Mentally Ill America

Ehrlich, Paul R. | August 7, 2019 | Leave a Comment

Photo by Sailko

This was originally published as a MAHB Blog in June, 2014. 

Well, America has had one more senseless slaughter by gun. The Santa Barbara disaster will be discussed for a few weeks but, if the past is any guide, nothing significant will be changed in our gun-soaked society. As a result, I must agree with my Republican friends that gun violence is a mental illness issue.1 There has been continuing debate about the intentions of those who wrote the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Was this intended to empower the states to have military forces available in case the Federal government became dictatorial, or was it intended to give all citizens a right, granted by that government, to keep and own guns? It’s pretty clear that the citizen’s rights meaning was the original intent of many drafters of the bill of rights, but that’s now virtually beside the point in the face of the mental illness epidemic. 

What is certain about the Second Amendment is that the “arms” the founders were talking about were primarily muskets, weighing around 7-10 pounds, with barrels about five feet long. Before firing the musket, a paper cartridge containing powder and a lead ball were taken from a cartridge box on the shooter’s belt; the end of the cartridge was bitten off and a small amount of powder put in a little covered panat the base of the barrel, below a spring-loaded “cock” topped by a flint held in a little vise. Then the rest of the powder was poured down the barrel and the paper and ball crammed in after it. The ball surrounded by paper was shoved home by a ramrod which then was replaced into sockets on the barrel. When the trigger was pulled, the flint was snapped against the plate cover, called the frizzen, exposing the pan and simultaneously generating sparks which ignited the powder in the pan. That flash traveled down a small hole at the base of the barrel, setting off the main charge of powder, which then propelled the ball out of the barrel. To load and fire one shot, accurate to about 25 yards, took a skilled shooter perhaps 30 seconds. And after a few shots the barrel got so fouled that it had to be cleaned. The whole process was in fact so slow that many considered the bayonet (which could be mounted on the end of the musket barrel) to be the primary weapon in combat. 

One might guess that James Madison, George Mason, or their colleagues never even imagined that the right of Americans to “bear arms” would include a Glock 17 automatic pistol with a 33- round magazine – an easily concealed eight-inch-long weapon capable of killing 25 people or more in the time it takes to load a musket, with a killing range that exceeds a couple hundred yards. Or worse yet, a Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle, capable of full-automatic fire, accurate to 300 yards with a 75- or 100-round drum magazine. 

A person with severe schizophrenia might think she heard voices telling her that the authors of the second amendment would have given citizens the “right” to possess and use such weapons for self-defense in a crowded city. But, of course, today only crazy people, criminals, or law- enforcement officers would carry such a weapon for protection, and then justify doing so because of the access of the mentally ill to powerful infantry weapons that “outgun” the six- shot .38 revolvers traditionally carried by police. 

But crazies are ubiquitous at all levels in our society. In Texas the governor, Rick Perry, is a caricature of a Texan who claims he carries a pistol when jogging to “defend himself against snakes.”2 (Having worked with snakes extensively and encountered them around the world, I can testify there is almost no conceivable circumstance in which a gun would help “protect” you from a snake). In Perry’s state there is an “open carry” law that allows thugs to carry automatic weapons and intimidate people.3 In Georgia, incompetent (and likely corrupt) Governor Nathan Deal signed a law that allows people to carry guns in security lines at America’s busiest airport.

Mental illness in the U.S. is not restricted to officials in backward states. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thought the court should examine the issue of whether the constitution protected everyone’s right to have shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles – since one could “bear” such a weapon.5 The disturbed leaders of the National Rifle Association, the lobby for Murder Incorporated (also called the “arms industry”),6 even opposed a ban on “cop-killer” bullets and automatic weapons. And NRA lobbying has been extremely effective in the United States Congress, which famously features “the best politicians money can buy.” Consider a nation that, on the basis of one failed “shoe-bomber” attempt, makes millions of airline passengers remove their footwear, but refuses to do anything significant about tens of thousands of annual gun deaths caused by an industry run by ethically-deficient individuals that have helped saturate the world with close to a billion small arms, and with almost one per person in the United States. 

