Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, GAVI & the Nutravax Project Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) is a charity endowed by billionaire Sir Christopher Hohn’s Children's Investment Fund Management, one of the most profitable hedge funds in the world. CIFF is the largest ‘philanthropy’ foundation focussed
Brilliant writing and insights, thank you. All of the problems/issues you wrote about you trace back to/blame the west. Is it possible the root of these issues is beyond the west?
How outrageous that the 'charities' are bribing parents to vaccinate their children with nutritional supplements! When it has already been firmly established that nutrient-sufficiency is by far the best protection against infectious disease. The best treatment for measles is Vitamin A, the WHO has long known this, and that severe measles is an outcome of severe vitamin A deficiency. The best prevention is therefore cod liver oil (once routinely prescribed to children by doctors), butter, eggs and other animal fats from animals on pasture, converting the carotenes into Vitamin A, as nature intended.
Give them the nutrients and a vaccine is redundant. (Not to mention vaccines do more harm than good, even in the global south)
Better still, allow these countries to develop their economies so they can feed their populations i.e. neo-colonialism out!!
A good article and we need more such, but it could be improved by some mention of the fact that the world really IS greatly overpopulated and in urgent need of population reduction to what the biosphere can support for the long term, especially in Africa and other tropical countries. And there is nothing racist or ''colonialist'' about saying so. Overpopulation is the worst single problem facing this planet and reducing the fertility of white, educated, non-religious, middle-class women in the richest countries, the ones most likely to voluntarily refrain from child-bearing, will do nothing to solve the problem where it is most accute.
If these heartless billionaire bastards who only want to make money happen, as a side-effect, to trick some poor women in poor countries into ruining their reproductive abilities, that will ultimately end up being a good thing for those countries.
There is no overpopulation. The problem is inequity in distribution and consumption of resources. We need to locate the source of the problem, the filthy rich of the world, so we know who and what to oppose.
Over population is the biggest single problem and underlies all the rest. The earth is finite and how it is devided up is of minor and secondary importance compared to that overwhelming fact. Humans as a species have greatly overshot the carrying capacity of their range, converting most of the earth to the purposes of this one species and their domestcates.
The differences between capitalism and any form of socialism are far less important than preserving the biosphere. Who and what to oppose is any and all causes of the dystopia advancing upon us, not only one cause. I oppose the present disfuctional economiic system, but I also recognize the need to reduce the huge number of humans to what the earth can survive or no economic changes will matter.
The earth could support a much bigger population yet, if the profit-based system didn’t distort things. Human ingenuity makes this possible.
I’m saddened to see overpopulation argued on a left-wing site. I think this demonstrates how much progress we have lost. I blame the degeneration of the so-called left for this.
It is true the earth could endure a larger human footprint, but only by use of modern industrial agriculture, extinction of most species of large mammals, increased levels of pollution with associated health impacts that would have to be dealt with by modern-type medical interventions, the loss of the remaining natural forests and totalitarian government measures that crowding into huge urban hives would require.
Ultimately, it is not about facts; it is about values. It is about what kind of a world we wish to live in.
Your list of requirements is not what I intended by the term human ingenuity. In many ways quite the opposite. The facts support humanist values. I'll share some links from two important organisations that enabled paradigm shifts in my understanding of human health and how we can easily meet our long term needs through appropriate land management.
Reading the whole of Dr Price's book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, is highly recommended. It includes lots of photos that illustrate the findings. https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html
Traditionally, the business owners were in favor of immigration and opposed to birth control and abortion so increased population would drive wages down. Many businesses also wanted more people as consumers to buy their products.
The Left, in the form of labor unions, wanted to restrict immigration and promoted birth control to lower competition for jobs and raise wages. It was the unions that promoted compulsory education in America as a way to keep teenagers out of the work force as long as possible.
Today, the positions are reversed: The ''Left'' is in favor of immigration and unlimited growth, while the ''Right'' wants to restrict it. I do not understand why anyone on the Left would want more workers competing for jobs, thus lowering wages. As a matter of logic, I would expect the Left to favor reduction of population so employers would have fewer applicants for jobs and be forced to offer higher pay to get workers.
The issue of population is not just a matter of food supply; There are many other reasons why population must be limited. More people mean less available habitat for wildlife, less large wilderness areas, more extinctions of species that cannot live close to humans. The world you envision is not one I would want to live in.
''There is a large mass of evidence, incipient and overt, pointing out that:
1. most human stresses experienced are social
2. unrelieved social stress is both physically and psychologically damaging
I’d like to add that it leads to social fragmentation. Social fragmentation is an evolved method of keeping social species in balance with habitat and ecosystems, although it has also led to increases in developing tools for violence, and itself occurs through intense negative emotional states and consequent violence. Anyone interested will explore “Dunbar’s Number” and cultural anthropology.
We strongly appear to have a cognitive social limit of about 150, after which cognitive heuristics kick in and multiply; biases are a type of heuristic.
