Image Credit: infowars 
90-year-old biologist and Ecoscience author Paul Ehrlich fearmongered about global warming during a recent appearance on CBS‘s “60 Minutes.”
Ehrlich, a known eugenicist who incorrectly predicted millions of deaths from famine by the 1980s, warned “humanity is not sustainable” and that “The next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we’re used to.”
CBS News anchor Scott Pelley added, “The 5 mass extinctions of the ancient past were caused by natural calamities. Volcanos and an asteroid. Today, if the science is right, humanity may have to survive a 6th mass extinction in a world of its own making.”
Despite the biologist’s poor record of predicting grim outcomes for the future of mankind dating back over fifty years, mainstream networks like CBS News continue citing him as an expert.
On Monday, Twitter CEO Elon Musk said Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb “might [be] the most damaging anti-human thing ever written.”
Musk also stated, “Nothing he says should be given the slightest credibility,” because “Ehrlich despises humanity.”
Journalist Tom Elliot pointed out on Twitter that Ehrlich incorrectly suggested in 1971 the UK would be a “small group of impoverished islands inhabited by 70 million hungry people” by the year 2000.
As usual, Alex Jones and Infowars have been ahead of the curve when it comes to exposing the pro-death globalists who help groups like the UN and WEF craft their Great Reset agenda.
Watch the following 2009 clip from “The Alex Jones Show” discussing the forced vaccination and depopulation scheme dreamt up by Paul Ehrlich and President Obama’s science czar John Holdren.
For a look into the horrifying future envisioned by Ehrlich and Holdren, read the following excerpt from their book “Ecoscience.”
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Or, how about this doozy?
“… Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”
In a 1995 article, Ehrlich wrote “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay” in order to allegedly save the planet from Global Warming.
“Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”
In 2012, Ehrlich told The Guardian the elite should reduce the global population to at least 2 billion… there are currently an estimated 8 billion humans living on the planet.
This means he supports wiping out around 75% of mankind.
“We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”
One of the key ways the eugenicist hopes to prevent the population from increasing is by making abortions more accessible and common.
“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.”
This evil sentiment is not uncommon among the global elite as Alex Jones has been warning for decades, only now Jones warns the New World Order has officially gone live with its depopulation agenda.