Presenting NSSM 200: "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests"

Tyler Durden's picture

One of the topics touched upon by Eric deCarbonnel in the earlier article discussing the potential, if not necessarily probable absent further validation, implications of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, is that of the nature of AIDS. Which got us thinking. While we won't necessarily go into the implications proposed by none other than Chuck Palahniuk in his book Rant (word search Kissinger, especially what Neddy Nelson has to say on the topic), it made us recall that particular National Security Study Memorandum, aka NSSM 200, better known as "The Kissinger Report" authored on December 10, 1974 and immediately classified under Executive Order 11652 until 1989, titled simply, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." What did the report say and why is it relevant, especially in our day and age when so many believe that all important substance - black gold - may have peaked? Well, since it has 123 pages full of very, very curious information as pertains to how US foreign policy is truly styled, we will leave it up to our readers to make their own conclusions, but here are some preliminary observations to help them on their way...

The basic thesis of the memorandum was that population growth in the least developed countries (LDCs) is a concern to U.S. national security, because it would tend to risk civil unrest and political instability in countries that had a high potential for economic development. The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13 populous countries, to control rapid population growth which the US deems inimical to the socio-political and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the US leadership to "influence national leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the U.N., USIA, and USAID."

 

Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.

 

The report advocates the promotion of education and contraception and other population control measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures.

Some of the key insights of report are controversial:

"The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States. . . . The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel]. 

 

Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" [Chapter III-Minerals and Fuel].

 

"Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the ‘establishment,' ‘imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other-often foreign-influences blamed for their troubles" [Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security].

"We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs. In this context it is important to demonstrate to LDC leaders that such family planning programs have worked and can work within a reasonable period of time." [Chapter I, World Demographic Trends].

The kicker:

The report advises, "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

And much more...

So just what do you call when Dr. Mengele applies the principles of eugenics, only not to his own population, but to everybody else's? We have no idea although it certainly sounds like yet another crack pot, tinfoil conspiracy theory.

For those who enjoy factual historical documents, here are some other of the good Doctor's (Kissinger, not Mengele) observations:

Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970's and 1980's. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.

 

U.N. estimates use the 3.6 billion population of 1970 as a base (there are nearly 4 billion now) and project from about 6 billion to 8 billion people for the year 2000 with the U.S. medium estimate at 6.4 billion. The U.S. medium projections show a world population of 12 billion by 2075 which implies a five-fold increase in south and southeast Asia and in Latin American and a seven-fold increase in Africa, compared with a doubling in east Asia and a 40% increase in the presently developed countries (see Table I). Most demographers, including the U.N. and the U.S. Population Council, regard the range of 10 to 13 billion as the most likely level for world population stability, even with intensive efforts at fertility control. (These figures assume, that sufficient food could be produced and distributed to avoid limitation through famines.)

 

Growing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food especially in the poorest, fastest growing LDCs. While under normal weather conditions and assuming food production growth in line with recent trends, total world agricultural production could expand faster than population, there will nevertheless be serious problems in food distribution and financing, making shortages, even at today's poor nutrition levels, probable in many of the larger more populous LDC regions. Even today 10 to 20 million people die each year due, directly or indirectly, to malnutrition. Even more serious is the consequence of major crop failures which are likely to occur from time to time.

 

Countries with large population growth cannot afford constantly growing imports, but for them to raise food output steadily by 2 to 4 percent over the next generation or two is a formidable challenge. Capital and foreign exchange requirements for intensive agriculture are heavy, and are aggravated by energy cost increases and fertilizer scarcities and price rises. The institutional, technical, and economic problems of transforming traditional agriculture are also very difficult to overcome.

 

In addition, in some overpopulated regions, rapid population growth presses on a fragile environment in ways that threaten longer-term food production: through cultivation of marginal lands, overgrazing, desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion, with consequent destruction of land and pollution of water, rapid siltation of reservoirs, and impairment of inland and coastal fisheries.

 

Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting instability may undermine the conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources.

