Humans Are A Cancer?

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 wonderful 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 his book, Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth, Weisman attempted to convince his 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 8 billion of us already on planet earth 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.”

He whines that an “optimum population” for a sustainable Earth is one that balances the overall human numbers with how much each person consumes, and that should not exceed 2 billion or so, a number set by Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich and colleagues many years ago. 

Before you get too involved in this nonsense, take a moment and use that gray matter God put in your cranium. Common sense must ask: how do these nuts plan on reducing the human population to 2 million? 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.

Health Czar elitist Bill Gates believes that it is possible to reduce the world’s population by up to 15% with new vaccines, healthcare and the murder of innocent unborn babies.  Doesn’t really sound like health care to me. Rather, it has more in common with Nazi Germany’s euthanasia program.  

Paul Ehrlich, a professor of population studies at Stanford, and an avid global warming scammer believes in a two-step approach to rid the world of its overpopulation.  The elite need to figure out a “humane” way to depopulate the earth and then the survivors could divvy up the wealth left by those they nixed.  He even goes so far as to suggests that a small nuclear war, or the spread of some fatal virus would cause massive depopulation. 

British Eugenius David Attenborough believes that the haves should withhold food from the have-nots in third world countries and outlaw childbirth.  Seriously?  

Dave Foreman, cofounder of Earth First wants to “eliminate” all but 100 million people worldwide by destroying the industrial infrastructure, thereby killing off the people with starvation.

According to the World Health Organization there are an estimated 40 to 50 million 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


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *