March 8, 2013
Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich at it again: “The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people”.
In a piece published March 2 titled Food insecurity will eat away at our civilization, neo-eugenicist Paul Ehrlich gives us a condensed version of his recent research endeavors, calling for “back-up abortions” to prevent what his colleague Philip Cafaro calls “interspecies genocide”. In addition, he repeats the conclusions of his recent study for the American Institute of Biological Sciences, proposing mass mind-control and increased environmental regulations.
In their recent summary, the Ehrlichs write:
“The best way, in our view, to achieve (…) population shrinkage is to give full rights and opportunities to women, and to make modern contraception and back-up abortion accessible to all sexually active people. While the degree to which these steps would reduce total fertility rates is a matter of controversy, they would deliver significant social and economic benefits by making huge reservoirs of fresh brain power available to solve our problems, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives by reducing the number of unsafe abortions.”
Paul Ehrlich and his wife are busy little bees these days, publishing their death-talk in practically every scientific institution with a printing press. In their latest study for the Royal Society, endorsed by none other than Prince Charles, titled Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?, the demonic duo asserts that civilization is certain to collapse – and only a concerted global effort to reduce fertility may avert catastrophe. The Ehrlichs describe this “concerted global effort” as a monumental task:
“Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The degree to which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but they are a likely win-win for societies.”
These words contain some drastic and draconian implications. In order to provide “back-up abortions” to women on a global scale, a worldwide population reduction strategy must be outlined and then enforced by all nations of the planet. The Ehrlichs concede that such a worldwide effort would not go down well with nations opposing abortions:
“Obviously (…) there are huge cultural and institutional barriers to establishing such policies in some parts of the world. After all, there is not a single nation where women are truly treated as equal to men. Despite that, the population driver should not be ignored simply because limiting overconsumption can, at least in theory, be achieved more rapidly. The difficulties of changing demographic trajectories mean that the problem should have been addressed sooner, rather than later.”, the Ehrlichs write.
Responding to countless recent studies showing that not overpopulation, but underpopulation seems to be an increasing problem, especially in Europe, the Ehrlichs state:
“That halting population growth inevitably leads to changes in age structure is no excuse for bemoaning drops in fertility rates, as is common in European government circles. Reduction of population size in those over-consuming nations is a very positive trend, and sensible planning can deal with the problems of population aging.”
They also write that besides change in the politics of demography, the educational system should join the effort in a “symmetrical” manner, “moving towards sustainability and enhancing equity (including global wealth redistribution).” The scientific community must throw its weight behind the effort, the Ehrlichs say, with the aim of countering religious argumentation underlining the value of life:
“To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth, is obvious but too much neglected or denied. There are great social and psychological barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering it. This is especially true because of the ‘endarkenment’—a rapidly growing movement towards religious orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought, democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and actions on empirical evidence. They are manifest in dangerous trends such as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of contraception. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed to faith-based) risk reduction strategies, it is now.”
Global population reduction and global redistribution of wealth. These things can of course only be accomplished globally, through the concerted effort of governments everywhere, or- as the authors declare, “an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”:
“At the global level, the loose network of agreements that now tie countries together”, they write, “developed in a relatively recent stage of cultural evolution since modern nation states appeared, is utterly inadequate to grapple with the human predicament. Strengthening global environmental governance and addressing the related problem of avoiding failed statehood are tasks humanity has so far refused to tackle comprehensively even as cultural evolution in technology has rendered the present international system (as it has educational systems) obsolete. Serious global environmental problems can only be solved and a collapse avoided with an unprecedented level of international cooperation.”
The two end this line of reasoning by regurgitating the neo-Malthusian mantra- which simultaneously harbors a veiled threat, namely:
“If people do not do that, nature will restructure civilization for us.”
In other words: it’s either global environmental government or mass death. These “prominent” scientists keep stressing that as long as the people quietly follow the directives of the scientific dictatorship, destruction may yet be averted. This is a form of blackmail seldom seen as such. It is the way of the serial killer, drawing his victim into his lair, all smiles and civility. Once captured, the victim will never again see the light of day.
Jurriaan Maessen is the man behind Explosivereports.com.