 

Rapid population growth creates a severe drag on rates of economic development otherwise attainable, sometimes to the point of preventing any increase in per capita incomes. In addition to the overall impact on per capita incomes, rapid population growth seriously affects a vast range of other aspects of the quality of life important to social and economic progress in the LDCs.

 

The universal objective of increasing the world's standard of living dictates that  economic growth outpace population growth. In many high population growth areas of the world, the largest proportion of GNP is consumed, with only a small amount saved. Thus, a small proportion of GNP is available for investment - the "engine" of economic growth. Most experts agree that, with fairly constant costs per acceptor, expenditures on effective family planning services are generally one of the most cost effective investments for an LDC country seeking to improve overall welfare and per capita economic growth. We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates naturally since this will undoubtedly take many decades in most developing countries, during which time rapid population growth will tend to slow development and widen even more the gap between rich and poor.

And why all this is relevant for good ole' humanitarian Uncle Sam:

The political consequences of current population factors in the LDCs - rapid growth, internal migration, high percentages of young people, slow improvement in living standards, urban concentrations, and pressures for foreign migration ?? are damaging to the internal stability and international relations of countries in whose advancement the U.S. is interested, thus creating political or even national security problems for the U.S. In a broader sense, there is a major risk of severe damage to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values.

 

What are the stakes? We do not know whether technological developments will make it possible to feed over 8 much less 12 billion people in the 21st century. We cannot be entirely certain that climatic changes in the coming decade will not create great difficulties in feeding a growing population, especially people in the LDCs who live under increasingly marginal and more vulnerable conditions. There exists at least the possibility that present developments point toward Malthusian conditions for many regions of the world. 

 

But even if survival for these much larger numbers is possible, it will in all likelihood be bare survival, with all efforts going in the good years to provide minimum nutrition and utter dependence in the bad years on emergency rescue efforts from the less populated and richer countries of the world. In the shorter run -- between now and the year 2000 -- the difference between the two courses can be some perceptible material gain in the crowded poor regions, and some improvement in the relative distribution of intra- country per capita income between rich and poor, as against permanent poverty and the widening of income gaps. A much more vigorous effort to slow population growth can also mean a very great difference between enormous tragedies of malnutrition and starvation as against only serious chronic conditions.

And it gets even better:

There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that, to prevent even more widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes than are generally anticipated, even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.

Dot dot dot...

Full memorandum (link):

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tedster's picture

In Ranger school candidates got 1 (one) per day. They would eat everything - including the salt and sugar packets, coffee creamer.

Encroaching Darkness's picture

MRE's are the military solution to a supply problem. If you don't have military logistical constraints, you probably don't really want them (limited variety, etc.) A few might be a last-ditch help; you can get them, Mountain House dehydrated, various others if you look around. To get started, try:

(A) Emergency Essentials.com (you do have first aid supplies, right?)

(B) TheReadyStore.com

(C) Provident Pantry, DailyBread, EFoods, or similar.

Good to see someone thinking about what's coming. Also, consider what AC Doctor said, about packing your own; Ferfal's blog, about what happened in Argentina when the banksters took over; and any resources like NRA, OathKeepers and so forth for if it gets really ugly.

Good luck!

 

JohnG's picture

 

 

Find a Mormon.  Really.  Can buy foods an canning supplies at cost, and they will help you if your just nice.

 

And I am not a Mormon.  I have a friend named Stewart (who is breeding a basketball team), very nice guy, and it's the way to go for real storage.

 

And get yourself strong, learn to grow your own.  Chickens are easy.  Smokehouse and some hogs and your set.

 

Good old country life, it's just that simple.  With modern weapons.

 

 

Cathartes Aura's picture

if you do go looking for a Mormon, and visit their bishop's storehouse, don't leave a trail - they're already sniffing for trrrrrrsts and looking for names of those who purchased - "more than 7 days food" might make you a target. . .

flattrader's picture

Ready Store is good.

I've got both #10 cans of the good stuff and MREs if I need to go mobile or thing get really bad.

