The following are 30 population control quotes which show that the elite truly believe that humans are a plague upon the earth and that a great culling is necessary…
1. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”
2. Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied”
3. Paul Ehrlich again, this time on the size of families: “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins”
4. Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
5. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
6. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”
7. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”
8. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”
9. HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”
10. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: ”The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”
11. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.”
12. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“
13. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”
14. Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.
We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.”
15. John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “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. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”
16. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”
17. Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.”
18. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”
19. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
20. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
21. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”
22. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
23. Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”
24. Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
25. David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
26. Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
27. Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
28. Jacques Costeau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
29. Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”
30. Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
August 7, 2012
In the last couple of years the omnipresent force known as Agenda 21 is meeting with increasing resistance worldwide. With the rise of the alternative media, the flow of decade-long propaganda efforts is finally being hindered. As a result of rocks thrown in the stream- the once steady water flow is now exposing itself at every turn as it’s forced to bend and twist its way forward. Ironically, the UN and its affiliate accomplices have themselves to thank for the counter-effort. The internet- as well as some pretty thorough archiving on the part of these transnational bureaucracies- have allowed researchers to withdraw information directly from the lion’s den. As a result of this development, we can display a plethora of documents, often written by UN personnel and ideologues, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a concerted strategy in place to brainwash (there’s no other name for it) the human population of the planet into accepting Agenda 21 and its inherent depopulation proposals. Furthermore, this pool of document has revealed a plan to de-industrialize the west and to use the “green agenda” to do so. In the last few decades Agenda 21 has been UN policy, and all of its subdivisions were commanded to fall in line.
Throwing rocks however, is not enough to stall the multi-winged creature that is Agenda 21. What do free people do when confronted with tyranny designed to target people in their local communities? Methinks nothing short of a war declaration is in order to push back the effort. As is custom when declaring war, there first needs to be a listing of the arguments for the war declared.
Exhibit A: De-Industrializing the West
A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by Professor Jeffrey Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship under Agenda 21. As the professor states in the paper:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”
In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:
“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”, the professor states.
“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”READ FULL ARTICLE:
Researchers claim that only global government can save humanity, echoing MIT/Club of Rome model for collapse by 2030
April 9, 2012
Will 5 billion people perish from the earth in the coming century? That’s what the controversial elitist think tank, the Club of Rome, predicted back in 1972. Decades after its publication, advocates of world government are still pushing its predictions as a call to curb mankind’s footprint on the earth.
Australian physicist Graham Turner has recently made news again after revisiting computer models MIT researchers created for the Club of Rome’s 1972 publication that sees a drastic decline in human population coming in relation to a increasing scarcity of resources. Turner’s basic conclusions, however, give away the agenda in plain sight. “The world is on track for disaster,” he bluntly states, while suggesting that “unlimited economic growth” is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.
The neo-Malthusian Club of Rome has once again surfaced– at a time when environmentalists are demanding world government to save the earth– to present computer models it developed with MIT. It predicts a stark future where limited resources like oil, food and water supposedly trigger a crash that ends with a precipitous reduction in the human population. The graph, while failing to provide actual numbers on the Y axis, appears to show a world population level in 2100 approximately equal to the almost 4.5 billion people in 1980, a decline of more than 5 billion from projected peak numbers (which could be even higher):
Of course, the Club of Rome/MIT models already predicted that the tipping point for disaster would come by the year 2000, which, like the predictions from Sir Thomas Malthus that population would outgrow the food supply, never came.
Instead, this prediction for disaster reflects aspirations of the elite to stop growth, not a neutral reflection on trends that must be. As we have repeatedly documented, the ruling elites aim to cull the population and drive a post-industrial society that harkens back to the feudalistic era.
The Club of Rome, founded in 1968, is an “environmental” group of, by and for the elitists who want control of earth, its peoples and resources. Indeed, elitism at its height was expressed through the Club of Rome when it published in 1991 that “mankind itself” was the enemy, and man’s usage of resources its destructive weapon against the planet:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day. On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time. But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”. In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility. In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite. Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.
