Subscribe to EIR Online

This article appears in the November 2, 2018 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this article]


The World Needs More People!

This is an edited presentation by Megan Beets to the Oct. 20, 2018 Manhattan Project meeting in New York City. A video of the full meeting may be found here.

Megan Beets: On October 8 of this year, about two weeks ago, the UN’s IPCC—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—released a new report, which demands that nations cut back even more on industrialization, and that nations make even greater efforts to curb and cut population growth. This IPCC demand is premised on its fraudulent insistence that we have to limit the average rise of global temperatures not to two degrees Celsius, but to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This, as I’m going to go through, is based on a complete lie; it has nothing to do with science. You’ve all heard this claim that 99 point-something percent of scientists now agree that human beings are causing cataclysmic climate change on the planet with our greedy industrial polices—and, therefore, that we have to stop development. You’ve all heard that!

This isn’t science. Whatever those poor scientists were roped into, this has nothing to do with science. This is the policy of Empire, and I’m going to go through that today.

Why is this coming up now? Why are they so desperate? In 2016 when Donald Trump won the Presidential election, the next morning Lyndon LaRouche said:

This is not a local United States phenomenon; this is a global phenomenon. What you’re seeing are signs of breakdown of what’s been a decades-long paradigm of globalization, of geopolitics, and of empire. The empire system is crumbling.

View full size
A view of Earth taken by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft, Dec. 7, 1972.

LaRouche said we have to mobilize not just the American people, but the world’s population to bring into being a New Paradigm. We’ll talk a little bit at the end about what that should look like.

The biggest sickness that has taken over is a mentality of anti-growth, anti-development, anti-progress. That is what we have to break. This starts with crushing the brainwashing that’s taken over schools, it’s taken over TV commercials, it absolutely pervades the culture. We have to crush the idea that the world is over-populated. Not only is that not true, the world is vastly under-populated. Not just from the standpoint of what we could support given today’s level of technology, but also from the standpoint of what we as a human species need to get done over the next two generations. We don’t have enough people on Earth to do that, and we’ve got to get to work!

Does anybody know what the current world population is? It’s about 7.6 billion people. What’s the right level of population? What should the world have? Ten billion? Is that enough? Twenty?

Audience Member: You say the Earth is not over-populated, so maybe it should be at least double that?

Beets: OK, 15 billion people, something like that? Let’s take a look at what Lyndon LaRouche said would be a good starting point:

Lyndon LaRouche: [video] That is, if we were to take the attitude which the United States had under the Kennedy space program, or it was actually the Eisenhower-Kennedy space program, from about 1958 the so-called post-Sputnik program, to about 1965. If we maintain that, with policies of tax investment credits for productive investments, combined with science-enrichment programs in our schools and similar kinds of things that we did then; nothing more than that. I can assure you, that knowing what we know is important to work upon in science, in technology, knowing the kinds of projects that will best express these technological improvements. I assure you that if mankind on this planet had the political will to do that, we would increase the potential population density on this planet, at a higher standard of living, by a factor of as much as 40 over that of today. In the next three generations, by a factor of ten. By the end of two generations, we would be sustaining a potential population in the order of magnitude of 100 billion people more comfortably, much better fed, much more secure, much freer, much less crowded than today.

Beets: So, is 100 billion too much? Imagine what kind of world that implies. One hundred billion people living longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives; much less crowded, with cleaner air than what we enjoy today. What will humanity have become were we to achieve that? And is that possible?

I want to take it back to where this anti-development, anti-human, pro-colonial attitude and movement came from. What are its roots? Does anybody know what the problem was that the British faced when World War II was drawing to a close? What was their biggest fear? Anybody know?

Audience Member: That they were taken over by the U.S. Empire.

Beets: Yes! Throughout the course of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt made it clear to Winston Churchill, that after the war, the post-war system would not be a reconstruction of colonialism. Now, Roosevelt died at the end of the war, but that was the fear; that the post-war system was going to be a modern system of nation-states where the people in the nation were allowed to use their own resources for their own development. And that every person in the world should enjoy a high and equal standard of living; the highest possible standard of living. This terrified the British Empire.

