Posted on 04/27/2012 9:35:49 AM PDT by JohnKinAK
The world's most renowned population analyst has called for a massive reduction in the number of humans and for natural resources to be redistributed from the rich to the poor.
Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University in California and author of the best-selling Population Bomb book in 1968, goes much further than the Royal Society in London which this morning said that physical numbers were as important as the amount of natural resources consumed.
Link to this audio The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.
"How many you support depends on lifestyles. 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Don’t you just love it when atheists tell us what we SHOULD do?
” Is he going to lead by example and sacrifice himself?”
Folks, we have a WINNER!!
So bad God doesn’t agree.
Resources are scattered they way they are. Human ability is scattered the way it is.
Another pointy-headed professor trying to correct God.
I must have missed the chapter in History when the resources of the World were “distributed” in the first place.
Who “distributed” them?
It seems to me my ancestors didn’t wait for anyone to “distribute” anything - they came here and they took what they could and earned what they made.
As such I was in a better position to take what I have and to earn what I have earned than those whose ancestors did not leave them so well positioned - but instead left to their posterity an inheritance of corrupt governance, ignorance, poverty and disease.
Under his worldview, how about we just shoot his ass and re-distribute his resources to the rest of us?
Nihilists like this guy never like their own beliefs carried out on them. They think they are elite, above the consequences of their philosophy.
They are wrong.
This could explain project 21. That could be why they're trying to get as many people as possible into a group - the cities. They'll be easier to eliminate if they're packed into a nice, neat little box. (BTW, if there's a "plague" alert, and medicine is given through the nose, run the other way. Leave the city before the roads are blocked.)
If you live in a city, look around. Please consider moving out. It may be a scary thought to leave what you know, but in the end you'll be much better off.
(Preppers aren't prepping for nothing. They sense something, even thought they're not exactly sure what it is they fear. They can smell it in the air.)
Some hits from the past of “the world’s most renowned population analyst:”
• “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines… [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death.” (1968)
• “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)
• “Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity… in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” (1976)
100 million dying for the good of world socialism
in the 20th century wasn’t enough for these crazy leftists, now they want to kill 5 billion people.
Liberalism is a death cult
Exactly. They're control freaks suffering from a God complex. The world needs to wake up, and demand those who have ideas show us how willing they are to be the first to use them. Let's see the Kerrys, the Kennedys, the Pelosis, the Reids share THEIR wealth first. Maybe after they're down to less than $250K a year themselves, we'll consider listening.
He isn’t following his own advice. He has a daughter. He is part of the problem using his distorted logic.
You know, there is some irony in this. Before one can afford non-productive members of society, a minimum number of farmers, mechanics, engineers, etc, are required.
Sociology teachers are just food on the hoof, at best.
Oddly, they do not seem to know that.
Perhaps they thin the remaining civilization will cater to their needs?
I suspect not.
I read recently that these so called one world government types think that the earth needs to be culled down to 500 million and not one person more. So, who choses to murder the 7.5 billion that needs to go??
And don't call it nasty things like murder. It's "assisted dying". After all, everybody dies. We're just going to help them do it sooner.
The only thing Paul Ehrlich is “expert” in is being spectacularly wrong.
"This is worse than before. What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program." - livius
Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
I am thinking that rather than reducing the NUMBER of people we should just reduce their SIZE — drastically. Through genetic engineering and selective breeding we could probably reduce the average human size by fifty percent over a few generations.
Think of the energy savings and the abundance of natural resources that could be conserved. A current home could shelter several families, a single cow may feed a village for maonth, and cars would get so much smaller that we could “widen” freeways by merely re-striping them. What a paradise.
Of course, special exemptions will be established for NFL and NBA players.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.