Volume 6, Issue 6 July 2012
Exploring the Population Agenda
By Carl Teichrib, Chief Editor
Skip down to Population
Control: Managing the “Human Cancer”
Emphasis added throughout
“Human fertility is now the greatest long-term threat to human standards, spiritual as well as material.” - Julian Huxley.2
“The goal would be half of the present world population, or less.” - The Environmental Handbook, 1970.3
can we help a foreign country to escape overpopulation?
Clearly the worst thing we can do is send food... Atomic
"It’s about control; the freedom to breed is intolerable." Carl Teichrib's summary of the problem
According to the United States Census Bureau, the world’s population passed the 7 billion mark sometime in mid-March, 2012.5
But the real buzz took place last year when the United Nations predicting October 31, 2011, as the symbolic cross-over date. Anticipating the big numerical event and future population growth, the senior environmental editor for National Geographic, Robert Kunzig, asked the question; “Can the planet take the strain?”6
It’s a question that’s been discussed and debated since Thomas Malthus postulated his population theory in 1798; that the power of the earth to produce the necessary resources for humanity are taxed by the increase in human growth.7 Extending the Malthusian view into a present-day context, we could say that unchecked population growth ensures the depravation of earth’s carrying-capacity and the destruction of the environment.
The solution? Management of the global population toward “sustainable” target levels. Today, the population control issue is re-asserting itself as an international agenda item.
For decades the concern over human growth has been a discussion point in certain circles, ebbing and flowing with the political and social tides. However, due to the 7 billion milestone and the United Nations Rio+20 conference (June 20-22, 2012), the issue of overpopulation is re-emerging. This was predictable. During the past decade, the “population bomb” controversy has gained momentum, attaching itself to climate change, energy issues, water resources, and food security. And predictions from the UN Population Division have added to the global worry.
In 2011, the United Nations Population Division, a branch of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, upscaled their global projections. Instead of the world’s population peaking at 9 billion in 2050, and then maintaining itself as previously believed - based on anticipated fertility trends - the Population Division announced that a steady climb could see 10 billion people by 2100. Some demographers,
however, envision 10 billion by 2050 with 15.8 billion by century’s end. The Worldwatch Institute, a major sustainable development research organization, reported in 2004 that extreme century-end demographic swings are being considered: 5.5 billion on the low end, 43.6 billion on the upper side.8 Others predict low-end rates of 8.1 by 2050 and 6.2 in 2100.
Why the vast fluctuation in numbers? Although global fertility rates are generally understood, long term demographic trending can be problematic; Social, economic, political and technical changes cause variability in both forecasting and real figures. Regarding the UN Population Division shift in numbers, they admitted to miscalculating African fertility rates, stating that the continent’s fertility is not decreasing as rapidly as previously believed.9
Here it must be noted that sub-Sahara Africa does have higher fertility rates when compared to other parts of the world. However, a decrease is still observed when compared to the historic data. Moreover, when dealing with demography - especially in the sub-Sahara zone - two points need to be considered:
1) Country-by-country demographic numbers can be misleading as many nations do not have current or accurate data sets. Commenting on census taking in general, population control guru Paul Ehurlch recently reported: “Many census statistics are simply made up out of thin air.”10 This may be an overstatement, but the fact remains that credible demographic data can be hard to obtain in certain countries or regions - particularly in conflict zones and areas of unrest, and in nations with government corruption or ineptitude - thus the actual figures may be understated or exaggerated.
2) In discussing the African situation, Wolfgang Lutz, the head of the World Population Program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, recently explained that some countries place political pressure on demographers to give certain projections.11 This makes sense. After all, population control is a politically-generated industry, and foreign aid dollars and other incentives are dangled in front of governments who need to overcome population growth “challenges.”
It’s not surprising to learn, therefore, that the US Agency for International Development has been the historic leader in foreign-based population control programs.12 Various United Nations bodies such as the Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) have also contribute to the global population industry, likewise the World Bank and the Club of Rome, certain “family planning” service groups - such as Planned Parenthood - and powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Writing on the “political industry” of foreign-based population control programs, Professor Julian Simon disclosed how governments abroad view USAID and World Bank population dollars,
“But do not foreign politicians, and persons involved in family-planning activities abroad, often express the desire for these funds?
Of course they do. We must ask what these expressions mean, however. To a politician, any foreign dollar coming into the country is another dollar to allocate to one constituency or another, or even to be turned into personal use... Therefore, more such dollars are always welcome. And for those who work for family planning organizations, cutting aid funds breaks their rice bowl, and removes such perks as trips to Mexico City for a UNFPA conference.”13
But what about the numbers? Doesn’t 7 billion mean something?
Sure; it represents quantity, but not quality. It represents an aggregate, but tells nothing about how the whole or segments of the total are faring, now or in the future. And it tells us nothing about how these numbers impact the world - it gives no real meaning to community development issues; food production, water and sewage, housing, resource usage, manufacturing, health services, transportation, education,
market entry, fiscal responsibility, justice and security, and good governance. Although some of those points are impacted by global market forces, all are ultimately grounded in local and national contexts, irrespective of the total world population.
But what about the global environment?
Speaking to the University of New South Wales in the fall of 2011, Paul Ehrlich [pictured on right] told a packed assembly,
“The most important population-related problems are fundamentally global, not local. That is, climate disruption, spread of toxic substances from pole-to-pole, chances of having large-scale epidemics - completely population related - and of course, the chances of having a resource war, possibly nuclear; again, population related.”14
Let’s briefly examine these four claims.
Nuclear warfare over dwindling resources is highly unlikely.
In light of the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, the US Congressional House Committee on International Relations issued a feasibility study titled Oil Fields as Military Objectives. This detailed report examined what it would take to militarily capture signifiant Mid-East oil fields and infrastructure, primarily the Ghawar complex in Saudi Arabia and the terminal/processing facilities at Juaymah and Ras Tanura. Various scenarios were put forward, and repercussions thought through - remember, this was not unlike the population pretext in the sense that it was about resource control and usage.
It was determined that five operational objectives would have to met in order to secure victory;
1) “Seize required oil installations intact.”
2) “Secure them for weeks, months, or years.”
3) “Restore wrecked assets rapidly.”
4) “Operate all installations without the owner’s assistance.”
