Apparently We Need Porn Filters To Safeguard The Healthy Erections Of Young Men

from the r/nofap-greets-editorial-with-one-handed-round-of-applause dept

The UK’s porn filters are working well, at least according to those in favor of internet filtering. In real life, it’s easily circumvented, generates false positives and soothes the frayed nerves of “for the children” legislative busybodies by giving them a false sense of control.

So, of course, someone in Canada thinks it’s a great idea. Leah McLaren, novelist, columnist and “gold National Magazine Award winner” advocates for porn filters — not just “for the children” — but for all the erectile dysfunctional adults of the nation.

An opening anecdote details the porn-fueled formative years of Gabe Deem — now a youth counselor who runs “reboot” programs for other porn-addled teens. This recounting concludes with the following paragraph:

“Ultimately it desensitized me and rewired my brain to my computer screen to the point where, in real life, I couldn’t feel anything in an intimate situation,” he said in an interview. “My generation was told growing up that porn was cool because it was ‘sex positive.’ But what can be more ‘sex negative’ than being unable to perform in bed?”

Deem did what any concerned young adult would in his situation: he self-diagnosed.

He Googled his symptoms and found a name for the condition: Porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

I Googled it, too. And got some dubious results.

The first six hits lead to sites dealing with Gabe Deem’s “reboot” plan to de-pornify (including Deem’s own site) and one Men’s Journal article. This article links back to a now-deleted blog post once hosted by Psychology Today. In fact, the entire blog (“Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow”) has been removed from the site. The blog post [archive.org link], “Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunction: A Growing Problem,” cites a few studies from European nations and… multiple links to Gabe Deem’s blog, Your Brain on Porn.

The first real hit is a link to another article hosted at Psychology Today — this one debunking the myth that porn can “induce” erectile dysfunction. This one is written by Dr. David Ley, a clinical psychologist. The other one? By Marnia Robinson, whose bio can speak for itself [another archive.org link since not even her bio survives at Psychology Today].

[A] former corporate attorney with degrees from Brown and Yale who writes books about the unwelcome effects of evolutionary biology on intimate relationships and the striking parallels between recent scientific discoveries and traditional sacred-sex texts…

So, on one hand, we have a closed, self-sustaining ecosystem promoting the idea that porn use can create erectile dysfunction. On the other hand, we have actual psychology. This is McLaren’s opening salvo, the one supposed to sway the uncertain onto her side of the issue — and one that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

But it gets worse.

Porn-induced erectile dysfunction is now well documented by the mainstream medical community.

No, it actually isn’t. Pull a Deem and Google it, McLaren. And, of course, McLaren provides no supporting links. But her next sentence tops everything preceding it, making skeptics’ cries of “citation, please!” possibly the most inadvertently satisfying words ever spoken.

Dr. Oz devoted a show to the topic last year, and just a few months ago, researchers at Cambridge University found that porn addicts’ brains have similar responses to pleasure cues as the brains of alcoholics or drug addicts.

If you’re citing Dr. Oz on behalf of your argument, you’ve already lost. Mehmet Oz’s long, terrible decline into talk show guest spot quackery has been well documented. Oz now throws the weight of his Ph.D behind homeopathy, faith healing and Reiki energy therapy.

And as for the research, it only points to addicts’ addictions triggering the similar pleasurable responses. Almost anything can be consumed up to the point that it becomes “too much of a good thing,” but that’s no reason to demand the proprietor (such as it were) control the end user’s actions. But that’s what McLaren does.

First, she offers up her own comparably pristine past as a shocking contrast to today’s routine debasement.

While my generation learned to do sex by reading the dirty bits of Sweet Valley High novels and fumbling around sweatily in our parent’s basements, this generation will have learned to do sex by watching semi-violent six-ways involving hairy men and vajazzled strippers squealing on dirty linoleum floors.

Look at the language McLaren uses. There’s more to her advocacy than a concern for the young men and women of the world. Her sense of shame has been violated by proxy and she’s projecting it all over the Globe and Mail’s editorial pages. “Hairy.” “Dirty.” “Squealing.” “Six-ways.” [??]

That’s followed by this sentence, which is extremely jarring in its cognizant dissonance.

