Royal Society study yields unsurprising results, Ecoscience co-author calls for “move to population shrinkage as humanely and as rapidly as possible”
April 27, 2012
The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, has released a “major report” calling for the “stabilization” of global population and reductions in consumption in developed countries.
The report is the unsurprising result of a 21 month “objective” study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development.
“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. We can choose to rebalance the use of resources to a more egalitarian pattern of consumption … or we can choose to do nothing and to drift into a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills leading to a more unequal and inhospitable future”, the report reads.
The report also claims that developing countries will have to build the equivalent of a city of a million people every five days from now to 2050 in order to cope with the rate of population increase .
“In material terms it will be necessary for most developed countries to abstain from certain sorts of consumption, such as CO2,” said Jules Pretty who was on the Royal Society working group.
The study argues that there should be a demand to “reduce fertility” in poorer nations, particularly in Africa.
“When we slow down population growth we empower women and provide more money for least developed countries to invest in education. The majority of women want fewer children,” Mr Pretty argued.
Renowned population alarmist Prof Paul Ehrlich weighed in on the matter, going even further than the Royal Society.
Ehrlich told the Guardian that the optimum population of Earth is 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050.
“How many you support depends on lifestyles,” Ehrlich said. “We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”
“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”