Brain Candy

I reread the article about John Ward and picked up on something that will probably come up everytime a political figure makes mention of population control measures or related things: These are clear fallacies. He was talking about the need to regulate the breeding habits of people on welfare, who tend to breed more and contribute less. This has nothing to do with race, and he never said anything about being cruel and killing people who dont comply. However what he did say is hard to argue with and drawing bizzare connections to Nazis or China seems like the easiest way to make him go away.

I dont think any religion could be that in itself, its been more like an extension of culture and when that has lost its way, its goes down the gutter too as greedy people take advantage of its symbols but not its meaning.

I think this has happened before, or in some manner was like this in the beginning- most likely from the carry over from the Roman gods it was smashing- and then changed to suit the needs of the industrial revolution and never looked back.

yup indeed most likely What the hell is that? Ive heard it attributed to so many contradictory things that its essentially meaningless.

I didnt mean to imply that immigration was not part of population growth in first world countries. Overconsumption is a combination of a growing population and that populations use of resources. While a huge population in poor countries doesnt mean much outside of human suffering, that huge population being supported by first world nations as it continues to grow -or slowly immigrating into first world nations- does. And no, I dont think having "PC" views is wrong. Population growth, along with dysgenics which is connected to it and arguably even more important, should become PC topics.

Environmentalist John Feeney . I think the fact that population growth, and not JUST our consuming habits, is harming the sustainability of our environment will slowly dawn on the more streamlined green movement we got nowadays. It also seems taboo to point out that overpopulation has humanitarian implications. Look at Africa, no matter how many resources we put into it, it will mean just more people fighting over the sparse resources within the continent, unless we continuosly put more resources into it, and then we get into overconsumption issues again. Julian Simon had some interesting ideas about how the market might eventually take care of everything, but I think he fails to demonstrate how living in a overpopulated world would create better, happier lives for people. Also he seems to think that sheer numbers of people will mean more creation and innovation, even though it has always been the "quality" of people- which is severely impacted by the surrounding environment- and not quantity that determines creativity and ingenuity within civilisations. A certain british politician recently got in trouble for mentioning possible population control measures within another context, but arent we just covering up an issue that will keep hammering at us harder and harder in a variety of ways?

Bill Lind on the origins of political correctness.

I think the problem is we are arguing about a whole lot of different aspects of this: Do people like David Irving have enough evidence to substantiate a revisionist arguement? Should revisionism and denial be the same thing in this case? Is the Holocaust being used as a political tool? Is the line between hate speech and debate blurred here?

If most people died of starvation and disease it would be important, at least as far as distinguishing between delibrate, state sponsored industrialised extermination of people and death by lack of food (unless this was deliberate) and poor living conditions, Stalin and Pol Pot provided much larger numbers of dead if that was the case.

Most of us have much more mental (thus physical) potential then we use, some of us even explore and try to capture parts of it, but this impossible without discipline. It's interesting how ancient peoples intuitively realised this. Moral implications? Get off your ass and read, exercise, find spiritual guidance, grow a garden, go skiing with the family etc. It's criminal to leave such a mind without a huge wealth of varied experiences, just dont forget the discipline part.

Wait, I havent heard anything about any group of muslims, even terrorist group, explicitly sympathizing with Hitler aside from a few random comment about the Holocaust. People DO write sympathetic articles and essays about Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun, but they arent politically motivated as much as in search of historical accuracy as found through research and debate.

This is a healthy approach, but it seems like alot of religious people dont approach reality from this perspective. We need more.

