Archive for the ‘Population Control’ Category
So-called “global warming” has been replaced with “climate change,” while “population control” and “population reduction” received a similar makeover - “population restraint.” However, the misanthropic goal remains the same; and the ruse is - as it has been for some time - ostensibly saving the environment.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
- Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider - founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome - The First Global Revolution, p. 115
August 17 2009
TACKLE POPULATION GROWTH TO BEAT CLIMATE CHANGE – OPT
Leading figures from science and environmentalism have backed a call for population restraint policies to be adopted by every state worldwide as part of the battle against climate change.
The Optimum Population Trust says today (August 17, 2009) that the climate change talks which will culminate at Copenhagen in December must ensure that all countries adopt non-coercive policies to limit and stabilise population growth. Family planning programmes in poorer countries should be treated as “legitimate candidates for climate change funding”. Empowering women to control their own fertility would also have major humanitarian benefits for the poorest women and children in the world.
Successful population policies, which answered the unmet need for family planning, could mean nearly three billion fewer people in 2050, a difference equivalent to 44 per cent of current world population (6.8 billion), OPT says. “All environmental problems, and notably those arising from climate change, would be easier to solve with a smaller future population.”
Peter J. Smith - August 7, 2009
Dr. Warren Hern, one of the last abortionists willing to perform very late-term abortions in the United States, has written published works describing man as a “malignant eco-tumor” destroying the earth.
Esquire magazine reports in a story entitled “the Last Abortion Doctor,” that Hern, the director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic since 1975, argued in a work called Urban Malignancy: Similarity in the Fractal Dimensions of Urban Morphology and Malignant Neoplasms that growing human populations act like a “malignant ecotumor.”
LifeSiteNews.com found a 2008 edition of Hern’s article published in the International Journal of Anthropology . While the term “eco-tumor” does not appear in this version as quoted by Esquire, it may have come from an earlier version of Hern’s paper that was presented at the 16th International Seminar on Urban Form in Brazil on August, 29 2007.
“From the point of view of a physician, the expanding, invasive, colonizing urban form with highly irregular borders resembles a malignant lesion,” wrote Hern. “Malignant neoplasms have at least four major characteristics: rapid, uncontrolled growth; invasion and destruction of adjacent normal tissues (ecosystems); metastasis (distant colonization); and de-differentiation.”
Hern continued that “death of the host organism in a cancer occurs between the 37th and 40th doubling of the cell population” and then drew a comparison to the expansion of human populations (32.5 times by 1999) and energy consumption (36 times since 1999), adding that energy consumption is projected to increase 57 percent between 2004 to 2030.
Dr. Tim Ball - Monday, August 3, 2009
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. Government control is the name of the game. - Barry Goldwater.
Piece by Piece, Sector by Sector
The United States is rapidly coming under almost total government control as the Obama administration uses exaggerated claims of failure of capitalism and the Bush administration as the excuse. Banks, automobile companies, energy companies (directly or indirectly through Cap and Trade), health care, and employment through increased government jobs or government-funded jobs are monopolizing the populace as the control expands. How far will this go? A long way if Obama’s background and the views of his appointees are a measure. Now they’re planning to control the weather. John Holdren, the science adviser, has already advocated controlling climate through geo-engineering in administrative discussions. Population control is not on the agenda yet, but population control to stop climate change supposedly provides legitimacy. Holdren was advocating population control long before climate change became an issue, but now he has the perfect vehicle for his dangerous uninformed ideas.
William N. Grigg on the population control (reduction) establishment.
These malignant proposals are not just flatulent thought-bubbles blown in languid speculation by fringe eccentrics in the academic realm: With the exception — as far as we know — of mass involuntary sterilization through covert chemical or biological warfare, every method of coercive population control described above has been implemented somewhere with the material aid of the United Nations and its affiliates, and the practical support of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International.
Every argument on behalf of state-imposed population control rejects the concept of individual self-ownership and assumes that human lives – individually and in the aggregate – are a resource to be managed by society’s supervisors on behalf of the “common good.” And, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg correctly intuited in 1973, the Roe vs. Wade decision was a triumph, albeit an incomplete one, for the cause of eugenicist population control.
John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planetSunday, July 12th, 2009 - by Terry Melanson
Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population
Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.
The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Brendan O’Neill - 9 July 2009
It is UN World Population Day on Saturday 11 July, when various United Nations bodies will try to convince us that population growth is the cause of much of the planet’s economic and environmental crises. Here, we publish an edited version of a speech given by spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in London on 3 July, in which he argued against all attempts to curb human numbers.
Today, I want to argue that there should be absolutely no limits on population growth and no attempt whatsoever to cajole, coerce or convince people into having fewer children. I hope that in my lifetime the human population on Earth will reach the tens of billions, and it will not be a problem if, in the future, it rises to hundreds of billions.
The reason I say this is because our attitudes to the population level fundamentally reflect our attitudes to human ingenuity. The population debate is frequently dressed up in demographic and scientific clothing, but really it is a political issue, reflecting different political attitudes. Where you stand on population today tells us a lot about where you stand on the idea of progress, of civilisation, and of humanity itself.
In his famous 1968 essay “The Tragedy of the Commons,” ecologist Garrett Hardin declared that “the freedom to breed is intolerable” and warned that our laissez faire attitudes toward human reproduction were leading to global ruin. Hardin and his intellectual confreres urgently called for the imposition of population control measures. But as Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey shows, there is an inverse relationship between economic freedom and total fertility rates. More freedom means fewer children. There may be an invisible hand of population control.