Don't assume for one minute that you'll be able to leisurely prepare tasty meals (simply boil water) from your #10 cans.

The ability to grab and go may be what saves you.

Janice's picture

Try this web-site.

http://www.shtfplan.com/

Most likely, you can buy MRE's at Amazon.

I've bought from here before...http://www.pleasanthillgrain.com/

Recently, I've been checking this place out...http://honeyvillegrain.com/ But, no purchase yet.

MRE's are ok, but they get tiring after a few years and the shelf life is 7 years. You can purchase freeze dried can goods with a longer shelf life. Also, never underestimate the wonders of spam. If you buy the "ham" MRE, it tastes like spam. Spam is cheaper, but with a 3 year shelf life.
Also, the "frankfurter" MRE tastes just like Vienna sausage. It just depends on what time period/disaster you are prepping for. My local army
surplus place used to sell MRE's, so you may want to check locally also.

Oh hey! I didn't realize who it was until after I commented. Happy New Year!

Big Corked Boots's picture

In addition to your links I can personally reccommend:

http://www.harmonyhousefoods.com/

http://wisefoodstorage.com/

Harmony runs specials so if you feel you can wait, paitence will pay off. Wise has tasty products (better than MRE's, but not gourmet by any measure) and it will last a decade or more.

 

ZeroPoint's picture

MREs are very unhealthy. I would not eat them with any regularity.

Tedster's picture

eBay is the best place for MRE.

Shipping is what costs so sharpen your pencil and figure your cost per meal. They come 12 meals to a case. Approx. 1400 calories per.

Variety is excellent, because menus come and go, and various meal components as well. They are a complete meal. They are a bit bulky and heavy compared to Mountain House or other freeze dried meals, but far cheaper. If you don't store them in the trunk of your car they last for decades NO PROBLEM. They are similar to canned goods in this respect. Freezing temps are an issue if the cases are rough handled as well. Freeze-dried foods do not tolerate high temps very well either. These are issues of palatability, not safety.

The problem with FD food, is the cost per calorie. Fats don't tolerate the freeze dry process very well so the manufacturers start with low-fat recipes.
Any of them will be improved with the addition of butter, spices, veggies, etc.

A Lunatic's picture

Stay away from MRE's. They're expensive and they are not meant to live off of. A very good resource for all of your informational needs is SurvivalBlog.com 

Tedster's picture

I haven't ever paid more than $5.85 per meal including shipping. Right now have about 30 cases, in addition to staples, canned goods as well as freeze-dried.

That's not bad, considering a MRE include the entree, side dish, a dessert, snacks, candy, coffee, etc. Price these items separately and the cost looks pretty good. WAY cheaper than freeze-dried. As far as the "not meant to live off of" that's pretty much true of all processed food, but that's not news. There's nothing that says they must be eaten exclusively to all else.

Many peoples aversion stems from memories of the initial issue menu of the 1980s - some were fairly gnarly and left the old vets pining for C-rats.
Recent menus in the last 20 years have improved quite a bit, at least in variety and include 24 different meals.

For all that, canned items represent the best value per dollar for non-perishable items. Unfortunately, Hormel changed their Chili recipe around 1997 - it's OK, but nothing like it was.

RockyRacoon's picture

Gravy.  That's the key.   Makes a cardboard box palatable.   Buy a couple of the boxes of powdered brown gravy mix at Sam's and stow it away with your sealed meals.   Ah, gravy!

wisefool's picture

My trick is to also buy the gravy in a 12 oz jars when they are on sale. once you get an empty you can apply "infinite divisibility" for the non-powered fat within. Just adding the gravy mix you mentioned, some water, and scraps. pop in the microwave and get through another session of frozen/canned/dried veggies, rice, beans and potatoes.

Not looking forward to the "change over" to rendered pet food cooking over a fire. But somebody has to pay off the 15 Trillion dollar debt. I should not assume I deserve a better life than the typical NOVA denziens' purse chiuaua.

hairball48's picture

Honeyville is where I buy a lot of my stuff.

http://store.honeyvillegrain.com/

Much of it will last 10-15 years if left in original container and stored in a "cool dry place". Good stuff imo I've been drinking their milk a long time. Way cheaper than fresh milk. The eggs aren't bad either. They have all the basic food types you'll need for survival.

