Human Population Control

[timeparticle]

As it stands, the human population on our planet is almost 7 billion. Do we have a responsibility to the race to attempt to control the birth rate of our species? Will the ecosystems of our planet be able to support such a huge number of us? Does our planet have a set limitation of food production potential for the human race? This subject is controversial with many considering it repulsive. Many are sensitive to this and discomfort will arise. However, maybe an intelligent look is in order...

This is a somewhat accurate count of our population, today.

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

This is a Yale study on the subject. In the beginning, a video of population growth from year 1 to the year 2020 shows the extent with each dot representing 1 million.

http://academicearth.org/lectures/po...the-evironment

[timeparticle]

Copenhagen: Global Population Control Program Suggested To Stop Climate Change

Communist Chinese delegates cite concept as key to saving the planet
Steve Watson,
Prisonplanet.com
Thursday, Dec 10, 2009

The Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference has argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) population program told other delegates at the summit that China “has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society” by instituting population control.

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao.
The Chinese delegate also cited the UN’s own 2009 State of World Population report, which suggests that if the global population remains at 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of increasing to just over 9 billion, as projected, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions”.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao bragged.

She also suggested that financing family planning is the most cost effective way of reducing climate change in comparison to clean technologies and reduced deforestation.

“Some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people’s lives,” Zhao said.
Not forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization then? No no no, just good old fashioned “education” has ensured success for China’s one child policy.

Of course, the fact that somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth was somewhat glossed over by the Chinese delegate:
“I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited,” she said.

The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia as a direct result of the shortage of women is also, presumably, another benefit, as is the fact that China now has a vastly imbalanced population in terms of age.
Suggestions that China’s population control should be integrated globally are insipid, patently ludicrous and downright insulting you may cry. However, not so according to our leaders, who seemingly adore the prospect.
Forced abortions, mass sterilization and a“Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.

In fact, Holdren’s ideas pre-date the inception of China’s one child policy by two years.
In the United Kingdom, top government aides have lauded China’s method of population control, ignoring the fact that it has been the primary source of the most human rights abuses of any government policy on the planet.
Two days ago, a national newspaper in Canada implored the delegates at Copenhagen to implement a global program of population control in the guise of the Chinese.

It is no surprise that China’s population genocide is being tolerated at the UN led Copenhagen summit, given that The United Nations Population Fund directly supports the Communist State’s policy.

In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:

“Regrettably, the People’s Republic of China has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”

Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing:

“China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour,” United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —
10/11/99 Agence France-Presse

Under the Reagan Administration legislation sponsored by then-Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.

In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.

All this is being disturbingly tied in to the climate change debate by hijackers of the environmental movement who have spuriously associated fears over global warming with over-population, suggesting that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

The connection is an appealing one to advocates of the anthropological global warming theory because, if you believe humans are to blame for dangerous alterations in the climate, eventually the conclusion of less humans = less warming is reached.
However, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist recently, global fertility rates are falling.
Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

[timeparticle]

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.
The real solution would be to pour funds into increasing the standards of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.
Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week highlighted the fact that developed nations are planning to take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

The draft agreement would allow people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Another revelation from the summit reveals that under a plan tabled by Britain, money earmarked for education or health in poorer countries would be diverted into projects such as solar panels and wind farms, again diverting much needed aid away from efforts to increase the standard of living.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.
One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

The reality is that the summit in Copenhagen and it’s attendees are providing a platform, and in some cases actively pushing for a policy enforced by a dictatorship that actively hunts down mothers who become pregnant with their second child, abducts them off the street and takes them to government controlled hospitals where they are drugged and their baby is killed – all in the name of saving the planet.

Alex Jones’ Films Endgame and Fall Of The Republic address the hijacking of the environmental movement by elite social Darwinists in more detail.



So, apparently, our leaders have a concern about our large human population as a burden for a stable environment.