Many indigenous groups followed seasonal changes in social interaction – from isolated nuclear family groups, to small bands to larger tribal gatherings; the latter, when lasting for any period of time longer than a festival, being subject to Dunbar’s Number sizing.
Humans have not evolved to become comfortable in larger numbers (thus you see strong concepts of “neighborhood” within any large population centers), and due to the mental heuristics with which we (and some other species we are aware of) are equipped, are unlikely to do so.
Ingrouping and outgrouping , always malleable in our species due to the development of symbolic verbal language and our related evolved ability to imagine, are the basis for all the disputes we see.
Beliefs, and fictional constructs of futures, pasts, and presents arising as partial and incomplete capacity to integrate the many beliefs we acquire, are part of the imaginative capacity which allows our minds to flow between acceptance of others and rejection under stress or the arising to prominence of conflicting beliefs.
It’s all pretty organic and neural, and totally not politics!
I want to go on, but instead, I’ll suggest you look at every social trend and activity, and everything you or anyone thinks or expresses in language as entirely social in nature.
People who have lived any significant proportion of their lives in wilderness surroundings, can tell you that the mind thinks, responds, and operates clearly and consciously in a nonsocial fashion; social interaction or its possibility, or even the imagined possibility, profoundly slows down mental function as it interjects social evaluation into the experience of the present.
So, yeah, we are obligate social, like the wolf, and many other animals. I hope you’ll look at the wolf, for instance, and notice how its sociality is seasonal, how each individuality tolerates a certain amount of socializing, how their following their evolved nature keeps them eager for one another’s company while retaining their integrity.
And I hope you’ll notice how they very emotionally control their reproduction in response to their saturation, numbers, and fit, within their active ecosystems.
When you watch human activities and concerns, you just might begin to notice very similar and parallel pressures and responses.
[Some differences lead to different results for us. I often compare humans on Earth to bacteria in a Petri Dish: They will eat everything and defecate themselves toxically out of prominence, and even existence, but any single organism will not really notice even their relatively sudden collapse. That phenomenon – the failure to notice or change course, or care, – has in recent times been called economics; any way of looking that discounts the future, while prophetic for the species, isn’t my cuppa. It isn’t likely that humans will follow a substantially different course than bacteria. I do like to hear the howl of the wolves though, and farther south, the coyotes gabbling and singing.''
Brilliant writing and insights, thank you. All of the problems/issues you wrote about you trace back to/blame the west. Is it possible the root of these issues is beyond the west?
How outrageous that the 'charities' are bribing parents to vaccinate their children with nutritional supplements! When it has already been firmly established that nutrient-sufficiency is by far the best protection against infectious disease. The best treatment for measles is Vitamin A, the WHO has long known this, and that severe measles is an outcome of severe vitamin A deficiency. The best prevention is therefore cod liver oil (once routinely prescribed to children by doctors), butter, eggs and other animal fats from animals on pasture, converting the carotenes into Vitamin A, as nature intended.
Give them the nutrients and a vaccine is redundant. (Not to mention vaccines do more harm than good, even in the global south)
Better still, allow these countries to develop their economies so they can feed their populations i.e. neo-colonialism out!!
Thank you for documenting these crimes.
A good article and we need more such, but it could be improved by some mention of the fact that the world really IS greatly overpopulated and in urgent need of population reduction to what the biosphere can support for the long term, especially in Africa and other tropical countries. And there is nothing racist or ''colonialist'' about saying so. Overpopulation is the worst single problem facing this planet and reducing the fertility of white, educated, non-religious, middle-class women in the richest countries, the ones most likely to voluntarily refrain from child-bearing, will do nothing to solve the problem where it is most accute.
If these heartless billionaire bastards who only want to make money happen, as a side-effect, to trick some poor women in poor countries into ruining their reproductive abilities, that will ultimately end up being a good thing for those countries.
There is no overpopulation. The problem is inequity in distribution and consumption of resources. We need to locate the source of the problem, the filthy rich of the world, so we know who and what to oppose.
Over population is the biggest single problem and underlies all the rest. The earth is finite and how it is devided up is of minor and secondary importance compared to that overwhelming fact. Humans as a species have greatly overshot the carrying capacity of their range, converting most of the earth to the purposes of this one species and their domestcates.
The differences between capitalism and any form of socialism are far less important than preserving the biosphere. Who and what to oppose is any and all causes of the dystopia advancing upon us, not only one cause. I oppose the present disfuctional economiic system, but I also recognize the need to reduce the huge number of humans to what the earth can survive or no economic changes will matter.
The earth could support a much bigger population yet, if the profit-based system didn’t distort things. Human ingenuity makes this possible.
I’m saddened to see overpopulation argued on a left-wing site. I think this demonstrates how much progress we have lost. I blame the degeneration of the so-called left for this.
