by Jurriaan Maessen
January 16, 2013
from
ExplosiveReports Website
New Population Study:
“(…) provide all sexually active human
beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The degree to
which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but
they are a likely win-win for societies.”
Prince Charles has openly expressed support for
a recent population study by biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich,
calling for drastic global efforts to reduce fertility worldwide.
On the official website of the Prince of Wales,
prince
Charles commended Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s
latest population study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society
on January 8 of this year, calling among other things for globally provided
“back-up abortions” to avert overpopulation catastrophe.
The prince writes:
“We do, in fact, have all the tools, assets
and knowledge to avoid the collapse of which this report warns, but only
if we act decisively now.”
In their latest study entitled 'Can a
Collapse of Global Civilization be Avoided?',
biologists Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife repeat their decade-long
mantra, namely that global population growth is certain to collapse
civilization as a whole, and only a concerted global effort to reduce
fertility may avert the feared catastrophe.
The report mentions that global population
reduction is a monumental task, but they add:
“Monumental, but not impossible if the
political will could be generated globally to give full rights,
education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually active
human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion.
The degree
to which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but
they are a likely win-win for societies.”
These words contain some drastic and draconian
implications.
In order to provide “back-up abortions” to women
on a global scale, a worldwide population reduction strategy must be
outlined and then enforced by all nations of the planet.
The Ehrlichs concede that such a worldwide
effort would not go down well with nations opposing abortions:
“Obviously (…) there are huge cultural and
institutional barriers to establishing such policies in some parts of
the world. After all, there is not a single nation where women are truly
treated as equal to men.
Despite that, the population driver should
not be ignored simply because limiting overconsumption can, at least in
theory, be achieved more rapidly. The difficulties of changing
demographic trajectories mean that the problem should have been
addressed sooner, rather than later.”, the Ehrlichs write.
Responding to countless recent studies showing
that not overpopulation, but
underpopulation seems to be an increasing
problem, especially in Europe, the Ehrlichs state:
“That halting population growth inevitably
leads to changes in age structure is no excuse for bemoaning drops in
fertility rates, as is common in European government circles.
Reduction of population size in those
over-consuming nations is a very positive trend, and sensible planning
can deal with the problems of population aging.”
They also write that besides change in the politics of demography, the
educational system should also join the effort in a “symmetrical” manner,
“moving towards sustainability and enhancing
equity (including redistribution).”
The scientific community must throw its weight
behind the effort, the Ehrlichs say, especially to counter all religious
counter-argumentation underlining the value of life:
“To our minds, the fundamental cure,
reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the
population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying
capacity of Earth, is obvious but too much neglected or denied.
There are great social and psychological
barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering it.
This is especially true because of the
‘endarkenment’ - a rapidly growing movement towards religious
orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought,
democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and
actions on empirical evidence.
They are manifest in dangerous trends such
as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and
opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of
contraception. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed
to faith-based) risk reduction strategies, it is now.”
Global population reduction and global
redistribution of wealth.
These things can of course only be accomplished
through a concerted global effort or, as the authors declare “an
unprecedented level of international cooperation”:
“At the global level, the loose network of
agreements that now tie countries together, developed in a relatively
recent stage of cultural evolution since modern nation states appeared,
is utterly inadequate to grapple with the human predicament.
Strengthening global environmental
governance and addressing the related problem of avoiding failed
statehood are tasks humanity has so far refused to tackle
comprehensively even as cultural evolution in technology has rendered
the present international system (as it has educational systems)
obsolete.
Serious global environmental problems can
only be solved and a collapse avoided with an unprecedented level of
international cooperation.”
The two end this line of reasoning by
regurgitating the neo-Malthusian mantra- which simultaneously harbors a
veiled threat, namely:
“If people do not do that, nature will
restructure civilization for us.”
After Prince Charles endorsed the conclusions of
their study, Paul Ehrlich twittered (click below image),
“I wish our leaders were as far-sighted”,
...to which one of Ehrlich’s followers
responded,
“Suicide on a grand scale needs
reconsidering.”
Comments such as these show that morality is nowhere to be found in the
vicinity of these neo-Malthusian characters.
The fact that Prince Charles felt compelled to
endorse the conclusions of this report only reaffirms that his lineage is
still of the opinion that people are a scourge on the earth, or as his
father Prince Philip stated, a plague:
As current Bing professor of Population Studies and President of the Center
for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, Paul Ehrlich is living
proof that old habits die hard - and
eugenic habits die even harder.
After his famous book The Population Bomb
was published in 1968, he has fallen somewhat in credibility for the world
kept on turning and mankind is apparently still around, despite of all the
doom predicted.
In 1969 Ehrlich
predicted that,
“'smog disasters' in 1973 might kill 200,000
people in New York and Los Angeles” and “By 1985 enough millions will
have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level,
like 1.5 billion people”.
Nevertheless, despite Ehrlich’s prediction of
the total collapse of human society if the population would continue to
rise, after 40 years the man still maintains his point, this time pointing
to “climate change” as the consequence of increased human activity.
During an interview in December 2009, Ehrlich
stated:
“The population explosion will come to an
end. The only question is whether it will do so by humanity balancing
its interventions to decrease death rates with interventions to decrease
birth rates, or whether the death rate will soar.”
In 2009, Ehrlich also expressed his desire to
see the global population fall below replacement:
“Until and unless we can humanely begin to
shrink the global population, following the lead of over-consuming and
over-populated European nations, the future seems grim.”
"Humanely shrink the global population”,
says Ehrlich.
He is wise enough to edit the word “humanely” in
if he is to avoid the same indignation that befell his friend John
Holdren, who co-authored
Ecoscience
(large file)
with him in 1977.
There is of course no humane way of shrinking
the global population. Only a planetary authority, enforcing such a
shrinkage, could get the job done. And it is exactly such a planetary regime
Mr. Ehrlich
called for, together with current chief
science advisor to President Obama.
In the following fragment, Paul Ehrlich advocates the creation of a “global
system” to create a “behavioral change”.
Ehrlich:
“We don’t have any international effort to
say, you know, how are we behaving. We have global problems, why don’t
we have a global system to fix it.”
