MALTHUS AND POPULATION : TEN MINUTE GUIDE

[WorshipInTruth]

Malthus was just another cleric copying the draconian nonsense of the jesuits. The FIRST Malthusian (long before Malthus) was the jesuit Giovanni Botero. An expose of this fact and a short critque of Malthusian (Boteroarian) theory can be found at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website in an article written by the great Murray Rothbard.

[EliteDoomer]

The end of oil is going to bring hell on Earth. Very sad it is for all these new children.

[WorshipInTruth]

@EliteDoomer The "end of oil"?? First of all there is no "end of oil", nature is constantly producing more oil, and there are many countless oil reserves found in this country. My own state of Pennsylvania is sitting on the largest natural gas reserve in the world and guess what is under that gas?? OIL!! Oil in the middle east, oil in the ocean, oil in alaska and Oil throughout the U.S. It is everywhere. If anything is going to bring hell on earth it is these oil corporations.

[EliteDoomer]

@WorshipInTruth Exponential growth.

[MGGoblin]

Malthus was a charlatan... population growth is slower than food growth. The empirical evidence show the opposite of his theorie, food grows faster than people. Besides, Malthus always excludes technology and science from his calculations. And yes @VictorLepanto is right about Darwin, wich is a charlatan too.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

Malthusian-engineered shortages of food, water, medicine, fuel & materiel (as well as perpetual war) will serve their common goal of reducing the Earth's population of 6,500 million to 500 million (as prescribed in granite on the Georgia Guide Stones).

[bluecode320]

@IconsOfTeleplay The world's population is 6900 million now. Whoever is supposedly in charge of reducing the population to 16th century levels clearly isn't doing their job.

[IconsOfTeleplay]

@bluecode320 : Soft-kill weapons are at play now.

[MGGoblin]

@bluecode320 You should read the books of Darwin "Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection OR The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence" and "The Origin of Man". Read his books (in the original version, not the post-nazi editions...) and you will find extreme violent and racist quotes, like the black people being similar to apes and thus inferior, etc. Most darwinists don't read the books of Darwin... you should. =)

[sonofpikaia]

@MGGoblin >>and thus inferior<< you don't find this in the origin of man, you made that up your self.

[MGGoblin]

@sonofpikaia It was not a direct quote. It is a conclusion wich Darwin points to. Evolution was discovered many years before Darwin, and Darwin never uses the word "Evolution" - he uses the term Natural Selection. Lamarck is the first one to discover the phenomena of evolution, not Darwin, who is a charlatan and a plagiarist - he drinks from Malthus and Spencer, both charlatans and proto-nazi imperialists...

[sonofpikaia]

@MGGoblin No Darwin doesn't point to that. in fact he was against slavery in his time.

He didn't drink from spencer, in fact spencer has written morality and god books before The origin of species.

the modern terminology (not his philosophy) we are using today on the subject of evolution are from spencer.

but spencers evolution and ethics is from 1879, spencer has read darwin not other way around.

get your history lined up boy!

because we don't like neodarwinism doesn't mean evolution is on true

[MGGoblin]

@sonofpikaia And secondly, in darwinism these are the clear and most important facts: Randomness, Natural Selection, Struggle for Survival. - Evolution is not about this, it's about development, not struggle (although ocasionally it is, but it's secondary), the changes in the organisms are the result of Action-Reaction, Cause-Effect, not randomness (the last discoveries in science points to this) and natural selection is an empty concept, since the changes are to complex to be explained by this.

[sonofpikaia]

@MGGoblin I don't know who explained you Darwin's evolution theory?

But Randomness is not in the game.

it's 1 heredity 2 variation 3 natural selection.

and its not to complex to be explain, read the "greatest show on earth" there you can see al the lab tests with DNA over 20 years evolution in lower live forms with a high generation rate.