It is true the earth could endure a larger human footprint, but only by use of modern industrial agriculture, extinction of most species of large mammals, increased levels of pollution with associated health impacts that would have to be dealt with by modern-type medical interventions, the loss of the remaining natural forests and totalitarian government measures that crowding into huge urban hives would require.
Ultimately, it is not about facts; it is about values. It is about what kind of a world we wish to live in.
Your list of requirements is not what I intended by the term human ingenuity. In many ways quite the opposite. The facts support humanist values. I'll share some links from two important organisations that enabled paradigm shifts in my understanding of human health and how we can easily meet our long term needs through appropriate land management.
https://savory.global/
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/anthropogenic-apocalypse-fear-malthusianism-and-famine/#gsc.tab=0
https://nourishingtraditions.com/dr-weston-a-price-and-the-eugenics-movement/
Reading the whole of Dr Price's book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, is highly recommended. It includes lots of photos that illustrate the findings. https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html
Traditionally, the business owners were in favor of immigration and opposed to birth control and abortion so increased population would drive wages down. Many businesses also wanted more people as consumers to buy their products.
The Left, in the form of labor unions, wanted to restrict immigration and promoted birth control to lower competition for jobs and raise wages. It was the unions that promoted compulsory education in America as a way to keep teenagers out of the work force as long as possible.
Today, the positions are reversed: The ''Left'' is in favor of immigration and unlimited growth, while the ''Right'' wants to restrict it. I do not understand why anyone on the Left would want more workers competing for jobs, thus lowering wages. As a matter of logic, I would expect the Left to favor reduction of population so employers would have fewer applicants for jobs and be forced to offer higher pay to get workers.
The issue of population is not just a matter of food supply; There are many other reasons why population must be limited. More people mean less available habitat for wildlife, less large wilderness areas, more extinctions of species that cannot live close to humans. The world you envision is not one I would want to live in.
Some suggested reading:
https://rewilding.org/
https://rewilding.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Campfire-51.pdf
https:://rewilding.org/man-swarm-and-the-killing-of-wildlife/ttps
''There is a large mass of evidence, incipient and overt, pointing out that:
1. most human stresses experienced are social
2. unrelieved social stress is both physically and psychologically damaging
I’d like to add that it leads to social fragmentation. Social fragmentation is an evolved method of keeping social species in balance with habitat and ecosystems, although it has also led to increases in developing tools for violence, and itself occurs through intense negative emotional states and consequent violence. Anyone interested will explore “Dunbar’s Number” and cultural anthropology.
We strongly appear to have a cognitive social limit of about 150, after which cognitive heuristics kick in and multiply; biases are a type of heuristic.
Many indigenous groups followed seasonal changes in social interaction – from isolated nuclear family groups, to small bands to larger tribal gatherings; the latter, when lasting for any period of time longer than a festival, being subject to Dunbar’s Number sizing.
Humans have not evolved to become comfortable in larger numbers (thus you see strong concepts of “neighborhood” within any large population centers), and due to the mental heuristics with which we (and some other species we are aware of) are equipped, are unlikely to do so.
Ingrouping and outgrouping , always malleable in our species due to the development of symbolic verbal language and our related evolved ability to imagine, are the basis for all the disputes we see.
Beliefs, and fictional constructs of futures, pasts, and presents arising as partial and incomplete capacity to integrate the many beliefs we acquire, are part of the imaginative capacity which allows our minds to flow between acceptance of others and rejection under stress or the arising to prominence of conflicting beliefs.
It’s all pretty organic and neural, and totally not politics!
I want to go on, but instead, I’ll suggest you look at every social trend and activity, and everything you or anyone thinks or expresses in language as entirely social in nature.
People who have lived any significant proportion of their lives in wilderness surroundings, can tell you that the mind thinks, responds, and operates clearly and consciously in a nonsocial fashion; social interaction or its possibility, or even the imagined possibility, profoundly slows down mental function as it interjects social evaluation into the experience of the present.
So, yeah, we are obligate social, like the wolf, and many other animals. I hope you’ll look at the wolf, for instance, and notice how its sociality is seasonal, how each individuality tolerates a certain amount of socializing, how their following their evolved nature keeps them eager for one another’s company while retaining their integrity.
And I hope you’ll notice how they very emotionally control their reproduction in response to their saturation, numbers, and fit, within their active ecosystems.
When you watch human activities and concerns, you just might begin to notice very similar and parallel pressures and responses.
[Some differences lead to different results for us. I often compare humans on Earth to bacteria in a Petri Dish: They will eat everything and defecate themselves toxically out of prominence, and even existence, but any single organism will not really notice even their relatively sudden collapse. That phenomenon – the failure to notice or change course, or care, – has in recent times been called economics; any way of looking that discounts the future, while prophetic for the species, isn’t my cuppa. It isn’t likely that humans will follow a substantially different course than bacteria. I do like to hear the howl of the wolves though, and farther south, the coyotes gabbling and singing.''