Human Biology and Race Issues in Quotes

Forty percent of New York City's black males are jobless. One in three black males born in 2001 will end up in prison. The life expectancy of black men in the U.S. ranks below that of men in Sri Lanka and Colombia. Hip-Hop Planet, by James McBride, NG, April 2007.

The majority of humans around the world lose the ability to digest lactose – a sugar in milk – before reaching adulthood. This is because their gene for the enzyme lactase, which breaks lactose down, is switched off during adolescence. Symptoms of this “lactose intolerance” include bloating and diarrhoea after drinking milk.
However, over 90% of northern Europeans have a version of the lactase gene that remains active throughout life, enabling them to continue drinking milk as adults. - New Scientist, 26.02.07

"Our textile factories can't compete with cheap Chinese imports subsidised by a foreign government. People are saying: 'We've had bad people before. The whites were bad, the Indians were worse but the Chinese are worst of all.'" - Thanks China, now go home: buy-up of Zambia revives old colonial fears, February 5, 2007.

Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego, said middle-class families began heading north in droves after the peso collapses in 1982 and 1994 wiped out many people's life savings.
Cornelius said Mexico's falling birth rate would eventually drive wages up in Mexico and help reduce migration but that it would be decades — if not generations — before any real impact is felt.
"The problem is getting worse," he said. "And that's not going to change for a long time."
Not All Mexican Migrants Are Poor Laborers, by Will Weissert, AP May 6, 2006.

"Sub-Saharan Africa is home to about 25 million of the world's nearly 40 million HIV-infected people." - AP September 20, 2005

Chimpanzees in the wilderness of Senegal have been observed doing something remarkable: making spears to hunt other primates.

"It's classic in primates that when there is a new innovation, particularly in terms of tool use, the younger generations pick it up very quickly. The last ones to pick up are adults, mainly the males", said Dr Pruetz, who led the National Geographic-funded project.

This is because young chimps pick the skill up from their mothers, with whom they spend a lot of their time. "It's a niche that males seem to ignore," Dr Pruetz told BBC News.

Many areas where chimpanzees live are also home to red colobus monkey, which the chimps hunt. However, the Senegal site is lacking in this species, so chimps may have needed to adopt a new hunting strategy to catch a different prey - bushbaby.

The authors conclude that their findings support a theory that females may have played a similarly important role in the evolution of tool technology among early humans.
From: Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears', BBC, 02.22.07

The Human Biological Future: A New Species

In any given environment certain traits will be selected for over others because they more closely match the needs of the given situation. In a natural setting, where pity never occurs, organisms that lack the requisite attributes to succeed in their environment die out to be replaced by those that do. Evolution is occurring all the time but when it comes to the human organism the process is not as simple or direct as with non-sentient animal life driven purely by ingrained impulses. This is because human life can actually alter its own environment even though it can’t escape biological evolution!

In the present era we are experiencing a process of human evolution as our increasingly automated and technologically altered environment develops and the needs for fitting in to it change. This is undoubtedly an evolution partly of our own creation but in a positive sense the traits that are needed to succeed within it are surprisingly universal in value.

So far the biological extinction component that characterizes the classic natural selection process is loosely invoked because today many that cannot succeed in society still reproduce and often in large numbers. However this may well change in the near future as social pressures increase in weight and the developing human environment forces reaction.

But regardless of our immediate opinion concerning this evolution we can’t turn back the clock nor can we ‘devolve’ anymore than we can go back to living a primitive way of life. Evolution is a one-way process because any group that rescinds knowledge, tools and technology is at an immediate disadvantage to the group that keeps it hence it will not go away. Similarly any group that cooperates has an advantage over a selfish lot that doesn’t, hence smart, cooperating individuals have greater chances of success in almost any environment and those that don’t sink into poverty, ill health and an expedited death.

The traits that are being selected for now are resistance to impulses, resistance to temptations, and especially strategic thinking, now more than ever before in the history of Homo sapiens. Obesity, for instance, is no longer a first world weakness but has spread to infect even the developing world too. From smoking, sloth and stress to drug abuse, as society has become increasingly complex so have the possibilities for self-harm increased. But even more interesting, just as obesity epidemic demonstrates, very few living individuals have the mental and physical traits needed to resist the pitfalls inherent within the modern environment. The more intense the environmental pressures the faster the speed with which evolutionary change occurs.

Now we are witnessing the development of a new species that is occurring with astonishing rapidity and I further conclude it may well be an asexual species at that. Think about this, “[A]sexual females are new in evolutionary terms, with most species arising within the past 100,000 years.” Here’s another thought from the animal kingdom: "...The ability of asexual females to escape dominance on copulation will be a function of the rate of mutation to less dependent reproductive physiology following their derivation from sexual populations. Once these alleles (genes) arise, they should be heavily favored, particularly if parthogen (asexual) access to males is limited." - Maurine Neiman, biologist. From: Polygamous Past, Asexual Future? By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News Sept. 20, 2004. So in other words sex ends when females figure out they can still have fun without males, all the fun without the mating hassle. In this hypothesis sexual reproduction is simply perpetuated by female desire for male sex partners, and if that were to end? Now, there’s always a certain risk in extrapolating conclusions directly from the animal kingdom and interposing them into human events because different biological organisms do not always behave in a directly similar manner. Nevertheless the mechanical rules of reproduction apply the same regardless so it’s quite possible the analogy has even more validity than we may think.

But it’s not just the efficiency of asexual reproduction that favors females over males but their psychological characteristics as well. Look at almost any need in the modern environment and you’ll find that the most desirable characteristics are the ones that females have in surplus and males have in short supply, if at all! Whether human males go entirely extinct or not is probably irrelevant in the near-term but what isn’t is the fact that female attitudes will definitely be favored in the selection process because those are the characteristics that fit best in the environment we’ve created – intelligence, cooperation, empathy, and effective communications skills, for instance. And let’s be clear here, this isn’t about superficial gender behaviors that are peculiar to a given culture, this isn’t that men can act like women and become more successful in the current environment, this is a biological issue. In other words the traits that best fit the current environment are intricately associated with the X-chromosome while the savage, glory days of the Y-chromosome have expired and Y is now obsolescent.

Examples of the selection process are all around us. The prisons fill up to overflowing with all the males that cannot adapt to modern environment. All of their attributes and the minimal skills they do possess are useless today - they can’t plan for the future, they have no empathic understanding of those around them and they're prone to violence and reaction without regard for consequences. Indeed the entire social underclass is largely composed of persons that society has outgrown the need for, automation and technological advances have rendered them not just redundant but a burden too!

