United Nations Fund for Population Activity

[MrktMkr1986]

What do you think it's for? The name sounds sinister -- it reminds me of eugenics and population control . I'm just curious as to what other people think of the organization. Maybe someone has a few conspiracy theories they'd might like to share.

 

[PS]

You know as well as I do that I have way too many conspiracy theories to share, but could you explain what it is exactly?

 

[dbartucci]

I think it's a fund set up to research and educate underdeveloped countries on population control. Population control meaning educating on safe-sex measures to reduce infection and unwanted pregnancy, and issues around safe medical birth deliveries. According the website the fund has already distributed $6 billion.

Also, the ads on the bottom of the screen are for the the stock market. Congrats, you got stock ads to come up. 👍

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think it's a fund set up to research and educate underdeveloped countries on population control. Population control meaning educating on safe-sex measures to reduce infection and unwanted pregnancy, and issues around safe medical birth deliveries. According the website the fund has already distributed $6 billion.

Also, the ads on the bottom of the screen are for the the stock market. Congrats, you got stock ads to come up. 👍

Some would say that "population control" serves two purposes. One to introduce safe-sex measures, reduce disease, and unwanted pregnancies as you say -- family planning they call it.

Or...

Here's a quote from Henry Kissinger in a classified report issued by the National Security Council in 1974:

1."Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World".
2. "Reduction of the rate of population in these states is a matter of vital US national security".
3. "The US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interests in the political, economic and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and the economic interest of the United States".

The National Security Council. NSSM 200 - "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security & Overseas Interests", Washington DC, the White House, December 10, 1974. Declassified July 3, 1989.

That sounded too much like a conspiracy theory to me. So I did a little more research and was able to find the ACTUAL DOCUMENT.

Here are some interesting quotes from the actual document:

The President has directed a study of the impact of world population growth on U.S. security and overseas interests. The study
should look forward at least until the year 2000, and use several
alternative reasonable projections of population growth.

In terms of each projection, the study should assess:

- the corresponding pace of development, especially in poorer
countries;

- the demand for US exports, especially of food, and the trade
problems the US may face arising from competition for resources;

- the likelihood that population growth or imbalances will
produce disruptive foreign policies and international insta-
bility.

The study should focus on the international political and economic
implications of population growth rather than its ecological, socio-
logical or other aspects.

The study would then offer possible courses of action for the United
States in dealing with population matters abroad, particularly in
developing countries, with special attention to these questions:

- What, if any, new initiatives by the United States are needed
to focus international attention on the population problem?

- Can technological innovations or development reduce
growth or ameliorate its effects?

- Could the United States improve its assistance in the popu-
lation field and if so, in what form and through which agen-
cies -- bilateral, multilateral, private?

The study should take into account the President's concern that
population policy is a human concern intimately related to the
dignity of the individual and the objective of the United States is to
work closely with others, rather than seek to impose our views on
others. {BS, in my opinion... }

The President has directed that the study be accomplished by the
NSC Under Secretaries Committee. The Chairman, Under Secre-
taries Committee, is requested to forward the study together with
the Committee's action recommendations no later than May 29,
1974 for consideration by the President.

HENRY A. KISSINGER <<<

Lots more to come later...

 

[Joey D]

I don't know what to make of this really, from what I can read is that they are trying to inact planed parenthood, however the document suggests other wise.

From what I can read that Kissinger guy appears to be off his rocker, but I will need to read more into the situation before I can make a logical opinion on it.

 

[dbartucci]

Dr. Henrey Kissinger was sec. of state for Nixon, I belive. A staunch proponent of realism (in the arena of Int'l politics).


I think you're stretching too much to link a document from 1974 with a UN agency that tells people about condoms.*

*I know I'm over-simplifying the role of the UN org.

Teaching other countries to control their populations isn't just a foreign policy objective, it's common sense. If a given country suffers from things like food shortages it's logical that the government take steps to control the population to prevent things like starvation. If you consider Malthusian theory to be the result in the abscence of such domestic policy it's clear that a government program to target unwanted pregnancies is a better choice.

