3 ms·

Kissinger's interest would be eugenics. I mean, it was Kissinger who said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of the US towards the Third World". Bet h

Kissinger's interest would be eugenics. I mean, it was Kissinger who said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of the US towards the Third World". Bet he's gleeful at Ebola Edit: I assume we're all big fans of Henry Kissinger over here then? I fail to see what his interest in this could be outside of the potential eugenic applications.

rayiner 12y ago
Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. My dad works in public health in the third world, and one of his specialties is family planning (i.e. how to get villagers to stop having so many kids). When George W. Bush temporarily withdrew the U.S. support for family planning projects in Africa, he got hammered for it by the left.
- gadders 12y ago
  Well, if The Left say it is a bad idea, then of course it must be. However, George Bush was one of the best presidents ever for Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
- filoeleven 12y ago
  > Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. Which is utterly misguided if the motivation behind the goal is to conserve energy and resources. The population growth rate of first world countries is lower, however we consume far more resources per child than third world countries do. Calling for those countries to make drastic changes without examining and curtailing our own overuse of resources is problematic and irresponsible. Al Bartlett[1] addresses this in his engaging lecture[2] on population and energy. If the primary motivation is instead humanitarian, e.g. to raise the quality of life, then I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk (The video's title is hyperbole and is not the title of the lecture, though the lesson is certainly important.)
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  There's a big difference the reduction of growth and maintenance of sustainable levels of population (family planning), and depopulation (eradication of/reduction in population). I understand the arguments of the eugenicists - that there are excess mouths - that "most" people are "useless" - but I do not agree that depopulation is the solution - rather, sustainable growth or steady-state maintenance through education and decreased societal need for redundant offspring. As the idea of just marching in and shooting people is abhorrent and would undoubtedly be undermined by ethical concerns, would the gentle profiling based on blood and genes of a population, and the "oh, sorry, you can't have that job/child" that this type of technology will bring about not be a "nice", subtle way of steering the population curve in a "desirable" direction? Hence, I believe this is Kissinger's principal interest in this. Edit: to be absolutely clear, I am NOT saying that there is some variety of conspiracy here. I am, however, saying that Kissinger understands what I understand - which is that any tool or technology will ultimately be used in ways which aren't immediately anticipated or obvious, and that the very availability of this variety of tech will almost certainly lead to profiling based on the contents of ones blood. If it can be done, if it can happen, it will be done, it will happen. It's just a question of when.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    His principal interest is almost certainly that they are giving him money. Serving on a board doesn't have to be a big job, especially if the company is interested in having you on the board to get access to your connections and influence. He might also be getting eugenic jollies from it. (To be clear, I think this is a more cynical story; buying influence is a lot more likely than an aging eugenicist having the awareness and position to get himself on board with a biotech company that might create vastly better predictive medicine.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Of course he got hammered for it because it was a) ideologically driven by his religious supporters and b) a terrible idea because handing out some free condoms and teaching women and men family-planning techniques leads to a more prosperous and stable environment at every level of society. Just another one of the many poorly-thought-out policies he pursued during his presidency.
chiph 12y ago
It's been a while since Kissinger said that (1974, as far as I've been able to determine). I wonder if the new stats that show that affluence (the creation of a middle class) results in a slower population growth would change his opinion.

rayiner 12y ago

Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. My dad works in public health in the third world, and one of his specialties is family planning (i.e. how to get villagers to stop having so many kids). When George W. Bush temporarily withdrew the U.S. support for family planning projects in Africa, he got hammered for it by the left.

gadders 12y ago
Well, if The Left say it is a bad idea, then of course it must be. However, George Bush was one of the best presidents ever for Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
filoeleven 12y ago
> Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. Which is utterly misguided if the motivation behind the goal is to conserve energy and resources. The population growth rate of first world countries is lower, however we consume far more resources per child than third world countries do. Calling for those countries to make drastic changes without examining and curtailing our own overuse of resources is problematic and irresponsible. Al Bartlett[1] addresses this in his engaging lecture[2] on population and energy. If the primary motivation is instead humanitarian, e.g. to raise the quality of life, then I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk (The video's title is hyperbole and is not the title of the lecture, though the lesson is certainly important.)
madaxe_again 12y ago
There's a big difference the reduction of growth and maintenance of sustainable levels of population (family planning), and depopulation (eradication of/reduction in population). I understand the arguments of the eugenicists - that there are excess mouths - that "most" people are "useless" - but I do not agree that depopulation is the solution - rather, sustainable growth or steady-state maintenance through education and decreased societal need for redundant offspring. As the idea of just marching in and shooting people is abhorrent and would undoubtedly be undermined by ethical concerns, would the gentle profiling based on blood and genes of a population, and the "oh, sorry, you can't have that job/child" that this type of technology will bring about not be a "nice", subtle way of steering the population curve in a "desirable" direction? Hence, I believe this is Kissinger's principal interest in this. Edit: to be absolutely clear, I am NOT saying that there is some variety of conspiracy here. I am, however, saying that Kissinger understands what I understand - which is that any tool or technology will ultimately be used in ways which aren't immediately anticipated or obvious, and that the very availability of this variety of tech will almost certainly lead to profiling based on the contents of ones blood. If it can be done, if it can happen, it will be done, it will happen. It's just a question of when.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  His principal interest is almost certainly that they are giving him money. Serving on a board doesn't have to be a big job, especially if the company is interested in having you on the board to get access to your connections and influence. He might also be getting eugenic jollies from it. (To be clear, I think this is a more cynical story; buying influence is a lot more likely than an aging eugenicist having the awareness and position to get himself on board with a biotech company that might create vastly better predictive medicine.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
wavefunction 12y ago
Of course he got hammered for it because it was a) ideologically driven by his religious supporters and b) a terrible idea because handing out some free condoms and teaching women and men family-planning techniques leads to a more prosperous and stable environment at every level of society. Just another one of the many poorly-thought-out policies he pursued during his presidency.

chiph 12y ago

It's been a while since Kissinger said that (1974, as far as I've been able to determine). I wonder if the new stats that show that affluence (the creation of a middle class) results in a slower population growth would change his opinion.