Alan Weisman, in The World Without Us, which the NY Times described as the finest of nonfiction, went to great lengths in describing just how wonder the earth would be if humans ceased to exist. Of course, if humans ceased to exist, how would nuts like Weisman, assuming he is human, know what the world would be like?
In another of his books, Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?, Weisman attempted to convince his gullible readers that the earth’s population was heading in the wrong direction. How, he asks, can we add 1 million more people to the planet every 4.5 days and achieve some resemblance of ecological sustainability? It’s not just this century’s projected growth to 11 billion that troubles him, he is concerned about how the 7 billion of us already here are straining natural limits, from the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere to the decline of available fresh water.
“Our numbers have reached a point where we’ve essentially redefined the concept of original sin,” Weisman writes. “From the instant we’re born, even the humblest among us compounds the world’s mounting problems by needing food, firewood, and a roof, for starters. Literally and figuratively, we’re all exhaling CO2 and pushing other species over the edge.”
An “optimum population” for a sustainable Earth, according to Weisman, one that balances the overall human numbers with how much each person consumes, should not exceed 2 billion or so, a number set by Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich and colleagues some 20 plus years ago. Weisman is adamant that the world’s population must be reduced before we suffer the fate of the deer on Arizona’s Kaibab Plateau north of the Grand Canyon which starved to death in the 1920s.
Before you get too involved in this nonsense, take a moment and use that organ God put in your cranium. The current population of earth somewhere around 7 billion. Common sense must ask, how do these nuts plan on reducing the human population by 5 billion? China’s one child policy did not succeed in reducing that region’s population – it only slowed their rate of growth. If female infanticide, forced abortion and eugenics didn’t help China, image what they actually have in mind for the rest of us.
Billionaire Bill Gates believes thinks we can reduce the world’s population by 10 to 15 percent with “new vaccines,” heath care and the murder of innocent unborn babies. Kind of makes you wonder what he plans to put in those vaccines! And I can’t help but wonder how heath care will reduce the world’s population unless heath care is progressive double talk for euthanasia in a plan similar to Nazi Germany.
Billionaire Ted Turner, the father of five, an outspoken atheists, and obviously a fan of communist China is adamant that a forced one child policy for the next 100 years would do the trick. He has even advocated for the right to allow women to sell their fertility rights.
Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford, an avid global warming scammer and left-wing nut, believes in a two-step approach. First the elite need to figure out a “humane” way to depopulate the earth and then, as a prize, the survivors could divvy up the wealth left by those they nixed. If you’re wealthy I’d really be concerned. He even goes so far as to suggests massive depopulation could be brought about by some sort of disaster, say a small nuclear war, or the spread of some fatal virus, neither of which sound very “humane.”
British Eugenist David Attenborough wants to withhold food from starving third world countries and totally outlaw the birth of children. Jacques Cousteau suggests the “elimination” of some 350,000 people a day. David Brower of the Sierra club wants to make child-birth a crime. Dave Foreman, cofounder of Earth First, wants to “eliminate” all but 100 million people worldwide by destroying the industrial infrastructure (starvation). John Holdren, Obama’s former science advisor, thinks government should implant a sterilizing pill under the skin of girls at puberty only to be removed if the government decides she is worthy or the world needs another child. If that doesn’t work, mandatory sterilization of all women would be acceptable or perhaps compulsory abortion would solve the problem.
Of course today the term “population control” has fallen out of favor and is now disguised under the pretext of women’s rights and reproductive rights.
According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 40 to 50 millions lives snuffed out each year in the name of population control, an average of about 125,000 a day. In the U.S. alone some 1.2 million murderers are performed each year in the name of women’s rights.
“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.” Hubert Humphrey