The need of this UN organization stems from 1. the lack of money to spend on such programs for those countries in need. 2. the lack of acceptance for these kinds of policies by governments. 3. lack of resources to make family planning goods available. It's one thing to want condoms available in remote tribal villages, but someone has to pay for them, and someone has to provide them.

This organization attempts to address all 3 concerns.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think you're stretching too much to link a document from 1974 with a UN agency that tells people about condoms.

Is that really all you got out of it? Look at the "bigger" picture...

 

[dbartucci]

Is that really all you got out of it? Look at the "bigger" picture...

I edited my post

 

[Joey D]

To tell you the truth the more I read about it, it almost sounds like Kissinger is saying that thrid world nations are inferior to America and they must be stopped. In away it sounds like Hitler. I might not be reading into it right though.

 

[dbartucci]

I believe it is the job of the sec. of state to plan for anything and everything that might be a foreign policy issue. Hence, the plans at the state dept. to attack Cuba, Iran, N. Korea, etc. It's better to plan for things now, then get caught flat-footed later. Just because plans have been made does not mean they are ever intended to be used.

Also Dr. Kissinger was the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 1973.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

To tell you the truth the more I read about it, it almost sounds like Kissinger is saying that thrid world nations are inferior to America and they must be stopped. In away it sounds like Hitler. I might not be reading into it right though.

Sounds strikingly similar to eugenics, doesn't it.

Another quote:

The U.S. strategy should be to encourage and support, through bilateral, multilateral and other channels, constructive action to lower fertility rates in selected developing countries. The U.S. should apply each of the relevant provisions of its World Population Plan of Action and use it to influence and support actions by developing countries.

 

[dbartucci]

Eugenics is about "improvement" of the human race through controlled selective breeding, this is about US security interests vis a vie underdeveloped countries population expansion just after the US went to "war" in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in such underdeveloped nations.

 

[Joey D]

Sounds strikingly similar to eugenics, doesn't it.

Yes it sounds just like it. And for those who don't know what eugenics is, I have provided a definition.

Eugenics

Eugenics is about "improvement" of the human race through controlled selective breeding, this is about US security interests vis a vie underdeveloped countries population expansion just after the US went to "war" in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in such underdeveloped nations.

I still think it reminds me of eugenics, maybe not blantly but it has the under lying message.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Eugenics is about "improvement" of the human race through controlled selective breeding, this is about US security interests vis a vie underdeveloped countries population expansion just after the US went to "war" in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism in such underdeveloped nations.

I see a connection between the two. Controlling population expansion is not that much different from controlled selective breeding. If you don't want white roses to mix with red roses, eliminate most/all of the red roses.

EDIT:

The study acknowledges the fact that the purpose of population control was to serve US strategic, economic, and miliary interests at the expense of developing nations.

 

[PS]

I can see how it can be related to eugenics, but I don't see it that way. If a country is in dire need of disease/viral control, as well as in need of food, clean drinking water, etc., then then it only seems to be common sense to "educate" a country on the effects and outcomes of unprotected sex. African nations are notorious for having higher HIV concentrations, and much of that has to do with not only an opressive atmosphere, but also because condoms are rare and rape is rampant. I think the UN would be doing a good job, if they perhaps worded things differently. People's minds can wander into dangerous territory the way that was written.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Now you've done it.

I can see how it can be related to eugenics, but I don't see it that way.

Contradiction?!

If a country is in dire need of disease/viral control, as well as in need of food, clean drinking water, etc., then then it only seems to be common sense to "educate" a country on the effects and outcomes of unprotected sex.

We are not there to help them, we are there to protect our (US) own interests.

African nations are notorious for having higher HIV concentrations, and much of that has to do with not only an opressive atmosphere, but also because condoms are rare and rape is rampant.

Some would argue that AIDS orginated from top secret government projects such as MK-ULTRA and MK-NAOMI.

I think the UN would be doing a good job, if they perhaps worded things differently. People's minds can wander into dangerous territory the way that was written.

Perhaps it was written that way because that's the way it was intended to be worded.

 

[PS]

Now you've done it.



Contradiction?!