5) “Guarantee safe overseas passage for supplies and petroleum products.”15
Nuclear devices were considered and rejected; “Detonating tactical nuclear weapons to assist our assault forces would destroy the very assets we sought to seize.”16 And that’s the point why Ehrlich’s nuclear war suggestion over resources is doubtful. It’s self-defeating. Even conventional action can’t guarantee that resources will remain unscathed, as the blackened skies over the burning Kuwaiti oil fields during the first Gulf War remind us.
None of this is to say resources are unimportant. Quite the opposite: resources are vital to any war effort as military engagements do not exist in a material vacuum - it takes existing resources and reserves to mobilize, execute, and maintain any military campaign. In other words, an energy/material basis has to exist prior to an action, for the aggressor and the defender (otherwise the defender doesn’t defend, but
Furthermore, it’s true that the seizure of foreign resources are an important operational objective in any large-scale military theater, and it’s also true that resource control has been the dominant reason for some conflicts; Chile’s War of the Pacific (1874-1884) has been cited as an example, a war for control of guano-rich islands, and hence significant gains in the guano market.17 But in discussing resource conflicts we have to be cautious; are “resource wars” predicated on economic drivers, or on strategic survival?
The two categories are different. One is about market factors - however simple or complex - the other is about population desperation due to a collapse in an essential commodity; food stocks and water are two frequently cited in the population control literature, albeit without tangible examples (nations struggling at this level are usually too drained to mobilize a military attack against a neighboring country, instead, relief aid is usually called for or negotiated). However, the overpopulation rhetoric of Ehrlich seldom differentiates. Why should it? As Ehrlich writes in his book, The Dominant Animal; “There is still great truth in an anonymous slogan from the 1960s, ‘Whatever your cause, it’s a lost cause without population control’.”18
This mirrors a line from The Environmental Handbook,
“It has long since become glaringly evident that unless the earth’s cancerous growth of population can be halted, all other problems - poverty, war, racial strife, uninhabitable cities, and the rest - are beyond solution.”19
In other words, every issue of concern, every problem - real or perceived - is inevitably wrapped up in human numbers. Including warfare and conflict.
Historically, others have even been more adamant than Paul Ehrlich regarding the war-population matrix. In a 1925 Marxist pamphlet we read,
“And so, overpopulation is the primordial cause of war. This fact indicates to us the preventive remedy for this ill: suppressing or preventing overpopulation in each country.
Phrased differently: establishing a true equilibrium between the population and subsistence goods. The sole method: the limitation of births...
Governments dispose, in fact, of means of encouraging and discouraging overpopulation. What is more, among human beings reproduction is entirely under the control of this will. Which is to say that both governments and individuals, having the necessary powers at their disposal, war could be abolished if they truly wanted it...
Consequently, we scientific pacifists demand a world-wide limitation on births, affected by all nations leagued together in a desire for peace under the leadership of the League of Nations. This is the primary propaganda to be done by pacifists, for humanity’s salvation resides
in this solution.”20
Despite what Ehrlich alludes to and others say, the causes of wars are usually more complex than commodities and numbers.21 The bottom line is this: Ehrlich’s oversimplified “nuclear resource war” suggestion is a fear-technique meant to emotionally arouse the case for population management.
Large Scale Epidemics
Yes, a large scale epidemic, or a pandemic, is a real concern. But epidemics and pandemics are not caused by total human numbers, nor spread because of population size. Historically, it has been the mobility of a population - including geographical reach, volume and speed of travel - that allowed the spread of new diseases. Today it’s no different, with the exception that more people are traveling and geographical bridging occurs much faster (compare airline to ship traffic), cutting the time to cross oceans and continents from weeks or months to a handful of hours.
At the same time, large scale epidemics are not unknown to times past; The Athenian Plague of 430 BC comes to mind, as does the Antonine Plague of 165 AD. The Black Death of the 14th century emptied European cities, and smallpox, riding on the coattails of European explorers and settlers, decimated North and South American Indian populations.
The African continent and India too experienced the scourge of smallpox, both before and after colonialism (the history of smallpox reaches back millennium). And the worst recorded plague in human history, the Spanish Influenza of 1918, wiped out 20 to 40 million people around the world. Indeed, more people died from the Influenza than the battlefields of World War I, and some have suggested that the actual Influenza death toll was closer to 100 million.
Yet, none of these plagues occurred during times of global over-population. In fact, total human numbers were low compared to now.
A large world population may contribute to more casualties in the event of an epidemic or pandemic, but higher numbers do not equate with causality.
Traces of man-made toxins are found globally. However, population numbers do not necessarily correlate to toxicity or pollution levels, or other potential indicators of environmental stress. For the most part, human-generated toxins and pollutants stem from regulatory issues related to industrial activities, emissions, and waste management - which may have nothing to do with population size. But in population-control circles, human numbers and environmental distress always walk hand-in-hand.
Interestingly, the Yale University Environmental Performance Index demonstrates a more complex reality. This 132-nation study ranked the two most populated countries, China and India, as 116 and 125 on a scale of 1-to-132; close to the bottom of the list in terms of environmental performance.
Yet the third, forth, and fifth most populated counties - the United States, Indonesia and Brazil - ranked 49, 30, and 74 respectively. Kuwait with a population of 3.6 million is 126. Yemen, 24 million, is one down from that. Conversely, France (65 million) and Germany (81 million) ranked 6th and 11th. Japan (127 million) is 23rd. The nation with the highest population density on the planet is Singapore: 52. Turkmenistan with 5 million people and one of the lowest in terms of population density was second last. The bottom score went to Iraq. Switzerland got top billing.22
Of course each of these nations have differences in terms of government priorities, industrial standards, resource management practices, waste infrastructure, and geophysical challenges. And that’s the point: Human numbers may play some role in environmental issues, but to say it’s the dominant driver is a misleading oversimplification.
Narrowing it down to the broad topic of “toxins” doesn’t help either, for it’s not about the existence of toxic substances - as noted by the Royal Society of Chemistry,
“Nature’s poisons outrank those synthesized by chemists, both in number and in toxicity.”23
Rather, the real concern comes with toxicity levels. And while traces of certain toxins may be found in the high arctic, or some other remote location, this in itself doesn’t mesh with the “problem” of overpopulation.
Here’s the rub: Pollutants and toxins are not immune from being leveraged as pseudoscientific pawns for political/societal change. This was demonstrated with DDT in the 1960s and early ‘70s,24 and today with carbon dioxide - a natural part of the environment and a necessary requirement for life - and labeled by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a pollutant.
