“We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states.
“To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.”
There is no time to lose, the scientists say: “The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”
The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating.
Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing. A key aim of the warning is to set out a full range of “vital sign” indicators of the causes and effects of climate breakdown, rather than only carbon emissions and surface temperature rise.
“A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events,” said co-author Thomas Newsome, of the University of Sydney.
Other “profoundly troubling signs from human activities” selected by the scientists include booming air passenger numbers and world GDP growth. “The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle,” they said.
As a result of these human activities, there are “especially disturbing” trends of increasing land and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather events, the scientists said: “Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have have largely failed to address this predicament. Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points. These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.”
“We urge widespread use of the vital signs [to] allow policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of the crisis, realign priorities and track progress,” the scientists said.
“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to look at the graphs and know things are going wrong,” said Newsome. “But it is not too late.” The scientists identify some encouraging signs, including decreasing global birth rates, increasing solar and wind power and fossil fuel divestment. Rates of forest destruction in the Amazon had also been falling until a recent increase under new president Jair Bolsonaro.
They set out a series of urgently needed actions:
Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
Stabilise global population – currently growing by 200,000 people a day – using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
“The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual,” the scientists said. The recent surge of concern was encouraging, they added, from the global school strikes to lawsuits against polluters and some nations and businesses starting to respond.
A warning of the dangers of pollution and a looming mass extinction of wildlife on Earth, also led by Ripple, was published in 2017. It was supported by more than 15,000 scientists and read out in parliaments from Canada to Israel. It came 25 years after the original “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in 1992, which said: “A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.”
Ripple said scientists have a moral obligation to issue warnings of catastrophic threats: “It is more important than ever that we speak out, based on evidence. It is time to go beyond just research and publishing, and to go directly to the citizens and policymakers.”
OUR BURNING PLANET
The climate crisis has arrived, leaving fate of humanity in the balance — thousands of top scientists
By Tiara Walters - 08. November 2019
(Photo: Cristian Ibarra/Pixabay )
In a radical departure from the conservative language that normally defines science, 11,258 scientists from around the world have called for drastic climate action to “avoid untold suffering”.
Sounding the clarion call in high-impact journal BioScience, the peer-reviewed declaration affirms the science community’s “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat” and to “tell it like it is”.
“On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented,” the declaration’s lead authors state, “we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”
The scientists represent top-tier institutions in 153 countries, from Albania to Zimbabwe. They specialise in a dizzying array of disciplines, including environmental sciences, mathematics, neuroscience and astrophysics.
Through a glass darkly
Released this week, the declaration embodies a historical moment in science communication — this is the first time that scientists from around the world have joined forces to declare an “unequivocal climate emergency” on a global scale. Compared with previous climate publications, studies and reports, such as the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, this declaration uses dramatic wording that creates a disturbing portrait of “profoundly troubling signs from human activities”.
“We are all extremely aware that the expectations of normal scientific communication — couched in neutral, dry, dusty, dispassionate language — have had far too little effect on policymakers and captains of industry,” Dr Phoebe Barnard, chief science and policy officer at Washington’s Conservation Biology Institute, told Our Burning Planet. A lead co-author on the landmark paper, Barnard is also a researcher with South African academic institutions, including the African Climate and Development Initiative at the University of Cape Town.
“Our purpose is to show denialists and recalcitrant politicians — and you’ll know who I mean — they have absolutely zero wiggle room left,” she told Our Burning Planet. “They’re asleep at the wheel, or worse, cutting the brake cables to make a quick personal buck as hitmen. Their actions (and inactions) will be remembered darkly by the public and future generations.”
Barnard’s co-authors are affiliates of Oregon State and Tufts universities in the US, and the University of Sydney in Australia. As for assembling thousands of scientist signatures, Barnard said “we don’t have to persuade people to sign this, or ‘sell’ them something. They are angry, frustrated and deeply fearful for their children and grandchildren”.
She added, “Nobody trained in science who has been alive with their eyes open, reading the news and watching the horizon can fail to see what is happening. The voices of scientists still have strong currency with many people. So we opened up the letter to all scientists.”
Four decades of global climate negotiations have ticked by since the first World Climate Conference in Geneva, in 1979, according to the paper attached to the declaration. It was this gathering of 50 governments who agreed unsettling climate trends made it “urgently necessary to act”. Since then, nations have met at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, locked heads of state over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and, in 2015, concluded the widely criticised, non-committal Paris climate goals. There’ve been “scores of other global assemblies and scientists’ explicit warnings”, the paper points out.