[timeparticle]

Population and Environment

A Complex Relationship

Between 1960 and 1999, Earth's population doubled from three billion to six billion people. In many ways, this reflected good news for humanity: child mortality rates plummeted, life expectancy increased, and people were on average healthier and better nourished than at any time in history. However, during the same period, changes in the global environment began to accelerate: pollution heightened, resource depletion continued, and the threat of rising sea levels increased. Does the simultaneous occurrence of population growth and environmental decline over the past century indicate that more people translate into greater environmental degradation?

In The Environmental Implications of Population Dynamics, Lori Hunter synthesizes current knowledge about the influence of population dynamics on the environment. Specifically, her report examines the following:

The relationship between demographic factors-- population size, distribution, and composition--and environmental change.
The mediating factors that influence this relationship: technological, institutional, policy, and cultural forces.
Two specific aspects of environmental change affected by population dynamics: climate change and land-use change.
Implications for policy and further research.
Hunter concludes that population dynamics have important environmental implications but that the sheer size of population represents only one important variable in this complex relationship. Other demographic dynamics, including changes in population flows and densities, can also pose challenging environmental problems.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF SPECIFIC POPULATION FACTORS

According to recent United Nations estimates, global population is increasing by approximately 80 million--the size of Germany--each year. Although fertility rates have declined in most areas of the world, population growth continues to be fueled by high levels of fertility, particularly in Asia and Africa. In numerous Middle Eastern and African nations, the average number of children a woman would be expected to have given current fertility levels remains above 6.0--for example, 6.4 in Saudi Arabia, 6.7 in Yemen, 6.9 in Uganda, and as high as 7.5 in Niger. Even in areas where fertility rates have declined to near replacement levels (2.1 children per couple), population continues to grow because of "population momentum," which occurs when a high proportion of the population is young.

Population Size

No simple relationship exists between population size and environmental change. However, as global population continues to grow, limits on such global resources as arable land, potable water, forests, and fisheries have come into sharper focus. In the second half of the twentieth century, decreasing farmland contributed to growing concern of the limits to global food production. Assuming constant rates of production, per capita land requirements for food production will near the limits of arable land over the course of the twenty-first century. Likewise, continued population growth occurs in the context of an accelerating demand for water: Global water consumption rose sixfold between 1900 and 1995, more than double the rate of population growth.

Population Distribution

The ways in which populations are distributed across the globe also affect the environment. Continued high fertility in many developing regions, coupled with low fertility in more-developed regions, means that 80 percent of the global population now lives in less-developed nations. Furthermore, human migration is at an all-time high: the net flow of international migrants is approximately 2 million to 4 million per year and, in 1996, 125 million people lived outside their country of birth. Much of this migration follows a rural-to-urban pattern, and, as a result, the Earth's population is also increasingly urbanized. As recently as 1960, only one-third of the world's population lived in cities. By 1999, the percentage had increased to nearly half (47 percent). This trend is expected to continue well into the twenty-first century.

The distribution of people around the globe has three main implications for the environment. First, as less-developed regions cope with a growing share of population, pressures intensify on already dwindling resources within these areas. Second, migration shifts relative pressures exerted on local environments, easing the strain in some areas and increasing it in others. Finally, urbanization, particularly in less-developed regions, frequently outpaces the development of infrastructure and environmental regulations, often resulting in high levels of pollution.

[timeparticle]

Population Composition

Composition can also have an effect on the environment because different population subgroups behave differently. For example, the global population has both the largest cohort of young people (age 24 and under) and the largest proportion of elderly in history. Migration propensities vary by age. Young people are more likely than their older counterparts to migrate, primarily as they leave the parental home in search of new opportunities. As a result, given the relatively large younger generation, we might anticipate increasing levels of migration and urbanization, and therefore, intensified urban environmental concerns.

Other aspects of population composition are also important: Income is especially relevant to environmental conditions. Across countries, the relationship between economic development and environmental pressure resembles an inverted U-shaped curve; nations with economies in the middle-development range are most likely to exert powerful pressures on the natural environment, mostly in the form of intensified resource consumption and the production of wastes. By contrast, the least-developed nations, because of low levels of industrial activity, are likely to exert relatively lower levels of environmental pressure. At highly advanced development stages, environmental pressures may subside because of improved technologies and energy efficiency.