Today’s population-control movement, as demonstrated by Ehrlich, is quick to jump on the toxin bandwagon. Why? Because it evokes the emotional tug needed to further a social change agenda.
Regardless of population size and the statements of Ehrlich, real environmental issues are almost entirely local or regional in scope. Even catastrophic nuclear meltdowns such as Chernobyl have limited contamination zones in defined regions; Chernobyl primarily impacted Europe.25 NOTE: The Fukushima nuclear disaster, while not the scale of Chernobyl, has yet to be fully understood in terms of its environmental impact - which may be considerable due to Pacific ocean currents.
But what about climate change? Paraded as an international, manmade ecological crisis - first as global cooling (1970s), then global warming (1990s), and now simply as “climate change” - this “issue” has repeatedly been demonstrated as a politically driven construct.26
Is the climate changing? Sure; that’s the one historical constant about climate - it changes. Is man the cause? Many climatologists and
meteorologists think not, including Charles Clough, retired chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground (who will soon be published in Forcing Change), and Roy W. Spencer, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. On the question of “manmade” versus “natural” climate change, Dr Spencer writes:
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming... it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.”27
Some natural theories have been explored, but in terms of funding nothing comes close to the dollars spent on “manmade” climate research. Nonetheless, Dr. Spencer, in recognizing the role of climate upon itself, writes, “Climate change - it happens, with or without our help.”28
But hype is necessary to raise the emotional energy needed for “popular change.” People are not going to accept population control without being emotionally stirred in such way that it “makes sense.” Once the message takes root, it must be repeatedly fertilized until action blossoms from the soil of public opinion. This is the essence of propaganda.
Consider the following: In relating to global environmental agendas, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), an influential environmental policy think-tank, published the following in its Youth Sourcebook:
“The environmental issue was set up as a global issue in need for global action... These efforts at the global level directly contributed to building a sense of global identity, or global citizenship which would be the first step towards global governance.”29
Then in 1995, the IISD published an essay on “environmental entitlements,” which stated that
“During any ‘issue-attention-cycle’ in environmental campaigning, there is a phase in which the issue needs to be strategically exaggerated in order to establish it firmly on an agenda action.”30
Has the population control agenda witnessed “strategic exaggeration”? The four claims of Paul Ehrlich point us in that direction, and organizations like the Club of Rome have been implicated in this. Moreover, Ehrlich has a history of scary scenarios - a type of strategic exaggeration.
Ehrlich’s first population book, The Population Bomb (published in 1968) included nuclear warfare ultimately caused by overpopulation.
“The effects include rising radiation levels and climatic catastrophe resulting from the addition of enormous amounts of debris and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. These and general sterilization of the soil (followed by massive erosion) make the northern two-thirds of he Earth uninhabitable. Pollution of the sea is vastly increased.
"Small pockets of Homo sapiens hold on for a while in the Southern Hemisphere, but slowly die out as social systems break down, radiation poisoning takes effect, climatic changes kill crops, livestock dies off, and various manmade plagues spread. The most intelligent creatures ultimately surviving this period are cockroaches.”31
Other not-so-scary, but troubling, global overpopulation scenarios played out in his landmark book. Keep in mind, the purpose of such scenarios is to psychologically move the reader toward action.
Two years later after The Population Bomb was published, another influential text entered the public sphere, The Environmental Handbook. This book, meant as a teacher-student resource, was released as the cornerstone text for what became the inaugural Earth Day, known at the time as the First Environmental Teach-in, April 22, 1970.
One of the contributors to The Environmental Handbook was Paul Ehrlich. In his essay, he described a fictitious apocalyptic series of eco-catastrophes starting in 1973; soon-to-come smog disasters killing hundreds of thousands in New York and Los Angeles, the American grain belt turning into a giant desert and the subsequent destruction of food stocks, agricultural chemical “overdependence” that results in 30 million deaths, enormous die-offs of birds and marine life, “gross changes in climatic patterns,” the extinction of “all important animal life in the sea,” the global breakdown of the resource sector and an ensuing resource war between Russia and China – all by October, 1979.
According to the scenario, the “accumulated air pollution would make the planet uninhabitable” before 1990.32
Other population-control literature soon entered the market. In 1972 the second edition of Ehrlich’s, Population, Resources, Environment was published. Note the glacial “climate change” message.
“It is worthwhile to consider some of the climatic changes that might occur. If the arctic region should become warming, the floating ice pack of the Arctic Ocean would disappear. This could result in northward shifts in the positions of storm tracks and thus severely reduce rainfall on the plains of North America, Europe, and Asia. These areas would rapidly be converted into deserts. Simultaneously, the more northerly storm paths would bring on another age of glaciation... [Notice that it's all strategic speculation]
"On the other hand, should the south polar region get colder, the Antarctic ice cap could be destabilized by an increase in its thickness. As the weight of ice grew, the bottom layer would liquefy, and much of the mass of the cap might slump into the AntarcticOcean. The magnitude of such a disaster... is difficult to imagine.
"It might produce a global tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind, and the sea level could rise 60-100 feet worldwide. Ice would cover an area of the oceans perhaps as large as Asia. There is enough ice stored in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps together to cover the entire globe with a layer of ice almost 50 yards thick!...
"Polar ice is now a major reflector of solar radiation. If part of the Antarctic ice cap slumped into the sea and spread out, the are of reflecting ice would be enormously increased. The temperature balance of the planet would be drastically altered, producing an estimated average drop of 10° F, and a glacial age would begin...”33
In 1978 the third edition of this text appeared under a new name, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Along with Paul’s wife, Anne, who contributed to the earlier editions, another name appeared on the cover; John P. Holdren [pictured on right]. Not unlike the older version, this one too proposed end-of-the-world warnings; thermonuclear war, global climate change, and the like. Only radical and extreme measures, including a “Planetary Regime,” would keep our world from collapsing under the weight of too many people. Today, John Holdren is the current Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Then in 1990, Dr. Ehrlich and his wife Anne came out with yet another book, The Population Explosion. The message was the same as before, with added data and new global catastrophes like the possibility of a mutated AIDS virus that “might cause death in days or weeks.”34 Here too, climate change, now couched as global warming, was directly related to population size. Ehrlich worried what a one-two punch could produce.