View full size
Julian Huxley

British Eugenics

After the war, an ideology was developed, supported, and peddled by the British—one that had earlier been put on grand display by Hitler in the genocidal policies carried out by the Nazi regime—namely, the ideology of eugenics. Race “science.” Culling the herd to produce the “master race” of humanity. This was a creation of the British. This became a little bit of an unpopular idea, following what happened in Germany in World War II. So, the British got to work, and they rebranded eugenics as “ecology” and “conservationism.” One of the founders of the ecology movement was Julian Huxley. I want to read a quote of Julian Huxley. Huxley was the first chairman of UNESCO—the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. In its 1946 founding document, Huxley wrote:

Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake, so that much that what now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.

Two years later, in the launching of the ecology and conservation movement, Huxley wrote: “The spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species.”

There’s a lot to say about Huxley which we don’t have time for, but in the 1930s, Huxley helped found an organization in Britain called Political and Economic Planning (PEP), which promoted the kind of fascist economic policies that were taken up by Mussolini. Huxley also worked with the British Eugenics Society, of which he was both a member and later the head, to found two organizations in Britain—the Population Policy Committee and the Royal Commission on Population, both of which produced studies about the horrible effects of population growth on resources.

View full size
Bertrand Russell

Another great proponent of the “ecology” movement was Lord Bertrand Russell. Let’s take a look at what Russell thought about the human species. In 1951, he wrote a book called The Impact of Science on Society, in which he said:

Bad times, you may say, are exceptional and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. . . . War . . . has hitherto been disappointing in this respect . . . but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. . . . The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.

This is not an uncommon attitude. You find the exact same genocidal desire expressed, for example, by the Royal Consort, Prince Philip, who expressed his wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus so that he could contribute something to solving over-population. This is a genocide policy; no question about it.

Royal Game Preserves and Depopulation

In 1960, Huxley traveled—when he was in his sixties—throughout Africa for several months. Upon his return, Huxley wrote a number of articles which basically said that these newly independent African nations cannot be trusted with the protection of natural spaces and endangered species. Therefore, we must have an international body which can take stewardship of these lands.

He followed up on that, and in 1961, Huxley—along with Prince Philip and Max Nicholson, who was the head of the Queen’s Privy Council—founded the World Wildlife Fund. Incidentally, Prince Philip was not the first head of the World Wildlife Fund. In order to make it appear a bit distant from the British Royal family, they asked Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to be the first head of the World Wildlife Fund. Unfortunately, Prince Bernhard was a former card-carrying Nazi, who signed his Nazi Party resignation letter with “Heil Hitler!” But that’s the pedigree of this thing. So, the World Wildlife Fund was founded in 1961 by eugenics supporters and former Nazis.

View full size
Duke of Edinburgh Prince Philip (left) and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in Amsterdam, Netherlands, in 1967.

I want to read a quote from Max Nicholson. It’s important, but also for what happens at the end; because that will give you some perspective on what we are being subjected to today. So, Nicholson, co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund, said:

We should perhaps look back as far as the Reformation and the Renaissance for a comparable general disintegration of long settled values and patterns through the impact of new outlooks and new ideas. [Just to be clear, the long settled values and patterns he seeks to disrupt are the idea that man is a co-creator, the idea that human beings are good, and the idea that human progress is good. —MB]

The message and beliefs will be a kind of seismic upheaval which is bound to leave in its train heaps of intellectual and ethical rubble. Seismic seems the right word because the emotional force and intensity behind the idea of conservation is as important as its intellectual power.

So, whipping people up is as important, or even more important, than telling the truth in this matter.

By the mid-1990s, the World Wildlife Fund had gained control of nearly 2 million square kilometers of land in Africa. That’s about 8 percent of the entire African continent!—which was cordoned off and turned into wildlife preserves, denying all access to those nations for the development of their people. The World Wildlife Fund has not just done this on the continent of Africa; it’s done this in Central America, in South America, in South Asia. A good example is the Darién Gap, which is the connection point between the North American and South American continents, which to this day has no transportation link across it—to this day. The reason is, it’s a giant nature preserve of the WWF.

That was 1961. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, in the wake of the trauma from the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the ramping up of the Vietnam War, there was a full-on onslaught against the developing nations. For example, in 1962, you had the publication of a seminal work called Silent Spring. Has anybody heard of this? Silent Spring was a book by Rachel Carson, which claimed that human beings are poisoning the planet.