[T]he solution is surprisingly simple: The Internet is public space and we need to police it. We built it. We own it. It’s where we live and where our kids are growing up. We should be applying the same standards of decency to the Internet as we do anywhere else.

This sounds like a plea for personal responsibility and more attentive parenting. It’s your house and your internet. Police it as you see fit. Use any number of third-party products to filter content if you need to (not that they’ll work any better than those pushed by governments). Apply your preferred “standards of decency” to your actions and those of your children.

That’s what it sounds like. But it isn’t.

No, this problem can’t be solved by personal actions. It needs to be forced on those who provide the connection. By the government.

In the U.K., Prime Minister David Cameron recently strong-armed the major Internet service providers into applying automatic porn filters to all mobile and broadband connections in the country… The service providers resisted heavily at first, claiming such controls were a matter of parental responsibility and tantamount to censorship, but after the government made it clear it would legislate if necessary, the ISPs relented. Unsurprisingly, the move has proved hugely popular, particularly among parents.

First, she presents the ISPs “relenting” as if it were some sort of equitable compromise rather than the only response that would prevent further government meddling. What was “strong-armed” into place was preferable to the amount of damage that could conceivably be done by a handful of legislators operating under the influence of moral panic.

Second, it is not hugely popular. It just is. The “mandatory” is always more “popular” than the truly optional. Add to this the additonal (if minor) hurdle of opting out of “voluntary” internet filtering. When you make something “opt out,” most people will take the path of least resistance and go with the pre-selected choice: “opt in.” Something strong-armed into pseudo-policy by a determined government is never “popular.” It takes a very special kind of mind (and predisposition) to portray it that way.

McLaren wraps up her post by strongly suggesting Canadian ISPs be given the same mandate: filter or else. Make Canada every bit as ineffectively censorious as the UK, because Mehmet Oz, “porn-induced erectile dysfunction” internet circle jerks, and the “pornification of our children” demand it. (Yes. Actual quote.) But also do it to rid McLaren’s Canada of the ultimate, unspeakable obscenities: “dirty floors,” “hairy men” and “squealing porn stars.”

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Apparently We Need Porn Filters To Safeguard The Healthy Erections Of Young Men”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
75 Comments
AricTheRed says:

Re: Re: Re: The Real Cause Of Erectile Dysfunction

As a former Marine I am shocked sir!

How is it that while I defended Truth, Justice, and the American way of life, (freedom omitted on purpose) all while lowering personal standards and hooking up with the chubby chicks you still complain?

I tried to take’em all off the market for you, yet you are still not satisifed, Figures. 😉

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re:

Authoritarian approaches do not resolve demand-side issues. That people want it is “the problem.” That innocent websites end up being labeled as porn so you need to get the filters off if you want to find the thing you’re looking for is the issue.

People need to take personal responsibility instead of hiving it off to the government, otherwise, there’s no saying what else they’ll block.

You do know anti-piracy measures are right behind this, don’t you? Beware the slippery slope.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: vajazzled?

It appears to involve waxing and adhesive, but not [unfortunately] a Bedazzler. (Link SFW)

Also: researching this article turned my search history into something my wife would view very suspiciously indeed, as it now gives every appearance that I’ve spent a great deal of time attempting to narrow down exactly how much porn I can enjoy before erectile dysfunction sets in.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: vajazzled?

After pondering “long and hard” on the term “vajazzled”, I have “come” to the conclusion that the lady scientician once watched, or heard about – I believe it was Opra Winfrey – mention that her daughter called her own vagina, a “Vah JJ”.(pr.: vah jay jay)

Thus Vajazzled likely means (to those who find the word vagina too frightening to use), to shave and oil your Vah JJ…. and make it “dazzling”.

Of course, being male, I’m just guessing. 🙂

=================

On another note:

Uses for Penile-Erection-killing porno:

1. Give poor older men something to do once they get so ugly even hookers charge extra or outright refuse – keeps them from chasing the young ones and grabbing at the nurses, since real girls will no longer excite.

2. Child Molestation Prevention, as mentioned elsewhere in this column.

3. All male off-planet excursions to the near planets – planned for two decades from now, since they’re not likely to ever see a girl again anyway.