Massive South African push
Explaining why he added his signature, Cape Town-based Professor Nicholas King told Our Burning Planet: “The magnitude of the environmental changes coming our way are immense, far beyond anything humanity has ever experienced.”
An independent environmental futurist, King was a review editor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report, a global diagnosis of the climate crisis. King is among more than 200 scientist signatories affiliated with South Africa, whose total signatures noticeably outweigh average contributions by scientists from other countries — some indication of concern about South Africa’s role as the continent’s top carbon emitter.
“All scientific reporting speaks of the urgent need for ‘transformative change’ in everything we do, from industrial agriculture… to our consumerist lifestyles. These are drivers of the crisis, and will be collapsed by the crisis, if we do not change direction,” said King.
Dr Jock Currie, who studies the impact of trawling on seafloor habitats along the South African coast, told Our Burning Planet he added his name because he was “frustrated by the apathy shown by governments and societies. By supporting efforts to change our climate trajectory, I can hopefully face future generations with a healthy conscience and tell them I did try.”
“An immense increase” in “endeavours to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis”, according to the paper.
Yet, it warns that “most public discussions on climate change are based on global surface temperature only”. As a new response to typically “inadequate” measures to “capture the breadth of human activities” and the “real dangers stemming from a warming planet”, the paper offers a suite of graphs denoting the planet’s waning “vital signs”. These include graphs on human-induced climate impacts spanning 40 years.
“We use only relevant data sets that are clear, understandable, systematically collected… and updated at least annually,” the paper explains. Aimed at groups as diverse as business, policymakers and the public, the ambitious paper also targets “those working to implement the Paris climate agreement, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets”.
Huge tracts of Earth could become ‘uninhabitable’
The collective effort paints in damning detail the existential fork in the road our species has reached.
“Potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks”, the authors say, “could lead to a catastrophic ‘hothouse Earth’, well beyond the control of humans.”
“The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected… threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity,” the paper cautions. “These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions… potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.”
The paper also cites the thorny issue of population growth as being “among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”. All people of the world should be given access to family-planning services, it urges.
There are reassuring signs. Some encouraging trends include decreases in global fertility rates; reduced forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon; fossil-fuel divestment of more than US$7-trillion; and climate-heating emissions covered by carbon pricing.
“Consumption of solar and wind energy has increased 373% per decade,” it says. The authors are also “encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding… Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change.”
But there’s a dark flipside to these sunshine developments.
The decline in human fertility rates has “substantially slowed”. That means population growth trends are showing less reduction over the recent 20-year period.
The massive increase in solar and wind consumption was still, in 2018, “28 times smaller than fossil fuel” equivalents. Conversely, subsidies for fossil fuels were “greater than US$400-billion in 2018”. These subsidies spiked last year despite climate protests gaining never-before-seen global momentum, and the IPCC special report rerouting climate politics.
As for the Brazilian Amazon, the “pace of forest loss has now started to increase again”, due to factors such as fires and conversion to agricultural land.
Worldwide loss in tree cover, swift global ice melt, worldwide extreme weather and ocean levels, temperature and acidity “have all been trending upward”.
Lifestyle changes — when money doesn’t grow on trees
The paper adds simply: “These issues highlight the urgent need for action… We must change how we live.”
If cited lifestyle factors are anything to go by, the paper’s arrow points at the wealthy classes. Feasting on meat and fossil fuel — often at the same time if one is a carnivorous frequent flyer — hover alongside consumptive capitalist outflows such as gross domestic product.
Incorporating a “critical” rescue plan to change the habits that power the crisis, and resuscitate the biosphere, the paper suggests six interlocking steps.
They call for, among others, leaving remaining fossil fuel stocks in the ground and reducing short-lived climate pollutants like hydrofluorocarbons (this could slash the “short-term warming trend by more than 50% over the next few decades, while saving millions of lives and increasing crop yields due to reduced air pollution”). The steps also emphasise the need to restore natural systems that sequester carbon.
“Although available land may be limiting in places,” it observes encouragingly, “up to a third of emissions reductions needed by 2030 for the Paris agreement (less than 2°C) could be obtained with these natural climate solutions.”
Scientists in the trenches
Of course, these solutions are not all that is “needed” or “even possible” — which dovetails with a debate on how frontline scientists should communicate explosive climate information at their fingertips.
