One of the things that our politicians have bought into is that our planet is overpopulated. The only way I can look at this is I don’t believe that God created something that was going to careen out of control and put every living being’s life in jeopardy. That’s not the God I serve. So when some foolish scientist or politician tells me we have to cut back the population of the world I have to give him//her the look of, “what planet are you from?”
Many people believe that planet Earth can only sustain a population of about 500,000,000. Really? That’s less than 200,000,000 more than the population of the United States! This kind of insane talk has been around for almost 90 years.
But in the third field that Keynes proposed, state regulation remains as taboo today as it was 87 years ago. “The time has already come,” he wrote, “when each country needs a considered national policy about what size of population, whether larger or smaller than at present or the same, is most expedient.”
Keynes merely asserted his point. Professors Emmott and Dorling make their cases in more detail, and in doing so they exemplify the two approaches to the population question that have dominated this debate for centuries.
Emmott takes the natural scientists’ approach—the perspective of biologists, chemists, and physicists (though one that originated, ironically enough, with Robert Malthus—one of the fathers of modern economics). It sees the growth of human population, like that of other living things, as being constrained by the carrying capacity of the ecosystem: A physical limit defined by the scarce availability of natural resources.
Dorling, on the other hand, takes the social scientists’ approach—the way of geographers, economists, and anthropologists. This sees population growth as determined by political, social, and economic factors, rather than physical conditions.
At one level, the natural scientists’ approach is correct. There must be some physical limit to the number of human beings that can be sustained by the earth. In practice, however, the social scientists’ approach is the more relevant one. Human beings live in society and for many millennia now the binding constraints on population growth have been not physical but social and political. Famines, as Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen demonstrated, are generally the result of political failures, not natural causes. 1
The disgusting thing about this is the only way to reach the goals they have set is to eliminate people! All this is part of Agenda 21 or what they have renamed 2030. Sustainability, population control, in other words, control everything that we do, eat, what medications we can have, how we can live, where we can live and so on. Understand this, All of earth’s population will fit in Texas with the density of Paris! We are in no way even beginning to overpopulate this planet. What they are attempting is nothing more than total control of every man, woman and child on the Earth.
Bill Gates has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccines because he believes that it is the best way to help control population. In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”
Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says:
“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”2 Believe me, he is not talking about extending lives with the vaccines nor is he talking about keeping people healthy for reproducing. His plan is as sinister as it gets.
He was a seemingly nice guy in the first half of his life. An average American who made his fortune by selling hardware and software worth of billions, becoming a worldwide icon and a living example of the American Dream.
But, in the second half of his life, he teamed up with the world’s “elite” in an attempt to reduce the world’s population by billions… and he means business!
He soon became one of the most infamous depopulation activists, lecturing on genocidal vaccines, conducting vaccination campaigns that crippled and killed countless people in the third world countries, designing GMO mosquitoes that could carry and inject deadly viruses, and he’s constantly finding new methods of achieving his sick plans. 3 Gates is not the only one with this mindset: 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. – David Brower (Sierra Club)
A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion. At a more frugal European standard of living two to three billion would be possible. – United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment. This is just scratching the surface of the elites attempt to depopulate planet Earth.
Another thing the elites and our politicians have bought into is that the free market system is unsustainable, unfair and must be stopped in order to sustain life on the planet. Now you can understand all the new regulations Obama initiated, an astounding 65 a day everyday he was in office, stifling small businesses and raising the cost of operating a business so that it is not. Keep in mind that virtually all Democrats in Congress are globalists, 70 of them are card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA. Private industry is not something that they approve of because it is too hard to control. On May 22, 2008, Maxine Waters let it slip that “This Liberal Would Be All About Taking Over The Oil Companies” 4 Why did she say that? They refused to allow Congress to control them in the manner that Democrats wanted that control. Obama tried to nationalize the health industry, he put the government in charge of ‘rebuilding’ the auto industry and they have done their level best to attain complete control of the energy industry. Can you see now why they are so upset at Donald Trump? He will dismantle almost all of their infrastructure and they will have to start all over again. Hillary would have sealed the deal and destroyed America as we know it. Redistribution of wealth is behind every policy that comes out of the UN. The EPA is the attack dog to shut down entire industries such as the coal industry. Difficult to operate a manufacturing business in US, impossible to start a new one. “0” economic growth advocated at the 2012 Economic Summit. Rebuilding of roads and other infrastructure discouraged so as to not ‘ disrupt the well-ordered society”. We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land. – David Foreman (earth First) They’ve done this in California and it has made the drought they are in worse.
Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of morality control. – Professor Maurice King (Population Control Advocate)
We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources . . . and eliminating the greatest inequalities of wealth and power in our society . . . because the free market has proven itself incapable of doing this. – Plannersnetwork.org Statement of Principles. The American Planning Association is a member and supporter of these principles. 5 c