the population explosion is happening in developing countries where lack of contraception and education means women have more children, the issue is just as pressing here in the UK.

Their proof? Last year, the UK’s population saw its sharpest annual increase in nearly 70 years.

Although the Office for National Statistics said that net international migration was the main driver behind the growth, there were also rises in births and fewer deaths. With our heavy consumption of fossil fuels such as petrol, coal and gas, they argue, we currently use nearly three times the renewable resources our land can provide.

[the_ad id=”11018″]

We’re also one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe, losing species of wildlife at above the global average rate.

In addition, we’re reminded, we need 200,000 new houses a year to meet the demands of our growing population and, astonishingly, the densely populated south-east of England ranks 161st out of 180 areas globally in terms of its ability to deliver sufficient water to its inhabitants.

British charity Population Matters is one of the leading campaigners on the thorny subject of population control.

They currently have thousands of members in Britain and around the world, with high-profile patrons — including Sir David Attenborough, TV naturalist Chris Packham and childless author Lionel Shriver — spreading the word on the dangers over-procreation presents to the planet.

Of course, doom-mongering about population growth is nothing new.

Thomas Malthus, an 18th-century Anglican clergyman, believed population explosion would subject the world to famine and disaster, predicting the population would double every 20 years until people were no longer able to produce crops fast enough to feed themselves.

Malthus’s theory, based on the false premise that numbers grew steadily and evenly, has since been discredited with economists citing the Industrial Revolution as saving us from the doom that he foresaw. Technological innovation enabled modern society to equip itself with sufficient resources.

But the issue is not going away. A number of websites highlighting the issue of over-population have also sprung up in recent years, with conversations involving young British men and women who are serious about their desire not to contribute to the strain on the planet by procreating.

Read full story here…




Suicide Machine Draws Crowds At Amsterdam Funeral Show

With a twisted sense of value on human life, suicide machines will now be available as ‘open source’ plans for anyone in the world to download and create. Propaganda will convince many weakened minds that it is in the best interest of the planet if they were to check out early. This is reminiscent of the movie Soylent Green, where people voluntarily checked into euthanasia centers to be killed. ⁃ TN Editor

A controversial suicide pod that enables its occupant to kill themselves at a press of a button went on display at Amsterdam funeral show on Saturday.

Called the “Sarco”, short for sarcophagus, the 3D-printed machine invented by Australian euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke and Dutch designer Alexander Bannink comes with a detachable coffin, mounted on a stand that contains a nitrogen canister.

“The person who wants to die presses the button and the capsule is filled with nitrogen. He or she will feel a bit dizzy but will then rapidly lose consciousness and die,” said Nitschke, who has been dubbed “Dr Death” for his work to legalise euthanasia.

The “Sarco” is a device “to provide people with a death when they wish to die,” Nitschke told AFP.

The inventors put a model of the device on display, together with a set of virtual reality glasses to give visitors a true-to-life experience of what it would be like to sit in the pod, before ultimately pressing the button.

Nitschke said he aimed to build the first fully-functioning pod before the end of the year.

After that, the design will be put online as an open-source document for people to download.

“That means that anybody who wants to build the machine can download the plans and 3D-print their own device,” Nitschke said.

Asked about the controversy surrounding euthanasia and legal hurdles, Nitschke said: “In many countries suicide is not against the law, only assisting a person to commit suicide is.”

“This is a situation where one person chooses to press a button… rather than for instance standing in front of a train.”

“I believe it’s a fundamental human right (to choose when to die). It’s not just some medical privilege for the very sick. If you’ve got the precious gift of life, you should be able to give that gift away at the time of your choosing,” Nitschke said.

Read full story here…




Half Earth: Empty Half The Earth Of Its Humans, Drive Into Smart Cities

The radically extreme agenda of Technocracy is so radical that most people cannot wrap their head around the reality of it. You cannot make this stuff up! However, these radical Technocrats are the people with the most power and influence throughout the world.  ⁃ TN Editor

Discussing cities is like talking about the knots in a net: they’re crucial, but they’re only one part of the larger story of the net and what it’s supposed to do. It makes little sense to talk about knots in isolation when it’s the net that matters.

