Replies

Too many of us have watched our core values stripped away by the liberals who moved into our home states.

NYer, with all due respect, there is no longer any excuse for comments like this. The reason you'll never make any substantive headway on this issue is because you're targeting the WRONG side of the faux "left-right" model the Good and the Bad Cop of our Two-Party system use to control you at a strictly horizontal level.

If you will remember, back during Gore's Anti-Campaign, he was protested at one point by feminists who excoriated him for his once "pro-life" voting record. How could that be?

It's because Gore -- like the rest of the Democrats -- were "pro-life" back in the sixties. In fact, the only really substantive arguments you see against the state's INTERVENING to sanction birth control and abortion come from the Dems who at the time were charged with fomenting racial unrest with (the absolutely truthful) allegations that both birth control and abortion were forms of genocide ... particularly as targeted to the blacks and other dysgenics to whom they gave it out like candy.

(As a Catholic, I'm surprised you apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of the great Puerto Rico Experiment in which that Catholic island was used as a controlled experiment in "educating" folks to their "right" to exclude by force the creator from their Family Planning. Cardinal Spellman's complicity in that event (like that of so many bishops and cardinals since) is proof positive the hierarchy of the Church -- particularly those "getting out the vote" for alleged "pro-lifers" -- are not at all who or what they seem.)

Just like the "liberals" you think to castigate on the issue of human life.

Again, until the Republicans found the time was ripe for educating the masses into demanding those strictures that would have been forced on them anyway (in much the same way US-AIDs depopulates abroad by imposing pop-control measures), it was the DEMOCRATS who were pro-life.

Once the Republicans made the case for legal abortion (on grounds of "economic discrimination" no less ... their prime concern about abortion in 1970 being "availability") and even memorialized it in 1974 national defense memoranda as "vital" to the solution of population control at home, the ball was in play and the Dems -- overnight -- turned abortion and birth control into the Litmus Test of empowerment for their dysgenic constituents.

In all honesty, the utter Elegance of the operation -- not to mention the bold and unapologetic way ALL of this information is in the public domain -- takes my breath away.

I cannot suggest strongly enough that you educate yourself so as better to identify the real culprits here. It becomes FAR easier to understand why George W. Bush, on approving the UN's POP treaty on April 19, 2001, would say something to the effect of:

And now a Republican administration will finish the work of a Democratic administration ... this is the way environmental policy should work.

IF you understand -- as well you should -- that it's the GOP who gave the Dems their Talking Points on environmentalism back in 1970, along with some utterly chilling recommendations on population control.

Two posts you simply must read are Recommendations of the Task Force on Earth Resources and Population (July 8, 1970) (I have the full document here at home) AND "Abortion is vital to the Solution" -- A Key Point from Kissinger's NSSM-200 (the research contained therein on court appointment indicative of why this current hullaballoo over Spectre is a waste of time and the "spectre of court appointments" -- if you'll pardon the pun -- is just as genuine an issue as the Viet Nam scab they picked to bleed as they pleased this election so as to make it look like a horse race.)

Read the report. For now, here's two excerpts from the Congressional Record which really ought to give any man of conscience pause ... time enought to reflect, perhaps, that maybe he's been played for a Sucker his entire life. Not a pleasant realization by any means but sure beats remaining a Useful Idiot the rest of one's life.

HEARING HIGHLIGHTS
HON. GEORGE BUSH
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 4, 1969

Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, the weeks before recess our Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population held three hearings.

The subjects discussed at these hearings were: the hereditary aspects of human quality, that activities of the Earth Resources Survey Program Review Committee, and the environmental problems created by our rapid rate of population growth.

So that all Members of the House can share the information we heard, I offer our hearing highlights for the RECORD:

HEARING HIGHLIGHTS, TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1969

Dr. Williams Shockley, Professor, Stanford University.

Dr. Arthur Jensen, Professor, University of California at Berkeley.

Dr. Shockley stated that he feels the National Academy of Sciences has an intellectual obligation to make a clear and relevant presentation of the facts about hereditary aspects of human quality. Furthermore, he claimed our well-intentioned social welfare programs may be unwittingly producing a down breeding of the quality of the U.S. population.

