Skip to comments.Alarmist Population Controller Paul Ehrlich Suggests Cannibalism to Control “Overpopulation”
Posted on 05/23/2014 10:28:47 AM PDT by Morgana
Paul Ehrlich a radically pro-abortion population control professor of Ethics from Stanford has claimed overpopulation could lead to humanity having to eat the bodies of the dead.
We will soon be asking is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because were all so hungry?, he told HuffPost live host Josh Zepps.
paulehrlichEhrlich tells Zepps that Ethics is hardly discussed in our media How much do we really car about future generations
Zepps asked Ehrlich what he would do if her were Emperor of the World.
Ehrlich replies, The first thing I would do is make every possible move to give women full equal rights and opportunities. And give every sexually active person complete access to modern contraception and where necessary, backed up abortion
Ehrlich says that current population trends are on a course that could leave cannibalism as one of the only options.
Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture.
He added that humanity is moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.
In other words between now and 45 years from now, 2.5 billion people will be added to the planet.
We are moving towards resource wars.
Ehrlich is widely known for his 1968 publication of The Population Bomb which called for population control to prevent global crises from overpopulation.
But Ehrlich has been predicting this gloom and doom for years:
In the 1970s the world will undergo famines hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death, he predicted. Our children will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960s are dead.
His solution- Population Control .abortion sterilization .and yes .infanticide..
The author of the 1972 book the Population bomb has told Raw Story that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is a bad idea.
Giving people the right to have as many people as many children that they want is, I think, a bad idea, Ehrlich told Raw Story. Its not giving people the right to have as many children as they want, its giving people the right to control their reproduction so that they dont have so many children that their childrens and grandchildrens lives are in danger.
Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins, Ehrlich continued. That may be a hard-nosed view, but if you look at the entire situation, its crystal clear if we keep the populations of the rich growing, then the poor arent going to have a chance, and eventually, the descendants of the rich arent going to have a chance either.
In a recent speech at Macquarie University he said, For example, having a kid is one thing. If you add a second kid or you have the choice of adding a second kid or buying four hummers, youre doing much more environmental damage by having the second kid than buy four hummers. Because, of course, besides all the consumption that that child is going to have the hummers dont reproduce.
Paul R. Ehrlich has authored another book with Michael Charles Tobias. In Hope on Earth both Ehrlich and Tobias argue that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, as the human population continues to grow without restraint and without significant attempts to deal with overconsumption and the vast depletion of resources and climate problems it creates.
They both believe that the impact of a human society on its environment is the direct result of its population size, and through their dialogue they break down the complex social problems that are wrapped up in this idea and attempts to overcome it, hitting firmly upon many controversial topics such as circumcision, religion, reproduction, abortion, animal rights, diet, and gun control.
Chemicals water tweet
A Tweet placed on Huffpos feed reads, Just put chemicals in the water so that us men cant reproduce. BAM problem solved.
To that tweeter I say your suggestion is an old idea that has been proposed many times- read here.
Actually, I think Ehrlich could use some.
Paul Voldemort Ehrlich ... why does anyone take anything he said seriously??
Actually, I think Ehrlich could use some.”
Just not on the dinner plate!!
Thomas Malthus, around 1760, I think, proposed that food supply would never keep up with population growth for mathematical reasons. He has been proven wrong everywhere except where progressive governments took over the food supply. In that special instance he is correct. But it has nothing to do with food supply and everything to do with bad governance. The author here is saying the same thing. He is wrong too.
To Leftists economics is a zero sum game. If somebody has something they took it from somebody else. (As opposed to taxes, which are okay.) But everywhere else, if there’s a demand there will be a supply. Leftism doesn’t take into account technology or innovation. Indeed, when they are in charge there is no technology growth or innovation, other than in their weapons of war.
Ubereconazi Ehrlich's quote:
Giving society cheap, abundant energy . . . would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
At least Paul Ehrlich hasn’t been a total hypocrite—he has only had one child. So he is contributing to the slow, but steady, self destructive die-off of the population of progressive folks such as himself.