Of course the lack of gun control is only one area that illuminates our society’s mental health problems. Other examples abound. Sarah Palin actually was nominated for a position that would have put her within the famous “heartbeat of the presidency.” Rupert Murdoch’s presstitutes struggle, using outlets like the Wall Street Journal and False News Network, to confuse people about the lethal threat of climate disruption that Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe still claims is a hoax. Most congress people still support fighting wars to control fossil oil and gas supplies, even though continued burning of fossil fuels might well bring down civilization. Neocons and other hawks justify the United States (and Russia) maintaining thousands of useless nuclear weapons at the ready, most of them far more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.7 Such “leaders” cannot see what is apparent to normal people –that their actions are severely threatening to society, their friends and descendants, and even themselves. One technical term for their mental deficiency is anosognosia. Other terms for the mental defects that plague our nation are “greed,” “cowardice,” “ignorance,” and “stupidity.” 

There are, after all, individuals so mentally confused as to believe that the American economy can grow forever, just as can America’s (or the world’s) population. Almost half of Americans haven’t grasped that human beings evolved in Africa from other animals and that if they could meet their own ancestors of ten million years ago they would doubtless describe them as “monkeys.” And society as a whole sees nothing wrong with the whole range of mental impairment. No sign, for instance, of an attempt to transition to an evidence-based world. The hallucinatory world invented by the Murdochians and the Limboids seems just fine to many, if not most, people. So I must agree with those who claim that the reason the United States differs from Canada, Australia, Western Europe, and Japan, by having roughly three times the gun violence per capita, is simply that we have proportionately many more crazy people.9 The endarkenment is upon us. 


MAHB-UTS Blogs are a joint venture between the University of Technology Sydney and the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. Questions should be directed to joan@mahbonline.org 

MAHB Blog: http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/mentally-ill-america/ 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn
The views and opinions expressed through the MAHB Website are those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the MAHB. The MAHB aims to share a range of perspectives and welcomes the discussions that they prompt.
  • If the human community does not act with all deliberate speed, the forces of Nature can be expected to take charge by limiting the total supply of food for human consumption. At least one effect of such an occurrence appears obvious. The family of humanity still has a choice, but the time in which to make necessary behavioral changes is in short supply.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/climate/climate-change-food-supply.html

    QUESTION:What precisely is the problem with the hypothesis, human population numbers appear or not as a function of food supply? This hypothesis simply means that the population dynamics of the human species is essentially similar to the population dynamics of the animals and cells that have been the objects of much research for the past one hundred years. That is to say, in terms of population dynamics humans are no more or less creatures of Earth than the animals and microorganisms, the many unique and wondrous attributes of humankind notwithstanding.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226928770_Human_Population_Numbers_as_a_Function_of_Food_Supply

    ****Please note Section 3 of the article found in the link above is devoted exclusively to “Animal Data”.

    Comments from one and all are welcome.

    Sincerely,

    Steve

    • Perhaps the immutable forces of Nature are, as we communicate, beginning to take charge of the total food supply for human consumption. That is to say, taking control of the human food supply out of human hands.

  • Culture presents us with much that is real and also less that is illusory. From a psychological standpoint, because humans are shaped early and pervasively by cultural transmissions in our perception of reality, it is an evolutionary challenge for humankind to see the world as it is. When a psychologist thinks a patient is suffering from a mental illness, that is an evidence-based clinical judgment. However, general standards of normalcy are not clinical judgments, but matters of socio-cultural norms and conventions that are full of correctly perceived aspects of reality as well as some misperceptions of reality. Deeply disturbed mental patients distort reality drastically. “Normal” people pay no attention to them. Or if attention is paid to them, it is usually just long enough to put them away. After all, they are crazy; they cannot distinguish what is fantasy from what is real.

    By contrast, organizations like nation-states as well as cultures appear not to misperceive reality so sharply, yet distortions of what large aggregates of people perceive do remain. A term of art in psychology is useful here, “folie a deux.” The term means that two people share an identical distortion of reality. This understanding leads to other terms, “folie a deux cent million” for an organization or “folie a deux billion” for a culture. These terms refer to misperceptions of reality commonly held by many people of an organization or culture. One way to define the highest standard of what is “normal” for the individual and for human aggregates could be looked at in terms of what is free of illusion, what is in scientific fact real.