Asked about unintended consequences of pulling climate “emergency” alarms, a prominent South African environmental scientist who spoke to Our Burning Planet anonymously, said: “I worry about the technical political meaning of ‘emergency’ — because that might trigger actions that are not fully thought through, as in ‘state of emergency’ responses. There’s an urgency to implement climate mitigation and adaptation responses, but ‘emergency’ language may cloud clear thinking.”
Said Barnard: “Of course, it’s a risk. But it’s not nearly the same magnitude as the overwhelming risks of continued apathy and denialism… Many of us [scientists] have worked in situations that actively discourage advocacy. But the future of the planet, human civilisation, and millions of human lives — and millions of other species — are at stake. We cannot mince our words — we’re also human beings, parents, siblings, teachers, lovers, poets, filmmakers and writers, as well as scientists. We cannot help but speak up, repeatedly.”
King pointed out that “politicians the world over seem unable, or unwilling to grasp the magnitude of this challenge. So, we must ask, what is the role of science if not to improve decision-making? And if science is not improving decision-making, then science, and scientists, need to change too — to become vociferous advocates for the change our work dictates.”
Currie, affiliated with Nelson Mandela University and the South African National Biodiversity Institute, said: “There’s been a narrative that scientists should stick to doing science and provide knowledge for decision-makers in objective, unemotional language. Most scientists would love to be able to forget about the world’s problems and focus on the fun stuff, namely their research.
“But we’re global citizens — seeing our planet burn, we can’t stick our head in the sand. There’s so much disinformation from interest groups who stand to lose if we rapidly decarbonise our economies, which threatens to drown out the truth. So, many scientists are realising they have to add their voice to reason and help lobby decision-makers to act, besides doing their normal duty of pursuing objective research.”
Barnard and her co-authors’ paper, World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, is among thousands of academic and popular publications to chart ecological collapse. How big must Homo sapiens think to repair nature; care about lived experiences beyond our immediate tribes; and evolve towards future societies who are, as Barnard puts it, “simpler; less damaging; healthier and more meaningful”?
She urged people to start with history, dire and redemptive: “Writers like polymath Jared Diamond (Collapse) and historian David Keys (Catastrophe) have shown how relatively modest and temporary climate changes, like those associated with volcanic eruptions” often accompany disease outbreaks, unrest, economic instability, warfare and resource depletion.
“I cannot emphasise enough how close we are to upending all of this.”
A Marshall Plan for Planet Earth
Even so, she said she did not support social media memes like “near-term human extinction” (“NTHE”). Instead, she cited the past 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution as an example of “uncommonly stable and benign climatic conditions”. Though “pockmarked”, these have “allowed us to develop remarkable civilisations and incredible beauty, poetry, architecture, innovation and opportunity”.
Alluding to “the fire in my own belly” — language rarely used in science interviews with the press — Barnard spoke of a vision philosophical and pragmatic: “Have the courage to change what needs to be changed. Have the serenity to accept that some things can’t be changed. Sea-level rise is now unstoppable in a human lifespan; we need to retreat our communities and infrastructure from the coast.”
To achieve drastic action envisaged by the declaration, Barnard called for “uncommon leadership” that could initiate climate recovery through a “Marshall-type” plan, such as the US-funded rescue package that injected billions of dollars to resurrect war-torn Europe.
This far-reaching emergency declaration, then, is not just for a few thousand scientists. It needs “all humanity”, Barnard and her colleagues conclude in their paper, to “sustain life on planet Earth, our only home”.
45 POPULATION CONTROL QUOTES THAT SHOW THE ELITE ARE QUITE EAGER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE PLANET
BY MICHAEL SNYDER - 06. November 2019
At one time, the elite at least attempted to conceal their boundless enthusiasm for population control from the general public, but now they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.
On Tuesday, an alarming new study that advocates global population control as one of the solutions to the “climate emergency” that we are facing was published in the journal BioScience. This document has already been signed by 11,258 scientists from 153 different countries, and it openly calls for a reduction in the human population of our planet. This has always been the endgame for the climate change cult, but now a big push is being made to make the public believe that there is a “scientific consensus” that this is necessary.
You can find a summary of the report here, and I would very much encourage you to read it, because it is essentially a blueprint for where the elite intend to take humanity in the years ahead.
But in order to achieve their goals, first they are going to have to convince us that planetary disaster is imminent, and in this study the authors boldly tell us “that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency”…
Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.
Sounds pretty scary, right?
So what solutions are they proposing?
Well, the study breaks down the necessary solutions into six basic groupings…
The letter focuses on six key objectives: replacing fossil fuels; cutting pollutants like methane and soot; restoring and protecting ecosystems; eating less meat; converting the economy to one that is carbon-free and stabilising population growth.