Milk and dairy examples

http://store.honeyvillegrain.com/driedmilkandeggs.aspx

And the prices are FAR cheaper than Mountain House. Check the site out and do the math if you don't believe it

Strom's picture

I like shelfrelinace.com

krispkritter's picture

http://www.mre-meals.net/  $66 per dozen and ship free. Good quality and taste but as most posters said 'You don't want to live off them...'  Great for BOB's, rough camping, and emergencies...

SAT 800's picture

Ah yes, "the lone madman". My favorite quote from someone who knows; "there is no lone madman"; "they always send a team". Ding.

uno's picture

and yet we continue to lecture everyone in the world about human rights

Rynak's picture

The right thing, for all the wrong reasons, with all the wrong means.... it appears the US really is the master in turning everything to crap. Fuck, as the article implies so clearly, it can even lead to the opposite reaction, just because of some elitist assholes being an ass.

smlbizman's picture

is there more to the fires in cali. than a single very busy arsonist??....

Rynak's picture

*shrugs*

As i see it:

- worldwide overpopulation is a problem, but globally, rather than this egocentric US view

- historically, birth-rates have been the lowest in countries that not just have access to contraception, but more importantly where people aren't struggling to survive, and where they have more to do with their life, than work, eat, fuck, sleep. In times and countries where that scenario was even halfway the case, birthrates have been below a ratio of 2, without any invasive and heavyhanded means. BUT, those are conditions, which precisely go totally against the economic situation and wealth distribution, that the elite wants.

Bottom line: The f****** kleptocrats are concerned about overpopulation and overconsumption of ressources? How about you take look at what you're doing in a mirror.... you may find the primary answer right in your fucking face.

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Some unpopular thoughts on over-population, from 'The African Population Disaster' by Canadian journalist (Mr) Gwynne Dyer:

« ... much tutting and shaking of heads over its prediction that we will be ten billion by the end of the century. But almost nobody will have the temerity to point out that this is almost entirely an African problem ...

« The United Nations Population Fund’s own numbers tell the story. Africa currently has one-seventh of the world’s people: just over one billion. But during the rest of the century, the UN agency predicts, this single continent will add an extra 2.6 billion people, more than tripling in population, while all the rest of the world adds just half a billion. ...

« If it weren’t for the African population boom, the world’s population would never exceed 7.5 billion. »

http://gwynnedyer.com/2011/the-african-population-disaster/

SAT 800's picture

I was hoping aids was going to take care of this for us; but it's really letting us down. And now we've got Bill Gates playing God and trying to cure Malaria; what an idiotic meddling dork.

SnobGobbler's picture

injections by gunpoint. gates is a real humanitarian

trav7777's picture

it'll just mean more malnourished african children with flies buzzing around their heads.

Look; these famines are perpetual...and rather than force population control as a function of do it or we won't feed YOUR kids, the idiot west commits suicide.  Good luck in a world with African invention and control.  It'll be awesome, like Detroit or Haiti.

Haiti is what a REAL "demographics timebomb" looks like.

trav7777's picture

"where are the shoe stores?"

Synopsize, I ain't watchin 2.5 hrs of this crap

SAT 800's picture

Check out the 15 thumbs down above; you're right; no one can think. All they can do is emote.

Cathartes Aura's picture

Gates is funding stealth vaccines, to be sprayed over a population, and activated by the sweat glands. . .

of course, the technology can be used for many different applications. . .

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/newest-gates-foundation...

SAT 800's picture

Cut off the UN Food Shipments and send machetes instead.

Rynak's picture

Congratz, you have just added advocation of genocide to your glorious list of achievements, mr a hundred accounts aka williamthebastard.

trav7777's picture

the reason africa's population has boomed is because the west keeps feeding their offspring that they will not feed themselves.  We send over tons of food and medicine.  It's like feeding stray cats; they reproduce at higher rates.