Specifically, Dr. Shockley feels the National Academy of Sciences should answer the following question: "Is or is not your 1967 statement on Human Genetics and Urban Slums now clearly out of date and unsound as a result of the analysis published in the Winter, 1969 issue of the Harvard Educational Review by Dr. Jensen and its subsequent review by Dr. Crow?"

Dr. Shockley believes that such a question is partially justified on the basis that one of 3 authors of that 1967 statement, Dr. James Crow, now seems to feel that the statements fails to adequately consider new theories of genetic quality.

On the basis of studies completed by Dr. Arthur Jensen, Dr. Shockley claimed: "I believe that the voting citizens of the United States can and should endeavor to make their government seek objectivity to formulate programs so that every baby born has high probability of leading a dignified, rewarding and satisfying life. Letters from government organizations show that hereditary factors are essentially excluded from present studies of our social problems.

... highlights from August 7, 1969, and highlights from August 12, 1969 (Paul Ehrlich).

OVERPOPULATION
HON. GEORGE BUSH
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 30, 1969
[pp. 17926-17927]

Congressional Record, September 5, 1969

Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, I would like to comment on two newcomers to the Washington scene. They are Dr. Philip Handler, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Roger Olaf Egeberg, the Assistant HEW Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs subject to his confirmation by the Senate. I was extremely heartened by the sense of urgency expressed by both of these national leaders on the problems of overpopulation and dwindling resources. In a recent interview with This Week magazine, Dr. Handler stated:

"The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger, pollution, crime, overlarge, dirty cities-even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war-all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology. Second to the problem of overproduction is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we do not provide more food, we face worldwide famine."

Dr. Egeberg has displayed his keen awareness of the crisis our world is facing by emphasizing that at the top of his list of priorities will be intensified efforts in environmental and population control through technological innovations and family planning, the reclamation of waste products, and the development of a low pollution automobile.

We look to these two men for dynamic and purposeful leadership as the new administration charts its course.

I include at this point in the record the text of the interview with Dr. Handler:

OVERPOPULATION: NEW SCIENCE PRESIDENT SEES IT AS GREATEST THREAT TO MANKIND

"Man is on the threshold of a biological revolution," says biochemist Philip Handler. "It will influence the life of each of us Just as greatly as the industrial revolution affected every living person."

On July 1, Dr. Handler will leave his position as chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at Duke University Medical Center to become president of the National Academy of Sciences. This organization of the country's 846 most esteemed scientists serves as official advisor to the government on matters of science and technology.

This Week interviewed Dr. Handler about his views on what lies ahead in the biological sciences.

TW. Will you define what you mean "biological revolution"?

Dr. Handler. I mean that our understanding of living things is now so comprehensive that we should Soon be able to apply that information to human affairs, in order to improve the condition of man.

TW. In what major areas will this knowledge be put to work?

Dr. Handler. In population control, food production, health, control of the environment, and directing the evolution of our own species.

TW. Any reason for the order of your list?

Dr. Handler. The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger; pollution; crime; overlarge, dirty cities--even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war--all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology.

TW. Don't we already know enough?

Dr. Handler. We thought we were quite knowledgeable, until today's problems pinned us to the wall. Our knowledge turned out to be primitive.

The oral contraceptive pill and lUDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) have been successful because they divorce the act of sex from the act of using contraception. What we now need is a cheap, safe mechanism in which failure to use contraceptives would result in failure to conceive, rather than the present situation, which is the other way around--failure results in conception.

TW. What's the outlook for this?

Dr. Handler. There are several approaches--by immunology, particularly--which offer some promise.

TW. What's the next most serious challenge?

Dr. Handler. Second to the problem of overpopulation is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we don't provide more food, we face world-wide famine.

TW. What solution do you propose?

Dr. Handler. There are hundreds of thousands of plants, and we must systematically investigate them to see whether some could be bred into new forms. No new basic foods have been developed since the start of history.

TW. What about food from the sea?

