The National Academy of Sciences has published a shocking report which envisages a Chinese-style global one child policy as the only means of reversing climate change and reducing global population to a “sustainable” number of 1-2 billion people.
The white paper, entitled Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems and authored by the University of Adelaide’s Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook, even entertains the impact of world wars and global pandemics that wipe out 6 billion people as potential methods of combating the threat posed to the environment by overpopulation.
Crucially, the paper is edited by Stanford University’s Paul R. Ehrlich, a perennial advocate of population reduction whose dire proclamations about environmental catastrophes as a result of overpopulation have been proven wildly inaccurate time and time again.
In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich infamously predicted that, “In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death,” as a result of overpopulation, just one of many ludicrous forecasts that Ehrlich has got spectacularly wrong on a routine basis.
Ehrlich has also expressed his support for mandatory population control, arguing that such methods must be imposed “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail,” while the biologist co-authored Ecoscience with White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a “planetary regime.”
Given that connection, it’s unsurprising that the white paper struggles to disguise its advocacy for draconian methods of population reduction in the name of saving mother Earth.
The report presents a selection of scenarios to achieve “reductions in human fertility” in order to prevent “climate change,” threats to biodiversity and to help “plan for a healthy future society.”
The authors admit that global fertility rates are already dropping but that “rising affluence-linked population and consumption rates” (in other words – higher standards of living) are contributing to worsening environmental conditions.
Under one scenario, a global pandemic wipes out 6 billion people from 2041 onwards, resulting in the planet’s population being reduced to 5.1 billion by 2100. However, this reduction of 2 billion people compared to current figures is not sufficient to accomplish the level of human culling desired by the authors, who note that “even future events that rival or plausibly exceed past societal cataclysms cannot guarantee small future population sizes without additional measures, such as fertility control.”
Graph: Global pandemic events which reduce population by 2 billion and 6 billion denoted by skull and crossbone image.
While the paper admits that the notion of global pandemics and wars as tools to reduce population is an “amoral” consideration, its tone almost laments the fact that these “stressors” would not significantly reduce population down to the desired “sustainable” figure of 1-2 billion people.
“It has been suggested that a total world population between 1 and 2 billion might ensure that all individuals lived prosperous lives, assuming limited change in per capita consumption and land/materials use,” states the report. The sober academic tone of the paper only partially obscures the fact that the authors are advocating that 5 billion people be eradicated from the Earth, a notion they acknowledge is “politically sensitive.”
In two other scenarios, a combination of deaths from a massive world war and a Spanish flu-style event combined, as well as a pandemic that kills 2 billion people, both fail to achieve the desired level of population reduction by 2100.
The only method to truly achieve anywhere near the kind of population reduction desired to achieve sustainability and prosperity, according to the report, is a global Chinese-style one child policy, which if imposed by 2045 would reduce global population to 3.45 billion, less than half current levels, by 2100. Models show that this would take at least 140 years to achieve if females were restricted by law to having just one child.
The report notes that one of the main obstacles to imposing stricter family planning measures and a global one child policy is “conservative religious and political opposition.” What is not discussed is the fact that China’s barbaric one child policy is imposed by means of crippling economic coercion and via a system of state terror where pregnant women are kidnapped off the street by government goons, drugged and made to undergo forced abortions before being sterilized.
Graph: According to the report, the only way to reduce global population anywhere near to “sustainable” levels of 1-2 billion would be a global one child policy.
Acknowledging that the imposition of such measures would be “challenging to achieve,” the authors assert that such draconian methods offer, “great potential to reduce the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the long term.”
“There are clearly many environmental and societal benefits to ongoing fertility reduction in the human population,” conclude the authors, arguing that such measures represent a “solution long in the making.”
In reality, when one studies models of human demographics produced by other entities, including the United Nations’ own figures, overpopulation ceases to be an issue past 2050 and in fact the real problem becomes underpopulation.
As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”
In addition, Professor Hans Rosling’s study of global demographics, expertly summarized in his presentation Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population (embedded below), illustrates how “in a few generations’ time, world population growth will level off completely.”
Given the fact that the white paper published by the National Academy of Sciences has debunked alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich’s fingerprints all over it, its value lies not in providing us with accurate statistics about population growth, but in offering a shocking glimpse into the eugenics-driven madness and environmental radicalism that still pervades the halls of academia worldwide in the context of hysteria about overpopulation.