Skip to comments.Professor wants to reduce human population by ‘controlling human fertility’
Posted on 09/19/2012 3:03:58 PM PDT by oliverdarcy
A professor at the University of California recently gave a middle school presentation in which he claimed the earth has too many people and proposed a reduction of the population through vegetarianism and controlling human fertility.
Professor Richard Cardullo, a professor of biology at the University of California Riverside (UCR), told a group of seventh grade students that the environments well-being was in jeopardy if we dont do anything about population.
If we want to decrease our population, we can do it through any number of ways, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreform.org ...
He can lead by example and immediately reduce the world population by 1 @$$hole.
Start by neutering and spaying all professors and academics. Then they will at least be able to talk with some sincerity on the subject.
Reduce your own population, dumb#ss. The world is much improved by ten more iterations of ME.
This is a sign that he’s spent too much time in the school and probably needs a decade out in the real-world.
There is no need for any top down population policies anywhere.
Or welfare recipients... can’t afford them, don’t have them..
What the Hell?
What if I WANT to have more than 1.5 kids your Totalitarian Putz?
What about LIBERTY!?!?
The key word is "Control"
That is what this ignorant professor wants.
It's not about the earth or justice, its about controlling you.
I will keep breeding you POS and I hope you take a long walk off a pier.
This guy sounds like a follower of anti-humanist lizard expert Dr. Eric Pianka (as reported by Forrest Mims, Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science):
“I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka, the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
“This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us.
“One of Pianka’s earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”
“Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!”
“Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it’s too late.
“Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
“He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.
“Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.
“AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola, because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
“After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”
“With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.
“After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.
“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.” So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third’s of the world’s population.
“How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved? Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work. He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site.
“When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.”
I will add as a final note that every single person in that room who applauded what he had said represents a dangerous threat to humanity itself. Because of their academic credentials, some of them may be in a position to bring about horrific disasters with biological weapons.
While they are too naive to promulgate a weapon that will accomplish what they desire, they could murder millions or even a billion innocent people.
This is an intolerable threat, as much as a fanatic demanding the use of thermonuclear bombs to people who might very well obtain access to such weapons.
Yes. The world in which everyone could live in a four-bedroom house on a standard suburban lot, for a family of five, in the area of Texas and Oklahoma, and use the more fertile parts of the world for food and stuff.
Iirc, you have quite a large plot for just yourself ... and why shouldn’t you?
>>Is this the same world where everyone on it could be put in an area the size of France and still have a population density less than that of Mexico City?<<
That would be the case — but Texas is a better example (numbers rounded):
People in the world: 7 billion
Texas square miles: 270
People per square mile: 24,390
Feet per square mile: 27,878,400
Square Feet per person: 1200
So the entire population of the earth could fit in Texas with about 1200 square feet per person. If you group up families there is more than enough room.
In one state.
Except I don't want all the bastards here. ;)
I know those numbers, but chose France on purpose.
Nothing new here.
This has been the enviro-whacko agenda for decades.
The fact is they are eugenicists first, as they focus on third world population growth.
They restrict DDT use because it saves “too many lives”.
They promote anal sex as birth control, irrespective of AIDS risk.
They restrict food and energy growth that would help the third world thrive.
what he means is reduce EURPEAN ANCESTRY population...
Disclaimer, I am technically a "minority", so I can say that.
Ah yes, I remember you were one of the “Run them Yankees off” from Texas!
But this born and raised So. Cal boy had spent enough time in Texas to bring my 6 figure income here to share with my fellow Texans.
We DON’T want the folk in Austin. We DO want Conservatives like in North Dallas. Preferably those who can build freeways reasonably quickly (The 35E to nowhere is driving me nuts!)
So am I for that matter. :)
Anybody got an ax?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.