Too much of anything can be a problem, including air and water, food and drink, money and power. However, humanity will always find a real use for even the most mundane and apparently useless of objects and activities, eventually.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 vajazzled?

“I think it’s just a portmanteau of “vagina” and “bedazzled”.”

I think I have to agree. It was the J that threw me off.

Vajina??

And the onliest source of vagina with a J was that Vah JJ line from talk-show TV.

I’m still not certain about the bedazzled part though, as I always thought of the term as being something that happened to one who witnessed something highly special/magickal, as in bewitched, or ensorcelled, or charmed.

Bedazzling might have worked, as in Vajazzling….

But I’m not gonna let it keep me up nights. 🙂

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 vajazzled?


I’m still not certain about the bedazzled part though, as I always thought of the term as being something that happened to one who witnessed something highly special/magickal, as in bewitched, or ensorcelled, or charmed.

Bedazzled in this context: http://www.asseenontv.com/bedazzler/detail.php?p=296300

Anonymous Coward says:

Better use of Internet filters

“If you’re citing Dr. Oz on behalf of your argument, you’ve already lost. Mehmet Oz’s long, terrible decline into talk show guest spot quackery has been well documented. Oz now throws the weight of his Ph.D behind homeopathy, faith healing and Reiki energy therapy.”

I suggest blocking this fraudulent lying douchebag con artist instead.

AnonCow says:

Silent killer

Did you know that there is a silent killer hiding in our homes and threatening our children every day?

It is tap water!

Excessive consumption of tap water can lead to death! It is a proven fact! Yet, our homes are littered with these death merchants. Bathroom? FAUCET! Kitchen? Another faucet.

Ban unregulated in-home water faucets now!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: ‘ultimate, unspeakable obscenities: “dirty floors,” “hairy men” and “squealing porn stars”‘

As opposed to ‘fumbling sweatily in basements’ (which really doesn’t sound all that pristine) is she hinting at partaking in under-age s-e-x? Isn’t there a list for predators like that?

As for ‘learned to do sex’ from ‘dirty bits of Sweet Valley High novels’ why aren’t those clearly pornographic “novels” (word used loosely) banned too? I recommend some rather more high-brow undeniable classics like Lady Chatterly, Fanny Hill or the Kama Sutra. At least show some taste.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“As opposed to ‘fumbling sweatily in basements’ (which really doesn’t sound all that pristine) is she hinting at partaking in under-age s-e-x? Isn’t there a list for predators like that?”

No predators need be involved. She’s simply advocating for teenagers in the throes of puberty to secretly engage in unprotected fornication with one another, under one of their parent’s roof, in a part of the house most likely to be dirty and unfinished.

Anonymous Coward says:

It's not a problem until it's a problem.

I’m gonna vouch for the other side. While I agree that citing Dr. Oz is a mistake, I think that porn can be very harmful.

Alcohol is fine, until it’s not. Porn is exactly the same. It’s fine until it’s not.

Is censorship the answer? No. Does that invalidate the point that porn can be harmful? No. That would be like prohibition on alcohol because a few people can’t handle their drink.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: It's not a problem until it's a problem.

“wank on your children?”

That’s not a concern.

On the other hand, child-porn addicts might break into your house and merrily wank all over the family photo album pictures of your children….

Remember, they can’t get aroused by the real thing once they’ve seen too much porn.

Hmmmmm….. could this indeed be a way to protect children??

Force the convicted Child Molesters to view massive amounts of child porn imagery and they will become unable thereafter to become aroused by the sight of real living children….

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: It's not a problem until it's a problem.

Damn, after posting this, I realized it has an additional application in the same area.

If medical science was to offer this as treatment – ie.

– Come to our porn clinic and we will remove the temptation to abuse real children by making you masturbate to miles upon miles of child pornography, until you no longer get aroused by real physical children

– there would be a 100 mile line up outside every such clinic regardless of how many were opened, twenty minutes after the offer was made, composed of child abusers wanting unlimited free child porn.

Since we have been making useable child porn since the first camera was created, (drawn, sculpted and painted child porn would be less than effective I’d think) there is no need to create new child porn and thus no living children will need to be photographed/filmed to make the clinical films and images needed for treatment.

