The United Nations has just updated its “World Population Prospects,” and the numbers are stunning. Under a slow-growth scenario, we will have 9.6 billion people on this planet by 2100. On the high end, there will be 13.2 billion of us — a 76 percent increase above today’s 7.5 billion.
It’s time to get serious about encouraging policies at home and abroad that stand a chance of steering us toward the lower end of those United Nations projections. Family planning, birth control and voluntary abortion aren’t dirty words; they’re keys to our environmental survival.
If you kill lots of people there will be fewer people.
What is proposed for places and people who don’t volunteer?
All the means described in your extract are available worldwide.
Do we eliminate westerners from the planet to make room for those who choose to breed?
Or do we eliminate those who choose to have children, presumably together with their children?
We could of course wait till everyone wants their family to be small, but I don’t get the sense that the article recommends patience.
I’m pretty sure the late great Hans Rosling said we’d already hit peak children anyway.
I’m fairly sure whatever arises from the Ashes of The Middle East will go a long way to getting those numbers (at least non-Muslim ones) down.
Hans Rosling said we’d already hit peak children
Did anyone tell social services?
These people always remind me of Isaac Asimov’s “The Winnowing”, and if their proposals were ever to come to fruit they should be dealt with similarly: (Wikipedia) “In the year 2005, the world’s population of six billion is suffering from acute famine. The World Food Organization decides on desperate measures to decrease the population by a process of triage. They propose to do this by adding selective poisons to certain food shipments to grossly over-populated areas.
They attempt to blackmail biochemist Dr. Aaron Rodman into cooperating with their scheme (threatening to withhold food rations from his daughter’s family if he doesn’t comply), proposing to utilise his development of LP – a lipoprotein which when incorporated into foods will cause random deaths.
The scheme is planned but Rodman is unwilling to go along with it. At a meeting between himself and senior government officials and members of the World Food Council, he provides as refreshment sandwiches laced with the LP, so that they will die at random, just as they had planned for so many others to die. He carefully matches the LP in the sandwiches (which he also eats) to his own metabolism, so that he will die quickly and not be guilty of involvement in the scheme.”
What they really mean is white people should go extinct as quickly as possible, as we can’t expect any self control on behalf of brown people..
I don’t understand what these people are panicking for.
If the US population were to double *and* we took up no extra room, our population density would still be well under 75/km2.
The UK’s population could do the same and you’d still be under what Germany is *today*. And Germany’s doing ok.
The vast majority of the countries around the world could do this and still be less dense than Vatican City.
Looks like the Green Party platform needs a Soylent plank.
About half of this population will be in sub-Saharan Africa, apart from the untold millions who will be in boats sailing across the Med. the migration crisis currently happening is a vicar’s tea party compared to future decades.
“The UK’s population could do the same and you’d still be under what Germany is *today*. ”
No, the UK is ranked 50th and Germany 58th most densely populated country in the world. The US is 182nd.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density
And England is the most densely populated part of Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html
That is, we are full!
Basically the situation is this:
1) you have continued rapid population growth in the poorest and shittiest parts of the world, who understandably try to get to the nice bits, are let in in vast numbers under no obligation to integrate, and therefore act to bring down overall productivity in the nice bits and generally make them more like the shitty places they escaped from
2) dealing with the climate change scare and the GM foods scare mean that scarce agricultural land is being used to grow oil and yield increase per acre is anyway threatened by reduced chemical use required by the greenies
3) increased acreage under the plough is a no no (the Amazon basin?)
4) energy costs are also going through the roof because 2) and governmental virtue signalling combined with the tendency to one world government
5) wholesale government and regulatory interference in trade in agricultural products ensure that productivity and output are held down where they are most needed
In other words the mechanisms that throughout history have been used to stave off Malthus’s worst predictions are being steadily denied to us by the left (mainly).
It will be an interesting case of the irresistable force meeting the immoveable object, and I’m glad I will be dead.
Area of Singapore and HK almost exactly equals that of Greater London.
So with the same people and planning policies the pop’n of London can grow quite a bit more. It might even be nicer.
So, less white people and more brown people. That’s going to go well, isn’t it?
