Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

Wired Magazine calls for Birth Panels

August 17th, 2014 - 7:50 pm

Europe really is determined to party like it’s 1939, aren’t they? In France, shops of Jewish merchants are having the windows smashed. Meanwhile, Wired.com’s UK site is exploring another topic that was much in vogue in post-Weimar Germany right around the same time as kristallnacht. “It’s time to consider restricting human breeding”:

Given the number of children that starve each day, dwindling planetary resources and the coming transhumanist era, it might be time to consider restricting human breeding, argues futurist Zoltan Istvan in this guest post.

A few years ago, I was at a doctor party, the kind where tired residents drop by in their scrubs, everyone drinks red wine, and discussion centres around medical industry gripes. I wandered over to a group of obstetricians and listened in. One tall blonde woman said something that caught my attention: with 10,000 kids dying everyday around the world from starvation, you’d think we’d put birth control in the water.

The controversial idea to restrict or control human breeding is not new. In 1980, Hugh LaFollette, Ethics professor at the University of South Florida, wrote a seminal essay on the topic titled Licensing Parents. Since then, philosophers and even some politicians have considered the idea, especially in light of China, the most populated country in the world, implementing a one-child policy that is in effect today.

For most people in the 21st Century, however, the idea of restricting the right to have offspring for any reason whatsoever seems blatantly authoritarian.

Fancy that. Of course, the idea is much older than 1980; Zero Population Growth — often shortened to “ZPG” — was quite the buzz phrase for far left enviro-cranks in the early 1970s on both sides of the Atlantic; there was even a truly bad British movie by that name released in 1972, starring otherwise A-list British stars Oliver Reed, Geraldine Chaplin and Diane Cilento, then married to Sean Connery:

And it goes back even further than that. Just ask Margaret Sanger, pioneering eugenicist, Klan and Nazi aficionado, seen here being interviewed by Pathe News of England, shortly after World War II. By then, Sanger was using the last name of Slee, after her second husband:

As I noted back in April, talk about disastrous timing: The above clip dates from 1947. Just two years prior, a minor event, the aforementioned World War II, had been concluded, which Wikipedia notes killed 60 million people – while Wikipedia often plays fast and loose with facts, I think we can run with that estimate for the purposes of this blog post. And Margaret Sanger is calling for “no more babies” for a decade.

Madness. Or “Progressivism.” But I repeat myself.

Top Rated Comments   
These non-thinkers make a fundamental mistake in analysis. They assume that there isn't enough food for everyone, and that's why people are starving, when the problem really is bad governments do not allow people to control their own lives. People in Zimbabwe would still be starving even if they only had one child apiece, IOW.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Vegetarianism, universal health care, a tiny automobile, and Keynesians economics: 0/4.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wonder how Klein felt about the Nazis' method of dealing with dissent from the inevitable cranks and malcontents (i.e. herding them into boxcars and shipping them off to camps)? Probably thought it was regrettable (maybe) but necessary (OH, YES!) After all, as another famous socialist once said, you gotta break eggs to make omelets.

Socialism: Hundreds of Millions of eggs broken, no omelets made (yet.)
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (58)
All Comments   (58)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
We need to protect equal reproductive rights and stop transhumanism and genetic engineering by enacting a Natural Marriage and Reproduction Act. The law would prohibit creating a human being except by joining a man and a woman's unmodified sperm and egg, and would prescribe the effect of marriage in every state as approving and allowing the conception of offspring using the couple's own genes. The result would also be to end same-sex marriage in every state, because it would prohibit attempting to create offspring of a same-sex couple using stem cell derived gametes or some other method. That would be expensive and unethical, and there is no right or need to create people that way. There is only a right to marry and have sex and procreate naturally with our spouse, but as we see, that right is under attack and needs to be protected.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree. I don't like central planning either. However, isn't organized religion also a form of centralized planning?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
These non-thinkers make a fundamental mistake in analysis. They assume that there isn't enough food for everyone, and that's why people are starving, when the problem really is bad governments do not allow people to control their own lives. People in Zimbabwe would still be starving even if they only had one child apiece, IOW.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Rhodesia exported food. Then it became Zimbabwe. Under white "colonization" everyone ate. Under black "self rule" they starve.
Mmm...
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
"People in Zimbabwe would still be starving even if they only had one child apiece,"

Or no children, because the 90 YO president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe (inflation perennially off the charts) is a totalitarian a$$hole.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
To Zoltan Istvan: You cannot use the Ring. It's nature is evil and it consumes those who would wield it.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
"you’d think we’d put birth control in the water."