    In these early years of Century XXI, humanity is confronted with formidable, human-driven global threats to future human well being and environmental health. Some are already visible on the horizon. It is inconceivable that the human community can respond ably to whatever challenges present themselves in the years just ahead if we choose not to so much as acknowledge what is real regarding the existential condition of being human in relation to the population dynamics of Homo sapiens .

    The power of certain adamantly maintained and widely shared culturally transmitted misperceptions regarding endless growing global consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species has evidently mesmerized many experts into thinking that humankind is somehow not an integral part of the natural world we inhabit and ultimately not subject to biophysical limits to growth that are ultimately imposed on living things by a planet with the size, finite composition and frangible ecology of Earth. Widely shared misperceptions of the condition of being human with regard to the population dynamics of the human species is an example. This topic is the last of the last taboos.

    Unfalsified scientific research indicates with remarkable clarity that Demographic Transition Theory has to be a misleading, incomplete, ideologically-driven logical contrivance that just so happens to be politically convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerable, socially agreeable and culturally prescribed. Demographic Transition Theory is directly contradicted by heretofore unchallenged scientific research. Experts generally are not acknowledging the new science. Silence prevails over science.

    Leaders and followers alike in the family of humanity will hopefully awaken to the need for sound science regarding the existential condition of being human as that existential condition relates to the population dynamics of Homo sapiens. Human population dynamics is essentially similar to the population dynamics of other species. The idea that food production needs to be increased to meet the needs of a growing population is based upon a fatally flawed misperception with profound implications for the future of life as we know it.

    • Humankind has many wondrous, unique attributes that clearly make our species distinctly different from other organisms. That said, for all the spectacular ways in which we are truly exceptional, Homo sapiens is similar to other species of Earth in terms of its population dynamics. Human population dynamics is not essentially different from the population dynamics of other species. In this was way, among so very many other ways, human beings are exquisite creatures of Earth where we have evolved alongside other species in the general biological evolutionary process. Humans were not catapulted here from some other place in the Universe. We have neither descended from the heavens nor somehow become excepted from the web of life of Earth, our only known home, the one place in the solar system that has been shown so far to be capable of sustaining life as we know it.

  • Greeley Miklashek

    As a retired psychiatrist, I posted a comment here, but it has been deleted for some unknown reason. Stress R Us

    • Hi Greeley, We apologize for this your comment was incorrectly flagged as spam by our internal monitoring software. You should see it now posted below. Thank you for pointing this out.

  • Greeley Miklashek

    Thanks for the reprint. Somehow, I missed this one. Ironically, this psychiatrist has not had the pleasure of Dr. Ehrlich, who I have the greatest respect for, reading my e-book in his e-library, “Stress R Us”. Having treated 25,000 “mentally ill” patients during a 42 year career, I can easily contradict his statement that mental illness is the driver of violent behavior. Even schizophrenics rarely commit violent acts, unless against themselves. Our recent spate of mass murders driven by “White Nationalist” angst, egged on by Our Mad King Donald, are instructive. The only time I’ve seen any of my patients commit violence is when they are childhood trauma survivors, have a dissociative disorder, and are threatened, which can cause a protective alternative personality to step forward and strike out. These folks are far more prevalent in our disordered society than the MSM would let us know.

    As for the prevalence of “mental illness” in our society, 1/3 entering college freshmen are already taking medication when they arrive at school, and 1/4 American women. We are a sick society and getting sicker by the day! Ironically, the cause is “population density stress”, which is composed of 7 factors: our over-active stress response due to crowding, our alienation from our previous mostly serene hunter-gatherer lifestyle prior to the agricultural revolution 7-12kya, our man-made stressor filled physical environment, our “hurry-up” stress addicted lifestyles, rising infertility due to these elevated stress hormones, and our addiction to violence.