“Crop failures due to global warming alone might result in the premature deaths of a billion or more people in the next few decades, and the AIDS epidemic could slaughter hundreds of millions. Together these would constitute a harsh ‘population control’ program provided by nature in the face of humanity’s refusal to put into place a gentler program of its own.”35
1968, 1970, 1972, 1978, 1990: In each of those years Ehrlich was adamant that the Earth was overpopulated. Today little has changed in his stance. Paul is still preaching the gospel of overpopulation,36 and was one of the experts who submitted evidence to The Royal Society’s project on population, whose final report, People and the Planet, was released on April 26, 2012.
At this time in his life, Ehrlich refrains from elaborating on detailed, scary scenarios like he did in his essay in The Environmental Handbook. Instead, like the statement made in 2011 at the University of New South Wales, he approaches the consequence of overpopulation in a broader and less defined manner; nuclear war, epidemics, toxins, and climate change. These four, especially climate change, are more
palpable to a population already primed by years of “global warming” alarmism.
In some respects the broader approach is more powerful. Your emotions have been stirred by the “hard reality” of 7 billion - look how many people are now on the planet compared to when The Population Bomb first came out! - and years of media and academic messaging has conditioned your mind; the threat of biodiversity loss, catastrophic climate change, global pandemics, the greedy West and the 1%, the giant eco-footprint of capitalism, the arrogance of the Judeo-Christian worldview toward nature. The planet is in peril! It’s time for change, it’s time for action.
Your imagination can fill in the rest.
A Baby Bust?
As noted earlier in this essay, population trending has produced some remarkably divergent numbers. The question arises: What direction does the long-term trend line follow? Up or down? Is it 10, 15, or 43 billion by century’s end? Or is something else happening?
In 2009 The Economist reported that
“...the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less - the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called ‘the replacement rate of fertility.’ Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.” 37
Replacement rate is important. It’s explained this way by the United Nations: “Annual number of births per woman in a particular age group expressed per 1000 women in that age group.”
“High fertility: Total fertility levels above 5 children per woman.
Replacement-level fertility: Total fertility levels of about 2.1 children per woman. This value represents the average number of children a woman would need to have to reproduce herself by bearing a daughter who survives to childbearing age. If replacement level fertility is sustained over a sufficiently long period, each generation will exactly replace itself in the absence of migration.
Below-replacement fertility: Total fertility levels below 2.1 children per woman.
Very low fertility: Total fertility levels below 1.3 children per woman.”38
This past May, the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, noted that fertility rates have dipped far below replacement norms in developed countries.
“The replacement rate - the reproduction rate that keeps a population stable - for developed countries is 2.1, yet nearly half the world’s population has birth rates lower than that. The U.S. has a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.0 - nearly the replacement rate - with Hispanic immigrants leading in birth rates. The U.S. is aging but not as fast as many other countries...
"Western European countries have low fertility rates, below the replacement rate of 2.1. Germany: 1.4 (its total population is 81.9 million, of which 8.2% are foreigners). Holland: 1.8 (16.5 million, of which 4.4% are foreigners). Belgium: 1.8 (10.8 million , of which 9.8% are foreigners). Spain: 1.4 (46.1 million, of which 12.4% are foreigners). Italy: 1.4 (60.2 million, of which 7.1% are foreigners), the Pope’s views notwithstanding. Sweden, which provides deep support for parents, has a high TFR of 1.9 (9.4 million, of which 6.4% are foreigners), but that’s still below the replacement rate. Ireland and the U.K. also have high TFRs, at 2.1 and 1.9, respectively, but these rates are derived from non-European immigrant parents.
"During the 21st century the U.S. could become the slowly aging leader of a rapidly aging world.
"Singapore’s experience is no different from that of these countries. Our birth rates have been steadily declining. The fertility rate of the Chinese segment of our population is the lowest, 1.08 (2011), with the rate for Indians 1.09 and for Malays 1.64. In other words, the size of each successive generation of Chinese Singaporeans will halve in the next 18 to 20 years.” 39
Today the list of nations facing demographic decline is long; Russia, Poland, the Ukraine, Greece, Australia, France, Chile. The country of Belarus is drying up, and Japan has practically committed demographic suicide. My country, Canada, is experiencing a “baby bust” - according to United Nations figures for 2010, Canada’s fertility rate is 1.69 babies per woman.
China has witnessed a steady loss in fertility and now sits far below replacement (1.56). Even nations with above replacement fertility rates
such as Mexico, Argentina, Cambodia and India, are on an observable slide. In only a few years, many of the “replacement plus” countries will fall below the threshold.40
Out of interest I looked at the historic and current US Census Bureau world population data. In 1968, the year I was born, the total world population was 3.5 billion with an annual growth rate of 2.103%. The following year the rate was 2.081%, and it has steadily dropped since. Now, in 2012, the annual growth rate is 1.098%. In seven years time, if nothing fundamentally changes, the growth rate will fall past 1%, and by 2030, the number will be close to 0.75%.41 The result is an aging population, expressed as “more coffins then cradles”42 and the “gray tsunami.”43 According to this view, we are moving to a future with less people entering the workforce, and more individuals entering their retirement years.
The words of Phillip Longman, author of The Empty Cradle, are sobering: “Not since the fall of the Roman Empire has the world ever experienced anything on the scale of today’s loss of fertility.”44
However, many environmentalists argue that fertility numbers don’t really matter. Either way, if the population shrinks or expands, the underlying problem is Western consumption and a global population seeking to elevate its standard of living. Whether the numbers by 2050 are 10 billion or 8 or less, the real issue is our environmental footprint, so we’re told.
I don’t buy that. As stated before, environmental problems are real in local and regional settings. Global issues, such as “climate change,” have long been recognized as pretexts for social, political, and economic restructuring. For you see, whether the numbers were 2.5 billion as is the case of 1950, or anytime before or after - including today - major supporters of world population reduction have always
chanted the same mantra: Global management and global government.
It’s about control; the freedom to breed is intolerable.
Managing the “Human Cancer”
Population control supporters demand action: “...it is the human population that needs management, not wildlife.”45 Here are some ideas, both extreme and others deemed politically realistic, that have circulated in the population/environmental literature.
NOTE: After reviewing these suggestions, we’ll take a look at some national examples, and then tackle the common cry of “world government.”