Natural selection is hardly a pretty process to see in action and extinction even less so but this is the nature of the order we all exist within and like it or not we are compelled to obey those rules. All the best efforts of criminal justice, all the ‘miracle’ drugs from the pharmaceutical industry and the quick-fix solutions from the policy makers cannot change the inevitable course of our own evolution and the eventual emergence of a new species because our own biological future will inevitably emerge from the environment of the present. 26.09.04

Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system — with all these exalted powers — Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. - Charles Darwin

Eye of the Beholder

September 2003

Race: From Biology to Politics

Race is a subset classification below a species, but where different species cannot interbreed, different races can. The human races were created during the last ice age where extremely harsh environmental pressures formed the disparate physical attributes we classify today as race. There is nothing mystical or strange about race, humans got where they are today through the same natural selection process as every other living organism.

Some argue that race is an imagined difference, but every surgeon knows otherwise – ignorance of racial differences kills patients. Transplanted organs, diseases, cancers, all differentiate by race so the classification we employ is definitely rooted in unambiguous physical differences in human populations. Regardless, the race is real or not argument has no weight in practical life because human behavior acts racist regardless of any awareness for science or fact. The cultural constructs that emerge from the collection of genetically similar groups we call races are what really make things murky because it is possible for a member of one race to adopt the fashion and custom and mores of another culture and thus change cultural identity but not his biological being; but which one is more important?

Why then is racism so violently reviled today? Perhaps because it’s something a person can’t change? Beauty and intelligence are two other factors of notable comparison here, read: From Socialism to Capitalism - A Cycle This is the fundamental friction of racism – it instantly polarizes the participants and creates an adversarial relationship that cannot be abrogated because neither side can change what they are! This is even worse than a religious conflict because neither side can convert even! Modern western societies go to outrageous lengths to avoid this dilemma but they can never escape it entirely.

This didn’t used to be a problem. One hundred, even fifty years ago western culture was openly racist yet today mainstream media and popular opinion alike regularly vilify racist behavior. So although racism is not presently considered socially acceptable behavior from a biological perspective, racism makes perfect sense because it preserves genetic character. Yet if racism is sound in argument and backed by scientific research (which in many ways it is) then the flimsiest of order is being maintained through a flawed belief; overt conflict is being postponed rather than rectified. Especially in the increasingly crowded and barely cohesive urban societies of today it is very important to keep everyone getting along and business running as smoothly as possible. Two quick examples of this phenomenon are San Francisco and Toronto. Both are large cities, both are cosmopolitan in character and both have to deal with a constant undercurrent of identity-based strife be it racial, ethnic, religious, gender, lifestyle, etc.

As recently as the 1940s racist attitudes were completely acceptable in America.

District Attorney Terence Hallinan during a 2002 San Francisco 'anti-hate' campaign proudly declared, "In this city, which has always been known for its tolerance, the only thing we will not tolerate is intolerance." Organized living in the modern cosmopolitan city is predicated upon a belief in the absurd and an attachment to flimsy myths such as ‘hate is unnatural and wrong’ and ‘everyone is the same’. Toronto Canada is arguably the most racially and culturally diverse spot on the globe but it functions, if we can use the word, ironically because of the lack of a clear majority! Racism is an issue in Toronto everyday but since most everyone is there to make a (Canadian) dollar they generally set aside that instinct using their higher brain functions.

Interesting enough the most overtly racist groups in cities are the gangs - be they Black, White, Asian, etc. Why? Their identity is not tied to the above-ground economy! In other words they don’t have to set aside their feelings of racism in order to make a dollar because they’ve already been marginalized from society they have no incentive to suppress racist instincts. 

Human behavior is rooted in evolved instinct and simple biological motivations but this basal force can nonetheless be overridden by higher thought processes of the mind. The only instinctive force comparable to racial identity is that of immediate selfishness – greed. The desire for money is a motivating force that competes quite well against racism, a fact that racists are not keen on admitting. 

The fact of the matter is that no race is inherently sacred and racial change is inevitable. The fundamental principle behind racism is that the greater the familiarity and similarity between individuals in a group the more likely they are to cooperate because it’s always easier to trust the other person when you understand how they think and how they act. Without empathy for others in the group and an understanding of the needs of others, no sustainable cooperative society can be formed, read: Gorillas in the Midst But modern urban associations are not based on social bonds but rather transient economic ones. Urban centers mix vast numbers of disparate persons together for short-term profit gains but at the cost of serious conflict in the future because race will always form at least part of every individual’s identity.

What part of human identity is permanent and what part is variable?

Racial identity has the advantage of being rooted in permanence while economic identity is purely transient. Nether facet of identity is insignificant but sole reliance upon the variable aspect is asking for trouble.

So this is how it breaks down: money can make people ignore issues of identity by activating their internal greed but only temporarily. An affluent white-collar worker has the same instincts as their racial relatives in gangland but they act differently because of their financial attachments. When the money flees so does the façade of cooperation based on wealth.

It’s unfair to state that human nature is inherently racist because that is misleading and sounds worse than it really is. Human nature is inherently selfish because selfish genes drive it and a healthy individual likes and understands best the stuff they are composed of as opposed to the stuff of others.

What is Racism?

Racism in its root form is the attempt to preserve recessive genes, or more specifically the recessive genes that confer a special identity upon the members of one’s own race. Which explains why racial mixing is deemed a mortal threat by racists. Yet in the short term these genes are not being eliminated just hidden from view so the genotype still contains those recessive traits that typify the race but they may not show up in the phenotype of the individual. However, eventually the recessive genes would be eliminated, but again these recessive traits can really only perpetuate in a very small gene pool anyway. So instead of a few villages interbreeding in a remote valley, today the entire world is for all practical purposes a single gene pool!

Does the value of a race outweigh the value of an individual?

The technology that has built global economic bonds has created a very dynamic and in many ways unpredictable world. Nonetheless the fundamental rules of competition and biological evolution still apply; it's a teeming sea of individuals constantly seeking to optimize their status within the present environment in the unending search for fitness. The evolution of Homo sapiens is still driven by individual choices and interactions just as it always has but the background changes.

The flaw in racism is rooted in the human ego for the racist is seeing a value where nature (often) does not! The natural order does not care whether a race perpetuates or goes extinct nor does it care whether an individual lives, breeds or dies. The only rule and goal is survival and the onus of survival is always on the individual – a person does not need a race to survive! However, no individual can exist independently outside of a societal network either.

