Text of Emails (2005) re "Plutopianism"

From: "David Virgil Hobbs" <vincemoon@rcn.com>
To: "Tim Bolen" <jurimed2@yahoo.com>
Subject: Is the US so different from other nations that we have to adopt a unique libertarian-type approach to economic and health care problems?
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:22:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0065_01C5C494.444A2180";
type="multipart/alternative"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670

In the end we have to face the fact that misanthropic tendencies have been unleashed in the world due to the high level of population growth caused by public health and agricultural improvements. I have dreamt up a way to deal with this kind of misanthropism, which I call "plutopianism". The Plutopian society agrees to give women the basics of live in exchange for a given level of service and the women agreeing to limit the number of children they have to a given level. In the Plutopian society, women have to buy licenses in order to have more children than the general limit. The wild tiger in the human race so to speak is preserved against overcivilization by placing no limits on how many children men have (then you have the fact that practically speaking it is easier to tell how many kids a woman has had than how many kids a man has fathered).

I wonder, are there alternatives that are better than Plutopianism? Do the actual and possible negatives of Plutopianism outweigh the positives?

From: "David Virgil Hobbs" <vincemoon@rcn.com>
To: "World Social Forum" <fsmci@forumsocialmundial.org.br>
Subject: The solution to the world's socio-economic crisis -- as I now see it
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:53:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C506D3.215EBC50"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180

world social forum:

I read about how you have put together an event meant to balance out the "World Economic Forum" attended by corporate leaders.

Right now my idea re the problems of the world, is that the population of the world needs to be managed in a way that corresponds to whatever the truth is regarding the maximum number of persons the world can sustain without doing serious damage to itself and turning the world into a disaster area for the vast majority of the world's people.

There is disagreement regarding what this maximum sustainable level is. Depending on the maximum sustainable population the world is able to sustain, the population (as I see the issue now) should be managed according to the following "Plutopian" (name I coined) formula: With Y being greater than X, and Z representing the maximum sustainable population in the world, women who get assistance from the state agree to limit themselves to X number of children, women in general are limited to Y number of children, and women who want to have more than Y number of children have to buy licenses from the state in order to do so, the levels X and Y are set at depending on Z.

My current state of mind, is to fear what the result could be, if an elite were to conclude that its own prosperity and survival depended on eliminating a large proportion of mankind, due to the planet earth's ecological inability to sustain a given population level.

I can see how population increase pressures could grow to the point where these pressures create cataclysms as a result of which the number of persons who end up being born is actually less than it would have been without these population increase pressures. I can see how these population pressures could have an adverse effect on the so-called genetic quality of those who are born, the quality of the environment they are raised in, and the quality of their lives.

From: "David Virgil Hobbs" <vincemoon@rcn.com>
To: "Chatham House" <chairman@chathamhouse.org.uk>
Cc: "blogger.com post by mail" <bloggmoon.mail@blogger.com>
Subject: population redux alternatives; failures of population redux enthusiasts
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:21:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C4FA01.4A18FF40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180

Rumor has it, that you at are the nexus of a secret clique dedicated to cutting the world's population by 85%. Either that, or you are the most powerful institute in the world.

I could see a certain logic, in a world elite taking drastic steps to reduce the world's population, if the alternative was the elite and most of the rest of the world being wiped out due to the overpopulation-triggered breakdown of the planet's ecology.

But there are differences of opinion as to what level of world population the world can sustain without bringing the elite in the world and or most of the world destruction due to ecological differences. I wonder, can you at Chatham House point me to a competent summary re the different estimates in this matter?

Suppose the truth was that if there are more than 10 billion people in the world, the damage to the ecosystem will screw up the elite and most of the planet.

In that event, it could be unnecessary and counterproductive to attempt draconian measures such as massive disease induced exterminations.

Take for example a hypothetical society, "PLutopia", in which women recieving X level of assistance agree to limit themselves to having one child only. As a result, 33 percent of women in Plutopia, the Plutopian proletariat, have one child. In Plutopia, if a woman wants to have more than three children, she has to buy a license to do so from the state. In Plutopia, one percent of women, the Plutonian elite, have an average of 5 children each. In Plutopia, the remaining 66 percent of women, the Plutonian volk, content themselves with having 2.4 children each, many stopping at two due to the operation they have to undergo if they have 3 children. Guess what? in Plutonia, the average woman has 2.0 children, the (not counting ever-lengthening life-spans) zero population growth level.

Perhaps the problem with certain who consider themselves to be cleverly playing an active role in reducing the world's population, is that they end up succeeding in reducing the population of their own nations, cultures, backgrounds, and races, while they fail to reduce the population of foreign nations cultures backgrounds and races. They pretend that they have the power to accomplish such reductions in groups that are in various ways foreign, when in reality they do not. What they end up succeeding in doing, is not, grandly reducing the world's population in an across the board type of way, but, rather, turning their own peoples into slaves and extermination victims.

Thus they are in reality not an ecosystem serving world population reduction angel, but rather an agent of the enlavement and extermination of their own peoples. Why are they such? All deep hyper-complex psychological and other analyses aside, could it be, because of human fear, the fear of death, the fear of pain, the fear of death or pain visiting themselves upon their families? Might it be, because of an individualist selfishness and cowardice, that is characteristic of certain elites and commoners? Could it be their philosophy is simply: 'let me play the part of a charming traitor who charms his people while betraying it. Then if my people is victorious, I will find safety, and, then, also, if my people is vanquished I will find safety with the enemy'.

Might such elites be a living refutation of Adam Smith's thesis that the natural selfishness of man produces in man patriotism, because, man, through his natural selfishness, naturally keeps the factors of production he owns, close to his own home and people and nation?

The Harlot Rahab aside, could it be, that mankind is right to fear and despise the traitor, since the traitor goes together with the sinner like a hand and glove, because most of a sinner's sins are committed against the sinner's own people, and likwise the traitor betrays his own people?

C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Administrator\Desktop\JAN05NOTES.txt

Desktop: All - 0 emails - 1 file - 0 chats - 0 web history

1-1 of 1 (0.01s)

Sort by relevance Sorted by date

JAN05NOTES.txt
level of assistance agree to limit themselves to having one child only. As a result, 33 percent of women in Plutopia, the Plutopian proletariat, have one child. In Plutopia
Desktop\JAN05NOTES.txt - 110 cached - Feb 18

This is the jan 14 email text, it was once in the text document, when the text document was indexed but it is not now in the text document. The incredible google desktop search has a cache of the text document for many different times in the past and so it shows up because in one of the caches it was in the text document.

@2005 David Virgil Hobbs