Ideas to Curb Human Numbers:
- In Garrett Hardin’s famous essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, he advocated democratic“mutual coercion.” That is, coercive measures
agreed upon by “the majority of the people affected” for the betterment of the planetary commons. In pushing “mutual coercion” he wrote the following,
“The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all... The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed...”46
- Put a temporary sterilizing compound in the water, and carefully ration the antidote (Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.135). A proposal by Prof. Richard W. Schrieber in the early 1970s was a “sterilizing virus” countered by an injectable antidote. (Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment, p.339).
- Economic penalties such as added taxes for large families, and luxury taxes on items like cribs and diapers (Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.136). Many variations of this theme have been published.
- “The use of abortion and voluntary sterilization to supplement other forms of birth control can quite properly be included as part of family planning.” (Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment, p.334).
- Population Matters, a branch of the Optimum Population Trust, demands “universal access to reproductive health services,” better availability of contraceptives, the “lifting of all restrictions of reproductive health products and services,” and making “family planning a top health priority.”47
- Establish a “worldwide network of sterilization clinics” mandated through the UN General Assembly.48
- “Make sex education available to all appropriate levels, stressing birth control practices and the need to stabilize the population.” (The Environmental Handbook, p.318)
- “One idea that has been seriously proposed in India is to vasectomize all fathers of three or more children.” (Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment, p.338).
- Manage population growth through pre-established criteria. Should “fertility control” be achieved via a “lottery, wealth, special talent, race, IQ, political power?”49
- In relating to the global environment and increasing population levels, Mikhail Gorbachev believes we “need a radical turnaround in our thinking... one that is global... a revolution in consciousness... a new approach to the basic way of life and forms of behavior...”50 A global values shift is thus required.
- An idea from 1970 was to the consideration of alternative family lifestyles,
“Explore other social structures and marriage forms, such as group marriage and polyandrous marriage [one woman married to multiple men], which provide family life but may produce less children. Share the pleasure of raising children widely, so that all need not directly reproduce to enter into this basic human experience. We must hope that no one woman would give birth to more than one child, during this period of crisis.”51
- Move to a socially and environmentally sustainable economic model, as “capitalism promotes population growth and intensive consumption, causing the current problems.”52
- Create a global “green energy policy” allocating an equitable level of electrical power to all on the planet. The suggested rate: 3KW per person. However, for everyone to benefit from 3KW, the present population of the planet would need to be reduced to 4 billion. Achieving this scenario it would require “an official global policy of one child per family.”53
- “The best suggestion so far to produce Rapid Population Decline is for the collective global human family to adopt a One Child Per Family 'modus operandi/philosophy'.” (Peter Salonius, Research Scientist with the Canadian Forest Service, Long Term Agricultural Overshot, a paper presented as evidence to the Royal Society’s 2012 project on population).
And from an email sent by Peter Salonius to the Royal Society, we read the following,
“My ‘guesstimate’ for sustainable human numbers in the 100s of millions, if correct, suggest that the present global population has so far overshot the carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystems... There are more people on the planet (and have been for millennia) than it can sustainably support.
"Many of us have concluded that even TWO CHILD FAMILIES - that would only slowly stabilize the human population - are not an adequate response to this problem. We require the VOLUNTARY adoption of NO or ONE CHILD PER FAMILY behaviour to orchestrate the Population DECLINE that is necessary now, so that ultimately our numbers will be small enough to live OFF RESTORED INTACT ECOSYSTEMS ON THE LAND as opposed to supporting ourselves by DESTROYING THE LAND...”54 (capitals in original)
Certain countries have already faced extreme population control measures. China with its one-child policy is the most notable, with harsh repercussions for many who fail to comply with the state mandate. As reported by the Population Research Institute (PRI), a pro-humanity organization that monitors population control issues,
“It is well known that those who violate the one-child policy have sometimes been subjected to coerced abortions or, if they have already given birth, have been forced to pay punitive fines and have been sterilized. For example, the birth control regulations
posted in one town warned that those who violate the one-child policy shall be contracepted or sterilized:
‘Under the direction of the birth control bureaucracy and the technical personnel (assigned thereto), those married women of childbearing age who have already had one child shall be given an IUD; those couples that have already had a second or higher order child shall be sterilized’.”55 [Italics added]
The Population Research Institute noted that fines are another tool used by the state. Photographing and translating a Chinese billboard, PRI published the following “social compensation fee” notification,
“Those who illegally reproduce … will be assessed, when their illegal behavior is discovered, a ‘social compensation fee’ based on a unit calculated from a year's salary for urban dwellers and based on a year’s income after expenses for rural dwellers.
"Those who illegally give birth to one child will be assessed a fine 3 to 5 times their annual income; those who illegally give birth to a second child will be assessed a fine from 5 to 7 times their annual income; those who illegally give birth to a third child will be assessed a fine from 7 to 9 times their annual income; those who give birth to 4 or more illegal children will be assessed a fine extrapolated from the above schedule of multiples.
"For those who illegally take in a child, have an extramarital birth, or have an out of wedlock birth, both parties involved will be assessed a ‘social compensation fee’ according to the above schedule of (income) multiples.”56
China’s population agenda has a disturbing technocratic foundation. Robert Zubrin explains the China-Club of Rome connection in his new book, Merchants of Despair.
“In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of the Club of Rome publications The Limits to Growth and Blueprint for Survival, and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the reports’ method of using computerized ‘systems analysis’ to predict and design the human future.
"Fascinated by the possibilities, Song returned to China and republished the Club’s analysis under his own name (without attribution), establishing his reputation for brilliant and original thinking. Indeed, while Club of Rome computer projections of impending resource shortages, graphs showing the shortening of population-increase times, and discussions of ‘carrying capacities,’ ‘natural limits,’ mass extinctions, and the isolated ‘spaceship Earth’ were all clichés in the West by 1978, in China they were fresh and striking ideas.
"In no time at all, Song became a scientific superstar. Seizing the moment to grasp for greater power and importance, he pulled together an elite group of mathematicians from within his department, and with the help of a powerful computer to provide the necessary special effects, issued the profoundly calculated judgment that China’s ‘correct’ population size was 650 to 700 million people - which is to say some 280 to 330 million less than its actual 1978 population. Song’s analysis quickly found favor at top levels of the Chinese Communist Party because it purported to prove that the reason for China’s continued poverty was not thirty years of disastrous misrule, but the very existence of the Chinese people. (To make the utter falsity of Song’s argument clear, it is sufficient to note that in 1980, neighboring South Korea, with four times China’s population density, had a per capita gross national product seven times greater.)
"Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping and his fellows in the Central Committee were also very impressed by the pseudo-scientific computer babble Song used to dress up his theory - which, unlike its Club of Rome source documents in the West, ran unopposed in the state-controlled Chinese technical and popular media. ...Song proposed that the nation’s population be considered a mathematical entity, like the position of a missile in flight, whose trajectory could be optimized by the input of a correctly calculated series of directives. Viewed thus, Song saw just one answer: China must impose a limit of one child per family, effective immediately.
"Deng Xiaoping liked what Song had to say, so those who might have had the power to resist the one-child policy were quick to protect themselves by lining up in support.” 57
Other nations have and are conducting population control activities, and here we need a caveat on eugenics, for some readers may have questions about its potential place in this essay. Eugenics is a type of population control movement, yet in this report we’re focusing on population control as a remedy for “excessive” human numbers, not population control as a means to attain a “better breeding stock.” For those unfamiliar with the term, eugenics is the technical application of Darwinian principles to the human species, and it takes two paths;
1) Negative Eugenics - the sterilization of the weak, feeble minded, or physically handicapped to ensure the purity and/or health of a given population. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Germany have used negative eugenics to try and quell undesirable social traits.58 Nazi Germany took these measures to the extreme, conducting sterilization and termination programs.59
2) Positive Eugenics - selective breeding programs meant to achieve a higher racial/species standard. Nazi Germany attempted positive eugenics through the Lebensborn program which paired young German women with selected Nazi SS men for procreation purposes. Special maternity homes were arranged for the expectant “Aryan” mothers. The Lebensborn program also housed Nazi-abducted Aryan children from non-Aryan nations.60 In the United States, a private-run positive eugenics program matched Nobel prize sperm donors with high-IQ women. The purpose: to create a gene pool and offspring endowed with super intelligence.61
Negative eugenics and “numbers based” population management can and have been bridged: Here, national elites use the pretext of “general population control” to specifically target politically or ethnically undesirable groups. Enter the “nexus of politics and health” - “To avoid power sharing the elite’s impulse is to look for shortcuts, such as limitations of marriage and forced abortions... or by attempting to persuade or pressure the poor, especially mothers, to accept sterilization.”62
Beyond the human management practices of China, two other nations will be quickly explored.
United States of America: The Family Planning Services and Population Research Act was passed by Congress in 1970, putting family planning on the domestic agenda, including services to the poor.
“Family planning” is a wide term that incorporates education services, dissemination of contraception devices, sterilization options, and abortion - under the banner of “reproductive health.” Then in 1973, the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade propelled America’s abortion industry into high gear. Since 1973, approximately 50 million abortions have taken place in the United States.63 And the abortion road is one undeniable path to population control. This is admitted, grudgingly at times, by those who support human management, including Paul Ehrlich who correlates population shrinkage with a “women’s right to safe abortions.”64
Of course the two issues dovetail. China has amply demonstrated this fact, as has Japan, where the birthrate was quickly reduced after World War II “largely by legalizing abortion.”65
Understanding the ties between “reproductive health” and population reduction, the comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the United Nations Rio+20 conference on June 22, 2012, come into focus; “And while I am very pleased that this year’s outcome document endorses sexual and reproductive health and universal access to family planning, to reach our goals in sustainable development we also
have to ensure women’s reproductive rights.”66
Sustainable development, reproductive rights, and population control are intrinsically linked. As a report by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger blunted stated: “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.”67
Indeed, the US State Department has a long history of population control through the US Agency for International Development, which operates “under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State.”68
In the mid-1960s, USAID initiated the Population and Reproductive Health program, and then created the Office of Population in 1969. The reason: From Kennedy to Nixon, US presidents and leading administrators were calling for a reduction in Third World population numbers, citing a growing correlation between Soviet-based communist activities and Third World countries. USAID’s Office of Population responded by initiating multiple national campaigns to reduce fertility through family planning and country-by-country population actions. R.T. Ravenholt, Director of the Office of Population from 1966 to 1979, explained that his office was involved with “applied research, development, testing and dissemination of improved means of fertility control.”
What did this mean? Here are some examples.
NOTE: the following was taken from Ravenholt’s paper, Foremost Achievement of USAID’s Population Program, 1966-1979.
- Development of the Menstrual Regulation Kit, “a safe, simple and inexpensive means of uterine aspiration.” After 100,000 units were purchased, USAID was legally blocked from directly distributing the kits. However, working with non-government organizations, over 3 million kits were moved in a relatively short period of time.
- Laparoscopic surgery techniques and “wide dissemination of laparoscopic equipment to specially trained surgeons in more than 70 countries, including Brazil, Korea, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Tunisia, Columbia and Mexico...”
- Assistance in the development of “mini-laparotomy equipment and techniques” for sterilization units in developing countries.
- “Purchase and delivery of huge quantities of contraceptives and surgical equipment to family programs in distant lands...” In 1979 alone, the Office of Population distributed “750 million monthly cycles of oral contraceptives... 2.3 billion condoms... 10 million intrauterine devices...2000 improved laparoscopes and 36,000 minilap and vasectomy kits...”
- And the channeling of massive amounts of funds and political support to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Population Council, Battelle Memorial Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, and other groups working with fertility and population management directives.
As R.T. Ravenholt once explained, “This Agency has been the world leader in the research and development of new surgical technology for improved female sterilization and pregnancy termination during the past decade.”69 [italics added]
One example of USAID population funding was Bangladesh during the mid-1980s. Betsy Hartmann, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, gives us some insights.
“In the mid-1980s, Bangladesh’s then martial law government instituted a crash program to reduce the country’s birth rates. In addition to enhancing incentive payments for sterilization, it introduced punitive measures against family planning and health personnel who failed to meet monthly sterilization quotas. Abuse was rampant. In the flood season of 1984, for example, relief workers uncovered a pattern of destitute women being denied food aid unless they agreed to be sterilized.
"The government’s policies did not occur in a vacuum. In 1983 major donor agencies, including USAID, the World Bank, and the UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), put pressure on Bangladesh to achieve a ‘drastic’ reduction in birth rates, primarily through sterilization incentives. Despite a law prohibiting the use of American funds for incentive payments, USAID financed 85 percent of the Bangladesh program’s incentive costs. It got around the law by calling the incentives ‘compensation payments.’