    Population density stress is killing us NOW! (the title of my paper soon to be published on the NPG webpage (Negative Population Growth). The patho-physiology has been worked-out for all of the top ten killers of modern humans and are spelled out in “Stress R Us”. However, the never mentioned massive volume of crowded animal studies done over the past 70 years shows the obvious high correlation between our diseases, as found in these crowded animals, and physical crowding. Interesting and sobering is the fact that all of these studies reached the same ultimate conclusion: extinction of the entire population. The book and movie, “The Children of Men” by PD James (1992) is brilliantly prescient and opens in a 2016 Britain racked by immigrant and counter-immigrant violence harkening back to the “Omega” event years before, when all further reproduction ceased. These were the last of the human race. We’ve had a 100% increase in infertility over the past 34 years, now effecting 1/6 couples in the US and major urban centers worldwide.

    Only a worldwide voluntary one-child family movement (or no child-see “BirthStrike” on the web) can pull humanity back from the verge of extinction. The only argument now is whether climate collapse or population density stress will take us out first. We abhor the violence incited by our Mad King Donald and his thugs, endless war, and rapidly increasing random acts of violence, but that’s the final stage of population collapse in crowded animal studies. We are on the same trajectory.

    Good Luck! Stress R Us

    • Whatsoever we choose to do collectively, a brief note from a friend-to-all needs to be kept in mind,

      “Science, however, the reality of what IS, necessarily is at the base of all possible future existence. We better not try to build any “new society” merely on a new set of illusions and unfounded beliefs, regardless of majority decision. That does not work out well.”

      An adequate enough understanding of Nature, both as we regard the condition of being human and how the world we are inhabiting actually works, needs to be our goal. Ideological idiocy, specious theories and models, contrived logic, false hopes, empty promises, attractive fantasies, religious dogma, economic expedience, political opportunism and delusory cultural prescriptions will not assist us now, here. We have entered an age of consequences.”

      Whatsoever is IS, is it not?

      • Greeley Miklashek

        Sorry, I had to get off of that merry-go-round, my head was spinning. And that surely IS is.

        • Dear Greeley,

          If it pleases you to do so, why not comment about what is causing your head to spin. With additional comments by you, me and other commentators perhaps we can bring clarity to what is currently a source of confusion.

          Thank you,

          Steve

          • Greeley Miklashek

            Your comments appear to be the result of a long established mastery of the obscure and obscurantist. I ONLY deal in hard science, which you seem to be at once criticizing and supporting. Thus my head spins and it’s impossible to dialog. Good Luck!

          • Dear Greeley,

            Our dialogues to date have been unperturbed. Let us make a good faith effort to understand one another now. Your perspective is valued.

            It is not my intention to attempt suddenly to make my comments ” appear to be the result of a long established mastery of the obscure and obscurantist”, as you put it. Quite to the contrary, every posting for a long time has been made solely for the purpose of disclosing (certainly not disguising) apparently unforeseen and unfortunately unwelcome, unfalsified ecological science of human population dynamics. If you will, please reconsider the science to which I have been routinely directing attention for two+ decades.

            With remarkable clarity and perhaps too simply, the science provides empirical data of a non-recursive biological problem that is independent of economic, political, ethical, social, legal, religious, and cultural considerations. This means human population dynamics is essentially similar to the population dynamics of other species. It also means that world human population growth is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop, a relationship between food and population in which food availability drives population growth, and population growth fuels the misperception, the mistaken impression, the fatally flawed concept that food production needs to be increased to meet the needs of growing population. The data indicate that as we increase food production every year, the number of people goes up, too, in the same way population numbers increase in other species, i.e., as a function of food availability. More food equals more people; no food, no people. No exceptions.

            With every passing year, as total global food production is increased leading to an increase in the human population worldwide, millions of people go hungry. Why are those hungry millions not getting fed year after year after year… and future generations of poor people may not ever be fed? Every year the human population grows. All segments of it grow. There are more short people and more tall people. Every year there are more people growing up well fed and more people growing up hungry and starving. We are not bringing hunger and starvation to an end by increasing food production; we are producing more hungry and starving people.

            It appears to me that human exceptionalism is the bedrock from which your perturbation and sudden rejection issues. There are many ways in which human beings correctly choose to view ourselves as exceptional. But we also widely share and consensually validate the false notion that human beings stand somehow above all other species, in a unique position described in many other places as “a little lower than angels.” Lost to us is the realization that we are an integral part of the Tree of Life of Earth, one of millions of similarly situated, wondrous creatures in a planetary home. In this natural world a sense of our distinctly human creatureliness has been fatefully forgotten.