Cities are part of the system we’ve invented to keep people alive on Earth. People tend to like cities, and have been congregating in them ever since the invention of agriculture, 10,000 or so years ago. That’s why we call it civilisation. This origin story underlines how agriculture made cities possible, by providing enough food to feed a settled crowd on a regular basis. Cities can’t work without farms, nor without watersheds that provide their water. So as central as cities are to modern civilisation, they are only one aspect of a system.

There are nearly eight billion humans alive on the planet now, and that’s a big number: more than twice as many as were alive 50 years ago. It’s an accidental experiment with enormous stakes, as it isn’t clear that the Earth’s biosphere can supply that many people’s needs – or absorb that many wastes and poisons – on a renewable and sustainable basis over the long haul. We’ll only find out by trying it.

Right now we are not succeeding. The Global Footprint Network estimates that we use up our annual supply of renewable resources by August every year, after which we are cutting into non-renewable supplies – in effect stealing from future generations. Eating the seed corn, they used to call it. At the same time we’re pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate that is changing the climate in dangerous ways and will certainly damage agriculture.

This situation can’t endure for long – years, perhaps, but not decades. The future is radically unknowable: it could hold anything from an age of peaceful prosperity to a horrific mass-extinction event. The sheer breadth of possibility is disorienting and even stunning. But one thing can be said for sure: what can’t happen won’t happen. Since the current situation is unsustainable, things are certain to change.

Cities emerge from the confusion of possibilities as beacons of hope. By definition they house a lot of people on small patches of land, which makes them hugely better than suburbia. In ecological terms, suburbs are disastrous, while cities can perhaps work.

[the_ad id=”11018″]

The tendency of people to move to cities, either out of desire or perceived necessity, creates a great opportunity. If we managed urbanisation properly, we could nearly remove ourselves from a considerable percentage of the the planet’s surface. That would be good for many of the threatened species we share this planet with, which in turn would be good for us, because we are completely enmeshed in Earth’s web of life.

Here I’m referring to the plan EO Wilson has named Half Earth. His book of the same title is provocative in all the best ways, and I think it has been under-discussed because the central idea seems so extreme. But since people are leaving the land anyway and streaming into cities, the Half Earth concept can help us to orient that process, and dodge the sixth great mass extinction event that we are now starting, and which will hammer humans too.

The idea is right there in the name: leave about half the Earth’s surface mostly free of humans, so wild plants and animals can live there unimpeded as they did for so long before humans arrived. Same with the oceans, by the way; about a third of our food comes from the sea, so the seas have to be healthy too.

Read full story here…




Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb Has Been Officially Defused

Malthus was short-sighted and Paul Ehrlich was a fool to apply his science of entomology (the study of insects) to human population. However, both had a mind stained by Scientism, which holds that discoverable truth is only found through science. Today’s fact is that the birth rate is falling like a rock. ⁃ TN Editor

Some of the most spectacularly wrong predictions in history have been made by those who claim that overpopulation is going to swamp the planet. Thomas Malthus, a British economist writing in the late 1700s, is the most famous of these. Extrapolating past trends into the future, he predicted that population growth would inevitably swamp available food resources, leading to mass starvation. That didn’t happen — we continued to develop new technologies that let us stay ahead of the reaper.

In 1968, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb,” warning that unchecked population growth would lead to mass starvation in the 1970s. He was just as wrong as Malthus. Global population did surge, but food production managed to keep up.

So far, the prophets of overpopulation have been defeated by technology. But human ingenuity alone can never deliver a final victory in the battle to feed the world — eventually, population growth will overwhelm the Earth’s ability to provide calories. That’s why in order to put Malthus and Ehrlich finally to rest, a second component is needed — lower fertility rates. To save both the environment and themselves, humans must have fewer kids.

Fortunately, this is happening. During the lifetimes of Malthus and Ehrlich, humans still tended to have large families, with each woman bearing an average of five children over her lifetime. But shortly after Ehrlich’s book, that began to change:

The total fertility rate is just an estimate, based on the number of children women have been having. When the rate is lower than about 2.1, it means total population will eventually stabilize and decline.

The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary.

Read full story here…