I dont think this wave of immigration is consciously driven by vengeance, nor is it necessarily connected to terrorism. But this guy deserves a round of applause, the muslims that are flooding into parts of europe are bad for the culture, crime rate and economy of these countries. Anyone who doesnt agree with at least this either has selfish motivations or has their mind polluted with multicultural dogma. Poorer people from eastern europe are also a problem but currently not quite as big it seems. Muslims in Sweden (Strangers in a Strange Land):

"The reason atheists and skeptics get so upset when I say it’s good to cut down trees is that this world is all they have. If it gets completely wrecked, it’s all over for them. That’s what they believe . . . that life then ends. That’s unless Mother Nature or Father Evolution (whoever they believe made everything) makes some more trees, etc. Of course if it has to start all over again, they have to wait for around 4.5 billion years. That’s what they believe, and I guess that’s a little too long for them to wait. So they get antsy when Christians are a little flippant about creation. But we can’t help it. We don’t value creation as though our life depends on it. That’s because we know and trust Him who made all things, and if humanity wrecks this earth, we have His immutable promise that He is going to make all things new." http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/03...confession.html Outside this sinful and ugly world, there exists a paradise that is totally disconnected from it, so who cares how much damage we do here!

But there are many problems, everything is governed by the market, which is governed by the people, which would be fine if we didnt as a majority go for the least work, most immediately pleasing option every single time. The effects of this will only worsen since it seems the smart are slowly being outbreed buy the dumb. Some neat ideas for a realistic, forward thinking (though by no means utopic) nation: -Cut all social safety nets, everyone is responsible for their own well being though healthy couples with average iq's over 120, if they decide to have children, should be given benefits. -Immigrants must be extremely intelligent individuals with no criminal background or in possession a skill that is currently in desperate need of the nation -Cut all tax grants to charities, either give the money back to the people or put its towards environmental projects (and no, buying loads of CFL lights does not count). -Drug, prostitution, gay marriage, firearm, and abortion laws made up on local levels, as long as each community understands that if they fail, no one is going to bail them out. -Military strong enough to defends its own borders, but does not involve itself in conflicts that do not directly threaten its existence,

I think different cultures might have different desires as far as the "The End of History and the Last Man". But a true end state would require total control over nature, resources, and of course a consensus among people strong enough that nobody really questions the direction (as well as leaders smart enough to maintain it). I think if utopia is theoretically acheived anywhere the more adventurous and intelligent among the populous would seek out a new goal or direction, if given the chance.

But there are issues are far as where you draw the line: Canada's use of antidepressant use increased 300% in past two decades. Antidepressant use among kids rises 10% a year. How much of this increase has to do with the drugs being more available to people who need it and how much has to do with an expansion of the definition of what is genuine, clinical depression? And then their is the problem of IF so many people are genuinely depressed, how much of it has to do with the environment that we live in and how much has to with a significant portion of society ALWAYS being depressed to a point where a change in lifestyle will not fix it?

Maybe part of the problem is they're so easy to get access to so people feel like they need them when they really dont. I think other options (like exercise and diet) should be more promoted as well as the definitions of some of these mental illnesses be much more clear as some precise condition and not just a general down in the dumps feeling.

But they probably did not use it when they were younger, because most of these drugs have only been on the market for the past couple decades. So these are relatively new drugs, for a relatively new definition of disease, and a sizable portion of the population has used them and even more have been declared to be in need of them. So is this sizable portion actually in need of these drugs and if so, why?

hahahaha. You could stare at a map, or you could just, you know , go outside and experience its beauty first hand.

Whether people are diagnosed or are just gloomy enough to ask for medication to function, I think it's still a bad sign.

No, I just find the statistics, which appear to come to that conclusion, interesting. Also it was not an attack on America because anything going on there is usually going on up north too. Nothing personal at all. The title is not misleading, but probably a subtitle is in order to clarify.

Im pretty sure you could twist logic enough to call any party fascist, Its a pointless direction and a dead end in debate anyway.

So is psychology full of incompetence/greed or is America really that sick? Either way this is disturbing.

Their are two extremes of thought that man tends to: individual moments and infinity. While both are interesting to observe and draw experience and inspiration from, I think as mankind currently stands its more realistic to look somewhere in between to plan your life and what you want to leave behind for the future. If you spend your life wrapped up in moments reality will eventually kick your ass. If you spend your life gazing off to the stars you will be inspired but you will eventually have to return to reality or you will totally disconnect from it and go insane even if you're a genius like Nietzsche.