An idea I've oft considered myself, but for different reasons. I wouldn't hand out the antidote until proof of marriage and financial means are provided. Would solve a whole lotta social problems.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Before we go that far, how about we just stop paying women to be single moms? At least in this country, that might be a solution to the problem by taking out the perverse incentives.

The money saved from paying women to make bad choices might fund enough free (basic) birth control to be worth it.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
Robert Strange McNamara beat you for about half a century. That's an old liberal idea. The government that can tell you when to be born can also tell you when to die.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
I remember hearing something around the early 80s to the effect that pet food companies had had the idea of putting pet birth control right in the food they sold to prevent further growth of feral populations of cats and dogs (and maybe other animals). Then they did a bit of research and found that something like 25% of all pet food was (then) consumed by HUMANS! That immediately put an end to their idea: no one wanted to face the legal liability issues if someone failed to conceive because they'd been eating pet food.

By the same token, the unexpected consequences of putting birth control in drinking water might be enormous.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama's goo-roo on "climate change" Tommy Steyer might be a closet eugenicist himself, since he has announced that 99.5% of the population really doesn't think about important stuff like he and his friends do.

(Like most self-anointed élitists, Tommy is a hypocrite extraordinaire since he "owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects.")

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/curtis-kalin/liberal-billionaire-995-americans-are-not-super-sophisticated
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Given the...coming transhumanist era..."

I agree, any idiot that uses the phrase "transhumanist era" should definitely not reproduce himself.

"...you’d think we’d put birth control in the water?"

We already do. How do you think we got so many girly men and pajama boys ? Endocrine disrupting chemicals in the water supply, sources like synthetic estrogen in BC pills.

"That means, (Wells) says, that the “people of exceptional quality must be ascendant.”

And, per playwright GB Shaw, the not so exceptional must be descendent. Very descendent.

“I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means. But humane, not cruel.”
~GB Shaw, February 1934

A plea for humane extermination.

Whadda guy.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
And, per playwright GB Shaw, the not so exceptional must be descendent. Very descendent.

“I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means. But humane, not cruel.”
~GB Shaw, February 1934

A plea for humane extermination.

Whadda guy.


Shaw was widely quoted in the Soviet Union in Stalin's day. Apparently, the peasants hated him almost as much as Stalin himself.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wouldn't you think transhuman superbeings would be able to solve a trivial little problem like providing food?
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
This immediately made me think: "KHAAAAAAN!!!"
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem is not population. It is dysfunctional cultures. Look at the place where starvation is a major problem. See if a pattern doesn't become evident.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
The population control/ eugenics project has actually succeeded marvelously. It's great ally is birth control, which upended the Iron Laws of Biology. ("Dr Freud, please answer the nearest white courtesy telephone.") Vast numbers of children have been terminated in utero. People are voluntarily destroying any succession to their genetic lines all over the world, but especially in the developed world. Euthanasia is proceeding by leaps and bounds. War is killing an awful lot of people in the muslim world and its outskirts. Disease and hunger are no longer doing their proper parts, but give events some time. Perhaps our modern day Margaret Sangers could hang up their hats, call it a day and move onto something else.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is the height of hubris to attempt or to even believe that man can create some sort of perfect society by destroying the very beings who make society possible to begin with. No one can know where the next great scientist, entrepreneur, artist or philosopher will come from. People who want to play God are incredibly dangerous as their ideas, when put into action, invariably cause death, destruction, and suffering on an immense scale.

As if man has the capacity to determine the future of billions of independent souls, it is the height of arrogance and stupidity. The only good thing is that leftists naturally limit themselves as they do not procreate much at all, which is one reason why they must rely on immigration so much to keep power, and make false promises of prosperity to get people to vote for them.
9 weeks ago
9 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All