Racism may work for tactical political gains and simplified generalizations of ‘us versus them’ but to try and ensconce racism in as singular belief-set is not strategically tenable; it’s just manufacturing a doomed quasi-religion based on a 'sacred' idol of our race. After all, the limitations on travel and communication that held human populations in isolation, creating races in the first place no longer hold sway. Intermixing is inevitable and no one can turn back the clock now. The most promising outcome is ascension to a merit based society where opportunities for personal advancement are open to everyone and where success depends not on class, race or connections but on individual capabilities.

But anyone convinced that the elimination of racial differences will usher in a new world of peace and cooperating is wildly deluded. Just take a look at Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Balkans, etc. and you’ll be quickly disabused of the notion that the elimination of race eliminates conflict; instead it just breaks one bond of social cohesion and creates new divisions. What cities are really doing by importing and mixing the peoples of the world is ushering in a bold new era of density-based hyper-competition that serves to heighten the sense of racial as well as other identities, not lessen them. Indeed the urban world's future is likely to resemble something akin to the racial stratification characteristic of modern Brazilian society and the chronic internal conflicts associated with it. Politics will never be the same. Ironically race probably has a greater political value than a biological one! 17.01.04

***

Why The Racists Will Win

... and why politics won’t be the same. I’ve been turning this analysis of racism over and over in my mind and even after two revisions the above article still feels inadequate. As accurately as I can pin down this issue, this is what I get:

I’m convinced that race will increasingly become a source of social friction and conflict but also cohesion and motivation in the future. Race has not been a major issue until recently in world history – it’s always been the clan, the tribe, the religion, the nationality, and so on but very rarely if ever the race simply because the race was such a broad category it did not adequately define identity. But today with the gene pool inflated to include the entire world, race does indeed suffice as a symbol of identity. Today in the 21st century race is in effect replacing the nationalism that so characterized the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Economic development and global interconnections have acted to undermine the concept and even the viability of the nation-state. In this turbulent wake, race has emerged as the next over-arching identity connection that spans worldwide political boundaries just as money and trade does. Further, race as an identity has such a marvelous simplicity to it that, for politics especially, it is the perfect push-button. And this is why at least some races will survive because it’s simply too valuable to throw away! There is no other physical identity to compete with race, it acts as a common theme, it has a historical context, it appeals to the ego – the only thing that can compete with race is money, and money has no allies. 18.01.04

Chemical addiction seems to be related to rapidity of drug effect onset. Drugs which have a lengthy delay before the effects are felt are rarely abused while those with a rapid or instantaneous effect are very often abused. For instance this is why heroin is usually used as an intravenous drug, it delivers a quicker high. Alcohol would be another example of a fast acting, commonly abused chemical.

It's the feeling people are chasing anyway. It's interesting to note the surprising number of drugs designed and marketed to be safe and non-addictive that later turn out to be exactly the opposite! For example heroin was sold as a safe non-addictive alternative to morphine! Synthetic drug methaqualone is another example of misguided pharmacology. Glutethimide is one of the worst in this category, a "safe" depressant that turns out to be anything but safe - a suicide drug that accumulates in the body and stays long after the effects have worn off. 16.08.02

It used to be thought only humans could make and use tools, then researchers checked into it and found that to be quite untrue. Then it was said only humans had language but a few careful studies later found many animals can use language too. The next unassailable division became the amorphous concept of culture. Well it turns out some animals may well have that too. Only humans were right side dominant, then it was discovered that crows are right 'handed' too. The final barrier to date is the ability to learn by imitation, said to be the sole domain of humans. I have a suspicion if researchers look close enough they'll find animals doing that as well. So why not add another codicil to this thinning book defining the species Homo sapien? Seeing as how in the animal kingdom rape is reproduction perhaps consensual sex is a quality reserved for humans? It would seem to me to be as least as good as the ones already listed but has the added twist of rejecting the carte-blanche membership of not just a a few.

It seems our primary problem is not an overly narrow definition of animal but an overly broad definition of human. Maybe those that refuse to act human shouldn't be treated as such? 26.09.01

Answering AIDS

The AIDS conference in Barcelona Spain has revealed some startling facts on the HIV / AIDS crisis that continues to confound simple resolution. For example, although HIV/AIDS can theoretically strike anyone this belies the fact that the vast majority are infected because of their own lifestyle decisions and their own dangerous actions.

"A federally funded 10-year study has found that high-risk sexual behavior, not sharing needles, is the biggest predictor of HIV infection in males and females who inject drugs." (4)
"Gay men account for the largest proportion of new H.I.V. infections, or 43 percent, followed by people infected by heterosexual sex, 27 percent, and intravenous drug users, 23 percent."
"Dr. Ron Stall reported a behavioral study involving 2,881 gay men in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco. Dr. Stall said the study had found a striking correlation between high-risk behavior, H.I.V. infection and four psychosocial health problems: drug use, violence against a partner, history of childhood sexual abuse and depression." (2)

Furthermore a preponderance of HIV occurs within racial minority groups, specifically African-American males. This is likely a confluence of a lack concern or awareness of personal impact, a general distance between minorities and the medical system and a predilection for certain dangerous behaviors.

"The rates of unawareness among minority gay men ages 15 to 29 in the study were staggeringly high. Among those found to have H.I.V., the AIDS virus, 90 percent of blacks, 70 percent of Hispanics and 60 percent of whites said they did not know they were infected."
"Disease centers officials, who are responsible for tracking the AIDS epidemic in the United States, reported that 55 percent of new H.I.V. infections in 25 states from 1994 through 2000 were among blacks, who make up only 12 percent of the population in the United States."
Among those who acquired H.I.V. through heterosexual sex, black women accounted for nearly half from 1994 through 2000; black male heterosexuals accounted for an additional 25 percent, for a total of 75 percent, a hugely disproportionate share of infections in the United States, Dr. Valdiserri said." (2)

AIDS is very costly to treat and not just in monetary measures.

"Caring for each patient suffering from the advanced stages of AIDS costs an average $34,000 a year in the United States, according to the first comprehensive analysis released on Wednesday. " (3)

Some cogent questions to ask are, why such an emphasis upon treating a disease that is primarily a product of behavior and lifestyle decisions? Especially with so many other pathogenic threats to human health and with much more widespread infection patterns? And what of the counterintuitive phenomenon associated with HIV treatments? It has been shown that by making those infected healthier with a cornucopia of drugs not only does it create new, drug resistant strains of the disease...
"About one in seven people who have recently been infected with the virus that causes AIDS have contracted a strain of the organism that is already resistant to drugs used to treat the disease, doctors said Saturday." (1)
...but it also generates a wider spread of infections, because although these individuals are HIV positive, they appear healthy and can continue dangerous sexual behaviors whereas before, or without treatment, they would be too ill to do so.

Solutions, or at the very least adequate treatments to HIV and AIDS will remain elusive as long as the most obvious questions remain taboo issues. 10/13.07.02

1) Drug-resistant AIDS virus increasing, By Ed Susman, UPI Science News
2) Many Gay Men in U.S. Unaware They Have H.I.V., By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, NYT July 7, 2002
3) US Spends $34,000 a Year on Each Sick AIDS Patient, Reuters, July 10 2002
4) 'Risky sex strongest predictor of HIV', By Joyce Howard Price, THE WASHINGTON TIMES July 12,2002

Thoughts on Cryptozoology

Cryptozoology is a good term to impress your associates with; it means the search for unidentified animals. 'Bigfoot' or Sasquatch is one of the most well known to the public. This field of science is much more complex and serious than most think and already has several remarkable success to its credit such as the "extinct for 65 million years" species of fish known as the coelacanth first found in 1938. And even if one maintains disbelief the public reactions alone are enough to generate not just a few sociological research reports. A poorly educated public always quick to discount phenomena they know nothing about or embrace others they know everything about because it consists of rumor and fantasy.

What is Bigfoot?
The serious scientific investigators probing the topic view it as a fascinating, unsolved natural mystery. For some intellectuals the most interesting aspect is society's reaction to the topic, and the common logic for why it just could not be. That logic exposes Americans' fantastically skewed, English garden perception of the landscape. It also reveals a surprising amount of ignorance about how much uninhabited space there still is across the continent.

Some note how most Americans will profess a belief in things they have never seen, such as God and Jesus, but the same Americans will quickly ridicule honest eyewitnesses to these animals, even if those eyewitnesses are their most trusted family members. The topic so sternly dismissed by societal institutions that no one should be surprised that no physical remains have ever been delivered to scientists by the public. From: www.bfro.net

The Slavery of Genetic Compulsion

Women see the person (narrow - personal) men see the event (wide - abstract) but men unlike women have the disadvantage of never really sensing a situation they act and react, even the smartest men can do the stupidest things because they aren't sensing, they miss the interface between action and situation, component and system. Example if a tree blocks the path get out the dynamite and the bulldozer and blast the hell out of it. It's not easy overcoming this 'disability' but that doesn't mean one can't try. The best answer is often not blunt and direct but more subtle and indirect because as living things we are intricately associated with a much larger system and every push we make that breaks the equilibrium pushes back and as technology generates increasingly powerful pushes we find at the worst possible times that the environmental kickback gets pretty scary.

But even that mind mode has explanation, it's roots go back to sex, reproduction goals like so many other human behaviours masked by culture and similar accoutrements. Given that sexual reproduction is the most critical act any animal can perform it shouldn't be surprising that so much of human behaviour revolves around this. It's such a robotic thing that the porn industry will never go out of business. What should be more curious is the fact that animals can do anything else! And indeed many don't even live long enough to do much besides eat a few bites, reproduce and die.

It's all a calculated attempt to minimize failure and maximize success. The male algorithm is blunt and direct i.e. 'screw everything in view' and this can be seen throughout the sexual animal kingdom. And women deride this behaviour because it is so different and reckless in comparison to the female algorithm; women want reliability. Yet what they ought to criticize is not the compulsion but rather the inability to control it, the weak minds that can think of nothing else but rule #1, their only purpose for being alive - literally.

Developing the methodology to work with the system rather than against it is difficult enough and to put it into practice requires an enormous amount of maturity and intelligence in order to find the balance, the moderation needed to implement it successfully. And this is probably why it's ahead of its time, unfortunately, and why things will clearly get worse before they get better. After all who's driving the technology freight train still? And worst of all the brain chemistry appears an either-or problem or more likely it just takes a rare few with the patience and intelligence to work it out. Could this method of thinking be inculcated into others? Could it be trained and taught or is it beyond that? I would like to think it feasible. 07.03.01

You know if any state regime were to initiate a consistent and thorough eugenics program even without genetic engineering or modern biotechnology they'd be so far ahead of the rest of the planet in just two generations they'd steamroll the competition. What surprises me is not the fact this will soon happen because science and the desire for advantage has an intriguing way of obliterating taboo, but that it's taken so long! Alas it is not for our little selves to worry over such dangerous, unfair and non-conformist notions.......yet.

Cloning Immortality

The advent of genetic modifications technology will imperil the remaining myths of our era, and likely doom them to the dim dirty corners of sub-cultural denial akin to the flat-earth society today. Biological systems are so well honed that we assume them to be near-perfect expecting every baby to enter the world whole and healthy. But in reality mistakes happen both by man and God. Cloning as one example will take years to achieve quick and clean results. Dolly the sheep took 277 attempts to make 29 valid embryos of which only one worked. Genetic engineering and cloning, gene therapy and every other tool that will be used to manipulate genetic quality will invariably highlight the above fact. Mistakes, ugly ones at that are a natural product of the process aimed at eventual success.

No genetic entity is 'carved in stone', no DNA sequence is so holy as to be the apex of perfection and in fact that false notion of acme so ingrained into the modern myth especially via religious notions of soul and spirit are the exact opposite of reality once again. We are meant to evolve, to adapt to improve to match environment. And judging by the looks of people today, by the accumulations of trash on the streets it is a process desperately needed if the species is to survive at all! Outside of scientific quarters, the rarely stated genetic quandary of our era is that as our human breeding boundaries have expanded the negative recessive traits that used to be washed out within narrow popualitons of olde are no longer being removed. Instead a steady collection of faulty traits are cumulating within the collective gene pool. A long term problem for natural breeding but one that could be solved with technical means. Artificial genetic modifications will become an imperative not a luxury!

The self doesn't want to die, we also search for higher powers that never die, God and soul. Yet could these needs not be neatly paralleled, even satisfied or at least symbolically represented by the genetic thread that connects us all, the need for procreation and the creation new life similar to ourselves? Reproduction is a very powerful thread binding us all, the entire conception of immortality and the curious pervasive affinity human nature has for everlasting life is really nothing more than the genetic imperative entailed within reproduction. Cloning is very nearly immortality in itself.

