In the modern era, uber-left wing academics who view environmentalism as a religion and take on blind faith that the world is being destroyed by the infestation of human beings have long considered and discussed how best to achieve "population control" and even population reduction.
Most have been careful not to actually state what it is they would really like to see: the mass murder of billions of people, so they could "save" the planet through avoidance of destruction by humans. But even a reasonably astute observer can see through the veneer of their "concern" and figure out what they really want.
One recent academic paper serves as a perfect example of this hiding our zest for depopulation by any means mentality. Corey J. A. Bradshaw and Barry W. Brook, both of the Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Adelaide, Australia, note that even a loss of 2 billion people over the course of five years still would not be enough of a depopulation effort to do the earth much good.
'Catastrophic human event' needed?
The paper, titled, "Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems," states the issue thusly, in a summary; note that the authors have already essentially concluded what the problem is and who is responsible (my emphasis):
The planet's large, growing, and overconsuming human population, especially the increasing affluent component, is rapidly eroding many of the Earth's natural ecosystems. However, society's only real policy lever to reduce the human population humanely is to encourage lower per capita fertility. How long might fertility reduction take to make a meaningful impact? We examined various scenarios for global human population change to the year 2100 by adjusting fertility and mortality rates (both chronic and short-term interventions) to determine the plausible range of outcomes. Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100. Because of this demographic momentum, there are no easy ways to change the broad trends of human population size this century.
Most have been careful not to actually state what it is they would really like to see: the mass murder of billions of people, so they could "save" the planet through avoidance of destruction by humans. But even a reasonably astute observer can see through the veneer of their "concern" and figure out what they really want.
One recent academic paper serves as a perfect example of this hiding our zest for depopulation by any means mentality. Corey J. A. Bradshaw and Barry W. Brook, both of the Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Adelaide, Australia, note that even a loss of 2 billion people over the course of five years still would not be enough of a depopulation effort to do the earth much good.
'Catastrophic human event' needed?
The paper, titled, "Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems," states the issue thusly, in a summary; note that the authors have already essentially concluded what the problem is and who is responsible (my emphasis):
The planet's large, growing, and overconsuming human population, especially the increasing affluent component, is rapidly eroding many of the Earth's natural ecosystems. However, society's only real policy lever to reduce the human population humanely is to encourage lower per capita fertility. How long might fertility reduction take to make a meaningful impact? We examined various scenarios for global human population change to the year 2100 by adjusting fertility and mortality rates (both chronic and short-term interventions) to determine the plausible range of outcomes. Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100. Because of this demographic momentum, there are no easy ways to change the broad trends of human population size this century.
Except, perhaps, some sort of mass casualty/pandemic/world war? That is the possibility the authors examine in the body of their work. In the paper's abstract, the authors talk of the "inexorable demographic momentum" of the growing human population, which is, of course, "rapidly eroding Earth's life-support system" (though there is no proof of this, notice how the authors state it as fact).
The authors also state that there "are consequently more frequent calls to address environmental problems," which must be dealt with using "further reductions in human fertility." And here is the crux of the authors' study variables (note my emphasis):
To examine how quickly this could lead to a smaller human population, we used scenario-based matrix modeling to project the global population to the year 2100. Assuming a continuation of current trends in mortality reduction, even a rapid transition to a worldwide one-child policy leads to a population similar to today's by 2100. Even a catastrophic mass mortality event of 2 billion deaths over a hypothetical 5-y window in the mid-21st century would still yield around 8.5 billion people by 2100. In the absence of catastrophe or large fertility reductions (to fewer than two children per female worldwide), the greatest threats to ecosystems--as measured by regional projections within the 35 global Biodiversity Hotspots--indicate that Africa and South Asia will experience the greatest human pressures on future ecosystems.
They have to sound reasonable to be taken seriously
So, buried in their paper is the hoped-for solution: Some sort of "catastrophic mass mortality" that would dramatically reduce the Earth's population because, you know, that's what has to happen if we are to save the planet.
To cover for this hoped-for conclusion, however, the authors realize that they must at least sound reasonable:
Humanity's large demographic momentum means that there are no easy policy levers to change the size of the human population substantially over coming decades, short of extreme and rapid reductions in female fertility; it will take centuries, and the long-term target remains unclear.
Bradshaw and Brook also noted that "some reduction" in human population could be reached "by midcentury," in some manner, which would at least result in "hundreds of millions fewer people to feed."
Sources:
http://www.pnas.org
http://www.academia.edu
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/047679_population_reduction_mass_mortality_depopulation_agenda.html#ixzz3K7TMlG3Z
Post a Comment