Eventually, the math will be brutal.  Mother nature ALWAYS bats last.

Of course it is unpopular to suggest we should encourage the tripling of a race that has never produced a single significant invention of any kind and only subsists on charitable food aid.  Oh wait, I think RP might have said that once and so I'll just unsay it.

Rynak's picture

If you would have kept it at ressource economics, instead of failing to resist your urge to drive off into racism (which actually instead is a cultural-economic issue), you'd have had a point. Perhaps an unpopular one, and perhaps a quite incomplete one - but you would have brought up a valid aspect.

...would...

P.S.: And that difference, with quite high probability i suspect, is that between your above two posts, and your implied statement of RP. Prove me wrong though if you can, by quoting him, without removing significant context of the quote.

trav7777's picture

cite the part of my comment that was racist.

Rynak's picture

 

Of course it is unpopular to suggest we should encourage the tripling of a race that has never produced a single significant invention of any kind and only subsists on charitable food aid.

There you go. That above paragraph is clearly implying that mere association with a RACE, implies intellectual incompetence.

And before you retort with statistics: Those statistics are specific to a population, living in a certain culture, environment and having certain ressources available. For you to prove that it is specific to the race, rather than the circumstances that races lives in, you have to isolate the race from the rest.

And something else - something about the context of your original post.... what does intellectual competence, regarding technological innovation, have to do with sending aid or not? Shouldn't even in the most egocentric POV the criterion simply be, the loss/gain ratio in the short-term of sending aid vs. not sending aid? In other words - and here we go full circle - shouldn't even for an egocentrist the main criterion be overall economics, rather than specific features?

trav7777's picture

nothing I said was contrafactual.

Facts cannot be racist.

As far as implying intellectual incompetence, I'll let that thing called the FACTS speak for me.

The race hasn't ever produced a significant invention of ANY KIND.

It's funny how you idiots claim we are PLUNDERING the 3rd world for its resource riches then in the same breath say that they don't have the fucking wheel because they lack...resources.  Yeah, you got it.

As for race versus race, your knowledge of the studies on this issue appears to be sorely lacking.  For example, there are a variety of longitudinal studies of IQ versus race.  One of these plots people who BELIEVE themselves to be single-racial and their average IQ (in an environment that was single race, i.e., they thought they had same-race parents but did not) tracks an average of...surprise...halfway between the averages of the races their actual biology is.  Likewise, there are studies of those who BELIEVED themselves to be biracial but really weren't but were raised as if they were biracial (mistake or lie, who cares) and their average IQ tracks to the average of their actual biology.

In other words, it really doesn't matter what the fuck you believe or who raises you- BIOLOGY matters.  Identical twins separated, adopted kids, confused-race kids...it's all the same.  Heredity dictates; nurture doesn't.

What technical competence has to do with aid is a decision that must be made in a climate of scarcity.  For example if there's only enough food for all but one of us in an apocalypse cave, you are going hungry simply because you are too stupid to be of any value to the collective.  I, while abrasive, am actually useful and intelligent.

Rynak's picture

Summary of your post:

You are simply declaring your claims as facts, without providing...... anything. And also, your statements are true, because they are..... um, facts, based on no logicially CONTIGUOUS line or reasoning at all

Oh, and also.... your statments have not a single time satisfied my simple requirement: That you base racial statements, on racial data that has been isolated from other aspects.

So really, you've got nothing but rethorics. But hey, what would i have expected from someone who regularily has posted racist posts, without ever having backed them up with sound data, that doesn't merely rely on "relation implies causation"?

Boring, next hollow blowhard, please.

P.S.: The most funny thing is, that besides of a small amount of 1st hand and 2nd hand experiences, if you could actually come up with "clean data", i would have almost nothing to argue against it. And that is because for now THERE ARE NO CLEAN TESTING ENVIRONMENTS, and even if they were, most of them in turn would be so detached from reality, that they're practically irrelevant. The actual problem is less, if stuff mainly is cultural, or is biological, but that the world we live in, makes it is nearly impossible to distinguish one from the other!!! And this isn't even taking into account PHYSICAL AND MENTAL interaction in a single life.

