LUH 3417
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,990
a lot of posts on this forum advocate for LSD and psilocybin use as an alternative therapy for depression or other ailments. When reading about the cultural history, certain themes begin to stand out regarding those who promote such therapies. Here Terence McKenna talks about the benefits of a one child policy, having a larger women to men ratio, and other controversial topics.
How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions – and began one of the largest mind control operations in history. - Gnostic Media
Do psychedelics actually have a therapeutic value or is the experience of fragmentation and sensory hallucinations so traumatizing in and of itself that you feel better afterwards simply because it's over? I've met a lot of people who advocate their usage but I can't say that any of them are better off using these drugs. Also I'm concerned because it seems like you become very vulnerable to suggestion on psychedelics. Any comments or thoughts would be appreciated, as this is a topic I'm very interested in.
Questioner 1:
I want to tell you little bit about its because it’s very interesting. I think it follows what you’re been talking about. I love what your ideas about collective consciousness. And I think the book describes an aboriginal tribe in Australia that has been living the way in which you’re speaking, in a collective, and what they’ve come to the conclusion of is that they can no longer procreate. Because they have recognized that they can no longer exist on this planet. And the reason they call it the mutant message is they believe we are a mutant life form on this planet that is destroying it to the extent that they can no longer continue their lineage. And it’s an interesting concept, because it’s the first culture that I know of that has selectively chosen not to breed and along with your concept of raising our consciousness so that we understand the destructive nature of ourselves, what about a parallel vision of reducing our population as these people are. Of consciously choosing not to procreate at this time?
TM: Well it’s interesting that you brought this up. Yes, I’ve been saying for some time that, ***the mushroom pointed this out to me***, if every woman had only one child the population of the planet would fall 50% in 40 years. 50% in 40 years – without war, revolution, coercion, anything else. Now when you suggest this to people they say, well didn’t they try that in China and it failed?. Yes. But you have to think about a couple of things. First of all a child born to a woman in Maui or Malibu or Manhattan, that child will use between 800 and 1000 times more resources in its lifetime than a child born to a woman in Bangladesh. Why do we preach birth control in Bangladesh? We should be preaching it on Maui, Manhattan and Malibu. Because the women in those places are highly educated, socially responsible, global people. And therefore are the population most likely to respond to this suggestion. If 15% of the women in the high-tech industrial democracies were to to limit their childbearing to one child, within 10 years certain pressure indicators on the planet would begin to move away from the red and into the black.
So I think that we have got to think with this question of population. There are clearly too many people. And one woman, one child, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a psychedelic advocate, to understand the impact of that. If the population of the earth was cut in half everybody alive would be twice as wealthy. It’s possible in 120 years that we could reduce the world’s population to a billion very healthy, very comfortable, very well educated people.
Ok, that’s part of what ***the mushroom said***. And that may seem radical and some circles, but not here perhaps. It also said something else which I rarely mention, ***but since you brought it up***, there are not only too many people, there are too many men [laughter]. And ***I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth***. It’s very rare in mammal populations that you have a 50-50 ratio of male to female and in fact it’s well-known that male infants are less robust than female infants. And the reason why we have a 50-50 sexual ratio is because we artificially support males, and withdraw all resources from females. I suspect in the high Paleolithic the ratio is closer to 2 to 1 [unsupported - see citations]. And my supposition and thinking about this is that probably the best ratio is about this is 3 to 1. This is the way to feminize the human race if you’re serious. This is the way to advance women if you’re serious. Then what you have is less men, women whose dedication to the reproductive activities is confined in time to the amount of time it takes to raise only one child. This would be tremendously salutary to our problems.
How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions – and began one of the largest mind control operations in history. - Gnostic Media
Do psychedelics actually have a therapeutic value or is the experience of fragmentation and sensory hallucinations so traumatizing in and of itself that you feel better afterwards simply because it's over? I've met a lot of people who advocate their usage but I can't say that any of them are better off using these drugs. Also I'm concerned because it seems like you become very vulnerable to suggestion on psychedelics. Any comments or thoughts would be appreciated, as this is a topic I'm very interested in.
Questioner 1:
I want to tell you little bit about its because it’s very interesting. I think it follows what you’re been talking about. I love what your ideas about collective consciousness. And I think the book describes an aboriginal tribe in Australia that has been living the way in which you’re speaking, in a collective, and what they’ve come to the conclusion of is that they can no longer procreate. Because they have recognized that they can no longer exist on this planet. And the reason they call it the mutant message is they believe we are a mutant life form on this planet that is destroying it to the extent that they can no longer continue their lineage. And it’s an interesting concept, because it’s the first culture that I know of that has selectively chosen not to breed and along with your concept of raising our consciousness so that we understand the destructive nature of ourselves, what about a parallel vision of reducing our population as these people are. Of consciously choosing not to procreate at this time?
TM: Well it’s interesting that you brought this up. Yes, I’ve been saying for some time that, ***the mushroom pointed this out to me***, if every woman had only one child the population of the planet would fall 50% in 40 years. 50% in 40 years – without war, revolution, coercion, anything else. Now when you suggest this to people they say, well didn’t they try that in China and it failed?. Yes. But you have to think about a couple of things. First of all a child born to a woman in Maui or Malibu or Manhattan, that child will use between 800 and 1000 times more resources in its lifetime than a child born to a woman in Bangladesh. Why do we preach birth control in Bangladesh? We should be preaching it on Maui, Manhattan and Malibu. Because the women in those places are highly educated, socially responsible, global people. And therefore are the population most likely to respond to this suggestion. If 15% of the women in the high-tech industrial democracies were to to limit their childbearing to one child, within 10 years certain pressure indicators on the planet would begin to move away from the red and into the black.
So I think that we have got to think with this question of population. There are clearly too many people. And one woman, one child, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a psychedelic advocate, to understand the impact of that. If the population of the earth was cut in half everybody alive would be twice as wealthy. It’s possible in 120 years that we could reduce the world’s population to a billion very healthy, very comfortable, very well educated people.
Ok, that’s part of what ***the mushroom said***. And that may seem radical and some circles, but not here perhaps. It also said something else which I rarely mention, ***but since you brought it up***, there are not only too many people, there are too many men [laughter]. And ***I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth***. It’s very rare in mammal populations that you have a 50-50 ratio of male to female and in fact it’s well-known that male infants are less robust than female infants. And the reason why we have a 50-50 sexual ratio is because we artificially support males, and withdraw all resources from females. I suspect in the high Paleolithic the ratio is closer to 2 to 1 [unsupported - see citations]. And my supposition and thinking about this is that probably the best ratio is about this is 3 to 1. This is the way to feminize the human race if you’re serious. This is the way to advance women if you’re serious. Then what you have is less men, women whose dedication to the reproductive activities is confined in time to the amount of time it takes to raise only one child. This would be tremendously salutary to our problems.
