Clearly in the tradition of Malthus and Ehrlich, a recent report released by the Royal Society predicts a “downward spiral of economic and environmental ills” if the world’s population is not soon drastically curbed. The study, entitled, “People And The Planet,” openly calls for Western deindustrialization, increased “family planning” (particularly in the Third World), implementation of Agenda 21, and a solidification of the current claims that population increases are directly related to environmental degradation within the public discourse.
The report, whose alleged goal was to evaluate the state of humanity for the next 100 years and provide recommendations for its improvement, calls for the issues of population and consumption be pushed to the top of the global political and economic agendas.
The report begins by stating that “The number of people living on the planet has never been higher, their levels of consumption are unprecedented and vast changes are taking place in the environment.” This statement, of course, is true. Yet the number of people on the planet, as it currently stands, is not responsible for these changes. This much has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Nevertheless, the report establishes two issues that it claims are absolutely critical to the health and wellbeing of the planet as well as “future generations” – population growth and the consumption economy.
The report states:
The annual rate of global population growth has slowed from its peak at above 2.0% in the mid 1960s; fertility rates have fallen so that in 2010 almost 48% of world population had a total fertility of less than 2.1 children per woman (UN 2011a). However, rapid population growth continues in some parts of the world. The upward population trend will not reach its peak for another 40 years or more because present day children and the unborn have yet to have children themselves.
In relation to the consumption issue, it says:
The second major issue facing the planet is that, taken as a whole, per capita consumption is increasing. Total consumption will continue to increase as the population gets larger, as more people on the planet means more mouths to feed and more goods to satisfy their aspirations. People depend on their natural environment for meeting many of those needs and desires but overconsumption of material resources is eroding this natural capital. Access to sufficient food, water and fuel for everybody is already a problem (UNDP 2011).
After a great deal of discourse regarding the state of the world’s poor and the increasing level of environmental degradation, “People And The Planet” finally arrives at the familiar conclusion deduced by population reductionists of every generation – that human population growth is currently at a state that will soon outstrip the resources available. In other words, as posited by Thomas Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, and Ted Turner – indefinite growth is not possible in a finite world.
Early eugenicists such as Thomas Malthus have long been proven wrong. Those more recent myth purveyors such as Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren have also been exposed as nothing more than anti-human propagandists serving a much higher agenda than that which is presented to the public.
Now, even after the failures of these theories and predictions, the Royal Society, itself entirely overtaken by the eugenics movement many years ago, has produced “People And The Planet,” another piece of apocalyptic propaganda that will no doubt be proven false just as its predecessors have been in the past.
But the report is not only a critique of the population “boom.” In fact, the Royal Society researchers are forced to admit that there is no population boom due to the fact that there has been a drastic reduction in fertility of the average person, with the notable exception of much of the Third World. It states, “While the average annual rate of population change peaked in the 1960s at 2% and now stands at 1.1% per year, the absolute rate of growth peaked at 89 million per annum in 1988 and now stands at 78 million . . . ”
That being said, the report does offer nine recommendations as to how to combat what it claims is an inevitable disaster so long as humans continue to reproduce. These recommendations are familiar to anyone who has been following the eugenics/population reduction/eco-fascist agenda for any length of time. They are as follows:
- The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.
- The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilize and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.
- Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.
- Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.
- Governments should realise the potential of urbanization to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.
- In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education For All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world’s young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.
- Natural and social scientists need to increase their research efforts on the interaction between consumption, demographic change and environmental impact. They have a unique and vital role in developing a fuller picture of the problems, the uncertainties found in all such analyses, the efficacy of potential solutions, and providing an open, trusted source of information for policy makers and the public.
- National Governments should accelerate the development of comprehensive wealth measures. This should include reforms to the system of national accounts, and improvement in natural asset accounting.
- Collaboration between National Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth. This will inform the development and implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to flourish.
In all fairness, not all of these solutions, at least on their face, are sinister. No one can seriously argue that consumerism is a healthy lifestyle, environmentally friendly, or sustainable. However, we must be careful not to let flowery language and small areas of bleed-over agreement deceive us into believing that the solutions offered by the writers of this report are anything but a plan to reduce the population of what they see as the unfit, useless eaters.
What was once expressed in direct, contemptuous language now requires shadowy coded terminology in order to convey the same concept and, most importantly, to convince the masses that it is for their own best interest for their herd to be culled. Indeed, such wordplay is also necessary so those who are more geared toward self-preservation are not inclined to suspect the threats they must preserve themselves against.
For instance, the term “family planning” is merely another less politically-charged name for abortion and sterilization. Similarly, the UN-based term “sustainable development” represents the removal of humans from rural areas and a return of the average citizen’s living standards to that of the days of feudalism.
Thus, one sees a preponderance of these terms listed in the report’s recommendations. Yet, although much of the language of the report is couched, the authors are still blatant enough to openly state that one of their goals is the continuance “of the downward trajectory of fertility rates.”
While one may be tempted to believe that the term “family planning” repeated ad nauseum in “People And The Planet” merely refers to “sexual education” programs and the distribution of contraceptives, when one reads the report further, it becomes clear that it is, in fact, abortion and various sterilization methods which are favored. This is because, while the former might be cheaper, the latter is much more effective.
In addition, while the authors continuously claim that these population reduction methods must be voluntary, it is also apparent that the opposite will actually be the case. Indeed, the very fact that there is an oligarchy of “experts” guiding the acceptable amount of human beings allowed on the planet by methods involving coercion and/or deceit goes against the very nature of volunteerism.
One should likewise be aware of the treachery contained within the terms “efficiency,” “reducing consumption,” “sustainable development,” and “urbanization.”
All of these terms used in the context of this report refer to the ultimate goal of herding a drastically reduced population of humans into a few major cities under strict guidelines of rationing food and other necessities.
This precisely what is meant when the authors of this report refer to “the potential of urbanization to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures” as well as the “well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services.”
All of these recommendations are being implemented currently under plans such as Agenda 21. What is not being implemented at the international level via treaties and agreements between nations is being implemented at the state or even the local level. This local implementation of Agenda 21 is precisely what I discussed in my last article, “South Carolina Moves To Implement Agenda 21 Guidelines.”
Because of the cloaked and stealthy nature of these guidelines and, unfortunately, the misguided aims of decent, well-meaning people as well as the duplicity of ill-intentioned ones, it is often exceptionally difficult to convince the average person of the dangers of plans such as Agenda 21 and those proposed in “People And The Planet.” However, it is imperative that we do just that as time is fast running out.
For all the increase in propaganda coming from organizations associated with the United Nations and various well-funded Foundations, there has also been an increase in the level of awareness of these sinister plans by the general public. Just recently, Texas and Tennessee have taken steps to expose and oppose anti-human programs such as Agenda 21. Arizona has also considered legislation against the proposals.
There are numerous sources from a variety of different backgrounds that discuss the dangers of Agenda 21, and there is never a better time than the present to take advantage of these sources to educate your friends, family, and fellow citizens as to the gradual extinction and mechanization that faces us all.
Don’t be fooled by reports like “People And The Planet.” As one delves deeper into the true motivation behind the implementation of its recommendations, it becomes clear that the army of “experts” expected to guide society into the future truly care about neither the people nor the planet.