Case in point: DDT, which is the most effective pesticide against mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Carson claimed that DDT was thinning the eggshells of birds, and therefore must be banned. This claim was based on scientific experiments which were very quickly redone and all proven to be false. Yet, DDT to this day is banned. The banning of DDT has led to at least, conservatively, the unnecessary deaths of 70 million people from malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. This was a genocide policy, a depopulation policy. So, that was 1962.

In 1968, an organization was founded called the Club of Rome, which the LaRouche organization has a great history of denouncing and fighting against. In 1972, the Club of Rome put out a book called The Limits to Growth, which we countered with a book called There Are No Limits to Growth. In 1982 Helga LaRouche founded the Club of Life in direct opposition to the anti-human outlook of the Club of Rome.

Mass Murder Becomes Policy

In 1991 the Club of Rome issued a book, The First Global Revolution, written by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, which outrageously puts forth:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. . . . But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

In 1970, the former Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard helped found the 1001 Club, which was an association of 1001 representatives of the top oligarchical families and moneyed interests. The 1001 Club provided a multimillion-dollar per annum war chest for the WWF, to ensure that the funds would be there to spread this depopulation policy around the world. This is the process that created and funded the environmentalist movement. It was entirely—from the beginning—the spawn of the British Royal Family, former Nazis, and top oligarchical families. The year 1970 also saw the first Earth Day, and it was also around this time that it was decided that the last three Apollo missions, Apollo 18, 19, and 20, would be cancelled—and that Apollo 17 in 1972 would be the last time that mankind would walk on the Moon.

In 1974, Henry Kissinger, as Secretary of State, published National Security Study Memorandum 200. NSSM-200 declares:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. 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. . . .

Now this document goes on to name 13 specific countries that are projected to be responsible for 45 percent of the population growth over the next decades, all of whom should be targeted for depopulation; including by policies to reduce birth rates and promote abortions, as well as the deliberate covert diverting of food aid. Around this time, by the mid-1970s, the UN was sponsoring a series of conferences on population.

The World Population Conference held in Bucharest in 1974 became famous. It was headed by gems such as anthropologist Margaret Mead, and it was intervened on by Helga LaRouche, who at the time was Helga Zepp. She challenged the idea that humans are a cancer on the planet, and by putting forward our plan for nuclear power she showed how you could develop the world and support billions and billions of people. Helga was famously chased around the room by Margaret Mead with her big staff!

View full size
RDB/ATP/Donald Stampfli
President of the WWF Prince Philip visiting WWF offices in Morge, Switzerland in 1965.

Genocide by Any Other Name . . .

It was this oligarchical process which launched the term “sustainable development.” One individual who spoke openly was Paul Ehrlich, who wrote a book called The Population Bomb. In that book he advocated using targeted food scarcity as a way of controlling the population. Ehrlich had a protégé named John Holdren. Does anybody remember the name John Holdren? John Holdren was the science advisor to Barack Obama. Another individual from this grouping was John Schellnhuber, who is currently an advisor to the German government on climate matters and energy matters. Schellnhuber was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 2004 when she visited Berlin. He is also an advisor to the Vatican, and he is responsible for the Satanic papal encyclical that came out in 2015 called Laudato Sí, which suggested that human beings are burdening Mother Earth with our activity.

In 2009 at the Copenhagen climate conference, Schellnhuber famously said that we now know for sure that the carrying capacity of the planet,—remember, we were just talking about 100 billion people—and Schellnhuber said the carrying capacity of the planet is now known to be less than 1 billion people. So, how do you suggest taking a population of 7.5 billion people and reducing it by 7 billion? How do you do that? How would Bertrand Russell do that?

This is the process, this is the money, and these are the people that produced the IPCC, which was founded in 1988. The goal of the IPCC was to induce nations to sign binding agreements to limit their development, limit the use of their resources, and limit their industrialization based on lies about carbon dioxide and climate change. Since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1994, which produced the infamous Kyoto Protocol, there have been attempts to force nations to sign binding agreements for these limits—to give up their right to develop—which nations like the United States have refused to sign. That’s what this recent IPCC report comes out of, which is a follow-up to the failed 2015 Paris climate meeting, which also failed to get the kind of binding agreements they’ve been going for two decades now.