If that sounds a lot like “the Green New Deal”, that is because it is a lot like “the Green New Deal”.
It is the sixth “objective” that concerns me the most. Because the truth is that they don’t want to just “stabilize” the global population.
According to the study, the population of the Earth really needs to be “gradually reduced”…
Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018).
But if humans are the primary driver of climate change, and if we only have about 12 years before we reach the point of no return as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested, will a “gradual” reduction of the human population really be enough to satisfy the climate change zealots?
For true believers in the cause, there would be no faster way of turning this crisis around than to radically reduce the population of the planet. According to them, every one of us has “a carbon footprint”, and as the population grows the climate change crisis only gets worse. So a logical extension of this thinking would be that anyone that can find a way to significantly reduce the global population would literally be “saving the planet”. To you and I, the idea of millions or billions of people dying is absolutely horrific, but for those that have fully embraced the climate change narrative such an outcome would be extremely desirable.
And of course population control has been an obsession among the global elite for a very long time. Way before “global warming” and “climate change” were popularized, those at the top end of the social pyramid have been dreaming of dramatically culling the herd.
To demonstrate this, I would like to share with you 45 quotes that prove the elite really do want to dramatically reduce the number of people on the planet…
1. Charles Darwin (his thinking is at the foundation of so many of our scientific theories today): “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
2. Bill Gates: “The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it’s in the very poorest places that you’re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. (…) And we’ve got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don’t have an impossible situation later.”
3. Bernie Sanders: “In poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.”
4. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson: “The primary challenge facing our species is the reproduction of our species itself…It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet…All the evidence shows that we can help reduce population growth, and world poverty, by promoting literacy and female emancipation and access to birth control.”
5. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.”
6. Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”: “Solving the population problem is not going to solve the problems of racism… of sexism… of religious intolerance… of war… of gross economic inequality. But if you don’t solve the population problem, you’re not going to solve any of those problems. Whatever problem you’re interested in, you’re not going to solve it unless you also solve the population problem.”
7. Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
8. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
9. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso: about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”
10. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”
11. Richard Branson: “The truth is this: the Earth cannot provide enough food and fresh water for 10 billion people, never mind homes, never mind roads, hospitals and schools.”
12. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”
13. HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”
14. Al Gore: “One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children… You have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”
15. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”
16. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”
Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom
17. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“
18. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don’t want to hear it.”
19. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General from 1997-2006: “The idea that population growth guarantees a better life — financially or otherwise — is a myth that only those who sell nappies, prams and the like have any right to believe.”
20. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UN Under-Secretary-General from 2000-2010: “We cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.”
21. Bill Nye: “In 1750, there were about a billion humans in the world. Now, there are well over seven billion people in the world. It more than doubled in my lifetime. So all these people trying to live the way we live in the developed world is filling the atmosphere with a great deal more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than existed a couple of centuries ago. It’s the speed at which it is changing that is going to be troublesome for so many large populations of humans around the world.”
22. Actress Cameron Diaz: “I think women are afraid to say that they don’t want children because they’re going to get shunned. But I think that’s changing too now. I have more girlfriends who don’t have kids than those that do. And, honestly? We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.”
23. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”
24. Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”
25. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”
26. Gloria Steinem: “Everybody with a womb doesn’t have to have a child any more than everybody with vocal chords has to be an opera singer.”
27. Jane Goodall: “It’s our population growth that underlies just about every single one of the problems that we’ve inflicted on the planet. If there were just a few of us, then the nasty things we do wouldn’t really matter and Mother Nature would take care of it — but there are so many of us.”
28. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
29. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
30. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”
31. Paul Ehrlich: “Basically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birth rate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate — war, famine, pestilence — find us.”
32. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
33. Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”
34. Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”
35. Another quote from John Holdren: “If population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”
36. David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
37. Maurice Strong: “Either we reduce the world’s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.”
38. Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
39. Mikhail Gorbachev: “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.”
40. Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
41. Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
42. Author Dan Brown: “Overpopulation is an issue so profound that all of us need to ask what should be done.”
43. Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
44. Ashley Judd: “It’s unconscionable to breed, with the number of children who are starving to death in impoverished countries.”
45. Charles Darwin: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
As you can see, this kind of thinking goes all the way back to Charles Darwin.
The elite really do look down on all the rest of us with great disdain, and let us hope that their goal of dramatically reducing the size of the human population is not realized any time soon.