Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,
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.”
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.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
This is one of the worst pieces of ‘journalism’ I’ve ever read.
Let’s state up front that global warming is a scam. Any intelligent person can easily figure that out. Let’s also state that population growth has exploded and if graphed looks like an asymptotic curve. The planet can not sustain infinite growth of any organism, especially one as needy as a human being.
Clearly, population growth is a problem for anyone with the education to recognize a trend when they see it. The solution is not to kill off millions or billion, but to slow the growth rate in areas of the world that can not sustain the expected population growth due to resource restrictions. Arable land is not infinite and especially so where population forecasts are expecting explosive increases – Africa, for example.
After decades of handing out food, medicine, etc on the African continent, the locals have come to see this as the natural order of things. Aid needs to be slowly curtailed so that over time the locals realize that they will eventually be on their own and if they have enough brain cells realize that producing too many babies is THEIR problem not the rest of the world’s.
No one is calling for genocide. A rational change in policy to get the poorer areas of the world to realize that procreating has a cost that eventually they themselves must bear is the only possible long term solution.
Surely not infinite growth, but it could support 50 billion or 100 billion easy, given what is coming in the next age and the age after that.
No spaceship needed.
Not by a long shot.
Thanks for that Dr. Frankenstein
You assume that “global over population” is not as big a hoax as global warming , peak oil or the coming ice age. Genocide has always been the handmaiden of the dictator. So is “the big lie”. PROVE that there are seven billion people on earth and I’ll listen. But you can’t because there is no more proof of global population numbers than there is proof of “global warming” or the oil running out. Three things you should know. ONE: There has never been a global census. TWO: The UN claims that almost one half of the global population lives in the third world and cannot be counted. THREE: The UN also claims that in the part of the world where they CAN count , there are LESS than five billion people. They refuse to say how much less. That all adds up to a hoax as far as I can see. BUT: if you want to stampede the heard you must use fear. You must use a lot of fear when your goal is to get people to WANT to go to the death camps, “For the good of mother Giya” AND YES they ARE calling for genocide. That’s what population reduction is. GENOCIDE.
One thing that cannot be disputed is that the planet is a finite piece of dirt. At this point no one really knows the ultimate carrying capacity, or how miserable life might be when that point is reached. One thing that you can rely on is nature will fix whatever happens and put things back in balance. Whether it will be starvation, or an incurable disease, something will bring back balance. We do not have to destroy our humanity, just live.
I guess you’re not a STEM graduate, or else you’d know how to read the TREND via a graph. I don’t need to know the absolute numbers as I can see from the trend that the trend is unsustainable.
Any engineer looking at an asymptotic curve knows that’s a failure curve regardless of what the curve represents. In the case of population, it is the realization that the numbers are ratcheting up so fast that in some fairly short period of time, the arithmetic says that arable land can’t support the population projection.
It’s the old one grain of rice on day one and a doubling of the amount every day thereafter. Just looking at the graph produced of that old story shows that in short order it would equate to all the rice on the planet.
If they really think this crap is true, why don’t these jackasses give us an example by offing themselves?
Oddly that obvious contribution to humanity never seems to occur to the elites…..Tells you everything you need to know!
Yep, especially when you consider their carbon footprint is monumental compared to yours and mine!
Not happening.
It’s a Jewish beauty pageant for just a little longer, until thing roll over and settle down.
Watch some 1980s Michael Mann.
Worked for me.
—
https://imgur.com/rl61dHi
—
It’s different in Utah.
#46 = Georgia Guidestones prophecy of a genocidal depopulation program? A 90% reduction in current population levels.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
The Great Culling of the human race already has begun. It is being done through chemicals added to our drinking water, food, medicines, and the air we breathe – chemicals that have the known effect of reducing fertility and shortening lifespan.
G. Edward Griffin
He forgot Chernobyl and Fukushima
Georgia Guidestones…nothing a little C-4 couldn’t fix.
Well ok…for the three globalists traitors who object to C-4…we will use Semtex.
How can anyone suggest that the world is not overpopulated?
