The Optimum Population Trust, or how the eugenicist are coming out of the woodwork again

[Roman Rapper]

Some of you may have heard of the Optimum Population Trust recently as it has recieved some media coverage in recent weeks owing to the fact that David Attenborough has just become their patron. The OPT is a think thank that advocates the need for the human population to be drastically cut by up to 50% or more.


On their website this mesage is displayed near the top of the front page:

GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT

The Optimum Population Trust is absolutely opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.


However, even a cursory examination of their website exposes this as an absolute lie. For example, these are some of the titles of the articles that are avalible on the site. Note, all of these articles have been produced by the OTP itself.


REPORT CHALLENGES “RIGHT” TO HAVE CHILDREN

UK “OVERPOPULATED” BY 70 PER CENT

Failure to act now will make the problem more difficult to solve in future

POPULATION GROWTH SHOULD BE TREATED AS NATIONAL SECURITY RISK

COMPULSORY LIMITS ON BIRTHS “MAY BECOME UNAVOIDABLE” - OPT REPORT

COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH FEWER BABIES – OPT REPORT



Now, let me tell you what a total bastard David Attenborough is. He cares more about wildlife than he does about human beings, and would be more than happy to see half of us wiped out if it meant a few animals and plants could survive a little longer. "Sir" Dave is an elitist who sees himself as having nothing in comon with the avarage man or woman and has nothing but distain for us. Here is what the scumbag has to say for himself:

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. That’s why I support the OPT, and I wish the environmental NGOs would follow their lead, and spell out this central problem loud and clear.”

These Eugenicists, just like the Nazis who they orignally used to promote their ideas, are a very insidious bunch indeed. They never really went away, they just hung back for a while and bided their time.

[danzig]

" advocates improved provision of family planning and sex education, better education and rights for women and that couples "stop at two". For the UK, it advocates greater effort to reduce the high rates of teenage pregnancy and unintended pregnancy and that immigration is brought into balance with emigration."

What Nazis! Yes their idea that the world can only support 5billion people is a bit out there since it cant be achieved minus a world war but comparing them to nazis? Sigh...come on cant you do better then that?

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

Unfortunately, the UK has been overpopulated for decades, if not hundreds of years. The idea of limiting the right to have children is repulsive and disgusts me. It is the completely the wrong way to go. The UK needs to get people to move out to somewhere where there is little population and still a well based government. Canada seems to spring to mind. It would be a better, if more difficult, alternative to limiting births.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You seem to be confused as to what eugenics is.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

I know what it is, i am just saying that they would be smarter to send the "inferior breeds" elsewhere if they are going to try something like this. Less publicity and less fallout from political groups.

EDIT: not that they'll get away with it anyway.

[GuineaPig]

If you don't have 12 kids, you're clearly a Eugenicist because you're limiting the number of people alive.

[Exarch]

so whats soi bad about a lot of ppl so long as everyone gets fed?

[The Devil's Sergeant]

so whats soi bad about a lot of ppl so long as everyone gets fed?

The smell

[Каие]

I must say I am surprised. I thought Sir David Attenborough was one of you guys.

[Erik]

These Eugenicists, just like the Nazis who they orignally used to promote their ideas, are a very insidious bunch indeed. They never really went away, they just hung back for a while and bided their time.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but eugenics is about the QUALITY of the human race but OPT seems to be only about the QUANTITY of the human race.

so whats soi bad about a lot of ppl so long as everyone gets fed?

Natural resources are scarce.
A smaller population means more fuel/space/goodies/etc. per person.

[Roman Rapper]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but eugenics is about the QUALITY of the human race but OPT seems to be only about the QUANTITY of the human race.

Obviously they are not going to come out and admit it, but what this kind of thinking obviously leads to is a situation where the most powerful people in society (the rich) are allowed to do whatever they want while the poor are further restricted.

The point is that this kind of thinking dilutes belief in the basic rights of human beings, so if just being human does not guarantee your rights, then it follows that other factors will be the deciding factor in whether your rights will be respected i.e how much money you have, or how well connected you are.

Natural resources are scarce.
A smaller population means more fuel/space/goodies/etc. per person.

The problem is not that we have too many people, the problem is that the top 10% of richest people are hoading more than 90% of the resources.

[danzig]

Obviously they are not going to come out and admit it, but what this kind of thinking obviously leads to is a situation where the most powerful people in society (the rich) are allowed to do whatever they want while the poor are further restricted.

So basically this thread boils down to is some group is supporting an idea and you have used your mind reading ability to find out they REALLY mean something else. Check!

[Erik]

(...) what this kind of thinking obviously leads to is a situation where the most powerful people in society (the rich) are allowed to do whatever they want while the poor are further restricted.

It's not that obvious to me.

Care to elaborate?

Additionally: do you consider China's one child policy eugenics too?

The problem is not that we have too many people, the problem is that the top 10% of richest people are hoading more than 90% of the resources.

Will you at least agree that if our population was reduced by 90%, the remaining 10% would be far better off?

[Roman Rapper]

It's not that obvious to me.

Care to elaborate?

The point is that this kind of thinking dilutes belief in the basic rights of human beings, so if just being human does not guarantee your rights, then it follows that other factors will be the deciding factor in whether your rights will be respected i.e how much money you have, or how well connected you are.

I did write that in the post that you quoted, you must have missed it.

[gsoxx]

The point is that this kind of thinking dilutes belief in the basic rights of human beings, so if just being human does not guarantee your rights, then it follows that other factors will be the deciding factor in whether your rights will be respected i.e how much money you have, or how well connected you are.

I did write that in the post that you quoted, you must have missed it.

It only works as long as the society can take care of the children of those people who can't take care of them by theirselves. That is just one aspect.
The case of unrestricted reproduction is far from closed in my opinion.

[Erik]

The point is that this kind of thinking dilutes belief in the basic rights of human beings

The "basic right" to have as many children as you like?

so if just being human does not guarantee your rights, then it follows that other factors will be the deciding factor in whether your rights will be respected i.e how much money you have, or how well connected you are.

Did it occur to you that they will probably want to limit EVERY couple to, say, 2 children?

[removeduser_487563287433]

The problem is not that we have too many people, the problem is that the top 10% of richest people are hoading more than 90% of the resources.

Sweet. One goat each, everybody.

[garyknowz]

I think the term you guys are looking for is Malthusian. While the intricacies of the population control theories vary, they generally follow the same basic Malthusian premise. It’s a far cry from eugenics though. Selective breeding and population control are vastly different concepts. If the world was made up of pure Aryans, Hitler would have cared less about population parameters.

Edit: To qualify my statement a little, the “population control” I am referring to is aggregate population control, as opposed to demographic control. Hopefully that better explains what I was driving at.

[Visna]

GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT

Given that you obviously don't know what eugenics is, the irony here is razorsharp...

[Roman Rapper]

Given that you obviously don't know what eugenics is, the irony here is razorsharp...

have you read my previous post in this thread? You are acting in an ignorant manner.