Child abusers would thus willingly trade off the ability to be aroused by real children for an unlimited and eternal supply of medical child porn.

It would be……. for the children!!!!!

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Filter, you bet

I absolutely agree that a porn filter is needed. It should filter the porn so that finding your particular peccadillo is not so difficult.

This corruption of your peccadillo crossing over into my peccadillo is causing my peccadillo some consternation. We need to clean this up and get the police to police crossover peccadillo’s now.

tqk (profile) says:

Oh, Canada. Sigh.

Typical Mop & Pail Central Canadian traditionalist “The world’s going to hell in a handbasket!” handwringing. “We’ll save you!”

Stop watching USA TV talk shows, you credulous twit! Go read a decent book, preferably non-fiction as you clearly can’t handle that!

“… homeopathy, faith healing and Reiki energy therapy.” FFS!?! “And on tomorrow’s show, aroma therapy, candle therapy, and what your pets are telling you.”

I need to throw up now. 😛

Anonymous Coward says:

All I took from this is that these parent led crusades are just as dangerous to citizen rights as questionable legislation. That “think of the children” line is beyond tiresome and these breeders need to understand the real world cannot be filtered for your precious snowflake. Act like a parent and take responsibility instead of forcing your agenda on others.

Anonymous Coward says:

the filters used in the UK, supposedly to stop porn from reaching and endangering ‘children’ were actually put in place so as to allow the mainly USA entertainment industries to force websites they dont like to be blocked! that has resulted in measures to by-pass the blocks being implemented. it will be the same if brought to Canada and every/any other country. the governments dont give a flyin’ fuck about ‘protecting the children’ they are only interested in cow-towing to Obama and his sponsors and being made to ‘look good’! if it was possible, i’ll bet the number of porn sites blocked in general, let alone purposefully those referring to children are minimal but the websites blocked because the entertainment industries SAY they are file sharing sites will be at a maximum!
a post i read earlier today says that a UK politician now wants ISPs to be responsible for file sharing of their customers. any excuse to be able to spy on ordinary people! it’s like the ‘blame Ford for the road accidents involving their cars, or when one of their vehicles is used in a robbery! this is not going to stop until there is a mass concerted refusal by everyone to stop doing whatever it is the entertainment industries want as far as blocking, censoring, downloading and stopping are concerned. the 3rd party doctrin is in jeopardy now, because you can bet your ass that if the fucking dumbbells in the UK get suckered into this, it will spread everywhere else, just as it did when file sharing went from civil to criminal cases! you dont reckon the Entertainment Industries are after getting complete control of the internet, tell me what they have achieved towards that goal in the last year, let alone the last 10 years! and no matter what arguments are put up against them achieving their goal, they get closer to it every single day!!not one government has done anything to keep what their people do as legal but every one of them has done whatever the industries have kicked up about to make the citizens and the sharing criminal! if that doesn’t give anyone a clue as to what is going on, i dont know what will!!

Gene Poole says:

Just throwing this out there, but what she wants _can’t_ be done under current law. Unlike the US (or apparently the UK), Canada has a clause in the federal telecommunications act prohibiting all service providers from treating any information or customer differently from any other. What this means is that they are forbidden under law from tampering with traffic at all, censoring any content, or delivering a different service to any customer than any other customer can obtain. It’s proper net neutrality, which means no porn blocker.

Sure, there could be a change to the Act, but that’s not exactly easy to do, and at any rate asking the ISPs to censor content is impossible as to do so would leave them liable with the CRTC

Anonymous Coward says:

HAHAHAHAHAH

That’s fucking stupid yet hilarious. As a Canadian I was juggling who is worse, Cameron or Harper…and Cameron gets in front even if he is much less creepy than Adolf, I mean Stephen Harper. At least Harpo hasn’t really done anything against decisions like the 2005 Supreme Court decision that downloading mp3’s is legal for Canadians (but not any other media, go figure, no video or warez) or never mentioned the possibilities of filtering at the National level except for a small list of websites (and all of them deserve to be there pretty much), most people don’t know the sites and I didn’t know them until I found a site showing lists of blocked websites per country.

