The global warming true believers are convinced of their moral superiority. In their minds, they’re just better people. But better people don’t advocate thinning of the human population. The alarmists do.
A group of “more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world” has declared “clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” and recommends leaving fossil fuels “in the ground,” replaced by low-carbon renewable energy sources.
Nothing new there. Crackpots have been predicting the end of the world for probably as long as man has existed.
This group, though, also believes that because the global population is “still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day,” it “must be stabilized — and, ideally, gradually reduced — within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
By what authority do these scientists believe they have the right to reduce the number of humans? And through what mechanism do they propose to use to reach their goal?
Henry I. Miller, a physician, molecular biologist, and Pacific Research Institute senior fellow, as well as a contributing editor on these pages, says “the scientists’ assumption of a ‘climate emergency’ requiring policymakers imminently to introduce not only radical changes to energy, food, and economic policies but also population control, verges on the hysterical.”
Others have already crossed that line.
The urge to control human reproduction is more common than one might think. Wikipedia’s page for “population concern organizations” lists 12 groups just in the U.S., and another 11 around the world, with one network of academic researchers called Population Europe. These groups, and our 11,000 or so scientists, seem to have a common bond with the nasty people throughout history who have wanted to improve the genetic quality of humanity by selecting out less-desirable groups. In modern America, those groups might be the “deplorables” and “deniers” among us.
Don’t think it couldn’t happen here? In our not-so-long-ago past, the 20th century, in fact, “roughly 70,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized” in the U.S., says Chelsea Follett, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. It was done under the authority of “‘eugenic’ legislation,” and the horrors were justified as a means “to improve the population by preventing people thought to have inferior genes from having children.”
This makes us wonder: Who would the 11,000 scientists target for population control? Their manifesto tells us they “stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future.” Do they already have a gene pool in mind that they wish to pare down?
Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly compiled a history of the population control movement that became “Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population.” Published in 2008, it is the story, says the author, “of how some people have tried to control others without having to answer to anyone.”
“They could be ruthless and manipulative in ways that were, and are, shocking,” Connelly wrote.
One striking example of the heartlessness behind population control comes from Garrett Hardin, an ecologist who supported sterilization. In 1968, he wrote an essay in which he declared “the freedom to breed is intolerable.” Decades later, he held out China’s population-control policy as something the U.S. might be able to learn from.
“There is no talk in China of a woman’s ‘right’ to reproduce or of married couples’ ‘right to privacy,'” he wrote. The coercion used in that country to slow population growth — when “a woman who gets pregnant without permission is pressured by her sisters to have an abortion,” for example — “should be compared to forcing a Westerner to pick up the litter he or she has dropped on the ground in a public park.”
Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not he saw humans as no more than garbage dumped on the planet.
Naturally the 11,000 will deny that their methods will be “ruthless and manipulative,” and at the same time swear their motives pure. But population control has been historically sought out of “kindness,” says climate justice activist Simon Butler, who reviewed Connelly’s book. Its traffickers insist it’s “a benevolent measure that can lift people out of poverty, hunger and underdevelopment.”
But as H.L. Mencken famously said, “the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” And we know that is exactly what drives the global warming alarmists.
— Written by J. Frank Bullitt
Note to Readers: Issues & Insights is a new site launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.
We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking both in today’s mainstream media and on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!
The Mencken line reminded me of AOC. That can’t be right, can it?
107 years ago in 1912 – Francis Molena of Popular Mechanics said, “World burning coal adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Raising Earths temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries”
79 years ago in 1939 – Swedish Prof. Hans Ahlmann said, “Everything points to the fact that the climate in Greenland has been growing warmer during recent years. It may without exaggeration be said that the glaciers, like those in Norway, face the possibility of a catastrophic collapse”
50 years ago in 1969 – Standford Dr Paul Ehrlich said, “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years”
30 years ago in 1989 – U.N. Senior Official Noel Brown said, “coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco refugees threatening political chaos. Governments have a 10-year window of opportunity”
I could give you the exact same comments except they predict the world getting colder, talk about cherry picking this one takes the cake…
Before attempting sarcasm, try to look at the graphs of the IPCC Report. No models, no guesses, just recorded facts.
Look up IPCC Summary.
The Philosopher-King elites are, through GREEN, taking us in a very dark direction. Read between the lines of their alarmism, if they truly believe this, they cannot NOT end up with mass genocides.
Once upon a time I was on the “climate alarm” boat. Once I started to think about the complexity of the Sun/Earth model I quickly realized that the proponents of climate alarm were talking out of an orifice other than their mouth and that their goal was other than concern for the future of humanity. Reading dissenting opinions just cemented my rejection of the AGW hypothesis.