"Sterilization ‘acceptors’ received a cash payment equivalent to several weeks of wages and a new sari for women or sarong for men at a time when many villagers only owned one piece of clothing. Doctors, clinic staff, health workers, traditional midwives and even members of the public received a fee for each client they ‘referred’ or ‘motivated’ to be sterilized. As a result, the whole health care system was skewed toward sterilization and access to temporary methods of contraception was severely curtailed. Sterilization rates rose especially high in the lean season before the harvest when peasants were desperate for cash to buy food.
"What happened in Bangladesh in the 1980s was nothing out of the ordinary. It was old-school population control...”70
NOTE: Much more could be added regarding US population control programs and activities, including National Security Study Memorandum 200, a report issued through US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. NSSM 200 provided the justification to push hard for global population management objectives.
India: The Indian sub-continent has a long and sordid history of population control (its official start was 1952). In the 1970s, billboards advertised, “Happiness Is a Two-Child Family.” Reporting on India’s population measures during that period, New York Times correspondent Arthur Bonner writes,
“Prime Minister Indira Gandhi warned: ‘We must now act decisively and bring down the birthrate speedily to prevent the doubling of ourpopulation in a mere twenty-eight years. We shall not hesitate to take steps which might be described as drastic.’
Mrs Gandhi’s younger son Sanjay... took family planning as his fief. He set a national target of 4.3 million sterilizations in only nine months from April 1976 through March 1977, double the number recorded in the previous twelve-month period.”71
Population control is still part of the Indian landscape. On March 31, 2012, The Times of India reported that in the Pali district
people could receive free natural gas hook-ups. The catch: You have to agree to a sterilization operation. And not long ago,
two Nano cars were given away in a Pali lottery, but to be eligible you had to be sterilized “in a given time period.” Other incentives
were offered, such as mobile phones and cash.72
Occasionally laparoscopic “sterilization camps” make the news. On April 3, 2012, it was reported that a surgeon in Bihar conducted “53 sterilization operations on females in two hours with the help of unqualified staff... that did not have basic amenities like running water or sterilizing equipment.”
The report noted those targeted were “below poverty line, scheduled caste and other backward class women.” One witness stated,
“As a result of these operations, three women were left profusely bleeding. Another woman was operated, despite being three-month pregnant. She miscarried days after the procedure. The surgeon left immediately after operating 53 women between 8pm and 10 pm. After the surgeries, all 53 women were crying out in pain. Though they were in desperate need of medical care, no one came to assist them.”73
In 1977, Indira Gandhi’s mass sterilization campaign cost her the re-election: “the government’s program to vasectomize millions of Indian males who had fathered two or more children - ruthlessly and often illegally applied - came to symbolize the dangers of authoritarian rule.”74 Today, it’s “overwhelming female sterilization” as opposed to male operations.75
All of this harkens back to Paul Ehrlich’s book, The Population Bomb. Speaking on the need to support India’s population reduction with helicopters and other logistic support, we read,
"Coercion? Perhaps, but coercion in a good cause. I am sometimes astounded at the attitudes of Americans who are horrified at the prospect of our government insisting on population control as the price of food aid. All too often the very same people are fully in support of applying military force against those who disagree with our form of government or our foreign policy. We must be relentless in pushing for population control around the world.
"I wish I could offer you some sugarcoated solutions, but I’m afraid the time for them is long gone. A cancer is an uncontrollable multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.”76
A Global Authority
If the world’s population is “a global problem in need of a global solution,” it shouldn’t come as a surprise that international management is continuously touted as the only real option. While not everyone supporting population control is for global population governance, many have advocated the cause. A few points below illustrate this important aspect.
1925: A Marxist pamphlet is circulated in England - “...we scientific pacifists demand a world-wide limitation on births, affected by all nations leagued together in a desire for peace under the leadership of the League of Nations.” [see footnote #20]
1947: Julian Huxley, first director of UNESCO, actively promotes world government built on world humanism as the ultimate goal. In his book, UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy, he includes “the idea of an optimum population-size... an indispensable first step towards
that planned control of populations,” as part of this bigger picture.77
1953: World renowned philosopher Bertrand Russell penned the following, providing a remarkable window into an elitist mindset.
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of this? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.
...unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation...
...The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.”78
1957: Regarding global population control through joint national efforts, Julian Huxley recommended a “World Development Plan on a scale at least tenfold greater than all existing schemes put together.” Advanced nations would “sacrifice some of their high standards of living” and under-developed nations would have to be “willing to restrict their populations by initiating effective policies of birth-control and family planning.”79
1970, 1972, 1978: Paul and Anne Ehrlich, and in 1978 with John P. Holdren, published the progressive editions of Population, Resources, Environment. They called for a Planetary Regime that would turn the United Nations “into a sort of International Agency for Population, Resources, and Environment.” The Planetary Regime would also,
“...control the development, administration, conservation and distributions of all natural resources... The Regime would have the responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each reagion and for arbitrating various counties’ shares in their regional limits... the Regime should have the power to enforce the agreed limits.”80
1990: Ehrlich published The Population Explosion, and advocated a “Global Commons Regime” to regulate human interaction with the global environment.
“There is no guarantee that an effective Global Commons Regime could pull humanity through the coming crisis; but it seems certain that without such a broad-gauge effort to deal with global population/environmental problems, civilization will collapse.”81
1992: Al Gore writes in his book, Earth in the Balance; “Clearly, it is time for a global effort to create everywhere on earth the conditions conducive to stabilizing population.”82
2003: UNESCO publishes Planetary Sustainability in the Age of the Information and Knowledge Society. World population numbers and resources are considered key points. To achieve global sustainability, therefore, a global ethic will have to be accepted along with a system of global governance - an international code of conduct moving humanity toward planetary citizenship; “planet-sized policies, strategies, and lines of action.”
“Founding a planetary society, and planetary citizenship, calls for working with the idea of new social contracts, cooperating in humanizing life, humanizing human affairs, and the appearance of a great human project supporting a scenario of planetary sustainability.”83
2009: The Financial Post prints an article by Diane Francis, the editor-at-large for the National Post.
“The ‘inconvenient truth’ overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world. A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.”84
Many more examples could be given, but the point is obvious; international population-control walks hand-in-hand with global governance. How else could it be?
We have touched on many interlocking issues in this essay, yet the story of population control is deeper and more complex then presented in this limited report. Religion plays an important role, both in opposing this anti-human movement and in supporting it - a rift even found in evangelical circles. Economic and monetary factors are also involved. Education, media, and modern culture make contributions. And far more could be said on the personalities and institutions behind the population reduction movement.