            Of all the understandable ways humans think of ourselves as exceptional there is one mistaken impression, one misperception, one fatally flawed conception that appears to have led the human species to precipitate the Sixth Mass Extinction Event. The specious idea to which I want to direct attention is this: Homo sapiens (sapiens) is exceptional in terms of its population dynamics. We hold tightly to the pernicious idea that human population dynamics is somehow different from the population dynamics of other species; that food is not the independent variable in the food/population relationship, just like other species; that in terms of its population dynamics humankind is extraordinary. If that is a fact of the human condition, that Homo sapiens is exceptional in terms of its population dynamics, will you or someone else kindly report the scientific evidence that supports such an hypothesis?

            Very truly yours,

            Steve

          • Greeley Miklashek

            Hi Steve!
            I must honor your concerted effort at dialog. My position, informed as it is from a lifetime as a practicing physician and armchair stress reader, is simply this: too many humans using too many natural resources, and despoiling the earth to get at the last scraps, are producing too much pollution. Mother Nature is making every effort to get rid of us through the “diseases of civilization” and rapidly increasing infertility, not to mention the countless millions of war dead and the billion going to bed hungry tonight on one meal.

            However, your contention that it’s all about the food, all about agricultural production, demonstrates your profound ignorance of the academic field of Animal Crowding Research, which dates back nearly 90 years in the US. The over 100 crowded animal studies done to date ALL HAD SUFFICIENT FOOD FOR THE POPULATION. Population density stress (my phrase) brought on total extinction of every single one of these experimental populations!

            My book, which you have never bothered to read (so just how would you know what I think about any of this?) spends hundreds of pages reviewing the actual scientific data on animal crowding, which can easily be used to build testable hypotheses on human crowding. Not to worry, though, as nobody reads this stuff.

            If you wish to pursue a dialog, you’ll just have to break down and at least scan, if not read, “Stress R Us”, in the MAHB e-library and recently, thanks to Brittany, updated and corrected. Otherwise, you are just so far off base from what the actual massive accumulation of animal crowding/overpopulation research has shown for nearly a century. Good Luck! Stress R Us

          • Dear Greeley,

            Perhaps you can help me understand what there is in what you have put forward that contradicts what I am presenting. You are clearly having some kind of problem with what I am reporting. From my perspective, you see my report as clashing with yours. Again, from my perspective, the scientific inquiries from you and that which I am presenting appear compatible. Indeed, your research appears to support the hypothesis I am putting forward!

            You report,

            ” Bottomline: population density stress is causing all human illness and has been for a very long time. Simply put our sudden new “built” environments, our relative isolation from nature’s realities, our massive human over-population of the earth and the resultant environmental consequences, our sudden capacity for mobility, and an ancient endocrine and autonomic nervous system based population regulation mechanism, are coming together to reduce our numbers.”

            I agree. What precisely is your problem with the hypothesis, human population numbers appear or not as a function of food supply. This hypothesis simply says that the population dynamics of the human species is essentially similar to the population dynamics of the animals that are the objects of your research. That is to say, in terms of population dynamics humans are as no more or less creatures of Earth than the animals and microorganisms that share the planetary home we inhabit.

            Humankind has many wondrous, unique attributes that clearly make our species distinctly different from other organisms. That said, for all the spectacular ways in which we are truly exceptional, Homo sapiens is similar to other species of Earth in terms of its population dynamics. Human population dynamics is not essentially different from the population dynamics of other species. In this was way, among so very many other ways, human beings are exquisite creatures of Earth where we have evolved alongside other species in the general biological evolutionary process. Humans were not catapulted here from some other place in the Universe. We have neither descended from the heavens nor somehow become excepted from the web of life of Earth, our only known home, the one place in the solar system that has been shown so far to be capable of sustaining life as we know it.

            Homo sapiens is a creature of the earth. Understand that food is the tap root of life for the human species. There may be other factors that help sustain human life, but food is the ‘tap root’ for the growth of absolute human population numbers, just as is the case with other species of earth.