China’s human rights record was once more the focus of attention as June 4 marked the 20th anniversary of the bloody suppression of pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.
The mainstream media focused on civil and political rights, but the denial of the right of families to choose how many children they want continues to oppress many Chinese.
On May 7, LifeNews.com published a report detailing the findings of an undercover investigation by Colin Mason in China.
The fines for having an illegal child are now three to five times the family’s income, LifeNews reported. Not surprisingly, when couples are faced with the prospect of such a fine, many consent to either abortion or sterilization.
America’s richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a ‘disastrous’ environmental, social and industrial threat
SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
Foresight Institute - May 8th, 2009
When I was in college 35 years ago, there was a major fad of neo-Malthusian doom-mongering, led by the “Limits to Growth” book and movement. A retreat was organized from the college, and some concerned, environmentally conscious professors and students, myself included, went off for a concentrated seminar in which we educated each other about all the models and dire predictions of the coming collapse.
My roomate became especially concerned, and got hold of the “World Dynamics” modelling system and language (”DYNAMO”) and the Club of Rome model and ran it on Drew University’s IBM 1130 computer.
Our 1130 had less processing power than a modern calculator watch and a grand total of 16,234 bytes of memory. It chugged through this simulation of all the Earth’s economy, resource extraction, technological development, and ecological impacts in just a few minutes, and spat out the graphs telling us we were all doomed.
Steven Ertelt - May 8, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Billionaire broadcast magnate Ted Turner is causing guffaws from observers with his latest comment on family planning in China. He lauded the Asian nation for its population control program and said it was a good example even though it is rife with forced abortions and sterilizations.
During an interview with the Diane Rehm Show gave China as a model for how to handle growing populations.
“We do have the example of China, and they’ve done it without, uh, draconian, as far as I can see, draconian steps,” he said.
Observers of the quote are surprised that Rehm let it go unchallenged and without any mention of the human rights abuses that accompany the Chinese family planning program.
The policy has resulted in epidemics of forced abortions and sterilizations and human rights abuses ranging from job loss and imprisonment to house arrest and threatening family members.
In fact, new reports show the forced abortions have resulted in high infertility rates forced abortions. A new report indicates that has sparked infertility and given rise to an underground network of surrogate mothers.
George C. Leef - May 1, 2009
You have probably never heard of Dr. Reimert Ravenholt, but he was one of the most influential people of the 20th century. More than anyone else, Ravenholt was responsible for putting together the worldwide network of population-control programs and agencies. Appointed in 1966 to be the first director of the Office of Population in the United States Agency for International Development, Ravenholt was an arch-Malthusian who saw human fertility as a looming planetary disaster. Backed by a large supply of federal tax dollars, he zealously went about promoting contraception, sterilization, and abortion as the cure for the “plague” of too many children.
The result of Ravenholt’s global crusade against human fertility (which almost always proceeds under such euphemisms as “family planning” or “reproductive health”) has been what Steven Mosher calls in his book Population Control the “white pestilence” — that is, a dearth of children in the population. Mosher, president of Population Research Institute, argues strongly that the Malthusian worry that people would breed themselves into disaster was always wrong, but we do face, if not a disaster, at least severe socioeconomic problems from the fact that in many countries the fertility rate has been below the population-replacement rate for decades.
Brendan O’Neill - 1 April 2009
Now I know what Greg Dyke, former boss of the BBC, meant by the phrase ‘hideously white’. At the Optimum Population Trust’s invitation-only conference at the end of last week, ‘Environmentally Sustainable Populations’, there was a sea of white faces, grey hair, purple-tinted rinses and blue blazers, as men and women of a certain hue, age and class gathered to discuss the ‘problem’ of population growth. In plummy voices – and in between House-of-Lords-style catnaps, perhaps taken to re-energise their prejudicial streaks – the attendees spoke darkly of ‘decimation’, ‘apocalypse’ and ‘tipping points’ (which is enviro-speak for apocalypse) in a world plagued by ‘too many people’.
There is something unavoidably spooky about people who spend their waking hours fretting about overpopulation, and who hand out leaflets saying ‘How many is too many?’ illustrated with a picture of an innocent-looking schoolgirl (white, of course) doing population sums on a blackboard (black, of course). In a Frequently Asked Questions section – frequently asked by whom? Benito Mussolini? – the leaflet informs us that there is a severe shortage of water and land on this ‘beautiful planet’ of ours and then ponders: ‘What’s the problem?’ The answer, in case you hadn’t worked it out from looking at the programme of talks on everything from ‘Scientific solutions in contraception’ to ‘Population policies for the UK’, is us: ‘Sadly, we are. Humans. Every year around 75million of us – a population nearly as big as Germany’s – are added to the Earth’s surface. That’s another Birmingham every five days.’ And God knows, one Birmingham is enough.
Anthony Nolan - March 25, 2009
Garrett Hardin is a spokesperson for a particular environmental perspective that has been profoundly influenced by liberalism and especially by that form of liberalism under the sway of the Rev. Malthus. Hardin’s work is neither philosophy, history, politics, nor science, and therein is the problem. Hardin’s work is historically uninformed and this ignorance has led him to significantly misrepresent the nature of the problem. This is nowhere more obvious than in his thesis of what he terms “the tragedy of the commons”, as well as his 1968 article of the same name.