He should have stuck to his study of bees where he would have had the possibility of making a real scientific contribution.
I made a spelling error. If Ehrlich, or some other econazi were to read this, they would claim victory in any argument on any topic.
Hay Ehrlich, why don’t you BITE MY BUTT!
I don’t like Paul Erlich. I will eat the potatoes and vegetables instead.
This guy has been teaching kids at Stanford for a long time. Its no wonder the younger generation is messed up.
Hey, Ehrlich... at NYC’s population density, the world’s population could live in an area the size of the state of Texas. Dumbass.
Just got a funny look from a person passing by my desk. That’s funny! Good thing I was not drinking at the time.
Why would anyone listen to him at all?
In a rational world, his ridiculous “Population Bomb” predictions should have completely destroyed any credibility he may have once claimed.
I agree. The same should be true for all of those global warmists and such.
For the sake of mankind, Ehrlich should walk into an abattoir and never walk out. Then, I will believe he is sincere.
He’s been spreading this kind of crapola almost as long as I’ve been alive.
Hey, Paul, if overpopulation is such a threat to the earth, shouldn’t you have gotten off long ago?
His delusional rantings were largely responsible for one of the left's modern-day boogermen, genetically modified organisms. The horror....
The really sick thing is that taxpayers’ money supports this asshat loser “professor”.
I thought we already pondered this back a while ago...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IKVj4l5GU4
Not exactly. Malthus was more or less correct for the pre-industrial world. There were repeated cycles of rapid population growth followed by contraction due to war, famine and pestilence.
The history of China being a prime example. For several thousand years, each period of a change of the heavenly mandate resulted in a decline in population by anything from 25% to 75%.
Malthus, writing at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, can be (or should be) forgiven for not realizing how drastically the increase in human productivity would impact the factors he analyzed.
He also did not foresee the effects of contraception becoming effective and widespread, and their increased use as people, particularly women, became more educated and wealthy. Why should he have foreseen this? In his world, the wealthy and educated still had more children than the lower classes, or at least more who survived.
Wow, didn’t know this guy was still around. Still making the same predictions too - wrong since 1970, that’s quite a track record!
I forgive him because of his position in time. But there is no excuse for the Left still following a vision that has proven itself wrong.
What's he talking to us for?
Why doesn't he go preach baby-killing where the people are having the most babies?
He’s still alive? I thought he died years ago in that Population Bomb thingy he wrote about.
Ehrlich’s not like a stopped clock, he IS a stopped clock.
Stopped sometime in 1968 & never moved forward. Just another aging grey ponytailed lefty. Renews his subscription to The Nation every year, gnaws stale granola while cursing Americans’ materialistic indifference to the need for violent revolution, while waiting to be turned into postmortal compost. A most happy man.
Soylent Green is People!
Two cannibals are eating a clown.
The first cannibal turns to the second cannibal and says, “does this taste funny?”
Thank you, thank you. I am here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.
Fair enough. I quite agree.
Just get tired of people blaming Dr. Malthus for making observations and predictions that were entirely correct given the information he had available.
For people to believe otherwise, at the time, required an unrealistic faith in the ability of human reason to deal with such issues as they came up.
As it turned out, the coldly realistic Malthus was wrong, and the unrealistic optimists were proven right, in general.
Of course. Decadent cultures descend until they get to the intersection of Cannibal Street and Human Sacrifice Blvd.
Are we there yet?
Yes, as dinner...but does liberals taste like chicken?
We have 7 billion now with 1 billion in the Americas, 1 billion in Europe and Russia, 1 billion in Africa, and 4 billion in Asia.
By 2050 Africa will as a second billion and Asia a 5th billion for a 9 billion total.
By 2100 Africa will add a 3rd and 4th billion for 11 billion total.
That's where it tops out, so say the demographers.
by 2050/2100 we will have imported a billion from Africa and Asia probably, mostly Muslims.