Soon the unavoidable realization will dawn, the beautiful fungibility, raw potential and magnificent might of biological organisms and our world will never be the same. Anyone still naive and narrow-minded enough to think that bio-engineering is all just evil anyway - don't sweat it, it will all happen eventually regardless. Instead the wise realize banning things fails, instead you channel it in the proper directions with guidance and prudent oversight. The only real question for the day is: what path will our leadership take? 28.01.01

Here's something to think about. Hair is not unique to mammals, at least not historically speaking. So actually the definition of a mammal isn't the hair but presence of mammary glands used to nourish young, of course. Yet is it not curious that the crucial attribute of mammals is only developed in one sex. So what does that make the males, superfluous even in mammalian classification?

Ouch.

Say it aint so!

Has my answer been heard to the question how one cures a woman - "redeems" her? One gives her a child. Woman needs children, a man is for her always only a means: thus spoke Zarathustra - Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Yeah but a more accurate statement would substitute 'genes' for 'woman'. The genetic material, the real owner of every human soul can ultimately only be sated by reproduction.
Many if not all cultural constructs have very tangible, yet poorly studied connections to hidden biological motivations. Why are famous people, celebrities, especially men such a popular issue among the women? Most likely because fame and popularity mean wealth and its corollary health and both of those qualities are important for the success of offspring. In other words these women attracted to famous men are doing nothing more than pragmatically sizing up the ability of their (potential, or rather, wishful) mates to provide for the long term needs of their genetic progeny. 25.10.00

In the animal kingdom disparate species (and sub-species or races) can coexist but only when they are not competing for the same resources. Keep this in mind when thinking of humanity. Multiracial systems only work as long as the sense of identity is strong and resources are not in scarcity. Competition is anathema to the successful multiracial polity. When competition becomes imperative then collective survival can only be achieved through separation. 15.09.00

Thoughts on the New Gynocentric Reality

Sexual reproduction is a strange evolutionary development. It’s a hindrance to reproduction in that it takes the presence and cooperation of two parties. Asexual reproduction is more logical and more efficient. Indeed the sheer existence of sexual reproduction has puzzled researchers, but the reason seems to be the increased ability to resist diseases conferred by the constant mixing of genes inherent within the system of sexual reproduction. But this reactionary ability is also a disadvantage because positive traits will get weakened within the process of sexual reproduction. Essentially only half of the traits in either party are being sent on their way down the line to posterity.

Medical science has already descended into some very murky waters in the reproductive realm. Allowing sterile or infertile people to have children, similar feats of medical God-play only serve to trash the gene pool. I mean if you can’t reproduce you are failing your sole fundamental task as a biological organism. Now that doesn’t make you worthless in human society but it does have a very profound significance within the framework of a biologically healthy society of people. The ability to reproduce is important both on a superficial social level but also on a deep psychological scale. No wonder people will pay millions of dollars to get a baby. But this brings up another point in that capitalist ‘money-grubbing’ is once again driving science as well as creating long term biological problems.

Now given my nihilistic leanings I'd simply be remiss if I didn’t expound why and how I’d like to vitiate the entire [sexual] system, so here goes:

Females have unparalleled and unique ability amongst the disparate sexes to reproduce themselves. The process isn’t quick and it’s not pretty, but it works. To build a female one only needs one chromosome the X, while to build a male one needs two the X and the Y. The Y chromosome is an aberrant appendage whose sole function is to facilitate the sexual process. The male is fundamentally superfluous to human reproduction. It will not require a leap of science to be able to take two eggs and mix the genetic material within a process of virtual sexual reproduction. In other words to take genes from one parent and the other parent to create a whole zygote. The ensuing offspring will all be female and all have only X-chromosomes. With the advent of this technology the male and his sex chromosome can very effectively be written out of the story completely. The necessity of this technology for the preservation of civilization would be no more dangerous to collective survival than our reliance on say computer technology, weather satellites or modern agricultural techniques.

The inveterate maternal multi-tasker

Hypothetically Speaking...

If one were to get really insidious and creative they would build a drug that would cause spontaneous female autogenesis "virgin birth", non-asexual reproduction that self-mixes same DNA to create a zygote. This effect is real and documented but extremely rare. Then design a product to alter the DNA code of the [female] offspring so that they are only capable of autogenesis reproduction. And voila, no more males in one generation.

So this brings us to the larger question, how necessary is the male sex for society and even civilization? Could a civilization function under the above pretexts and consist of nothing but women? I have no doubts that it is possible but whether it would be desirable or successful, well I don’t know; who can without any documented historical precedent? I will strongly argue against popular notions that the male and female sexes are interchangeable in their abilities and motivations. The two sexes are very different both in mind and body, in ways obvious and obscure. If nothing else it’s a scientific fact that the brain chemistry is quite different, so the thought process is different, values are different. But to say that combing both sexes in a society creates synergy is about as accurate as your horoscope in the newspaper; if anything it causes more social friction. Recent history is a good example, it’s a trite tale of the incessant struggle for domination of social resources and either the man will have it all or the women will. I don’t believe any half-measures exist and history demonstrates it well.

So why fight it? Man and woman are more incompatible than compatible they don’t think the same and they don’t share the same interests. Like sexes get along better. Indeed the only reason male and female even talk to each other is for the potential for sex! Or common courtesy.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Genesis 3:15

Love-hate-domination-slavery-marriage, what’s the diff? Dump marriage, screw relationships. Mechanize the act and turn reproduction into a systemic machine process. A civic responsibility like doing jury duty or voting. That must be accomplished before this new order can be established because love / sex is what brings man and woman together however briefly.

"...to me love always connotes tyrannisation and moral ascendancy. Any other love has never come within my purview, and I have even gone so far as to arrive at the firm conclusion that, properly speaking, love lies in the peculiar right of tyrannisation which the fact of being loved confers. Even in my most secret soul I have never been able to think of love as aught but a struggle, which begins with hatred and ends with moral subjugation." Apropos of the falling sleet – Underground man, Dostoyevsky.

Without man and woman together sexuality and reproduction take on new characteristics largely separate from each other. The neat part is that this opens up a new power realm for government to control, that of reproductive rights. Given that certain biomedical technology is [or may not be required if the DNA is recoded for timed or drug induced autogenesis] required for conception, control of this process would mean control of population growth. Sexuality is for private life, while reproduction is a civil affair, fill out the paperwork wait 2 or 3 years for government approval etc. This of course has good and bad aspects. Certainly most parents would despise the notion of higher authority telling them when to reproduce but it does have advantages. As it stands today the only population segments producing replacement or higher levels are the genetic trash, the unfit and the unhealthy. The intelligent and beautiful are too busy socializing or making money to reproduce. This dysgenic effect would be easily rectified with a centralized authority governing human reproduction.