Ultra-rich elitists lecture middle class on having less children, reducing living standards while living in opulence and procreating with gusto
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Following the birth of the David and Victoria Beckham’s fourth child last week, the modern vanguard of the elitist, arcane and racist eugenics movement, now re-packaged as “overpopulation,” reacted by lambasting the Beckhams as a “bad example” for families, labeling them “environmentally irresponsible” for having too many kids. However, the leaders of this movement are almost exclusively comprised of ultra-rich elitists who themselves have numerous children and are rampaging hypocrites.
“The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child,” said Simon Ross, chief executive of the Optimum Population Trust.READ FULL ARTICLE:
Read the Shocking NASA Document: The Future is Now:
Future Strategic Issues Future Warfare
The American Dream
June 24, 2011
Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world. In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda”. An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity. What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them. Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education”. The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons. Does all of that sound good to you? Well, this is what Agenda 21 is all about.
Yes, I know all this sounds like a plot from a science fiction novel. But it is actually real. 178 nations have signed on to Agenda 21. “Eco-prophets” such as Al Gore travel all over the world teaching us how wonderful “sustainable development” will be. This agenda is being pushed in our schools, at our universities, on our televisions and in our movies.
So exactly what is Agenda 21? The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21….
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
When you start doing deep research into Agenda 21, you will find that describing it as a “comprehensive plan” is an understatement. Virtually all forms of human activity impact the environment. The rabid “environmentalists” behind the green agenda intend to take all human activity and put it into a box called “sustainable development”.
One of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control. The United Nations (along with radical “environmental” leaders such as Al Gore) actually believes that there are far too many people on earth.
So what is the solution?
Sadly, they actually believe that we need to start reducing the population.READ FULL ARTICLE:
April 30, 2012
In 2004, emeritus professor of physics at California State University and American representative to the UN, Roger Dittmann, stated that all policies related to Agenda 21 should be pursued with the aim of worldwide population reduction and population control. “The Big Die Off,” the professor eagerly added, “has already begun.”
In his presentation Sustainable Development, the New International Scientific Order, and UN Reform he gives his own definition of the term “sustainable development:”
“Economic (and other) development that leads to reduction in population toward an optimum level for maximization of the quality of life, i.e. environmentally benign development that reduces the birth rate,” Dittmann explains on page 14 of his lecture notes.
Furthermore, the emeritus professor writes bluntly that (capitals by Dittmann) “The Big Die Off has already begun (page 17).”
In order to facilitate such a massive “die-off,” the professor proposes (page 18) global governance to make sure the directives will be universally applied:
“Since this is a global effort, it requires global organization, both governmental and popular,” he writes.READ FULL ARTICLE:
"HIS ROYAL VIRUS", Prince Philip on "culling the population"
Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.
It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] ... that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.
Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.
I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the ``cull'' to the size of the surplus population.
Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.
The great difficulty about ``life'' is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively.... It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.
...|When the Bible says that man shall have ``dominion'' over God's creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in ``having power over,'' or dominion as ``having responsibility for.''
"Conflict Between Instinct and Reason"
Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.
The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man's affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind's physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. ``Adapt or die'' is as true today as it was in the beginning.
Introduction to ``Exploitation of the Natural System'' section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world's natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.
The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.
Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24 1969.
We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.
The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.
If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.
I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.
Introduction to ``The Population Factor'' section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
What has been described as the ``balance of nature'' is simply nature's system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation--and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism--are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.
Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world's human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.
Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.''
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?
A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed--not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.
I do believe ... that human population pressure--the sheer number of people on this planet--is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world's climatic and atmospheric systems.
The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches six and then 10 billion.... All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.
Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony, July 16, 1973.
There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.
Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London, Feb. 18, 1981.
I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.
The survival of the "most important"
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.
Q: Is birth control part of the solution?
A: Yes, but you can't legislate these problems away. You've got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they're at the receiving end. They've got to accept the measures.
The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today's total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.
Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.
So long as they [birth control methods] ... remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.
In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.
The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.
The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
The object of the WWF is to ``conserve'' the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.
A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes' time have believed in and advocated the control of society by ``philosopher kings.'' According to Plato, ``its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,'' but--realistically--he added, ``and the greatest aptitude for war.'' Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.