When you hear in the media, or you read in a news article that “99 point something percent of scientists agree”; when you see articles that say, as I did the other day, that it’s now certain that human beings will make almost all mammalian species go extinct and they won’t recover for 3 million years; or, you see these alarmist and emotionally charged reports that we’re destroying the planet. This is not science! This is population control! This is a dying, desperate empire desperately trying to prevent the end of the colonial system.

No Limits to Human Growth

I want to return to what we heard in what Lyndon LaRouche said, because that is a statement which is based in science. We currently have the capability of raising the potential population, the carrying capacity so to speak, of our planet to 100 billion people or more. The reason we can do it is that mankind is not an animal. We have a biological organism that we all ride around in, but we’re not animals. Human beings have minds which are capable of inventing creative thoughts, creative hypotheses, generating a new thought which never existed before, some of which are discoveries of real, valid universal principles—discoveries which correspond to the way in which the universe actually works, and which give us power in and over that universe. No animal can do that.

With that in mind, take the issue of resources. The British Empire claim is that resources are limited. Take the computer models which were printed in this ridiculous book, The Limits to Growth, which has a bunch of graphs showing how food is going to decline, population is going to go up, pollution is going to go up, and you’re all going to die. These computer models linearly extrapolate current conditions—or really, manipulated views of current conditions—to have us believe that we’re consuming all the world’s resources.

But what is a resource? What defines something as a resource for human civilization? Resources aren’t fixed. What was uranium to civilization 300 years ago? Of what use was it? It was a color; it was a very nice yellow color. Resources are only fixed if you fix the level of technology. If you refuse to let society develop to the next level of technology, then yes, resources are fixed. In such a case, we will use up the available resources. Ironically, that’s the kind of situation that creates pollution. More pollution has been created by suppressing development. Unimaginable amounts of pollution have been created by suppressing development than would have been created by allowing the natural process of progress to take over.

Resources are linked to and defined by what universal principles our minds have access to—what universal principles we are applying in the form of new technologies. This occurs every time the human mind makes a leap in how we think the universe works, how we think it’s organized. For example: the revolution which created modern chemistry in the 18th and 19th centuries; the atomic revolution at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. These things define and create a new resource base that didn’t exist before. That new resource base never could have been taken into account in any computer model, even if they were honest. So, we create new resources, we create new things. This succession of resources isn’t just replacing one with another. There’s actually an ordering principle to it.

So, you see here this chart titled “Energy Density.” [Figure 1] You see on the left of this table the fuel source—a succession from wood, to coal, to petroleum, to uranium to deuterium and tritium, which are the atomic revolution with fission and fusion. And then to what we think will be matter/anti-matter reactions.

Now, how much fuel would it take to meet New York City’s electricity requirements for one year? If all of New York’s energy were supplied by burning wood, it would take 16 million tons of wood to meet that requirement every year. If it were supplied by coal, half of that, 8 million tons; by petroleum, 5 million. By uranium, if New York City were nuclear powered, it would take 55 tons of uranium. Fifty-five tons versus 8 million for coal. Fusion? Less than 1 ton.

Each new discovery gives us access to resources which are more powerful, which represent a higher level of power in the universe. It also lets us apply a higher density of power at the point of production, of power applied in industrial and other uses, and this allows us not just to do more, but to do new kinds of things, that would have been impossible before: For example, going to space.

Who thinks we could power a rocket with wood? [laughter] Or with coal? Imagine a guy shoveling coal into the back of the rocket! It’s not only a silly idea, it’s actually impossible. No matter how big a rocket you had, and no matter how many guys you hand on hand to shovel coal, it’s physically impossible. A rocket has to carry not only its own weight, but the weight of the fuel that it’s burning to get it up there.

But with chemical and then, in the future, nuclear fuel, not only can we get to space, we will be able to accelerate travel speeds to get to Mars in a matter of weeks rather than months.

With the kinds of power available to us with the atomic age, we can do other things. We can manipulate the atomic properties of matter, we can create and give matter new properties it didn’t have before, like higher degrees of strength, higher degrees of temperature resilience, more flexibility. We can lase light and use light to cut through steel. With plasma processes, we can vaporize any material down to its constituent elements.

What we are talking about, is mankind again and again creating himself on a higher level.

Building for the Future

Just to conclude, I want to take a look at the actual power requirements of the world. We talk a lot about the fact that the world is entering a new paradigm, a post-Empire, post-colonial paradigm. We’ve been talking for decades about building the World Land-Bridge. What does it mean to build the World Land-Bridge in energy terms? We need to discuss that. We’re talking about completely eliminating poverty, relegating that to a phase of the past in mankind’s history.

