Posted on 10/30/2014 5:01:24 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the late 1960s through the 1970s, there was a panic that the Earth’s population, if not controlled, would lead to mass food shortages, water shortages, death, wars and the end of civilization as it existed. But much like the “global cooling” movement during the same period, it was proven to be horribly, horribly wrong.
The book “The Population Bomb,” published in 1968, warned that by the 1980s there would be massive upheaval and starvation because of overpopulation.
The 80s came and went, and even though the Earth’s population has nearly doubled, from 4 billion in 1974 to 7 billion now, humans have managed to survive.
But, as is often the case with the climate change movement, everything old is new again. Not even the faces change. John Holdren was once a prominent global cooling cautioner. Now, he touts the dangers of global warming while working as President Obama’s science advisor.
Newsweek, which, in 1975, warned the world of “global cooling,” and an impending ice age, is back with a new warning – the planet’s population is growing so fast, and is so unsustainable, that even a major pandemic or war won’t be enough to save us from the coming disaster to the environment overpopulation will cause.
The piece, entitled “Even a Pandemic Wouldn’t Create a 'Sustainable' Population, Study Says,” starts off with the popular environmental mantra of science – where not proof but majority vote wins out. The first paragraph reads:
Environmental scientists generally agree that the growth rate of the world’s human population and its current rate of consumption are unsustainable. For that reason, many researchers and policy-makers have called for family planning and birth control to slow growth in various countries.
The cure? Population control, naturally. Their example? China.
Again, in the very next paragraph, Newsweek writes:
A good example is China’s one-child policy. Beginning in 1979, families in China were largely limited to a single child. That policy was extremely controversial and helped lead to a gender imbalance in Chinese society, but it also helped avert 400 million births.
China didn’t “avert 400 million births,” it performed 400 million forced abortions. And the “gender imbalance” so casually referenced there wasn’t “helped” along by this policy, it was the direct result of it. Girls are aborted routinely in China because families want boys.
So why this concern about the world’s population? Gaia, naturally.
A new study Newsweek is touting claims Mother Earth simply can’t handle more people, even though reducing the population still won’t serve as a “quick fix” for the scourge that is humans, they say.
So what did they study? Well, in one scenario “the researchers tested what would happen if 2 billion people died over the course of a five-year period in the mid-21st century, for example by a war or pandemic.” Sadly, the researchers estimated the world’s population still would increase to 8.5 billion by the end of the century. Plagues and wars, it would seem, aren’t what they used to be.
So what’s the ideal population for the Earth-firsters? Well:
Several other studies suggest that a world population of between 1 billion and 2 billion “might ensure that all individuals [live] prosperous lives, assuming limited change in per capita consumption and land/materials use.” If humans reduced fertility rates to one child per woman on average by 2100, there could be as few as 2 billion people by 2153, they calculated.
Still, even that won’t be enough. It seems that before 2153, even if we eliminate billions of people through whatever means in the meantime, “climate change and biodiversity loss are likely to cause ‘unacceptable’ losses to the environment, humans and the Earth’s many ecosystems.”
So what should people do? Hell, live it up – the planet is already doomed! Idle your SUV in the driveway while pouring lead paint on baby seals – what do have to lose?
Or maybe, just maybe, you put the lid on the paint cans, leave the seals alone and use your SUV to drive to the polls and vote against the party that embraces, supports and even profits from this insanity. Just a thought.
There are a lot of people who think like that at the highest levels of our government.
That’s why they’re so excited about importing Ebola.
Still the rule of 7% is scary. Population growth at 7% means double the human population in 10 years. 3.5 % 20 years.
Everytime you look at something like Oil, Gas, think about demand doubling in your life time. Perhaps twice or three times depending upon how young you are.
That’s why Fusion, on any reasonable scale is so important and I hope God unlocks that mystery in my lifetime.
Next up: Solar System exploitation, the rising cost of Gravity.
Humans are PART of the earth’s many ecosystems - a fact lost on most of these idiots. They act as if we are some kind of outside invasion force.
Thomas Malthus, please call your service. Paging Thomas Malthus ...
Yeah.
According to obammy’s “obola czar”,
Too many are being born in Africa, asia and third world countries and he believes population levals are the worlds biggest problem.
Sooo, let ebola do in a whole passel of folks i guess.
Agreed.
Only one thing to quibble about. It is no longer and a long way from being “Our Government”.
I remember an old Charlie Brown comic where Sally is giving an oral report at school and says “everyone agrees there’s too many people on this planet, yet no one wants to get off!”
Environmentalist are hard core socialists. They think far left wing big government politics will save the environment so they are doing ‘God’s Work.” And anyone who opposed them are evil and must be destroyed.
I learned my lesson with them. I was a member of several prominent environmental groups. They were all pro-immigration and pro-amnesty and supported every left wing wacko politician.
I couldn’t understand it. We actually have zero growth in population in America. Literally, if we stopped all immigration we would not have to build another single house or bulldoze another wooded lot.
You would think environmentalists would be the most anti-immigration people you could find in order to save the environment in America. You would be wrong. They care nothing about the environment. It is all about power.
"....Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp."
Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague." Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment....."
Obama's Biggest Radical - articles and views.
More: More history and articles on John P. Holdren
its a demonic spirit and that same spirit is in control of our government,
margaret sanger harris = ezekiel Emanuel
nothing new here, just that it will start to become openly visible again,
You hit the nail on the head right there. Environmentalism is hatred of man, plain and simple.
I think we should start putting together a list of the ebola ‘sightings’ in the US.
Recently...
Maine
W Texas
N. Dakota
NYC
New Jersey
Alabama?
There are 10 somewhere, but I don’t remember.
>> Idle your SUV in the driveway while pouring lead paint on baby seals
Yeah. So? Stop spying on me. Whoever you are.
This is, or should be, an uncontroversial truism, taken simply by its wording.
ANY positive growth rate is not sustainable in the long run, as in centuries or millenia.
However, the relevant fact, not ever discussed in these articles, is that there is good evidence that as societies become more wealthy and educated, their growth rate drops, to the point that in many "advanced" nations birth rate is well below replacement.
Which is of course itself in the long run not "sustainable." Any society with birth rate below replacement will eventually disappear.
We really ought to have enviros running campaigns to "Save the Italians" or "Save the South Koreans," not "Save the Whales," most of which are expanding in population.
Of course, that won't happen, because their CO2 doesn't affect the planet, their water use is for the "common good", and their consumption of resources is so they can obliterate the rest of us (for mudder gaia, of course!).
...frickin' dirt worshipers...
Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
Paul Ehrlich, paging Paul Ehrilich. Please pick up the RED courtesy phone.
There were some people under observation in the New Orleans area last week, so add South Louisiana to the list.
If something like Ebola infected only liberals.....
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.