Within countries and across households, however, the relationship between income and environmental pressure is different. Environmental pressures can be greatest at the lowest and highest income levels. Poverty can contribute to unsustainable levels of resource use as a means of meeting short-term subsistence needs. Furthermore, higher levels of income tend to correlate with disproportionate consumption of energy and production of waste.

MEDIATING FACTORS: TECHNOLOGY, POLICY CONTEXTS, AND CULTURAL FACTORS

Current technology, policies, and culture influence the relationship between human population dynamics and the natural environment. The technological changes that have most affected environmental conditions relate to energy use. The consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal increased dramatically during the twentieth century, as seen in Figure 1. Until about 1960, developed nations were responsible for most of this consumption. Since then, however, industrialization in the newly developing nations has resulted in greater reliance on resource- intensive and highly polluting production processes.

Policy actions can ameliorate environmental decline--as in the case of emissions standards--or exacerbate degradationas in the case in Central Asia's Aral Sea basin, which has shrunk 40 percent since 1960 and has become increasingly contaminated, in large part because of the irrigation policies of the former Soviet Union.

Cultural factors also influence how populations affect the environment. For example, cultural variations in attitudes toward wildlife and conservation influence environmental conservation strategies, because public support for various policy interventions will reflect societal values.

TWO SPECIFIC AREAS OF POPULATION-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND-USE PATTERNS

Two specific areas illustrate the challenges of understanding the complex influence of population dynamics on the environment: land-use patterns and global climate change.

Land Use

Fulfilling the resource requirements of a growing population ultimately requires some form of land-use change--to provide for the expansion of food production through forest clearing, to intensify production on already cultivated land, or to develop the infrastructure necessary to support increasing human numbers. During the past three centuries, the amount of Earth's cultivated land has grown by more than 450 percent, increasing from 2.65 million square kilometers to 15 million square kilometers. A related process, deforestation, is also critically apparent: A net decline in forest cover of 180 million acres took place during the 15-year interval 1980 1995, although changes in forest cover vary greatly across regions. Whereas developing countries experienced a net loss of 200 million acres, developed countries actually experienced a net increase, of 20 million acres.

These types of land-use changes have several ecological impacts. Converting land to agricultural use can lead to soil erosion, and the chemicals often used in fertilizers can also degrade soil. Deforestation is also associated with soil erosion and can lessen the ability of soil to hold water, thereby increasing the frequency and severity of floods. Human-induced changes in land use often result in habitat fragmentation and loss, the primary cause of species decline. In fact, if current rates of forest clearing continue, one-quarter of all species on Earth could be lost within the next 50 years.

Global Climate Change

Recent years have been among the warmest on record. Research suggests that temperatures have been influenced by growing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which absorb solar radiation and warm the atmosphere. Research also suggests that many changes in atmospheric gas are human-induced. The demographic influence appears primarily in three areas. First, contributions related to industrial production and energy consumption lead to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use; second, land-use changes, such as deforestation, affect the exchange of carbon dioxide between the Earth and the atmosphere; and third, some agricultural processes, such as paddy-rice cultivation and livestock production, are responsible for greenhouse gas releases into the atmosphere, especially methane. According to one estimate, population growth will account for 35 percent of the global increase in CO2 emissions between 1985 and 2100 and 48 percent of the increase in developing nations during that period. As such, both attention to demographic issues and the development of sustainable production and consumption processes are central responses to the processes involved in global warming.

WHAT SHOULD POLICYMAKERS DO?

The policy implications of demographic influences on the environment are complicated and can sometimes be controversial. While some view large, rapidly growing populations in developing regions as the primary culprit in environmental decline, others focus on the costly environmental effects of overconsumption among the slowly increasing populations of the developed nations. These differing emphases naturally point to radically different solutions: slow population increase in less-developed nations or change destructive consumption and production patterns in the more-developed nations. This debate, however, presumes a one-step solution to the complex problems created by population pressures on the environment. Both population size and consumption influence environmental change and are among the many factors that need to be incorporated into realistic policy debate and prescriptions. Examples of policies that could address the environmental implications of demographic factors include policies to promote effective family planning, more effective rural development to slow migration to crowded urban centers, and incentives to encourage sustainable levels of consumption and the use of efficient, cleaner technologies.