There would be massive outrage if anything like in England was pushed on Canadians (filtering of regular porn by default, “terrist alert buttons”) and all that kind of crazy shit from Cameron. Cameron made me laugh really hard last time North Korea decided to rattle some sabres with South Korea and the US (where it sort of came close that NK was going to do something stupid, announcing the 15th as when “the nuclear attack” was coming, instead we got the Boston bombing and NK disappeared from the news.

Can you say false flag? To those who were following the news intensely then (I stopped since about 7 months to be a news junkie, it’s bad for my heart), in the beginning of that month of April, everyday NK was making crazier threats, on the 10th they told foreign embassies to leave as they would not assure their safety starting April 15th and then that Boston bombing happened.

Wouldn’t surprise me those who really pulled it off did it to amuse Kim Jong Un, because frankly, never forget that almost all countries are ran by psychopaths, government and government agencies, both.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: HAHAHAHAHAH

forgot my train of thought and something was missing after “Cameron made me laugh really hard last time North Korea decided to rattle some sabres with South Korea and the US, where he was in front of the media showing arrows coming from NK that could get to the UK if sent from any direction (west or east) implying NK could nuke the UK if they wanted (lmao), their longest range missiles haven’t even been tested I think or they can’t get them to lift off correctly (those after the Nodongs(heh), tapedong or something like that).

Even if they had the ability of deploying world traveling ICBM’s, they would be regular missiles, not nukes for sure, they can’t even have a nuclear bomb smaller than a house or something, which is strange, for a nation with so much enriched uranium just waiting to be used, almost like A.Q. Khan(the disgraced Pakistani scientist who is(or was, no idea if dead, but he’s the real deal when it comes to Merchants of Death, not that russian guy Victor Bout(sic?))has sold them shoddy methods.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Silent killer

I did test that H2O version on someone when terrorism-hype was kinda higher than now.
Person that will be not identified here declared that if terrorist can use it before attaking, it must be declared illegal…
That person did usual and said that (gender) did not mean any harm…

That was after wanting to declare life on Earth to be criminal.

Your life is easy, mine is not =)

Antidote (profile) says:

Anyone looking for the science behind porn-induced sexual dysfunctions...

may want to check out the thoroughly referenced book “Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction” (many reviews on Amazon). It has the latest science, including two 2014 studies on porn users’ brains (the first). The Cambridge University study mentions several places that 60% of the subjects they scanned had ED and arousal problems with real partners but not with porn. For example, “subjects reported that as a result of excessive use of sexually explicit materials [they] experienced diminished libido or erectile function specifically in physical relationships with women (although not in relationship to the sexually explicit material).” (“Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours” http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102419)

The Max Planck study, which appeared in the prestigious “JAMA Psychiatry” journal found that hours/years of porn use correlated with reduced grey matter in users’ brains, and reduced brain activation in response to erotic stills. (“Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption The Brain on Porn” (“”http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/paperbot/Brain%20Structure%20and%20Functional%20Connectivity%20Associated%20With%20Pornography%20Consumption:%20The%20Brain%20on%20Porn.pdf)

The lead researcher said, “That could mean that regular consumption of pornography more or less wears out your reward system.” “This is in line with the hypothesis that intense exposure to pornographic stimuli results in a downregulation of the natural neural response to sexual stimuli.” Desensitization is common in all kinds of addicts. Kühn continued, “We assume that subjects with a high porn consumption need increasing stimulation to receive the same amount of reward.” Kühn mentioned that existing psychological, scientific literature suggests consumers of porn will seek material with novel and more extreme sex games. “That would fit perfectly the hypothesis that their reward systems need growing stimulation.” (http://www.dw.de/pea-brain-watching-porn-online-will-wear-out-your-brain-and-make-it-shrivel/a-17681654)

Antidote (profile) says:

Re: Re: Anyone looking for the science behind porn-induced sexual dysfunctions...

You mean the same book & blog that was mentioned in the article?

No. The book was not mentioned in the article. The author linked to YourBrainOnPorn, saying it was Gabe Deem’s blog. This is incorrect.