Policies at home essentially mean not having children. We have already done that. just look at our birth rates.
it is the policies abroad bit that makes me scratch my head. All our policies involve conflict resolution, making modern medicine available to those that need it and ensuring that those who are staving are given food.
All of which will keep people alive and allow them to breed. Surely if we want tot reduce the worlds population we should simply let all the developing countries and ware torn shit hole countries to their own devices.
Or am I missing something?
“Or am I missing something?”
Arms sales.
Nothing too pretentious. Personal weapons, land mines, maybe some light artillery.
Could be quite profitable, as well.
Land under the plough is decreasing.
Put more land under the plough, get more CO2.
And the return of the Rocky Mountain Locust.
(Look it up, and there’s a good book about it.)
Are we still looking for a cure for cancer?
Isn’t this a chunk down on the last lot of UN projections?
‘Family planning, birth control and voluntary abortion aren’t dirty words; they’re keys to our environmental survival.’
Cos the environment is more important than people. Pretty sick stuff.
‘The writer is a nonresident senior fellow at Boston University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy.’
I say senior fellows go first.
They have an entire institute for sustainable energy? Wow. Must be important.
Why is a senior fellow of sustainable energy lecturing us about population management? Because he doesn’t believe in sustainable energy.
Looking the 2017 medium projection for 2100 is 11.184 billion, while the 2015 medium projection for 2100 was 11.213 billion.
ie changed by approx .0025%.
Henny-Penny morons.
@Theo
I think Agammamon may be confusing his Dutch and Deutsch (easy mistake to make). Proponents of immigration like to use UK figures for population density, ignoring the fact that Scotland north of the Great Glen is almost entirely empty. Very few immigrants to the UK wish to take up crofting in Sutherland (unaccountably). If you consider central England (say the part lying between Liverpool, York, Dover and Bristol) it would be one of the most densely populated countries in the world – ignoring a few fly-speck city states, exceeded only by Bangladesh.
The Netherlands has a great chunk of inland water in the north.
If you include this water as part of the area of the country then England (not UK of course) is more densely populated.
If you count only the dry land then the Netherlands is more densely populated than England.
Draw a convex outline on a map of southern England so that the area inside is the same size as the Netherlands (excluding the wet bits if you insist). As long as the M25 lies wholly within the outline, there will be substantially more people living in the area of England that you’ve just identified than live in the NL.
the problem going to be where the increase is taking place. In africa we have spent billions on aid to rteduce starvation and illness – net result – countries that can’t support the population without this have expanded their populations exponentially. To be racist the growth is happening in the less educated shitholes of the world – nothing good is going to come of increasing numbers of ill educated, backward thinking fecund people. lets face it the world would be alot nicer with a lot fewer muslims rather than a lot more.
The killing must begin at once.
Starting with the UN HQ.
Perhaps a Cary Grant look-alike could wander into the foyer and find that everyone in the building had a knife in their back. Including the press.
Terraform Australia and turn it into a bread basket. It wouldbe useful practice for off world colonies.
Theophrastus
July 25, 2017 at 3:42 pm
“The UK’s population could do the same and you’d still be under what Germany is *today*. ”
No, the UK is ranked 50th and Germany 58th most densely populated country in the world. The US is 182nd.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density
And England is the most densely populated part of Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html
That is, we are full!
Yah, my mistake there – I crossed columns from people/km2 to people per mi/sq.
Still, the UK isn’t in any danger just from increasing density to Tawinese levels – I make no claim on the desirability of living like that compared to today’s density, only point out that its hardly an existential threat to *just* double the number of people on the planet.
All these comparisons are meaningless because people are not evenly spread out. They only really make sense when you are comparing cities.
Even so, lots of London’s area is made up of parks where nobody lives. Furthermore, if you build up, then you can house 20-30x the number of families in the area that formerly held 1 family (at least if the building doesn’t burn down). Of course it still feels like there are more people since everyone has to get to ground level to go to work or shopping etc.
Nonetheless, there are plenty of parts of southern England where you can walk for an hour without seeing anybody else.
And those of us who live in them would quite like to keep them that way. But thanks for asking.