Just to give you a rough idea, if we talk about energy requirements in a relatively developed country such as the United States, we have to look at watts per capita. This is primary energy consumption. This doesn’t just mean the electricity you use when you turn on the light switch. This is all of the energy that’s required per capita in society, including heating, transportation, energy to move things within the country, to power industries, to power farms, to produce electricity. If you add up the total energy requirements in the United States, and then divide it by the population size to get per capita use, it has been going up since 1775, i.e., since the American Revolution. Each person in the United States has been more and more energy intensive over time, and it’s been going up at an accelerating rate.

What you see here, [Figure 2] at least as a shadow of a certain technological progress, is that the kind of fuel that’s been supplying that energy has been changing. So, we went from being a wood-burning society for about a century, and then we started incorporating coal, which you see really took over as a proportion of the energy fuel supply; then you see we started incorporating oil and natural gas, which led to a huge rise in the energy used per capita. And then, you see this little red sliver up here, the entrance of nuclear power, in the late 1950s/early 1960s. But then, in the 1970s, the power per capita started levelling off. So, the United States has gone down. By 2010, the per-capita energy consumption has actually gone down significantly.

To give you a perspective of what could have happened, a projection was made during the JFK Administration, which said that if we kept going and incorporated nuclear power, and kept developing our industrial base, we could be going toward 16 kW/capita, which is about 50 percent higher than where we are today. So that’s going to give you an idea of what a healthy development looked like, at least reflected in energy terms.

Now, let’s now think globally: If we suppose that 50 years from now the world population has grown to about 13 billion, let’s say, nearly double, so the world has about 13 billion people. If each individual has a living standard, at least reflected in energy terms, comparable to that of the United States today, that would require increasing the energy per capita in the world, from the currently abysmally low 2.5 kW/person average, with many nations below that. The United States is at about 10 kW/person and we should be at about 15 or 20 kW/person. If we were to raise the world average to 13 kW/person, for 13 billion people that would require a tenfold increase over where we are today in total world energy consumption.

This would mean that electricity production would not only go up in absolute terms, but should go up as the proportion of energy consumed as electricity, which means you have a lot more industry in your country. We’re talking about a 15-fold increase over the current world levels of electricity consumption. That amounts to the equivalent of building 40,000 new nuclear power plants in the world over the next 50 years, just to give you some rough numbers. And these are probably low estimates.

That alone, building the equivalent of 40,000 nuclear power plants, is an industrial revolution in and of itself. But we can do that, we absolutely can do that.

Reasserting a Human Identity

Now, the question is: Why should we do that? Come back to LaRouche’s idea of 100 billion people. Do we really want that? Do we want 100 billion people on the planet, or more?

Yes, we do. The world is vastly underpopulated.

Man is the only species that can discover universal principles. When we do that, we not only improve the human species, we increase the anti-entropy; we increase the potential for the development of the universe around us. We improve the biosphere far beyond what it could achieve without us. For example, the biosphere cannot travel to the Moon without our species. Human beings can bring life to other planets.

Now, in the next century, the human species will begin to inhabit and do work on other bodies in our Solar system—the Moon and probably Mars, to start. In this process of development, we are going to encounter paradoxes in science that challenge our fundamental beliefs about how the universe works. This is going to require new hypotheses, new ideas about new physical principles that we can’t even imagine today, which are going to overturn everything in the way you think the universe works! And these discoveries will give us even higher power in and over nature.

The resource for that kind of unending process of progress, the only fixed resource in that, is the human mind. And so, it really is our job now, with the potential of this emerging new paradigm, with this Empire so exposed in the fraud of what they’ve been pushing, and so rejected by the majority of humanity at this point. We have not just a potential but the real responsibility to form a new paradigm of human progress.

And that means we have to create the potential for a lot of geniuses. And that means that we have to create the conditions now, for those geniuses to come into existence. We have to shut down this anti-people, anti-population policy; we have to reject it, and we have to get the United States to join in the intention of what China is leading with the Belt and Road Initiative—and more than that: the higher vision that the LaRouches have had for decades now, of a real, global Renaissance, the real uniting of mankind around a common mission for our common progress.

Thank you.