Also notice that the author of this post chose to link to an old “Way Back” version on yourbrainonporn, rather than the current site, which contains many more studies, and articles by over 50 experts. I suspect he did this so that readers would not see the recent studies on porn users’ brains (mentioned above), which contradict his hypothesis that porn-induced problems are a figment of the imagination.

The outdated “Way Back” link also avoided this page, which lists several relevant brain studies, as well as articles by urology professors, MDs, psychiatrists, PhDs, and sexologists – all of who treat porn-induced ED. LINK – http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/porn-induced-ed-media

Just a few examples you can click on –

1) Dr. Carlo Foresta, urology professor, President of the Italian Society of Reproductive Pathophysiology, and author of some 300 academic studies. http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/pdf-talk-carlo-foresta-urology-professor-2014

2) Professor of Urology at Harvard Medical School, and author of 4 books on men’s health, Dr. Abraham Morgentaler http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/generation-x-rated-porn-induced-ed

3) Dr. Harry Fisch, Professor of Urology at Cornell University, and author of “The New Naked” http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ybop-review-new-naked-urologist-harry-fisch-md

The author also incorrectly stated that Dr. Oz was a PhD., when he is an MD. He also failed to say that the Dr. Oz show on porn-induced ED featured 3 other experts – a urology professor, a psychiatrist, and a well known PhD in sexology (Urologist Andrew Kramer, Sudeepta Varma MD, Ian Kerner PhD.)

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Anyone looking for the science behind porn-induced sexual dysfunctions...

So, to bring this back around to the actual topic under discussion, let’s grant for the sake of argument that your fundamental hypothesis about porn causing ED is correct. What do you think should be done about it? Do you support censorship?

Antidote (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Anyone looking for the science behind porn-induced sexual dysfunctions...

No, I do not support censorship.

People should be made aware that ED, and other unwanted symptoms can arise from Internet porn use. Examples listed on that site include:

1) earlier genres of porn no longer exciting.
2) decreased penile sensitivity
3) delayed ejaculation, anorgasmia
4) porn is more exciting than a partner
5) they need to fantasize about porn to maintain an erection during sex
6) morning wood and spontaneous erections decrease, or no longer occur.

Individuals can make their own experiments to assess if porn use might be involved.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“It’s already over 7 billion.”

Are you absolutely sure?

Do you really still trust the accountant?

Who is doing the head-count these days anyway?

If the nut-job wacko conspiracy theorists are right about the global fascist depopulation pogrom, it would behoove the powers that be to maintain an apparently steadily rising population growth scenario, until they reached at least a goodly percent – say 50-60% – of their goal.

Sorry about that. Its always been a habit, since I was a kid, to ponder the unthinkable, at least once a day. 🙂

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Actually, methinks we have much less of a population problem and far more of space usage problem on earth.

I’m certain someone out there can ascertain the numbers – how much land is currently going unused due to climate and agricultural negatives.

Due to the simple fact that energy making methods are still pretty much stuck in the Industrial Revolution Stage, folks have to stay away from all the land that is inhospitable to life because the technology needed to make it all very hospitable to life needs a much cheaper energy source.

It is the very last thing that the powers that be desire – cheap energy would allow the captive labor forces held in cities to dissipate into the wilderness and stop buying the expensive energy they offer. People would be able to set up small factories and small production industries anywhere, competing hugely with the city based production facilities still strapped to the super expensive city power grid, which would become even more expensive as people fled the cities and the power brokers raised their costs to compensate for the lost revenues.

Methinks our world could easily support 150-200 billion, if we simply were not all gathered together in the same old cities, which have not grown in number to accommodate a growing population.

And you should realize that our cities grew up where the best farm land was found, and as the cities grew, they covered that farm land with concrete, tar, steel and glass. That’s why we pretty much stopped building new cities – no super rich farm lands left.

Were we to actually create new cities to house our ever growing population, the apparent over-population problem would disappear.

Once again, humanity’s leaders chose the least viable path, because it was the most lucrative path for a small number of people – those very same leaders.

When your leaders talk about over population they are actually talking about the difficulty large numbers add to the control of a work force – too many people creates great difficulty for efficient exploitation and poses a threat to centralized control.

That is the only “over population problem” they see.

—-

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...