The democrats and liberals of our society offer nothing but death and misery packaged in emotion of caring. Death and misery is their history which they hide but try to foist onto conservatives by calling conservatives fascists and nazis(both parties of the left). Democrats and liberals are a plaque which should be avoided.
Very simply…these people feel superior,yet remain panicked because they don’t believe in God, but believe it is they that know all, but their faux god is failing to bring them inner peace, hence the fear and hatred.
Well, if population control is the issue, let’s start with the places where breeding is out of control, Ie: China, India and the whole continent of Africa! No, you say? Then, just like global cooling, no, warming, no wait, climate change they (these so called experts) are full of sh*t! Because, the biggest offenders of releasing carbon into the atmosphere is, uh hem, China and India! I don’t see the experts breaking down their collective doors to stop the carbon emissions from those countries… The US and the EU populations are already in decline. (Hence, the uninhibited immigration control into those areas) and carbon emissions is extremely lower in the US, EU comparative to China and India! So, I’m pretty sure most of the educated people on the planet can see right through this crap coming from the so called experts about climate and population control. It sounds like they are just trying to eliminate Anglo Saxons. from the planet.
Like the new changes in hurricanes? See how much water they dump now? That is because the seas have warmed, putting more water vapor into the air, loading it for Houston, and driving weather to greater extremes.
I earned a Master of Science in this field, and want to debate it.
We can start with the Acidification of the Oceans. Are any of you concerned?
11,000 “scientists” who all figured out how to get hefty grants!
These people want forced genocide? I’m assuming for conservatives only. Reading a similar article on WUWT, it seems most of these “scientists” are students and not necessarily climatologists.
Oh, you think birth control is genocide? Get real
Two points. First, anyone who pays attention to history knows that population growth is basically self-regulating if left to individual decisions. As countries modernize and become more economically developed and urbanized, fertility rates go down and approach replacement rates which is a good goal. This creates the basis for sustainable societies having enough workers to help support aging populations over the long run. That’s why economic development should be the main goal in societies that are poorer and often have faster rates of populations growth. Second, why should “scientists” (i.e. physicists, chemists, biologists, and global warming “experts” etc.) be viewed as the best sources of wisdom on the dynamics of population growth and its impacts? Demographers and those with expertise in statistics, economics, and sociology have more credibility in dealing with this subject.
So to achieve the “main goal” of economic development for poor countries, we have to agree to let them burn fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels is how the currently rich countries developed economically. But that will put too much C02 in the air and we will all die while waiting for the poor countries to get rich.
You’re correct. I do not share the alarmist view of global warming. Even adopting the non-cost-effective measure recommended by IPCC will not have an appreciable impact on climate based on their own analyses. There are too many scientists that dissent from the popularized view to justify abandoning fossil fuels any time soon. The models have over-predicted catastrophe consistently for decades. Also, without China and India on board and without nuclear power a serious effort to reduce CO2 as many recommend is a fools errand.
David Brower, founder of the Sierra Club: “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.”
Club of Rome: “[T]he resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion.”
Susan Blakemore, a U.K. Guardian science journalist: “For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed.”
Paul Ehrlich professor, Stanford University: “The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery.”
Bill Gates, Microsoft billionaire, funder of enviro causes: “The world today has 6.8 billion people…that’s headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.”
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic master plan the “Great Transformation”: “When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”
Jacques Cousteau, mega-celebrity marine biologist, French scientist: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 (people) per day.”
And just what kind of scientists are we dealing with here? How many are astrophysicists and climate experts? And while 11,000 sounds like a lot, it is probably a mere fraction of all the scientists, in all disciplines, in the World.
A recent check shows that a lot of the signatures on the document are false names and only a tiny % are scientists of any stripe.
Show us the references, please.
Maybe we should start depopulation with the 11,000 or so scientists first, then maybe people might think about it.
You would think a group of people espousing population control would favor greater use of capital punishment–but somehow that is seldom the case.
Regardless of climate change, stabilizing of the world population makes sense,or do you advocate that millions of migrants from overpopulated countries should move to Europe and the US?
Can’t we just kill those millions of people? Since you obviously wish they hadn’t been born.
It’s a good thing it wasn’t decided that you shouldn’t be born.
And when the bloody War is over, and so many souls pass by, they’ll ask a simple question? Why so many had die ? Is it’s man’s destiny to kill his fellow man? Adid by the “Good’s” of War, less his numbers should swamp the land
My contribution is from my DVD
Reflection of a Trouble time. Best wishes Richardverecompton@gmail.com