[MGGoblin]

@sonofpikaia And I don't know who explained it to you. Randomness is at the core. Mutations are random, according to darwinism. Mutations (or here, you use the term "variation") are random, and according to darwinism, evolution is a random process. And another thing, the experiment you pointed does not contradict my arguments, because I'm not saying that evolution is not real, just that 1- It's not random. 2- The cause for evolution is not the "struggle" for life. 3- There is no "selection".

[sonofpikaia]

@MGGoblin you obviously don't understand darwinian evolution?

I don't use the term variation for your randomness. I mean variation = no body is the same.

so the circumstances in nature select blind without purpose. the ones who survive give there genes to the next generation who also will be exposed to the same blind selection.

What is not right in this theory?

[MGGoblin]

@sonofpikaia I obviously understand it better than you. The circumstances in nature does not "select", because life adapts itself to nature, it's the opposite. And it's not necessary a fight or a catastrophe for evolution to occur, since many times, many species evolve BEFORE the cataclism and SIMULTANEOUSLY. Darwinian natural selection (again, Darwin NEVER uses this word in his book, this word is used by Lamarck 50 years BEFORE Darwin) cannot explain this.

[MGGoblin]

@MGGoblin The only way you can explain the evolution of many species simultanously before any stress or shock, it's by pointing that 1- Life is not a struggle, (only occasionaly) 2- Life adapts itself INTELLIGENTLY to changes, (you don't come up with a new eye by accident).

[MGGoblin]

@sonofpikaia My friend, evolution is very real. But Darwin is wrong. Evolution was discovered 50 years (and perhaps much more...) before Darwin, by Lamarck and other scientists. Their view of evolution was about a dynamic, intelligent process of life development, with Darwin we come to struggle for life and the fight for "limited resources" (Malthus) and then the survival of the fittest (Spencer).

[sonofpikaia]

@MGGoblin You're ended up in some sort of naturalistic fallacy.

do you really believe that their is no struggle and limited resources in nature?

[kkdurrett]

@mmantech I can see how he was confused, but you're right

I found this video very informative and a great summary of Thomas Malthus' explanations regarding our society

[APviKINGsz28]

It's so good to see videos like this exist on youtube. thanks for posting. 

[Sevyn75]

Sounds like Malthus was trying to justify eugenics.

[mmantech]

@Sevyn75 yep, along with him and darwin and others this is where they get there moral and intellectual cover to practice genocide.

[bluecode320]

@mmantech Darwin? When did Darwin advocate genocide?

[mmantech]

@bluecode320 darwinism not darwin himself. i dont know if he did or not, but his work justified and rationalized the dominate political order. that order was imperialism by the british empire. and then it gave rise to social darwinism which is what facism and nazism is.

[bluecode320]

@mmantech The British Empire pre-dates Darwin, and Nazism uses the concept of artificial selection; not natural selection. If the Nazis wanted to use natural selection they'd have done nothing at all.

[mmantech]

@bluecode320 i think your confused, first the british empire was still the dominate world ruler at that time, so your statement isnt correct, second i made it clear that "social darwinism" is a key element in facism and nazism.

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: In his books. I believe it is in Evolution of Species. He contemplates what he regards as the imminent extinction of black Africans & Aborigines of Australia. He states that this would be a positive developement as such humans are closer to baboons & the superior white people's competition for food would be reduced as a consequence. Clear your mind of any sentimental cobwebs about Darwin.

[bluecode320]

@VictorLepanto Do you have a quotation to back that up?

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: I'd recommend googling it. There are sites w/ Darwins works all on line. You could find it for yourself. Darwin regarded race war & the resultant extermination of the inferior breeds as inevitable & beneficial to the superior breeds. It is a a simple fact. So called social darwinists understand him perfectly. I am not a creationist, but the man was bending the concept of evolution to serve a very real political agenda, one rooted in what he had learned from Malthus & his disciples.

[bluecode320]

@VictorLepanto If you give me a quotation, I can google that. Opposed to your claim, however, is that in "Descent of Man" Darwin writes; "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other [independently] of their having inter-crossed", shortly followed by "it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between [the races]".

