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.
Some of their adherents hold PhD’s in biosciences and work in university labs where they have access to the latest genetic engineering technologies.
Just sayin’.
Michigan .... being “watched” and their privacy protected.
Their hatred is ultimately of God, who created man. These chumps want war or disease to reduce the world's population, but they think elitists like themselves, should be allowed to survive.
I don’t believe in God, so hatred of man works for me.
UN Agenda 21 calls for reducing Earth’s population by 85%. I suggest we start by reducing those who call for its implementation!
Q: What do you call a hundred thousand dead enviros?
A: A pretty good start.
(Is the < /sarc > tag really needed?)
First, the End Times are near, and Jesus will soon return and set things right.
Or not.
In that case I believe freedom and fairly unrestrained capitalism could provide a somewhat comfortable living for all as technology improves. Nah. Greed, envy, and politics would get in the way.
So my second scenario is that as the wretched of the Earth increase exponentially and demand more and more, that war will break out, whole populations will be slaughtered, civil society and it institutions and infrastructure will fracture, technology will collapse.
Their is less to go around, and the competition for what is left is vicious and violent. No more food is produced at greater than a horticultural level.
The population plummets to less than 1 billion, probably lots less, the forests regrow, ecological imbalance is everywhere.
As the Earth tries (and eventually succeeds) to restore the ecological balance, various plagues of insects, frogs, mammalian species, etc flood the world. Along with them will come new strains of disease, and old diseases, once thought conquered will break out.
Soon we will all be living in a New Paleolithic, and the whole sorry cycle will begin again.
I'm voting for the first scenario.
I think the Ten are in Michigan.
Well, the global warming orthodoxy seems to be that the good growing zones will move farther away from the equator, which is supposed to cause massive political upheaval as people move out of those countries, thus IMO the open borders fans on the left (vs the geniuses who are just burning down their own market).
When the elites are as contemptuous of (and out of touch with) the average person as we see today. When those same elites are blind to their own reliance on unexamined (and at times hare-brained) assumptions. When the average person has their life uprooted as a result of said hare-brained assumptions and resultant theories, they might just start theorizing about exactly what brand of bull fecal matter it is that is the new gourmet treat at the grownups table. To put it in terms that the Left might understand, people are tired of all the paternalism from other people who should have their grown-up card revoked.
So maybe put the paint on the wall where it belongs, and just call them on their crap.
“They act as if we are some kind of outside invasion force.”
To envirowhackos, humans are a pox on their precious earth. I have never personally met an envirowhacko that could fight its own way out of a wet paper sack, let alone survive in a world where they weren’t relying on everyone else to get a cup of coffee together.
They are godless folks that do not acknowledge that man was created in God’s image, and that man is God’s most precious creation, out of all His creation.
All of the left think this way or use those who think this way to achieve power.
Most of them just won’t be honest about it.
bttt
Let’s declare war on environmentalists. Problem solved.
Saying it out loud now. Half a billion people is the ideal world population, they say.
Are they planning to ask about 5 billion people to volunteer to remove themselves from the planet? They might not get many volunteers, and when they start going around selecting people for extermination, they might meet serious resistance, and many of them might get exterminated.
Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Malthus — your conference call is in progress. Please dial in immediately.
GRATHWOHL: I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't reeducate, but are die-hard capitalists? And the reply was they would have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say "eliminate," I mean kill - 25 million people.Always kidding around, those progressive marxists, so much you never know when they're serious.
War and pandemic are what Obama and his minions are trying to do. They’re just not very good at it. Hell, previous Democrat Presidents all could get a good war started. This idiot has been trying and has failed.
That has changed. There are now leftist environmental groups that want immigration control. Even the biggies (such as the Sierra Club) have gone mute on the topic. The real problem is that the land NEEDS people to care for it, particularly for the control of fuels and exotic species.
Who is going to do that work? This is the problem the leftists cannot comprehend, believing that "Nature" is self-optimizing, an enormous body of evidence to the contrary.
"The Population Bomb" was the "Global Warming' scam of the late 60's and early 70's. Liberals milked it for all it was worth...
So that whole “endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights” blurb is a bunch of hooey, huh?
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.