            Our problem is a biological one. A positive feedback loop has been established in the food-population relationship because natural limiting factors to the unbridled growth of absolute human population numbers have been eliminated by human ingenuity. Human beings are unique creatures of earth. We are exceptional in many wondrous ways, but not in terms of population dynamics. Hence the recent ‘bloom’ of absolute global human population numbers that are primarily caused by spectacular increases in the food supply which is derived from greatly enhanced, large-scale agricultural production and distribution capabilities.

            The conundrum: increasing food production annually to meet the needs of growing population is fueling a human population explosion. With every passing year more people are being fed and more people are going hungry.

            Perhaps we can agree to a desperate need for an adequate-enough explanation for ‘why’ we have ended up where are, in this global predicament. A growing body of unfalsified research has been ubiquitously denied and consequently not widely shared much less consensually validated by population experts of science as well as those professionals with appropriate expertise in the fields of demography and economics. Uncontested science makes it possible for us to answer the question posed now, here.

            A new biological understanding is emerging from ongoing scientific research. It is simply this: as is the case with other species, human population numbers appear or not as a function of food availability; food is the independent, not the dependent, variable in the relationship between food and population numbers; and human population dynamics is essentially similar to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species.

            Sound scientific research provides straightforward empirical data of a non-recursive biological problem that is independent of economic, political, ethical, social, legal, religious, and cultural considerations. This means human population dynamics is like the population dynamics of other species. It also means that global human population growth is a viciously cycling positive feedback loop, a relationship between food and population in which food availability drives population growth, and population growth fuels the false perception, the mistaken impression, the fatally flawed conception that food production needs to be increased to meet the needs of a growing population.

            With every passing year, as food production is increased leading to a population increase, millions go hungry. Why are those hungry millions not getting fed year after year after year… and future generations of poor people may not ever be fed? Every year the human population grows. All segments of it grow. More people with blue eyes and more with brown ones. More tall people and more short ones. All segments of the population grows. Every year there are also more people growing up well fed and more people growing up hungry. The hungry segment of the global population goes up just like all the other segments of the population. We are unexpectedly increasing the number of hungry people in the course of feeding more people. We are not bringing hunger to an end by increasing food production. We are producing more hungry people.

            The skyrocketing increase of the human population in our time on a planet with the size, composition and ecology of Earth has caused a growing number of apparently unforeseen and exceedingly deleterious ecological occurrences. Among these potentially catastrophic, human-driven consequences is climate destabilization. What is fortunately becoming clearer to naked eyes as we observe what is happening, is the manifold ways overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities of the human species are occurring synergistically and simultaneously threatening life as we know it, environmental health, and future human well being. The spectacular increase of these distinctly human, overgrowth activities is causing the mass extirpation of earth’s biodiversity, the relentless dissipation of its limited natural resources, the unbridled degradation of its environs and the reckless threat to a good enough future for children everywhere.

            For a moment let us carefully consider the remote possibility that the human community writ large pulls itself together on a war footing to fight climate change and wins that battle by reducing carbon emissions of all kinds to net zero in 2020, while the tap root cause of anthropogenic climate change continues to be denied. We may win a major Pyrrhic victory. That is certainly a good thing. And yet, if we do not accurately enough locate the foremost cause of the biological problem that is ailing humankind, the problem that is precipitating climate change, we could lose the prospects of a good enough future for life as we know it.

            We have run out of time for population experts to remain reticent. They have to assume responsibilities and perform duties to science, humankind, life as we know it, and Gaia by examining all available data and reporting findings regarding the question, “Why are human population numbers exploding?” The time has come to disclose all of what we know — the whole truth — with regard to human creatureliness and human population growth, according to the best available science and ‘lights’ we possess.

            After hundreds of thousands of years of relatively stable population numbers of the human species, why has the total human population increased in size from 1 billion to 7.7 billion in the brief time that is framed by the past 225 years? That is the heretofore unanswered question.