WHAT SHOULD RESEARCHERS DO?

Disciplinary boundaries between social and natural scientists have hindered the study of the interrelationships between demographics and the environment. These barriers, however, are beginning to fall. The trend toward interdisciplinary environmental research must be encouraged, and researchers should continue to improve analytic approaches and collect new data that allow examination of the links between social and natural processes. The use of recent technology (e.g., satellite remote sensing) to study environmental change promises to contribute significantly to expanding knowledge in this area.

[MJA]

As it stands, the human population on our planet is almost 7 billion. Do we have a responsibility to the race to attempt to control the birth rate of our species? Will the ecosystems of our planet be able to support such a huge number of us? Does our planet have a set limitation of food production potential for the human race? This subject is controversial with many considering it repulsive. Many are sensitive to this and discomfort will arise. However, maybe an intelligent look is in order...

This is a somewhat accurate count of our population, today.

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

This is a Yale study on the subject. In the beginning, a video of population growth from year 1 to the year 2020 shows the extent with each dot representing 1 million.

http://academicearth.org/lectures/po...the-evironment

The only thing truly out of control on this planet is ourselves, which is simply the lack of self control.
But don't lose hope, I met a woman not long ago who told me that her and her husband had decided for the good of the Earth they would not have children.
She had a tear in her I when she told me that. Self-sacrifice is happening right now for the good of us All.

=
MJA

[timeparticle]

This is a letter Henry Kissinger wrote in 1974 about population control.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6474391/He...ntrol-Document

Mr. Kissinger used a team of researchers and scientists to study the affects of overpopulation as a threat against the U.S..

The report is somewhat conspiratorial and it will not be discussed at this time. In fact, just Googling "Population Control" will bring one to many sites on conspiracies to control populations via mass murder. Starvation, Viral distribution, and surgical alterations are a few of many ways to reduce our human population according to these sites. These dark solutions are only spoken of here so as to show how the direction this discussion will not be going. We should first establish that population control needs implementation, then discuss progressive ways to do it. Some say that it is a moot point as the world will come to an end soon, anyway, so why worry about it. They feel wars or disasters will control the human numbers, so it needn't be discussed. However, looking to the lighter side of our future, should there be a responsible manner in which we conduct ourselves that might alter the population explosion?

[leskey]

Someone, somewhere, decided that global warming is the result of body heat...

A comment from today's news about the, up-until-now, largely forgotten people of Haiti: aid workers and rescuers have been struck by their incredible strength. Although this observation wasn't further qualified, I took it to mean both physical and mental. Decades of severe hardship and stress will do that...Anyone want to guess what the result of on-going intervention will be?

[Mikal]

The only thing truly out of control on this planet is ourselves, which is simply the lack of self control.
But don't lose hope, I met a woman not long ago who told me that her and her husband had decided for the good of the Earth they would not have children.
She had a tear in her I when she told me that. Self-sacrifice is happening right now for the good of us All.

=
MJA

Gee I wonder if this lady has ever considered how lucky she is that her mother did not think along those lines....

As a mother I can say honestly that to deny yourself the moment to act in the natural nature of the creative force of life is truly sad....to do this for the earth is mere earth worship which is nonsence because the earth can take care of itself as long as we do not abuse her nature....


Regards Mikal

[timeparticle]

Someone, somewhere, decided that global warming is the result of body heat...

A comment from today's news about the, up-until-now, largely forgotten people of Haiti: aid workers and rescuers have been struck by their incredible strength. Although this observation wasn't further qualified, I took it to mean both physical and mental. Decades of severe hardship and stress will do that...Anyone want to guess what the result of on-going intervention will be?

Hi, Leskey. If you mean human intervention in Haiti, the plans are already written, so it seems. The U.S. military will stay. Intervention in regards to population control may have been implemented... See E.L.F., a low freq. wave device.