Clearly this is only the tip of the iceberg for ideas on the topic. I could write for days but this is enough for now because it spells out the fundamental tenet. Not only that but when I first wrote of it about 6 years ago I thought it was far-fetched; today it is very nearly fact. Potential and practical have an uncanny way of coinciding at unpleasant moments in history.

Finally don’t get me wrong on one thing, I don’t want to be part of any radical gay agenda or any gay agenda at all for that matter. I merely think these ides have validity and should be considered at least as pause for rumination. Somebody else will eventually if they haven’t already.

And while we’re on the topic, I don’t know how many people have stopped to ponder the sociological consequences of Viagra, but wouldn’t it pretty much be the end of society with the introduction of the orgasm in a pill? Now that’s the Drug Company I’d like to have in my stock portfolio!

* * *

These trends have been developing for over three hundred years. ‘Egalitarianism’ which itself is a myth, has grown popular and feasible as technology has moved work away from the brawn to the brain.

Every institution females go into changes to suit their needs and reflect their Weltanschauung. Look at the military, which has completely changed over just the past two decades as women have taken jobs in greater numbers. Certain sections aren’t even recognizable anymore it’s gone from rock-stupid kill bad guys to a safe work environment that strives to minimize discord and avoid offending people. Every facet now must meet the needs of female employees, even submarine crews! Which just goes to show it’s not about a job in the Navy it’s about being able to go where men don’t want women to be.

The rule of law has changed dramatically as women have exerted influence through political and legislative channels. Hate crime laws are a female favorite and although they are legally amorphous the concept is clear, what a person expresses is unacceptable when the receiver is offended or hurt. Hurt in this case is defined retroactively and may be all in the offended's mind. It’s not my fault he told me to do it!

Now not all the changes are necessarily bad, generally women will make institutions more habitable and safe. But in the end (I fear) this woman’s world will be very anti-intellectual and especially stifling towards innovation and change. Freedom will go out the door because it poses potential hazards to group safety and peace of mind. It will be based on conformity, safety and a structured, hierarchical society that avoids change at all costs. 08.05.00

Balkanization or Brazillification?

The 2000 census is a good time to analyze the demographic revolution that is changing America. Although the size of this magnitude is unprecedented the outcome is not. Two world regions provide illustrated clues to the 50 year near future of the U$: the Balkans and Brazil

The Balkanization of America has been discussed by a handful of academics already. This trend towards ethnic enclaves and violent separatism is not difficult to see with a little fast forwarding and imagination. More interesting I think is another possibility that of Brazil-ificatin. Brazil is truly a demographic marvel displaying structural elitism and what would be called racism in today’s lexicon. Essentially whites and Jews make up the technocratic and moneyed leadership while Mestizos, Indians (Natives) and Blacks (former slaves) make up the masses.

The ratio of Jews and whites to the underclass is significantly different from modern America but the makeup of the underclass is remarkably similar. The U$ has more Asians particularly Chinese but even there I believe that Brazil did have "coolies" for RR construction. But Really Chinese are everywhere - ask any world traveler. I think Brazil is a likely portent of the future given present population replacement statistics and immigration.

The thin upper ruling technocratic class of Jews and rich whites that rule Brazil, those people can only exist in a very structured social system, any chaos or severe turbulence and even they will be subsumed (the whites anyway) into the mass much like the ancient Aryans who had their caste system to protect them in India were eventually lost into the subterranean sea of red. The number of productive, educated and intelligent people is much larger in the U$ than either ancient India or Brazil in numbers and ratio. It would be foolishly naive to think that any ethnic or racial group will expire without any resistance or reaction. And I think that given the size and survival tenacity of certain factors like language (English first) a vestigial ruling elite seems less likely. Perhaps ruling coalitions but that leads to balkanization.

These factors tends to support the balkanization theory but in order for balkanization to work individual groups and ethnicity’s need a very distinct and determined sense of identity and separateness despite geographical coexistence. Does this level of separation exist in the U$? Not really, not yet anyway. Mass media, financial prosperity and ease of transportation and communication make for a nascent mega-mass of one. Despite the illusion of ‘white-flight’ in the U$ no tangible escape actually exists. America is trying to become ethnically divided but too many other factors keep getting in the way, mostly employment / economic ones.

Either way in the near term we are seeing the middle class continue to be dismembered along a very sharp demarcation line. Professional and highly trained specialists including doctors, lawyers, some teachers, scientists and engineers are moving up to the sub-layer of the nascent ruling/upper caste. Meanwhile the trades and less specialized careers like manufacturing and services are moving down into the level of working poor and the structural poor that cant get jobs even if they tried. This is the ‘new’ lower class, the underclass. Today it is much larger and also more dissatisfied, many feel cheated to say the least. Keep in mind much of this is being masked by the temporary economic prosperity exhibited by the present debt & equity-bubble but once that fizzles and recession hits these trends will be manifest even stronger than 10 or 20 years ago. Consumer debt and the person’s ability to pay it off will also be a deciding factor in this demarcation process. The people with good jobs will make it the ones with ok jobs probably won’t.

This class definition process is looking much like the Brazilificiation, to me anyway. Obviously the ratios are different but the underlying economic trends are the same. The technocratic business/political elite's rule in a pseudo-socialist-fascist regime where the poor, destitute and disorganized masses struggle to gain concessions from the elite-driven political structure. This ‘democracy’ strives to hand out as little as necessary to keep everyone barely sated for the time being meanwhile skimming profits and kickbacks off the top for their friends and family members in the technocratic establishment. The second layer class of professionals make just enough money to afford a home in a gated community and rent-a-cop protection from the crime infested slums (Rio anyone?) but living in constant fear of unemployment or financial disaster throwing them into the dog-pit of the mega-mass underclass animals.

Good investment opportunities for this future are consumer credit, lotteries, and low cost consumer manufacturing. Good jobs are government, law, finance and ‘white-collar’ crime. OK jobs are security, any professional skills and petty crime.

...That’s assuming nothing comes along to stir things up.

Scummy build-up: where are the scrubbing bubbles when you need 'em?