            Unfalsified ecological science of human population dynamics indicates that the population dynamics of H. sapiens is essentially similar to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species, how are humans going to limit sensibly and effectively the current unbridled growth of their population numbers without beginning to limit “increases only” in the total production of food for human consumption? More attractive alternatives to this necessary step (e.g., educational/economic opportunities for females and contraception for males/females) represent useful proposals, that is certain. But these ‘interventions’ have been shown to be insufficient to stabilize population numbers of the human species because human population numbers appear or not as a function of food supply. See articles by Hopfenberg and Pimentel, 2001; Hopfenberg, 2003.

            Take a moment to reflect upon the way in which a thoughtful, effective and systematic redistribution of the world’s abundant food resources, if implemented simultaneously with limits placed on total food production, would feed the human population and stabilize absolute human population numbers. That is to say, limiting increases only in the total supply of food for human consumption, when coupled with a sensible food redistribution program and other elements, will lead to population stabilization and starvation reduction. (Universal, free, easily accessible, safe contraception, including a male birth control pill, would also be a necessary part of this program of action.)

            The unfalsified, willfully ignored, ecological science of human population dynamics that makes crystal clear to all that the UN mantra “food production must be increased annually to meet the needs of a growing population,” is a widely shared and consensually validated fool’s errand. If ever the human community is sensibly and meaningfully able to restrain the bacteria-like growth of absolute global human population numbers (recall that human population dynamics is essentially similar to the population dynamics of other species), limiting increases only in total food production for human consumption must be a part of any program of action. If superabundant harvests are also simultaneously and fairly redistributed so as to assure substantial baseline subsistence to people everywhere on the planet, such a program (that would necessarily include other actionable elements) will lead to population stabilization initially and population reduction in the long term, all the while reducing human starvation.

            Your assistance, Greeley, as well as any help at all from others in MAHB, is sure to be appreciated.

            Sincerely yours,

            Steve

          • Greeley Miklashek

            So, I do understand your suggestion that the way to limit the human swarm is by denying it food. Already, 1B humans get one meal a day and go to bed hungry EVERY night. In fact, this pervasive third world hunger drives more reproduction in order to send these children packing to the North, where they are expected to find work and send money home. The inferior, enslaved status of women in many of these cultures is a major contributor.

            However, you still do not seem to get that population density stress is KILLING US NOW, right now, this very minute. 80% of us over 50 have at least one major chronic health condition. WE ARE DYING LIKE FLIES, were it not for our $3.6T healthcare outlay in the US, projected to be $5.9B in 10 years!

            As for your thoughtful question as to why we are so overpopulated, when compared to our pre-agricultural revolution hunter-gatherer ancestors, that is, also, extensively covered in my book, which you continue to avoid reading or even addressing. Our ancestral H-G clan/bands lived in a 2-dimensional world totally defined by the limits of the terrestrial world. With increasing calories from grain farming, the product of which could be stored until the next growing season, came a neolithic population explosion, urbanization, growing dominance hierarchies, urbanization, and the invention of language/numbers/surplus capital. So, now, we fought over intellectual territory as our earlier brothers and sisters fought over the boundaries of their physical territories. This explains your use of so very many words to make a simple assertion.

            I’d give you references, but thy’re in the book you refuse to examine and I won’t repeat them here. Look for the iconic work of Denise Schmandt-Besserat. Thus, we can now escape our once adequate territorial boundaries on the physical earth and jump into an intellectual 4th dimension which is limitless, almost. However, the resultant physical crowding has triggered long evolved population regulation mechanisms, as well described in the crowded animal researches you, also, refuse to review. These neuro-endocrine mechanisms eventuate in what I call a “killswitch”, at which point in a “stabilized” maximum population, with unlimited food and maintained health, the entire population ceases to be capable of any further reproduction. Gaia can erase entire species and has done so a million times in the past.

            Infertility in the US has increased 100% in the past 34 years, now sterilizing 1/6 couples. Sperm counts in the West have fallen 59% in the past 38 years and both of these crowding effects are increasing exponentially. My book predicts human extinction as early as 2,100 but for certain by 2,300, if we continue turning out 230,000 new copies of ourselves daily. FOOD IS NOT THE ISSUE!

            Read the book, or don’t contact me again. Thank you and Good Luck! Stress R Us