Anyone without some really revolutionary and groundbreaking approach, that no one including me thought of, simply is incapable of clearly distinguishing DNA from "life experience".... except of for very obvious cases, which unfortunatelly also tend to be rare and thus non-representative cases of a species.

TL:DR? For now, no one really can know. We have examples of beings apparently not able to overcome their early visible biases, and we have examples of beings completely changing themselves just by experience and "decision".... so the furthest claim i would dare to make, is that both can matter.

SAT 800's picture

You're wrong; totally and completely and hopelessly wrong. this is a subject that has been studied. You are not the world;s reference point on this question. Study the book the Bell Shaped Curve carefully; you'll be a lot less in love with sound of your own voice when you finish. You've been told all your life that IQ is not genetic, that it's highly malleable by environment, that "it doesn't matter"; these are arguments of desperation by professional liberals who can't bear to admit the truth. African Americans test out at 90 on all sorts of tests; some of which are completely non-verbal; and completely unknown to you, who are just another perfect product of the brainwashing factory. In Africa itself they test out at 75. Moron level. Everyone who ever worked there knows this. It's 100% genetic and it's life long. If you don't understand what IQ is, ask someone who has one, maybe they'll explain it to you.

Rynak's picture

Even though there isn't really much point in argueing with someone who is a gov/bankster employee, with the mission of trolling blogs, and which has just recently gone as low as advocating genocide..... i'll waste 5mins to undermine your argument (and that of an entire book) with just one paragraph.

Your argument, as well as the racial argument of the book you cited, is completely based on the concept of "IQ". However, IQ-tests, do test a very narrow aspect of mental skills (no point in explaining this further here - the "completeness" of the IQ-concept, has been criticized thousandfold - just google, if you're blissfully ignorant). More importantly however: The stats in the book have not isolated cultural and economic aspects AT ALL! All they did use, is a bunch of IQ-tests and related tests, on a LIVE population. Thus, even your appeal to authority, based on a best-selling book, fails to satisfy my simple requirement, that if you claim something is based on race, you gotta exclude other factors.

-----

(On the topic of IQ tests: I get to hear a lot from other people, that they consider me unusually intelligent, and that they wonder why i'm doing such a simple job, that i'm doing, instead of working inside the "intellectual elite". The truth is, that i would perform mediocre in an IQ test, and perform horrible inside the "intellectual elite". And that has to do with the very specific requirements of IQ-tests and the intellectual elite. IQ tests for example mainly rely on memorizing a lot of data, and computing highly abstract things very quickly. In other words: They test how good a computer/robot one is.... memory capacity and megahertz. Things which they don't test much: Understanding, improvisation, imagination, empathy, pattern-matching (heuristics), tactics and "uncommon sense" - so, it precisely does not test exactly the things, for which some people admire me... and by pure coincidence, it's exactly the things that are outrightly UNDESIRED in western culture and inside the "intellectual elite". Oh, i don't know.... could it be that IQ is..... culturally biased??? LOL?)

And anyways, if i were to run your and travs arguments ad adsurdum, i could look at changing behaviours and skills of a single race, across 100 years... and then claim that DNA rapidly mutated at ridiculous speeds, and that in turn explains the changing overall skills of a cultu... err, i mean race. Hey, how about i invent a test, that is geared for testing the ability of developing industry.... i look at current nations, and notice that some of them have better developed industry.... oh, i know, must be biological, and have nothing to do with anything else?

Biological aspects - both inherited as well as accumulated in a single life - are important. But from any halfway sound evidence, it is not so much important for all the stuff, about which mankind is sooooo proud of... instead, it is important because all those awesome mental skills, still are built on top of biological capacities and capabilities: You may have the most awesome environment, and be willing to make the most awesome decisions..... but if your body handicaps you, it ain't gonna happen.

