May 12, 2008

Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

Today the call for depopulating the earth has grown louder than ever. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the earth. Ted Turner states "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal", and the global elite applaud him. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are quoted more and more with approval by our leaders.

What is this world coming to?

It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda:

Less people.

Problem: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".

Problem: Medical costs are increasing.

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.

Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":

Get rid of a whole bunch of people......

Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior" also once stated that he would like to come back to earth as a disease someday to help reduce the human population.

But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from everywhere:

John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."

He has also stated: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

Mikhail Gorbachev made this shocking statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

The reality is that we are getting closer and closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of world that you want to live in?

The scary thing is that many of you who read this article will agree with this radical depopulation agenda. For those of you who believe in this, I would love to hear your rationale. Feel free to leave a comment to this article.


  1. That is a scary thought!
    The even scary thing is the post of all those statements in stone!

  2. There is a similarity between people willing to prevent population control through 1 child or similar policies and people praising for radical measures of starving the populations so as to achieve population reduction: They both are radical criminals.

    Population control must be implemented before its too late and it is indispensable for the human life on the planet to be sustainable.

    " Arithmetic, Population & Energy"
    This lecture of Albert Bartlett could be the real "Inconvenient Truth.
    This is a MUST SEE, if you truly want to understand the basis of overpopulation and sustainability.

  3. And when they talk about depopulation, inevitably, it's the poor who get wiped out.

    They'll think again when there's no one left to do anything useful.

  4. Thanks for participating in this week's very special Memorial Day Edition of the Carnival of Family Life at Colloquium! Stop by and check out some of the other wonderful articles included in this edition!

  5. I agree with Alison - it tends to be the poor who are wiped out. People living in substandard housing and overcrowded conditions are a lot more likely to perish in a typhoon or an earthquake than people living in wealthy areas. When Katrina hit, it was the people without cars or a means to escape the city who lost their lives. It's easy for the "elite" to say that we need 90% fewer people, since they tend to be able to avoid major scourges and disasters.
    On the other hand, I am a fan of the idea of limiting how many children we have. My husband and I have one son, and we are very seriously considering not having any more children - with overpopulation being a big factor in our decision.

  6. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here. Obviously, it seems morally wrong to deliberately exterminate people in order to, say, reduce the environmental burden on the planet. But having fewer children would not seem to be wrong -- on the contrary, it seems that, given our circumstances, it may even be obligatory (rather than merely supererogatory). However, what course of action should one take in the following sort of dilemma? (I'm not assuming that this dilemma obtains -- at least not yet!) Either everyone dies -- or, say, 80% of people die -- as a result of environmental collapse brought about by human overpopulation, or we deliberately implement a policy which results in the deaths of 50% of people, which results in a sufficiently reduced burden on the earth to allow for the sustaining of human life. What should we do? One difficulty here is that the risk in the first disjunct is of quite a different order to any we have faced prior to the last half-century or so -- it is an existential risk, i.e., one which threatens the existence of all human life on the planet, and even the conditions for the future evolution of any life on the planet. If the above dilemma really obtained, then it is easy, I think, to appreciate how one might justifiably consider oneself obliged to kill 50% of the human population of the earth.

  7. The alternatives to voluntarily reducing our population over time by reducing birth rates are:
    A) Allow nature to do it via starvation and disease or

    B) Have nice big wars over resources and just killing lots of people off all at once.

    Take your pick.

    1. I will pick the former, the latter may cause unwanted side effects (i.e. nuclear winter, etc)

  8. i think the biggest problem is most people think that they cant do anything about todays crisis but they really can just have to be willing

  9. While I agree that the Earth would be far better off if our population was decreased by 80-90%, I do not thinking limiting child birth's or killing off the elderly/disabled/weak is the solution. I think we should invest in Space Exploration and send anyone willing to go to colonize other worlds/ well as encourage safe sex and limited child births.

  10. For any single country, depopulation would lead to fatal effects that are not been foreseen. China, in 30 years will truly face an overly aging population with not enough younger people to replace them.

    This is a direct result of population control by means of birth control - like China's long running one child only policy. In end, it would create such an imbalance of population where a very small percentage of productive population (read working age - you may choose the age limits) would end up supporting a much larger retired/non productive population. And add to that the health care costs, it is not something you'd want to face.

    However, if the depopulation happens uniformly, rather than birth control, there would be better results. The main point is that the age distribution of the population should be maintained.

    So the question arises what is an ideal age distribution. I would not take India as an example where the population is relatively younger. (China is also about at the same phase now) Many European countries and Japan are grappling with an increasingly aging population which would be a problem for sustainability of the society, economic or otherwise.

    I could say the age distribution of the United States as more or less ideal even though as the baby boomers are aging, it is going to tilt the distribution slightly.

    Seeing this, Clint's idea would be a good one, to reduce the population uniformly across the age spectrum, a war or a natural catastrophe would be ideal. (no, I am not saying it is a great thing or anything)

    And Alison, you are wrong, all over the world, birth rates per couple are higher among the poor. The most affluent -creme de la creme- have a falling population by each generation. (By average they do not create 2.3 offspring per couple which is the sustainable rate) This of course means that the poor will have to cope with more birth control. But it does not mean they are going to be wiped out.

    So, in conclusion, the idea of a smaller population being useful in having a lesser impact on the environment and for a better (read slower) utilization of natural resources is good. However, while devising a policy to bring about that change globally, one would have to take into consideration all the unintended side effects.

  11. They want to depopulate us because they want more easier to rule with their slaves.

    If we are overpopulated instead of spending money for was we should spend it on making colonies in the Moon and Mars!