Dr. Handler. The seas could be exploited on a much larger scale. For example, oysters, clams, and other shellfish could be grown in bays. We surely can grow more than we presently take from the sea. But I really think this type of activity--"aquiculture"--won't happen in the sea at all. When we become serious about growing fish, we'll grow them in "factories." Thats how chickens are raised today.

TW. Are there any other new approaches to feeding the world?

Dr. Handler. Today, we can take a fertilized frog egg, insert the nucleus from a cell of another frog, and the egg will develop into a frog that is a perfect twin of the one that provided the transplanted nucleus It's merely a matter of time before we can switch from frogs to mammals. When we do that, we should be able to make perfect copies of the best bull or cow in the world. We can make any number we desire, and thus markedly upgrade food production.

TW. What is the outlook in medicine?

Dr. Handler. We all know that the major killers and incapacitating disorders--heart disease, cancer, rheumatoid ailments -- are still with us. We've managed to contain infectious diseases only.

I'm sure that with time we'll have much-improved preventive and therapeutic techniques for many of the remaining diseases. Atherosclerosis, for example, is the underlying process of much cardiovascular disease, in which the arterial walls are plugged with calcium and fatty materials. I don't believe that's necessary. There should be some way prevent it.

There are small cracks in the problem of cancer. I have reason to believe that in the near future, we'll learn, if not how to prevent it, how to cure early cancer.

TW. About death Itself?

Dr. Handler. Well, about aging, I would like to see life like Shangri-la, where you stay physically young until you're 100, and then you die. Whether we can do this depends upon our understanding of the biological clock for man. If we knew what it is, it's conceivable we could intervene.

TW. You mentioned man's environment as a major problem.

Dr. Handler. It hasn't been really very long-10,000 years-since human beings belonged to tribes of wanderers that foraged and hunted. Each species radiates Into a niche, finds a place to which it's suited, and becomes dominant there. Our species migrated that way when it was small, wandering in tribes and clans.

Genetically, we can't be very different from our early forebears. The question is whether species that achieved dominance under primitive conditions can accommodate Itself adequately to living in cities. Biologically, the odds are against man doing equally well under such an utterly different set of circumstances than his beginnings. I don't know the extent to which mankind can survive successfully in large urban concentrations.

TW. Your last point was evolution.

Dr. Handler. There are something over 300 known hereditary diseases of man. We have learned to circumvent a number of them by keeping young people alive who suffer from those diseases. They grow up and reproduce, and spread their genes in the population. Instead of improving, the genetic pool of mankind is deteriorating. I think the total good of humanity demands that we minimize the incidence of these defective genes. We have no historical ethnic to guide us in this matter, but perhaps such people hould not be allowed to procreate.

The other side of the coin is to prevent the problem In the first place. There are some who hope to make DNA--containing only "good" genes--and insert it into the germ plasm of prospective parents. Maybe that will be possible In the distant future.

Or you could improve inheritance by breeding. As its farthest extreme, using the processs I described for cattle, one could, conceivably, deliberately make more Einsteins, Mozarts, or whomever you choose. Another, more practical way is to pick distinguished men and preserve their sperm by freezing it in "sperm banks." Then married couples might enjoy their own sex relationship, but when they want to have a child, use sperm from the sperm bank.

TW. Dr. Handler, you have described a possible world that Includes brand-new kinds of food, freedom from dread diseases, the possibility of greatly extended life span, even the control of man's own evolution. Are we ready to operate this civilization? Do we know how to perform and accept the new values it will impose?

Dr. Handler. No, we don't know enough yet. But that doesn't mean that we should producing new technology. Compared with the natural sciences and engineering, social sciences are relatively primitive. The degree of understanding of man as a social creature is not yet adequate to our task, as is evident in our domestic and international problems.

But, in part, these problems arise because technology has been so successful. It's the comfort enjoyed by 80 per cent of our population, brought about by technology, that makes possible the dream of a society In which the other 20 per cent can live equally well.

Technology also gives us responsibilities. It gave us the ability to destroy humanity on just the same scale, and we haven't really learned to manage that capability yet. That's where our lack of social understanding limits us badly.

A sophisticated blend of social and behavioral understanding with modern technological capability could truly usher in a new era for mankind, If we can avoid a holocaust in the interim.