"An Alternative View
The above basic strategy assumes that the current forms of assistance programs in both population and economic and social development areas will be able to solve the problem. There is however, another view, which is shared by a growing number of experts. It believes that the outlook is much harsher and far less tractable than commonly perceived. This holds that the severity of the population problem in this century which is already claiming the lives of more than 10 million people yearly, is such as to make likely continued widespread food shortage and other demographic catastrophes, and, in the words of C.P. Snow, we shall be watching people starve on television.
The conclusion of this view is that mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now.
This school of thought believes the following types of questions need to be addressed:
Should the U.S. make an all out commitment to major limitation of world population with all the financial and international as well as domestic political costs that would entail?
Should the U.S. set even higher agricultural production goals which would enable it to provide additional major food resources to other countries? Should they be nationally or internationally controlled?
On what basis should such food resources then be provided? Would food be considered an instrument of national power? Will we be forced to make choices as to whom we can reasonably assist, and if so, should population efforts be a criterion for such assistance?
Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?
Should the U.S. seek to change its own food consumption patterns toward more efficient uses of protein?
Are mandatory population control measures appropriate for the U.S. and/or for others?
Should the U.S. initiate a major research effort to address the growing problems of fresh water supply, ecological damage, and adverse climate?While definitive answers to those questions are not possible in this study given its time limitations and its implications for domestic policy, nevertheless they are needed if one accepts the drastic and persistent character of the population growth problem. Should the choice be made that the recommendations and the options given below are not adequate to meet this problem, consideration should be given to a further study and additional action in this field as outlined above."
So, basically, he's saying that if the population problem is perceived as real and imminent we have to ration food, limit food growth, genetically modify proteins and use food as a weapon.
Aren't these all questions noone should be asking of their country or others? These questions don't need to be asked, especially from a Eugenicist who is not really trying to help anyone. He's just thinking like elitists have throughout history. Their the important and high-level thinkers that can coldly call for killing people and think it's justified due to a perceived threat. Besides, if they were really trying to help people they would let the third world industrialize, actually develop new energy technologies, even as far-out there as scalar waves and zero-point energy. But no, they limit growth in the third world, limit energy consumption by means of another perceived threat, Global Warming, and sterilize or soft-kill people with vaccines and other shots.
There are many other great articles for further reading, I cannot begin to explain all this.