October 11, 2015

Population-Environment Balance
PO Box 268
San Francisco, CA 94104-0268


This letter is sort of inside out, so if time presses, please skip to the Final Point, which is by far the most important.  The first point is the least important.

First point, give us a little help here.  You suggest that we phone, visit and write our senators and congressmen.  A lot of us out here aren’t very bright, so it might help if you offered these links:

Even I could take it from there.

Your hour may have come.  I have followed your good work for years.  At last some politicians, at least one, seem or seems to have taken heed.  The outpouring of support has been tremendous; even the Hispanics, whom he does not hesitate to insult, seem to like him.  And of course immigration is now in a state of acute and deadly crisis in Europe.  Years of neglect are coming home to roost there as here. 

There never will be a time when immigration is harmless.  Your proposal that there should be an immediate and total moratorium on immigration is just not enough.  There needs to be a permanent ban.  Even that will not be enough; people need to be discouraged from moving around the country.  That will be explained with the final point, but look at it from a tactical perspective.  Modest and reasonable proposals do not stir the soul.  Demand more.  Demand everything.  Maybe a tiny leak can be survived, but do not meet the enemy half way.  The slightest compromise from that point leads one into enemy territory and defeat. 

In any true democracy there would be no immigration.  Most people are happier where they are.  Otherwise they would move if they could.  Therefore it is the manifest will of the people that they not be forced to move.  Yet where we are is almost completely defined by whom we are among.  The difference between me moving to England and an Englishman moving here is purely one of degree.  If you take my house away, I’ll mange somehow.  If you banished me I do not know what I would do; my life would be wrecked.  There are asylum cities for illegal immigrants, but there are no asylum cities from immigrants.  Surely it is tyranny.  At best it is totally mad. 

Migration exposes little children to risk of abuse.  Child abuse is quite real.  I have it on second hand report that some prisoners in a county near here were sent as trustees to do a bit of work in a park.  There were children playing nearby.  One of the prisoners became visibly sexually aroused at the sight of them.  (Unaccountably the guards did not see fit so say, “Get in the truck.  We’re going back.”)  I’m sure you have heard the horrible story of Rotherham in England.  A number of gangs of Pakistani men were “grooming” little English girls, that is to say they were luring them in and sexually abusing them.  The social workers who learned about it kept quiet for fear they seem racist.  The media here have been so silent – probably for the same reason – that almost nobody I know has heard of it.  Rotherham turned out not to be the only place it was going on; it was happening in several town, even Cambridge, that intellectual light of the world. 

Okay, so that sounds racist.  But turn it around.  Having immigration, particularly illegal immigration, creates a helpless underclass.  Their work is underpaid, of course; we all know that.  But how many of their children are being abused?  I have no numbers, but I have a suspicion.  Marijuana is being legalized in more and more states.  That’s probably because influential people want it so.  And they want it so because they have children and their friends have children who use it.  Maybe they use it themselves.  Gay marriage is now legalized.  I think it’s the same thing.  I think so many influential people are gay or have people they care about who are gay that they have put their weight behind legalizing it.  And I strongly suspect there are influential people who are child abusers.  For them, immigrants are a handy vulnerable lower class.  Now does it sound so racist?  There were Germans cheering the arrival of Syrian immigrants.  Do you think the same of them now? 

I have no evidence that it has happened, however remote.  But I do point out a danger.  Children who are moved or are among those who have moved lose their usual safeguards. 

We aren’t doing the immigrants themselves any favor; we’re only bringing them in to die.  Yes, we’ve all heard of the high birth rate of immigrants.  But here is some data from Los Angeles County.  I know the man who for many years was the Public Health Officer of that county.  He is honest and extremely energetic.  If you doubt me, read his book, Public Health Care: What Works by Dr. Jonathan Fielding.  So in this case I trust the numbers.
citing on September 19, 2015.


Number of children per woman


Black ……………….2.6……………………1.9…..………………1.7


or other Pacific

You see the trend.  These are not the clients of the Public Health Department.  This is the whole county.  They are all dieing out, faster and faster.  Which brings us to the final point.

Final Point:  If you allow a social pool to enlarge and diversify without tight limits it will die out.  Don’t take my word for it, please.  Get a copy of the textbook Handbook on Evolution and Society, and read Chapter 19, “Marry In or Die Out” by Professor Robin Fox.  His title says it all.  You have to marry kin or die out in the long run. 

If you want quick thumbnail sketch of my take on the science, here’s a link to a letter I wrote for the Swedish public health department.
For the long version, try this.