Do you actually have a quotation to back up your claim?

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: The quote I was thinking of is in Descent of Man. Just do what I did & google "darwin racism descent of man." You should find several site w/ the quote, & many others besides. People try to disassociate Darwin from the writing of his cousin Galton, but that is impossible. Even w/ Haeckel, Darwin only objected to Haeckel's being so loud & obvious about it.

[bluecode320]

@VictorLepanto How about you type 'Darwin racism descent of man' into google and hit "I'm feeling lucky".

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: AM I too take it you have no intention of investigating the matter for yourself? That is typical of people who insist on you spoon feeding them information they have no intention of looking up for themselves. It is a sign of an active will to disbelieve. Why some people need to cling to a romantic image of Darwin as an iconclastic champion of truth at an cost, rather the nasty little man w/ an agenda that he really was, it is strange to me.

[bluecode320]

@VictorLepanto I've done more investigating than you! You made an assertion, told me to do research, when I found quotations which explicitly contradicted your assertion you ignored it and told me to do more research, and then I did research and found more evidence contradicting your assertion (which you would know if you had googled 'Darwin racism descent of man' yourself)!

You haven't posted one shred of evidence to back up your claim!

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: Thus you prove the eternal truth that a man sees what he WANTS to see, disregards the rest. You are making it continuously more clear to me that Darwin has become a kind of God to you & you are not open to any criticism of him.

[bluecode320]

@VictorLepanto You've been shown clear evidence which contradicts your assertion and have provided NONE which supports it; you are the one who is seeing what you want to see. Why is it so difficult for you to provide a fragment of a quotation?

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: I had no idea what an intellectual infant I was dealing w/, very well, I will spoon feed the baby if he keeps crying: "At some future period, not very distant as measured in centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly EXTERMINATE, & REPLACE, the savage races throughout the world...the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. the break b/t man & his nearest allies will then be wider,for it will intervene b/t...the Caucasian, & ...a baboon...

[VictorLepanto]

@VictorLepanto: ...instead of as now b/t the negro or Australian (aborigine) & the gorilla." Do you understand? The Africans & Aborigines are closer to gorillas. White people will all be better off when both groups, the dark skinned Africans & Aborigines & the "anthropomorphic apes" or gorillas. This man was calling genocide. He thought it was a good idea. You'll find the quote in The Descent of Man, pg. 521. It really didn't take very much effort.

[bluecode320]

@VictorLepanto That quote, in context, is dicussed at length at "talkorigins(dot)org(slash)ori­gins(slash)postmonth(slash)200­9_03.html". 500 characters aren't enough to fully explain it in detail although I will say that there is a difference between claiming that something is going to happen and calling for something to happen. It also doesn't make sense for Darwin to be anti-slavery yet pro-genocide.

[VictorLepanto]

@bluecode320: Of course it makes sense. If you hate black people enough, you might think, using them as slaves makes white people lazy & soft. The sooner they go extinct, the better (that is the tougher & thus more worthy of survival) off white people will be. I've no doubt you would need way more then 500 character to explain it away. Sophistry always requires many words. Three people closely associated w/ Darwin; Haeckel, Galton & Huxley; were quite UNABIGUOUS on the subject. Smoke = fire.

[libertyordeath21]

@Sevyn75 malthus absolutely was justifying Eugenics

[WorshipInTruth]

@Sevyn75  He was, his scare mongering was nothing but an elitest attempt at justifying a depopulation agenda.

[vcomp1960]

Where did Malthus get his data?

[Valkyriepure]

@vcomp1960 He looked out the window and used his powers of reason.

[TheBiggestWolf]

@Valkyriepure

Not only that, he used that thing in the head. What was it? A brain?

[burningflag43]

@vcomp1960 in diffrent countrys and in his time and then start collicting data and some parts of the wourld and some of his data was right but he over look some stuff