We are not there to help them, we are there to protect our (US) own interests.



Some would argue that AIDS orginated from top secret government projects such as MK-ULTRA and MK-NAOMI.



Perhaps it was written that way because that's the way it was intended to be worded.

I don't see how it could possibly be an evil form of eugenics- preventing AIDS/HIV from spreading is 100% logical. Noone should ever be subjected to AIDS/HIV, and it has been around long before the American Government. Whether or not it's to protect U.S. (not "our") interests is irrelevant to me, as long as they're not harming another country's people or economy (willfully), then I'm fine. And doing something which directly affects their quality of life (such as eliminating AIDS/HIV) in a positive way is a good thing in my book.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I don't see how it could possibly be an evil form of eugenics-

You're only looking at it from one perspective.

preventing AIDS/HIV from spreading is 100% logical.

Of course it is, but how did it come about to begin with?

Noone should ever be subjected to AIDS/HIV, and it has been around long before the American Government.

Says who?

And doing something which directly affects their quality of life (such as eliminating AIDS/HIV) in a positive way is a good thing in my book.

That's not what this is all about. There's more going to population control that just "AIDS/HIV".

 

[PS]

Of course it is, but how did it come about to begin with?

It jumped over to humans from chimpanee's in the late 1600's.

Says who?

thinkquest.org

That's not what this is all about. There's more going to population control that just "AIDS/HIV".

Of course, but I don't see why the U.S. gains from it. And didn't this end in 2000?

 

[dbartucci]

How did this thread go from a UN org distributes money to states who are unwilling or unable to spend the resources on family planning and STI control to the US government has a secret agenda to depopulate LDCs, using subversive eugenics tactics, and steal all their resources???

Also, I'm still not convinced this isn't just a state dept. plan to address a given problem, or potential problem. Whenever one of these plans comes out everyone seems to forget this is what they do there - plan for everything, and begins talking about conspiracies by the gov't to invade X, assassinate Y.

On the topic of US protecting their interests and not being altruistic in concern for the problems of LDCs, all I can say is yes. In the era following Vietnam, there was still a great concern for the spread of communism. It was believed then, as it is now for terrorism, that communism would pop up in any region that's unstable. This instability could come from food shortages and famines, high unemployment, poverty, and incidence of disease that undermines the ability of an economy to be productive. Disease affects productivity in mortalities (reduced working years, lost income, lost family providers) and morbidity (sick days, time off tending to sick family members, quality adjusted years of life affecting productivity) advanced HIV and AIDS render work nearly impossible. As well, as PS has pointed out, sub-Saharan Africa suffers tremendously from HIV/AIDS infections. This has left children orphans, placed strain on family units to care for the children of deceased parents, and has cut down on productivity tremendously. Rumours of cures for HIV (that I'm not going to mention on the boards) and denial by governments propagated this problem until it has reached pandemic levels - and now it may be too late. How can an economy rebound when over 40% of the population has HIV/AIDS, even higher for those under 30, how can it compete when avg. life expectancy has decreased in the past 10 years?

Many studies have shown that global food stocks are sufficient to sustain the world, but the problem is distribution. People starve in Africa and India while over 30% of kids in North America are obese. One way to address this problem is to cut down the number of births in poorer countries, a sort of "don't have kids you can't afford to raise or feed" argument. This is by no means the dominant or only solution to that multi-faceted issue.

Many of the goals you've highlighted in red are still objectives of the state dept. http://www.state.gov/m/rm/rls/dosstrat/2004/23503.htm

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It jumped over to humans from chimpanee's in the late 1600's.


thinkquest.org

Wrong. At least for humans anyway.

Studies suggest that the virus spread initially in West Africa, but it is possible that there were several separate initial sources, corresponding to the different strains of HIV (HIV-1 and HIV-2). The earliest human fluid sample known to contain HIV was taken in 1959 from a British sailor, who apparently contracted it in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Other early samples include one from an American male who died in 1969, and a Norwegian sailor in 1976. The earliest documented western death from AIDS was Dr. Grethe Rask, a Danish surgeon, who worked in the Congo in the early 1970s.