And an aspect that is awesomely ignored in everything but cross-field sciences: BIOLOGY ISN'T STATIC from birth onwards! It up to some constraints adapts and improves or declines, based on how one lives one's own life. Thus, to anyone hoping that he can create some predeterministic god called biology, that totally pre-determines one's own life from birth onwards.... sorry, not even DNA can do that for you. The DNA defines the initial setup and limits to adaption... but not even DNA define a static predetermined life, modelled like a..... mathematical point.

trav7777's picture

it's good that you are such an expert on any type of studying that might cross these racial boundaries you claim are imaginary.  You should take that up with the scientists who make such studies their livelihood.

You just deny "clean testing environments," as if that fucking means anything.  The problem here is that you are insufficiently intelligent to understand how these environments COULD be clean or controlled.

It IS possible to distinguish culture from heredity; in fact there are manifold ways to do so.  In the absence of your capacity to understand how, you will merely stick your head in the sand and chant.

BTW, it is enough that I make a claim; I do not lie.  I state facts.

centerline's picture

Unfortunately the truth is that the moment the world financial system hits the skids full on, the resources shipped to impoverished nations will collapse.  The math will be brutal for sure.

The real scary part is that if that if supply lines shut down for any length of time here in the US, some cities may not do much better.  Only the math asserting itself via different mechanisms - think post-Katrina New Orleans on steriods.  

Rynak's picture

Turns out, that "having a buffer for more than 4 days"-post, about 2 days ago from me, did have come point.

Sure, a total lack of food for more than 6 months, is kinda unrealistic, if only for political reasons (there won't be any gov anymore 2 months in, if total stoppage of food would happen).... but being totally vulnerable to as little as 1 week of food outage seems kinda.... desperately dependent.

Unfortunatelly, for the majority of people in the west, about 1-2 weeks of food-outage actually is all they can handle. From then onwards, it's starvation for them.

trav7777's picture

Katrina wasn't due to shortages, it was due to a different factor

centerline's picture

Agreed. However, if you really want chaos, kill the supply lines. That is, a financial collapse will make Katrina look like a picnic. At least with all that water the folks cant burn down the place! (sorry for the bad humor - but unfortunately it is the truth).

SAT 800's picture

IT HAS TO BE BRUTAL. Wake Up! WAke UP!. Overbreeding is corrected by the die off. Period. there's no nicey nicey way it's gonna get done.

Gully Foyle's picture

bank guy in Brussels

Once again population is estimated to peak at 9.2 billion in 2050 and start declining from there. The REAL issue is aging populations worldwide.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98371&page=1

Despite a growth burst that more than doubled the global human population over the past 50 years, a study released today predicts it will peak at 9 billion by the year 2070 and then begin to decline.

"People thought for many years that we would breed ourselves out of existence," says Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics and history at State University of New York at Stonybrook and co-author of the study appearing in this week's Nature. "They thought we'd produce so many children, there would be no standing room left on the planet. But now it seems our population will peak.

"And that's an optimistic message."

The study is the first to pinpoint an end to the burgeoning population. The scientists estimate there is an 85 percent chance the species will taper to about 8.4 billion by the year 2100. The current world population is counted at 6.1 billion.

Previous demographic studies by the United Nations had projected higher populations of 9.32 billion by the year 2050, with no decline in growth. Part of the reason for the different predictions is the new study anticipates the number of children born per woman will go down.

mjk0259's picture

Amazing considering that most of them have AIDS. What kind of life is it to be dying of AIDS and also starving most of the time....

earleflorida's picture

you forgot to mention shit,... dumb ass

Socratic Dog's picture

I don't know whether I'm a clueless cunt, or just an ignorant prick, but....this sounds like common sense to me.  Our interests?  Well, that's why we have a government isn't it.  Seems to me that a visceral hatred for the messenger is leading to automatic dismissal of the message.

Me, I'm glad that at least one of these fuckwits running things is able to think a few things through to their logical conclusions.