The National Academy of Sciences has published a shocking report which envisages a Chinese-style global one child policy as the only means of reversing climate change and reducing global population to a “sustainable” number of 1-2 billion people.
The white paper, entitled Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems and authored by the University of Adelaide’s Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook, even entertains the impact of world wars and global pandemics that wipe out 6 billion people as potential methods of combating the threat posed to the environment by overpopulation.
Crucially, the paper is edited by Stanford University’s Paul R. Ehrlich, a perennial advocate of population reduction whose dire proclamations about environmental catastrophes as a result of overpopulation have been proven wildly inaccurate time and time again.
In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich infamously predicted that, “In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death,” as a result of overpopulation, just one of many ludicrous forecasts that Ehrlich has got spectacularly wrong on a routine basis.
Ehrlich has also expressed his support for mandatory population control, arguing that such methods must be imposed “by compulsion if voluntary methods fail,” while the biologist co-authored Ecoscience with White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a “planetary regime.”
Given that connection, it’s unsurprising that the white paper struggles to disguise its advocacy for draconian methods of population reduction in the name of saving mother Earth.
The report presents a selection of scenarios to achieve “reductions in human fertility” in order to prevent “climate change,” threats to biodiversity and to help “plan for a healthy future society.”
The authors admit that global fertility rates are already dropping but that “rising affluence-linked population and consumption rates” (in other words – higher standards of living) are contributing to worsening environmental conditions.
Under one scenario, a global pandemic wipes out 6 billion people from 2041 onwards, resulting in the planet’s population being reduced to 5.1 billion by 2100. However, this reduction of 2 billion people compared to current figures is not sufficient to accomplish the level of human culling desired by the authors, who note that “even future events that rival or plausibly exceed past societal cataclysms cannot guarantee small future population sizes without additional measures, such as fertility control.”
While the paper admits that the notion of global pandemics and wars as tools to reduce population is an “amoral” consideration, its tone almost laments the fact that these “stressors” would not significantly reduce population down to the desired “sustainable” figure of 1-2 billion people.
“It has been suggested that a total world population between 1 and 2 billion might ensure that all individuals lived prosperous lives, assuming limited change in per capita consumption and land/materials use,” states the report. The sober academic tone of the paper only partially obscures the fact that the authors are advocating that 5 billion people be eradicated from the Earth, a notion they acknowledge is “politically sensitive.”
In two other scenarios, a combination of deaths from a massive world war and a Spanish flu-style event combined, as well as a pandemic that kills 2 billion people, both fail to achieve the desired level of population reduction by 2100.
The only method to truly achieve anywhere near the kind of population reduction desired to achieve sustainability and prosperity, according to the report, is a global Chinese-style one child policy, which if imposed by 2045 would reduce global population to 3.45 billion, less than half current levels, by 2100. Models show that this would take at least 140 years to achieve if females were restricted by law to having just one child….