While I was in San Francisco walking around and getting to know the local color a friend I was with said he gave to charity (in this case meaning the beggars we kept running into) because he felt that he could have been [born] one of those unfortunate people. Certainly SanFran has more than its share of bums, junkies, raving lunatics and less pleasant people not to mention the con-artists posing as one of the previous categories. But nonetheless this is an interesting viewpoint albeit entirely irrational, not surprisingly this individual was highly religious. But this is really what charity is about, guilt and a feeling actually a fear that "I could be like that". And if you really want to get technical this is the same foundations socialist politics is built on – protect the weak and the less fortunate because either A) you could end up like them someday or B) you could have had the misfortune of being born them. The overtones of Hindu philosophy and reincarnation theory are curious, but I don’t know if most Christians realize it even as acutely aware of the afterlife as most are.

And what's wrong with compassion and socialistic wealth distribution, what’s wrong with making everyone happier? It’s just like feeding the ducks in the park, as long as the free food supplies hold out every year more and more show up for a handout. In short order you have an overpopulation problem, detrimental environmental overload, increased violence, disease and congenital defects amongst the population because during times of surplus the trash isn’t being weeded out. Now humans may be more intelligent than ducks (generally speaking) but both are biological organisms subject to the same rules of survival and evolution.

But back to San Francisco, it’s truly astounding the levels of biological garbage that can accumulate within human populations before the social structures fail. I think that ironically the U$ laissez faire system is actually at a disadvantage when it comes to long term biological health of a population compared to the socialist systems more popular elsewhere. Within the U$ system no significant allowances are made for supporting the non-productive levels of the population. They subsist through crime, begging and menial labor while the divisions of wealth diverge exponentially. Whereas a true socialist system (unrealistically assuming reactionary politics doesn’t enter the fray) will more quickly reach overload and totally collapse because it burdens to productive classes with supporting the increasing size of the non-productive.

Today not only is that non-productive class growing through asymmetrical birth rates but also through aging. True your average 72 year old retiree in Florida may not be prone to petty theft and drug crimes but from an economic standpoint the burden on the wealth production of the nation is no less significant than an unemployed crack addict. And actually the crack dealer/addict should get credit for at least generating an income being added to the economy even if it isn’t taxed, whereas the retiree will quickly let you know they’re fully through with work pally and pay up Uncle Sam.

Really the lesson is that the actual percentage of the population that generates real wealth (earned savings) is an astoundingly small fraction of not just the nation in general but also the adult employed sector. A city can literally be comprised of 98% bums, addicts, thieves, degenerates, and even worse yet still function as a recognizable social system. Of course it may take a lot of police to do it but that wont stop our civilization from its ebullient efforts to create dysgenic distopia. Rock on....
30.01.00

The Genetic Imperative and Self-Worth

Our world is not an overly complicated system, it’s just that we examine too much at a time. Like describing how to ride a bicycle – physics equations included. All human actions boil down to one genetic imperative – the desperate need to make more genetically similar copies of oneself before death. Secondly at the superficial level this drive is manifested as the psychological principal of the Id and ego or self-interest combined with a superior self-value. Actually the Id / ego / super-ego is much more detailed than the use I'm applying here. For the sake of brevity and ease of comprehension I will use the term ego in it's popular meaning of an individuals personal image of self-worth and not the Freudian meaning which would probably be closer to the Id, but anyway...)

Religious and spiritual types try to make the universe mysterious and unknowable thus creating a patent of defining what is good, bad etc. These people and their followers  have shallow unorganized thoughts and think the universe must be as confusing as they are confused. The rest of the god believers just know that ‘something more’ must exist, that a ‘reason’ exists for it all. These are the ones in denial, the anti-nihilists. They wouldn't be so offensive if they didn't simultaneously work to negate the value of evolutionary biology and the ludicrously simple (so obvious its actually a tautology) concept of survival of the most fit. 

Humans are unique in the animal world because they can actually decide many issues that are purely reaction and impulse (instinct) in other species. But this doesn't change the ultimate goal of the genetic material within all living things - reproduction. So a new trick had to develop - that of the ego, a sense of self-worth which incidentally is completely free from any logical examination. As every nihilist knows It has to be or it wouldn't work! Each of us must have the idea inside us that we are not only better than everyone else in one or more ways but also that I am so valuable that my genetic material is more worthy of propagation than any one else's. This is the same motivation as the genetic imperative italicized above it's just re-coded in a way best suited for the human species. Not only that but the definition of me has advanced over the millennia to include the genetically similar clan and today even goes so far as to include our group of fellow believers. In religious lexicon this is the Church but to you it could even mean fellow card-club members. The ego in each of us has evolved to such an extent that me has taken on very abstract meanings and generated intense cultural turbulence in our modern world. Our technological advancement has shrunk the globe far, far faster than our ego evolution has expanded the definition of 'me' to meet it. One consequence of this is the increasing popularity of neo-luddites and green revolutionary ideologies even if their goals are impractical to say the least. 

As long as this problem of ego boundary definitions  is not addressed or rectified alienation and doubt of self-worth will not only continue to plague our society but also increase in frequency and severity. School shootings and mass suicides will soon be nostalgic reminders of the 'good old days'!

The criticality of the ego can never be underrated. It is what drives every human action and fuels every motivation both the hidden and blatant ones. Wars have and are being fought with the ego; these often take the form of wars of words and propaganda i.e. my group is better than your group. But this isn't idle chatter or just pompous spewing. People live and die by their sense of self-worth. I'll say that again because it is extremely important: the human species lives and dies by the estimation of personal value each individual has within their culture and society. Now some people are more sensitive to ego doubts than others but ultimately anyone who loses their sense of self worth will lose their will to live. Even if they don't physically commit suicide  because the believe they have no value (although that happens everyday) they will commit genetic suicide by either not reproducing, reproducing with dissimilar genetic material or denying aid to genetic kinsmen (family, friends etc.). Ego destruction is the most powerful weapon any military could control but it takes decades and a concerted, well organized campaign to work effectively.

This all doesn’t mean that human nature is easy to understand, always makes sense or is totally predictable because random events and irrationalities always creep in. It simply means that people do things for rational reasons even when they are completely unaware of why they are doing it.  21.09.99

Meet the New Boss

Socialism is fundamentally a feminine ideology, one of protectionism in both mind and body. Or to put it more mildly it is an ideology that suits women more than men.

