Edited: August 11, 2019
Decline in Fertility
Writing in the 1950s, Charles Galton Darwin mentions the “present spontaneous decline in fertility” in the “most prosperous countries” (135).
“there are great handicaps against large families, and many compensations for those who are either intentionally or unintentionally sterile” (135).
“seems to have upset the balance by making it so very easy to be childless, or to have such a small family that the population is not maintained” (135).
“prosperity produces childlessness, and I shall characterize it by saying that the prospect of owning a motor-car is a sufficient bribe to sterilize most people” (135).
“If what I have called the bribe of the motor-car is what is needed to persuade the world to limit its population, then it is certain that the first countries to accept the bribe are committing suicide” (141).
He’s not happy to see the population of prosperous countries
decline. He calls this a “catastrophe” (141).
But there is more going on than economics and lifestyle expectations, at least in recent decades. The other factor is that sperm counts have declined, and the most likely explanation is environmental – or exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in what we eat and drink.
What Defines “Better” in Eugenics
“The argument that the eugenist [‘eugenicist’] rates the well-to-do highly is quite true if it is read in these terms, for the well-to-do are rather more likely than others to possess the quality of hereditary ability through having shown it in several generations” (137).
But it seems to me that “more able” doesn’t seem to exclude more able criminals and conquerors.
“Infanticide is repugnant to all our present systems of thought, and it hard for us to conceive the state of mind of those who practise it” (146).
He says the conditions would have to be very extreme for it to be considered, but he doesn’t drop the idea at all.
Now, several decades later, abortion is carried out and subsidized by governments and elite-funded organizations, and the practice of infanticide is being promoted in medical journals. So our “state of mind” and “systems of thought” have been changed (corrupted) since he wrote this.
Global Policy of Population Limitation
“Is it possible that the statesmen of all countries, perceiving these dangers, should combine together to make and enforce a world-wide policy of limitation? It would have to be world-wide, because if any nation were recalcitrant, its population would increase relatively to the rest, so that sooner or later it would dominate the others.” (148)
“Since the aim of the policy is to retain world-wide prosperity [really?], every single country would be faced with the problem of taking care of its own limitation, and, as has been seen, this would not come about spontaneously. Even if a government could devise an effective method, it would be an odious task for the rulers to have to enforce it, and there can be no doubt they would often evade doing so (149)”.
“It is clear from all this that the world policy would need to be supported by international sanctions, and the only ultimate sanction must be war. Present methods of warfare would not be nearly murderous enough to reduce populations seriously… (149)”.
“It is not possible to be humane in this, but the most humane method would seem to be infanticide together with the sterilization of a fraction of the adult population. Such sterilization could now be done without the brutal methods practised in the past, but it would certainly be vehemently resisted” (149)
This would lead to the kind of conflict that “it was designed to avoid” (150). Creeds would arise in response to oppose mandatory sterilization (150).
So he also talks about the possibility of nations adopting the policy of encouraging the “superior” to have more children and backing that up with a creed. (153, 154)
Getting Rid of the Sanctity of Human Life!
“Since in the normal condition of the world there will be a margin of every population on the verge of starvation, [like we’re animals – would this happen if people were left alone?] it seems likely that there will have to be a revision of the doctrine of the sanctity of the individual human life. In the old days the doctors were under the obligation of doing all they could to preserve any life, though they had no great success in their efforts…” (185)
But he asserts there is a problem now, because most diseases have come under control or soon will be (doesn’t feel like it now). So he thinks we’ll run out of food as Malthus claimed, which is supposed to be a “scientific” principle rather than just an imperialist East India Company materialist elitist dogma which is used to justify atrocity and State control over our lives.
Is it scientifically valid? In his book, he acknowledges that it didn’t take effect in the 19th century (32). The food supply kept pace with the population increase of the world. But he says that was a special situation!
But can it be used to justify murder and tyranny? Not in a system that values individual human life. Only in a system that doesn’t.
That’s why they had to create a society that doesn’t value human life.
If you can make people believe in this “Malthusian principle” – that we’ll run out of food as population increases – and scare them with it, it’s a useful social science tool for recruiting self-important nasties to carry out your agenda. So in that sense, it’s an effective “scientific” tool (or ‘creed’) of control.
Rather than dying of hunger (his assumption), he asks
“…may it not be better that they should die in infancy?”
“The truth is that all our present codes about the sanctity of human life are based on the security of life as it is at present [not true], and once that is gone they will inevitably be revised, and the revision will probably shock most of our present opinions” (186).
So here we are today.
State of Slavery
“It is difficult to see how this condition [not having slavery] can be maintained in the hard world of the future with its starving margins [he says], and it is to be feared that all too often a fraction of humanity will have to live in a state which, whatever it may be called, will be indistinguishable from slavery.” (190)
Incredibly, he promotes China, a Communist dictatorship as the model society. But actually it fits with the ideas he’s promoting.
“It would seem that in its constancy of character, both in its virtues and in its defects, the Chinese civilization is to be accepted as the model type of a civilization …” (199)
“I have cited the past history of China as furnishing the type of an enduring civilization. It seems to provide a model to which the future history of the world may be expected to broadly to conform” (203)
Type of Government
“It is too much to expect that there can ever be a permanent world government benevolently treating all of them on a perfect equality” (192).
“in most countries of the future the government will inevitably be autocratic or oligarchic..” (194).
“Occasionally … they will be united by some strong arm into an uneasy world-government” (203).
“will survive because it will be based on a single universal culture, derived from the understanding of science…” (203-204).
Nobody – no person, group, class, nor government – has the right to interfere in our lives and manage our reproduction and genetics.
Society shouldn’t be managed, it shouldn’t be planned.
The State doesn’t replace God. We should not be owned by the government. But this has already been happening.
We live in a more and more authoritarian, controlled society which has devalued human life.
We tolerate bombing, torture, surveillance and drones.
We tolerate incredible taxes and more and more laws that infringe on our property rights, personal freedoms and ability to be independent.