Comment by nickik | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickik | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are getting down-voted but your point is totally correct.

The population extremists from the 60s, many in the 'green revolution' were part of that, were VERY actively promoting eugenics and wanted to deploy it on a massive global scale.

And this was not new, Eugenics was massive popular with the Progressives, in fact the Progressives were the primary political power behind Eugenics. And those are the exact groups moved over turned into the 'environmentalist' movement that was advocating those same Eugenics policy recommendation, but on a global scale. And because they were smart, they changed the language from 'We need to clean the human race' to 'If we don't clean the human race everybody is gone die'.

They wanted the US government to make aid conditional on Eugenics and population control tactics. Trying to prevent the population growth in India was one of their major goals and reading now what they advocated should be done about it, is truly disturbing.

Many of those, to be fair were not white supremacists, but if your main position is to advocate extreme policy to curb baby production in Asian and African countries, how much better are your really?

The Indian forced sterilisation "emergency" was a horrifying disaster, but just smearing it on "progressives" without being specific about who you mean is unconstructive. Much of the responsibility there lies with Indira Ghandi.

Progressives were a pretty clearly identifiable force in US politics for much of the early 20th century. And many of those same people were fundamental in the formation of the environmental movement including the anti-nuke, pro-eugenics crowd. Later went on an anti-GMO as well.

Whenever somebody quotes population control quotes from people associated with that movement these facts should be pointed out. Specially if it is in the 'referent' ton that indicates a willingness to support the same kinds of polices.

To be clear I'm not taking about everything that one means when saying the word 'Progressive' now. As that term is pretty watered down by now.

In general when talking about broad political and social moments its hard to come up with who 'exactly' they are.

> many of those same people were fundamental in the formation of the environmental movement including the anti-nuke, pro-eugenics crowd

Who prominently?

There definitely was a pro-eugenics movement in much of the West before WW2, but the anti-GMO fight is a very different one occuring 50 years later! I'd be surprised if there were very many people involved in both.

So you want those in America + Europe (less than one billion) to significantly reduce their consumption, while allowing >7 billion to massively increase their consumption?

Think about the amount of concrete alone that would need to be used to get Africa up to 1st world standards. China used more in a few years than America did in a century. This will have to happen many times over just for the current population level, never mind a growing one!

It is like living in a house and everyone agreeing to cut their energy use by 20%.... while bringing in a new resident every few months.

So, you would rather see the developing countries never developed, forever in poverty? Or what are you proposing?

Better population controls, on a global scale. Let's get our population back down to 5 billion, I'm sure our environmental problems would quickly evaporate if we did so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com