I would suggest dropping birth control pills in all African water sources, and most Asian ones.
Pay any buck in Africa $5,000 to be neutered at age 11. Would be the best money we ever spent except if we did it in USA first. Win win. overthecliff
Best to pay the women. Sorta like hunting deer, but in reverse. Want to stop deer population growth, shoot does.
I’m for that as well. Your article was great.
Thanks so much.
If you’re ready to move on, and have had enough of this world, then do one last good deed.
Find an elite member of the 0.010%, one who is a pop. control advocate, or a global warming scientist, and take them out, before you say goodbye.
That’s a twofer one that helps the cause.
Honorary Gray Panther membership bestowed.
Just so I understand the premise- the people who want to cut the number of people on the planet have just spent the past 50 years almost tripling the population through aid to third world nations?
Can someone square that circle for me?
TIA.
Where did the “square that circle” saying originate? It’s just popped up on my radar.
HF, the answer is replacement, a project already well advanced in EU. The reasons are likely too ugly to contemplate…
They are all meglamaniacs is one possible explanation.
Any means to tax and control people. The use of fear to control people has gotten really old.
Give it up already.
The planet could support 50 billion with what’s coming!
Correction, the planet could support 50 billion, no sweat with what’s coming!
Apollo fake. Nukes fake. Wars shrinking. Consciousness going supernova. Doom porn going back to antiquity.
TLDR
I think killing off a significant part of the planet is a great idea. It’s not as if we need the vast majority of the 7 billion we got now. Many of them wouldn’t exist without cheap credit. Since the Western nations have their population under control already, just neutron bomb or chemically sterilize or whatever all of the megacities and urban shitholes in South America, most of Asia and the Middle East, the Pacific Islands and Africa and the issue is solved.
Congratulations for the most idiotic comment of the year award
Thanks! It’s nice to be recognized.
In what way am I wrong?
I think we are overpopulated. I don’t care about global warming, but I do care about overpopulation and resource depletion. According to one stat I’ve seen repeated many times, if everyone on Earth were to adopt a US standard of living, we would need a couple more Earths. They’re trying now. And as duh masses expand in the terd world, they flee here and to the Western nations, as you might have noticed, who are not capable of supporting them.
The best way to deal with the world as it is and it is projected to be in the future is to erase as much of our useless eaters as possible before we’re swarmed here like the southern European nations are being swarmed. Nature is full of various examples were populations expand past their carrying capacity, then collapse. As far as I can see, we are still at the mercy of nature and I would prefer shrinking the global population to a survivable level. As I said, we in the West already have population under control. It’s the terd world that hasn’t figured out you shouldn’t reproduce if you can’t feed yourself, let alone your kids. The best place to start on the problem are the megaslums, like the entire west coast of Africa. South and Central America are also have a lot of excess population, judging by the constant flow of useless eaters north, as does the Middle East and much of Asia. Neutron bombs would be an instant, if messy solution, while chemical sterilization in the water supply is a softer landing. You would think Malaria and Dengue and Cholera would do more to get the job done, but even disease can’t be relied upon anymore. You would think Ebola would be more effective, but even the previously 90% mortality rate of Ebola has dropped to about 60-70%, leaving far too many survivors to be reliable.
This vid is short and to the point of this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVOVn9sDzUU&t=543s
When those who wish to reduce the population are the first to go then give me a call. I won’t join them but I will celebrate their demise.
We could make an improvement with one less 22.
Laughed out loud.
I love Ginsberg of BORG’s statement regarding populations of humans “We”don’t want too many of !
She is aware that there was a vicious organized government operation to reduce the Jewish population of Europe . So how many is too many . Or perhaps white people , you know the majority that stopped the mechanized extermination of the Jewish people . It went along perfectly till our great grand parents and grand parents came to the rescue . Cull the herd , let’s start with those non-contributors to ill or old to offer anything to society other than opinions then we can take healthy volunteers from earth first and other dedicated planet savors
I suppose I have made the point who gets to stay who gets to go and who gets to decide ???