Ideologies change the world not wars or revolutions (they just put the icing on the cake). And the ideology of Liberalism/Socialism has been winning in the West for several decades now. It’s almost as if we’ve swung all the way back to the Matriarchal civilizations that pre-dated the Greeks. Actually this is not such a far-fetched idea. Civilization is in two classes the patriarchal phallic cultures which are warlike and virulent such as the Romans/Greeks/Vandals etc. The second class existed before the patriarchal cultures in the same geographic area known as the matriarchal/fertility cults. The matriarchal cultures are basically sedentary and not at all desirous of spreading to new regions through warfare. If our Western (Roman) civilization is truly dying as many speculate, we may be seeing the roots of the next culture/civilization taking form today. That form is merely a redux of the old fertility cult using socialism as a seed. This new (old) culture I call the ‘Mommy State’ because Mommy (the Federal government and friends, Inc.) is there to protect her children from their own stupidity, ignorance and foolishness (and what a task that is!).

Minoan mother figure, ~4000 years old.

Look at the latest legal battles, first it was tobacco, now its firearms and who knows what next. Manufacturers can’t even make a bath-toy without 50 pages of warnings and instructions. Even fluoride toothpaste now has a poison control warning on it! My point is that our society is becoming rampantly protectionist and not just from physical dangers.

Moral and intellectual dangers are also being legislated under the rug. Reference Political Correctness, Hate Speech, generally anything that hurts feelings is set to be outlawed. Now I know that many of these laws are also being cynically used to silence protest groups but I’m talking about the ideological motivations to even enact laws like these.

Just take this trend and extrapolate it out to 50 years. If we don’t get bulldozed by the few remaining patriarchal cultures (like the Chinese) Western civilization will have done a remarkable job of regressing back several thousand years.

But is this really just a load? Does this premise have any validity to it? Maybe, maybe not but this I do know – the male half today has no will or desire to resist let alone reverse these trends. And if you presented this as fact wouldn’t most just say ‘well give them the chance, they can’t do any worse than the men’, reference Ted Turner on that one.

The service sector which is the fastest growing job field is staffed and administrated mostly by women. Today the Marines train to operate hospitals and deploy to combat for food delivery services (Somalia). Yes that’s right, they were the toughest of the tough but now in the Mommy State they make the Red Cross look like the Afghani resistance.

Sometimes ideologies do matter.

The latest biomedical breakthrough allows males (pumped full of female hormones and a caesarian) to carry offspring from zygote to baby.
I guess now women don’t even need to do that!
I’ve talked about the superfluousness of the male sex before and so have legitimate scientists such as John Gribbin. Now it looks like exterminating all the males is one of the better options! I think that they may end as living fossils just around to do dirty labor and childbirth!

09.03.99

Oh and if you think it's just me that's crazy try this:
Here’s a neatly meshing story from the Washington Post on the feminization of world politics:
Francis Fukuyama, a conservative professor of public policy at George Mason University, said that the "feminization of world politics" has produced "very positive results." Such phenomena, he said, as "aggression, violence, war and intense competition . . . are more closely associated with men than women. . . . A world run by women would follow different rules, it would appear, and it is toward that sort of world that all post-industrial or Western societies are moving." 11.03.99

The Mechanical interface Between Population and Economy

It is well known but rarely understood that economic prosperity and perceived conditions of success are directly related to population expansion. with this concept in mind it is easy to explain the declining populations in Japan, Western Europe and to a lesser degree North America.

Despite political rhetoric to the contrary, individual economic well being has steadily declined since the 1960s. During the 1980s a debt funded spree of spending occurred boosting the short term prosperity levels; however now into the 90’s the burden of skyrocketing consumer debt and abysmal job market are supporting the continuing trend of slow but steady decay of population and economy in the ‘west’.

The developing world is nearly the complete opposite of the ‘west’ today. Population growth is astronomical, jobs and over all perceived prosperity is the best ever thanks to free trade, wealth technology, and cheap labor (e.g. no benefits or social security). Since the developing world depends on the disposable income and consumer demand of the west, its trends trail the west's patter. However due to the wealth perception factor the population dynamic has and will outpace the economic dynamic by exponential degrees. As the primary nations decline and spend less on imports the other nations will slow down economically too but their large populations will remain - unemployed and hungry they'll become! In developing nations economic crunches will be magnified in negative force by large populations. At some point immigration to the west will reach epidemic proportions - the flood effect. For the sake of cohesion here I'll assume legal brakes will be placed on immigration so the primary nations can continue their slow composting process.

With an increasingly small and interrelated world, the developing nations and their dilemmas assume greater significance. In fact for the assumptions of this hypothesis only the developing world matters considering any future population catastrophes.

With a developing world population boom during the 1980s this implies a 20 year period until this new generation reproduces. these people find themselves in the first decade of the new millennium with a sufficiently hopeful outlook to create a new baby boom. This boom matures in another 20 years. By that time the world economy will be hopelessly overburdened given the steady decline of first world consumerism and personal economic efficacy. Thus from 2010-2030 the word will face an unprecedented bio-economic meltdown with well over 10 billion hungry, job seeking people and fewer decent paying jobs, not to mention complete absence of minimal social care in many areas.

If 2000-2020 is a positive economic period then this will facilitate large birth numbers creating a cataclysmic crunch by the time these babies mature (2020-2030). current economic levels worldwide for the next five or maybe ten years, especially in developing regions like SE Asia, China etc. Even in a country like China where only one baby per family is allowed how many billions will they have to feed by 2030? Could they feed their millions during the 1950s? How tenuous is the peasant (majority) livelihood? Will the west be able to halt illegal immigrants seeking refuge? What about the plagues these refugees are also trying to escape? If our western civilization continues to decline and we can barely protect ourselves from disease and immigrations NOW, what about in 30 years?

My conclusion is that something major negative has to occur to the world economy between now and 2005 in order to barely stifle the developing worlds reproduction levels. WHO can’t do it, "Negative Population Growth Inc’ cant do it either, only the root cause of prosperity can do it, money.

In such a thoroughly divided nation as America, how will it stand up to the multi-racial onslaught from the wolf like developing world especially when they have al our technology (weapons)?

[So then perhaps the Asian financial crisis of 1997 is all a conspiracy on the part of the UN/WHO to mitigate the world population! yeah right, who knows, maybe?] 07.08.96

Isn't it odd how parents seem to have more children when they've divorced and remarried a few times? They get staggered sets of children and even if they only have one or two per marriage it will stack up to an impressive (for modern eras) 4, 6 or more kids. I wonder if divorce is not just a modern day proxy for polygamy? Does it not seem to have an almost counterintuitive usefulness in modern society by generating numerous offspring? Putting this under the microscope of empirical analysis it may be just a flattening of the gene pool as each person merely switches reproductive partners actually generation an equivalent number of offspring but with more variegated genetics.