The controversial OPV AIDS hypothesis argues that the origin of AIDS is the oral polio vaccination programme in Africa during the late 1950s. The first cases of AIDS were discovered in gay men in New York and San Francisco in the late 1970s.

Of course, but I don't see why the U.S. gains from it.

$$$ Or as David put it...

the US government has a secret agenda to depopulate LDCs, using subversive eugenics tactics, and steal all their resources

I never mentioned anything before about stealing resources, but now that you mention, it makes even more sense. 💡

And didn't this end in 2000?

No, it's an ongoing process.

How did this thread go from a UN org distributes money to states who are unwilling or unable to spend the resources on family planning and STI control to the US government has a secret agenda to depopulate LDCs, using subversive eugenics tactics, and steal all their resources???

I'm not saying that the highlighted portion is mutually exclusive.

Also, I'm still not convinced this isn't just a state dept. plan to address a given problem, or potential problem. Whenever one of these plans comes out everyone seems to forget this is what they do there - plan for everything, and begins talking about conspiracies by the gov't to invade X, assassinate Y.

The very beginning of the document clearly states that the State Dept. is doing this to protect US economic interests. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy, but I'm not so naive as to think that good ol' benevolent USA feels the need to go into other countries and "control" the population just because it's "the right thing to do."

On the topic of US protecting their interests and not being altruistic in concern for the problems of LDCs, all I can say is yes.

At least we're on the same wavelength here.

Many studies have shown that global food stocks are sufficient to sustain the world, but the problem is distribution.

I wonder why that is... actually, I explained why in my American foreign policy essay.

People starve in Africa and India while over 30% of kids in North America are obese.

Yet there is enough food in the world for everyone...

One way to address this problem is to cut down the number of births in poorer countries, a sort of "don't have kids you can't afford to raise or feed" argument.

What if these poorer countries don't want to limit their population? Here's a situation I'm sure proponents of this policy didn't think of:

A farmer and his wife have 8 children. These children grow up to work on the farm in order to produce their own goods not only for themselves, but to sell to others. PROBLEM SOLVED.

This is by no means the dominant or only solution to that multi-faceted issue.

I sure as hell hope not.

 

[Joey D]

It jumped over to humans from chimpanee's in the late 1600's.

Nope AIDS first came about in the early 80's and it was mostly found in homosexual men. It was originally called GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). HIV sprung up in the late 50's from British sailors in the Congo. The first case in the civilized west was Dr. Grethe Rask a Danish doctor.


Anyways this sounds like a way of population control, and allow me to jump into conspericy theory mode for a second. What if the United States planeted the AIDS and HIV virus in Africa to kill off, what we thought at the time were heathens. Africa is chocked full of resources including diamond and gold deposites. If we could successfully kill off the population of a continate, we could swoop in (or Europe for that matter) and rape it of it's natural resources. In the late 70's we were at a natural resource scare, weren't we?

However the plan backfired and got back into America, now we feel guilty and we are trying to solve the problem through birth control and safe sex, hoping the rid the world of a horriable mistake.

Is this theory right? Probably not, but it makes you think doesn't it?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Nope AIDS first came about in the early 80's and it was mostly found in homosexual men. It was originally called GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). HIV sprung up in the late 50's from British sailors in the Congo. The first case in the civilized west was Dr. Grethe Rask a Danish doctor.

Excellent. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Anyways this sounds like a way of population control, and allow me to jump into conspericy theory mode for a second. What if the United States planeted the AIDS and HIV virus in Africa to kill off, what we thought at the time were heathens. Africa is chocked full of resources including diamond and gold deposites. If we could successfully kill off the population of a continate, we could swoop in (or Europe for that matter) and rape it of it's natural resources.

You've just described imperialism. I argued that "neo-imperialism", a modern (more civilized form of imperialism) is the basis of much of the United States' foreign policy.

In the late 70's we were at a natural resource scare, weren't we?

If I remember correctly yes. If you were referring specifically to oil, that was a "fake" oil shortage -- oil companies collectively raised prices in the late 70s.

