Family planning for 3rd wld nations: a Plot to Steal Natural Resources!

Some embarassment to humanity actually said this on NPR today.

This is regarding the study that says adult women are using less birth control. Miss "I have seven children" called and said that we are plotting against these countries by giving them information on contraception so that we can keep their native populations down so we can eventually steal their natural resources. From South Dakota, she was, and said, "then why do we give them free birth control but charge them for anti-malarial medicines?"

She sounded so NORMAL it scared me, but this is the weirdest twist on a liberal argument I have ever heard. Have I been under a rock, is this a legitimate argument? It spun my head around, it certainly can't be a conservative argument if you are advocating free vaccinations...or something. I'm so confused.

Let's look at the front page and see the articles listed there:

Science and the LaRouche Youth Movement
Our Combat Against Empiricism: Escaping Tragedy through Paradox

Book Reviews
Why Hanford's Nuclear Waste Cleanup Wastes your Money

Global Warming: More Hot Air

In Africa, DDT Makes a Comeback to Save Lives

Lessons of Chernobyl: Nuclear Power is Safe


And a look at the Statement of Purpose:
21st Century Science & Technology magazine challenges the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics. We demand a science based on constructible (intelligible) representation of concepts, but shun the simple empiricist or sense-certainty methods associated with the Newton-Galileo paradigm.

Our unique collection of editors and scientific advisers maintain an ongoing intellectual dialogue with leading thinkers in many areas, including biology, physics, space science, oceanography, nuclear energy, and ancient epigraphy. Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy. In science policy areas, we have challenged sacred cows, from the theory of global warming to the linear threshold concept of radiation.

21st Century is the successor to Fusion magazine (published from 1977 to 1987), and has sister publications in French and German, both called Fusion.




Not only that, but the article you link to has an interesting view of Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring". Here is some of the relevant section:
(quote)
The Silent Spring Fraud
The campaign to ban DDT got its start with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962. Carson’s popular book was a fraud. She played on people’s emotions, and to do so, she selected and falsified data from scientific studies, as entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards has documented in his analysis of the original scientific studies that Carson cited.2

As a result of the propaganda and lies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened scientific hearings and appointed a Hearing Examiner, Edmund Sweeney, to run them. Every major scientific organization in the world supported DDT use, submitted testimony, as did the environmentalist opposition. The hearings went on for seven months, and generated 9,000 pages of testimony. Hearing Examiner Sweeney then ruled that DDT should not be banned, based on the scientific evidence: “DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man these uses of DDT do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms," Sweeney concluded.
(end quote)




I think your site and your cite are both bunk.

I did a google for DDT and malaria and returned the first site that popped up. The point still stands, judicious DDT usage would greatly reduce the incidence of malaria in the third world

At best, the article depicts DDT as a controversial choice, and uses Mozambique as an example of a nation not willing to take the risk of using DDT, despite it's potential benefit, because of the very reasons that the other article you linked to scoffed at. It is a good idea to check out a link provided by a search engine before using it as a reference.

but they can't because it means that they can't export agricultural produce to first world nations who have banned the chemical. That's what I have a problem with (I also have a problem with verifying links before posting them on the board :) )

Widespread DDT use as an agricultural pesticide is certainly harmful to the environment, but if small amounts sprayed in village huts etc are going to save lives with minimal environmental impact, what's the problem?

I believe you have just outed yourself.

and reduced standard of living

1. Family planning and the medical groups over there are 2 different organizations. I am also pretty sure not all medical groups charge money for medicine in 3rd world countries too.

2. If the population was allowed to grow, it runs the risk of plague, and this could hurt the population much more than what the RW say family planning could do.

It's going to be a long 4 years, these creeps are coming out of the woodwork.

I've heard this nonsense before, these shameless bastards will use any argument possible to attack women's rights and derail population stabilization. Not quite sure what they hate more.

Any fool knows that population control must be applied across the board, both for fairness and considering the fact that we are such resource hogs.

I've seen it argued here that the elites are conspiring to commit genocide for the reason that daffy woman stated. I've been of the opinion that they want no halt in population growth as more people means more market and more workers depresses the cost of labor. I just don't know, each scenario is its own hell.