I’m sure you are thinking, “That’s absurd.  That has never happened.”  I’m quite sure it has happened in humans any number of times.  Civilizations fall with clock-like regularity.  That’s covered in the last link above. 

But think a moment.  It wasn’t long ago, and it may still be true, that an African man wandering away from his own village would be killed by whatever village he went to, and an adolescent girl who simply wandered away unattended for a few hours would be killed by her own village; I have a first hand account of that one.  Well say what you like about African cultures, but the traditional ones have proved they can last a long, long time, far longer than our global urban culture, which is obviously running into trouble, and it’s not just a matter of fertility.

In mice, the only experiment of putting a few mice and all the food and bedding they needed into a large cage and watching them ended with total infertility.  (John Calhoun Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine vol. 66, January 1973 page 80) The last mouse born added to the population.  So just because the population is growing does not mean that collapse is not imminent.  The population grew exponentially, then there was growth at a slower rate, appearing to stabilize, then abruptly no more babies.  They never exceeded about 2,000 mice.  At that point they were not kin enough and had been non-kin long enough generations so that fertility went to zero.  People apparently do not even grow that numerous under similar circumstances; people are not as fertile as mice to begin with. 

Here is data I downloaded from the UN of the world’s birth rate over the past 50 years.  It is a few years old, downloaded August, 2008, but in general things cannot be much different.  
This graph is very misleading.  As presented, it suggests that areas of different economic development have different growth rates, but encouragingly growth is stabilizing overall.  The facts are right, but the presentation makes a false point that people swallow hook, line and sinker. 

First, let me show you what happens when you follow the growth of the least developed countries, then go over to those of middle development and follow that to almost the end then hop back to the same growth rate among the most developed.  Here’s what you get:
It’s all one single curve.  You can’t even see where the edits are.  It’s all one process and it has nothing to do with development.  It’s all due to the fact that as a world we aren’t marrying cousins any longer.

Ah, but that would suggest that things eventually will stabilize with a moderate decline that plausibly can be adapted for.  That’s what you’d have said about the mice, too.  Only they all died.  (Actually at the end he ended the experiment because there was not a single mouse left young enough to reproduce under any circumstance.)  Calhoun blamed the loss of fertility on psychological factors and predicted that in about 1992 civilization would collapse from over-crowding.  It didn’t.  So you are left with failure to marry cousins.

What is thoroughly hidden even in that last graph is that the low and superficially constant birth rate is not stable at all.  Go to and graph fertility of countries against age at first marriage for women.  We’ll follow Sweden.

Starting in 1949 fertility and age at first marriage bounce around a bit until fertility drops below replacement.  Then age at first marriage starts up, and once it has started up it never goes back.  If you just looked at fertility you’d think all was well, just as in the UN numbers I graphed and just as in the second phase of the Calhoun experiment.   But you know there’s a problem.  Average age at first marriage is in theory limited only by longevity, but when a woman reaches age 40 menopause happens, then or before.  When the average woman is marrying (and I assume that the numbers are the same for the large number of unmarried mothers in Sweden) at age 40 and trying to have her children then, it is a no go. 

In fact, given that older women already have a hard time getting pregnant, we should probably say that when average age of marriage is 38 Sweden will have a Calhoun drop.  You have the graph.  To me it looks like the women are marrying a year later every three calendar years.  And to me it looks like they’ll reach 38 something like 8 years from now.  There is no time to lose.

So don’t be afraid of success.  Once you have a total permanent block on immigration, fertility will not stabilize.  It’s obviously a necessary step but not sufficient.  Then you have to warn people that they need to marry kin and not go outside of a social pool of a few hundred.  I can’t be exact, but it needs to be about the size of one of those little African villages.  Or maybe a little larger.  The professor points out that those villages are optimized for growth.  For stability, for balance, you need a somewhat larger number. 

If we all married third cousins or so, population growth rate would be catastrophically large.  If we all marry outside tenth cousins, we all die.  And I mean the whole world.  This has nothing to do with race; the UN numbers prove that.  But it is a matter of life and death.  Stopping immigration is a start, and it’s the only place where the law can help.  (No I don’t want to live in a world where the law dictates whom you marry.)  But then it will all be up to people like you, and it looks like that will occupy you for a very long time. 

All the best wishes,

M. Linton Herbert MD 

There have been 114 visitors over the past month and YouTube has run “Babies Triumph over Evil” 145 times.  They are also beginning to give me a note like “you’ve already watched this” when I go there to check for traffic.

Home page