Effect of population on the brains of Environmentalists

I was in the process of composing a blog about the effects of the accelerating increase in the world’s population on energy consumption, when Sondra and Billy sent me the article below. Now I can add this viewpoint to illustrate the extremist attitudes with which we must contend if we don’t find a way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

The point I make is this, as a species populating the world, it is a mathematical inevitability that the size of the population will accelerate geometrically.

As paraphrased from the University of Maryland department of Meteorology: In the year 1900 the Earth was home to about 1.6 billion people. The total had grown by 600 million in the 100 years since 1800, the year that the first billion was reached. By the middle of the 20th century another billion had been added, in the remarkably short span of only 50 years. In 1995, only 45 years later, world population had risen by an additional three billion. While it took several million years of human history to reach the first billion, and 130 years to reach the second, today each new billion is added in but 11 years.

Unfortunately not only is the population accelerating, but the use of energy by the residents of the industrialized world is accelerating faster than the population.

Think for a moment, the amount of energy we use each day. How many homes DO NOT have a stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal, microwave, air conditioner, MULTIPLE automobiles, MULTIPLE bathrooms, MULTIPLE television sets, MULTIPLE stereo systems, at least one, if not MULTIPLE computers and a washer and dryer. And not only do we have them, but we use them all daily. Now, I know we feel as though we have to have all of these to survive, but they ARE NOT a God given right of existence, only a presumed necessity.

On my most recent trip to China, as a wondered the streets of downtown Shanghai, I noticed fresh laundry on trees and from bamboo poles hung out of apartment windows. I was initially appalled by this, but then thought back to the days when my mom washed the clothes using a “ringer washer” and we hung the clothes on the clothesline in the back yard. Not only did the clothes smell better, but the amount of energy used was much less than drying a load today. Now ask yourself what would happen if somebody hung a bamboo pole out the window of their condo and hung clothes to dry -- in spite of the energy savings, the “perpetrator” of such a horrendous act, would quickly be brought to bear by the condo association and if they continued with such an effrontery would be fined for their actions.

This is but one example of the accelerating use of a non renewable resource which we as a society have come to expect as our right. We face a shortage of available fossil fuel to feed our energy needs, so why not accept the fact that we have to conserve? We can, each and every one, work toward this goal by reducing our daily energy consumption. Walking up the stairs to your office rather than taking the elevator will make a difference. Reading for an hour each night rather than watching television, is not only conserves energy, but is good exercise for your mind. It’s the little things which add up to big savings over time.

I suggest we all accept reality and look for realistic solutions to identifiable issues. The population will increase, the use of energy will increase, the fuel we currently burn to generate this energy will decrease. You do the math!!! We, as a population, need to reduce our consumption of energy and develop cost effective renewable sources of the fuel burned to generate the energy we consume.

Some, professing in the article below, suggest extreme measures to decrease the population and thereby reduce the use of energy. I suggest that the population growth shows signs of a slow down on its own and that artificial methods of population control such as those mandated in China, do not work.
For those who advocate the extreme depopulation methods discussed in the article, I ask, do you want to be the first to volunteer or do you consider yourself to valuable to participate? Perhaps you should join the Heavens Gate Cult and go looking for a better planet to populate.


Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population Push for Malthusian social control policies in name of curbing carbon emissions
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, May 7, 2007

A disturbing move is afoot by several "green" groups to associate climate change with over population and suggest that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

The London Times reports today that a report to be published by green think tank the Optimum Population Trust says 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 paper will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

In related news Paul Watson (no relation), founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth, reports Business & Media Institute.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.
Watson's eco-extremist stance mirrors that of other Malthusian scientists such as Dr. Eric R. Pianka who gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science who last year gave a speech in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka also stated that China's one child policy and its accompanying police state was the perfect model for the rest of the world to follow.

Such chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception underscore a long term agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

We have previously documented the elite's hideous interest in depopulation techniques, an interest that mirrors the nightmare eugenics visions of Nazi scientists in the 1940s.

Pianka even went as far as suggesting that we should begin to sterilize the human population now, a call that has previously been put forward by Henry Kissinger in a declassified document of the National Security Council (1974) entitled "The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States".

This document lists as a priority birth-rate control in 13 key countries in the Third World, especially in South America. Extraordinary resources were allotted to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to implement the policy of birth-rate control.
It also contains sections entitled:

Creating Conditions Conducive to Fertility Decline, which calls for, amongst other things, "reducing infant and child mortality"

Concentration on Education and Indoctrination of The Rising Generation of Children Regarding the Desirability of Smaller Family Size

Utilization of Mass Media and Satellite Communications Systems for Family Planning

The memorandum also includes a section that lauds abortion and states that " -- It would be unwise to restrict abortion research for the following reasons: 1) The persistent and ubiquitous nature of abortion. 2) Widespread lack of safe abortion techniques..."

The memorandum basically stresses the need to offer increased aid for third world countries that agree to implement programs of sterilization and depopulation.