However the plan backfired and got back into America, now we feel guilty and we are trying to solve the problem through birth control and safe sex, hoping the rid the world of a horriable mistake.

That's a viable possibility, but again, it does NOT have to be mutually exclusive.

Is this theory right? Probably not, but it makes you think doesn't it?

Certainly does make you think.

 

[Joey D]

You've just described imperialism. I argued that "neo-imperialism", a modern (more civilized form of imperialism) is the basis of much of the United States' foreign policy.

I would have to agree with you on this one as well. It does make sense.

If I remember correctly yes. If you were referring specifically to oil, that was a "fake" oil shortage -- oil companies collectively raised prices in the late 70s.

I know all about the gas price thing, it's the same thing right now. But people got on their save the planet trip, we are using to much and wasting energy. The whole Earth Day thing, just a Liberal Tree Hugging Society at the time (Not saying it's bad).

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I know all about the gas price thing, it's the same thing right now. But people got on their save the planet trip, we are using to much and wasting energy. The whole Earth Day thing, just a Liberal Tree Hugging Society at the time (Not saying it's bad).

Most definitely.

 

[VIPFREAK]

I didn't know where to start but looking at the "bigger" picture obviously there's a reason for illnesses, diease and death. If you think about other animals in nature there's a reason the strong ones live and the others die. We humans are always trying to prevent this, by finding cures and trying to make EVERYONE that is created live. If you think about that (as harsh or cold hearted as this sound) no wonder we have so many ways we die. It is "nature's" way of trying to balance out us humans since we are doing what I believe like in the original Matrix film which goes...

Agent Smith - "I've had a revelation, unlike other species that adapt to their habitat you are like a parasite. You take over one area and grow, grow till there's nothing left. And then you spread."

So, with that said yes knowledge is power in terms of making people more aware and responsible can reduce the growth of the population but probably not enough to make a dent.

I also, believe that besides "nature" trying to "balance" us out we do it ourselves as well... How you say? Well, again as heartless and this sounds through War, Accidents and Natural Disasters.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I didn't know where to start but looking at the "bigger" picture obviously there's a reason for illnesses, diease and death. If you think about other animals in nature there's a reason the strong ones live and the others die. We humans are always trying to prevent this, by finding cures and trying to make EVERYONE that is created live. If you think about that (as harsh or cold hearted as this sound) no wonder we have so many ways we die. It is "nature's" way of trying to balance out us humans since we are doing what I believe like in the original Matrix film which goes...

Agent Smith - "I've had a revelation, unlike other species that adapt to their habitat you are like a parasite. You take over one area and grow, grow till there's nothing left. And then you spread."

So, with that said yes knowledge is power in terms of making people more aware and responsible can reduce the growth of the population but probably not enough to make a dent.

I also, believe that besides "nature" trying to "balance" us out we do it ourselves as well... How you say? Well, again as heartless and this sounds through War, Accidents and Natural Disasters.

Interesting perspective.

From my POV, I would rather war, accidents, and natural disasters determine the fate of the world population, not the United States government (or ANY gov't for that matter.)

 

[VIPFREAK]

Interesting perspective.

From my POV, I would rather war, accidents, and natural disasters determine the fate of the world population, not the United States government (or ANY gov't for that matter.)

AMEN to that... although at least for war (for obvious reasons) that's not true.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

AMEN to that... although at least for war (for obvious reasons) that's not true.

I'm not sure I get that last bit? How could the same not be said for war?

 

[dbartucci]

See Malthus re: famine, disease, war.

As a student of international relations you must be familiar with Hans Morgenthau, realism, and hegemonic stability theory. There's no question in the 1970's there were 2 superpowers sitting uneasily, trying to exert power in their sphere of influence. It should come as no surprise that the US was seeking to protect its interests globally against Soviet threats. The US further sought to make gains at the expense of the developing world (not unlike everyother "empire" to come before it). Surely you are also familiar with a cob-webb model and core-periphery interdependence. The 1970's were a time when realism dominated. "Big countries threaten little countries and take their stuff" style diplomacy.

I contend that's all the document you've provided is.