Nevertheless, it is hoped that this report will give you a sense of scope - recognizing that “ideas have consequences,” and that you’ll use this essay to help recognize the buzz-words and concepts attached to the movement. For you will see an increase in political, religious, and media interest in the topic. It’s inevitable.
As the international community continues to fixate on building the mechanisms and instruments of global governance, the dilemma of “planetary over-population” will re-emerge as a hot-button issue. It already has, but I anticipate more attention will be paid to the “problem” of “too many people” in the not-so-distant future. This is especially the case as national economies tighten, and the Western world slides toward a socialist worldview.
After all, to control humanity is the utopian dream of progressives. FC
is the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly online publication detailing the changing worldview and transforming agendas now shaping society, the church, and nation.
FC is a monthly, online publication dedicated to documenting and analyzing the socio-religious transformations now sweeping our Western world.
Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $54.95 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including special reports, audio and media presentations, FC back issues, expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, FC operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including member benefits, go towww.forcingchange.org.
Benefits of Forcing Change membership...
Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to
P.O. Box 31
Plumas, Manitoba, Canada, R0J-1P0
Index to FC's previous reports
One World, One Force: Part III - Swords into Plowshares, 1960-1969
1 Bertrand Russell, The Future of Science (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1959), p.35.
2 Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action (London, UK: Chatto and Windus, 1953), p.139.
3 The Environmental Handbook: Prepared for the First National Environmental Teach-In, April 22, 1970 (New York, NY: Ballantine/Friends of the Earth, 1970, edited by Garrett de Bell), p.323.
4 Garrett Hardin, "The Immorality of Being Soft-hearted," Stanford Alumni Almanac, January, 1969. As quoted in Barry Commoner's book, Making Peace with the Planet (New York: The New Press, 1992 edition), p.167.
5 US Census Bureau, World POP Clock Projection, www.census.gov/population/popclockworld.html
6 Robert Kunzig, “Seven Billion,” special series for National Geographic, published January, 2011. Online edition: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text.
7 T.R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, Volume 1 (London, UK: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1914 edition), see pages 7-11.
8 Martha Farnsworth Riche, “Low Fertility and Sustainability,” World-Watch, September/October 2004, p.50.
9 For an article on these predictions, see the piece by Malcolm Potts in Foreign Policy, “The Myth of 9 Billion,” May 9, 2011, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/09/the_myth_of_9_billion.
10 See his 2011 Jack Beale Lecture at the University of New South Wales. This is available on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHc7-275h0Y. This statement is found in the 13 minute mark.
11 As discussed in the Spiegel, “Experts Predict Global Population Will Plateau,” 11/03/2011, online edition.
12 See the report, Family Planing in Developing Countries: A Decade of Progress, by R.T. Ravenholt, Director, Office of Population, US Agency for International Development, November 5, 1979
13 Julian L. Simon, Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment and Immigration (Transaction Publishers, 1990), pp.211-212.
14 See his 2011 Jack Beale Lecture at the University of New South Wales. This is available on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHc7-275h0Y.
15 Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Prepared for the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on International Relations by the Congressional Research Service, August 21, 1975. See the “Abstract” for this list of objectives.
16 Ibid., p.75.
17 See the essay, A Dynamic Theory of Resource Wars, by Daron Acemoflu, Michael Golosov, Aleh Tsyvincki, and Pierre Yared, July 10, 2011.
18 Paul and Anne Ehrlich, The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2008 ), p.210.
19 John Fischer, “Survival U: Prospectus for a Really Relevant University,” The Environmental Handbook: Prepared for the First National Environmental Teach-In, April 22, 1970 (New York, NY: Ballantine/Friends of the Earth, 1970, edited by Garrett de Bell), p.139.
20 For an old example of this, see The Biological Cause and Prevention of War: Essay in Scientific Pacifism, London, 1925 - reprinted at www.marxists.org/archive/devaldes/1925/prevention-war.htm.
21 Many historians, philosophers, and military personnel have wrestled with root causes. One example is a book by Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla, War: Ends and Means (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1989).
22 Yale University Environmental Performance Index for 2012; http://epi.yale.edu.
23 Royal Society of Chemistry, Natural or Man-made chemicals? Notes for presenters - a power point presentation meant for school-age audiences. This presentation can be found on the RSC website; www.rsc.org.
24 See, Michael S. Coffman, Saviors of the Earth? The Politics and Religion of the Environmental Movement (Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing), pp.34-35.
25 See Lynn R. Anspaugh, Robert J Catlin, Marvin Goldman, “The Global Impact of the Chernobyl Reactor Accident,” Science, December 1988. All of the subsequent reports on Chernobyl since that time, including the 2006 study issued by The Greens in the European Parliament, point to the disaster as a regional event.
Nonetheless, many reports, including the one produced by The Greens, The Other Report on Chernobyl, refer to the event in a global context.
26 Regarding climate change, see Forcing Change, Volume 3, Issue 12; Volume 3, Issue 9; Volume 1, Issue 11 (www.forcingchange.org).
27 Dr. Roy Spencer, “Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?” see his webpage at www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade.
29 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Youth Sourcebook on Sustainable Development (Winnipeg, MB: IISD, 1994), p.63.
30 Robin Mearns, “Environmental Entitlements: Towards Empowerment for Sustainable Development,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies (Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995), p.51.
31 Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Sierra Club - Ballantine, 1968), pp.77-78.
32 Paul R. Ehrlich, “Eco-Catastrophe!” The Environmental Handbook: Prepared for the First National Environmental Teach-In, April 22, 1970 (New York, NY: Ballantine/Friends of the Earth, 1970, edited by Garrett de Bell), 161-176.33 Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1972), pp.240-241.
34 Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion (London, UK: Hutchinson, 1990), pp.147-148.
35 Ibid., p.17.
36 See his 2011 Jack Beale Lecture at the University of New South Wales. This is available on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHc7-275h0Y.
37 “Falling Fertility,” The Economist, October 29, 2009. This article can be found online at: www.economist.com/node/14744915.
38 United Nations, Total Fertility Rate: Demographics, Population Change, methodology sheet on demographic indicators on sustainable development, pp.101-102.
39 Lee Kuan Yew, “Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates,” Forbes Asia Magazine, May 7, 2012, online edition.
40 For a country-by-country data review of population and fertility levels, see the United Nations report, World Population Prospects, The 2010 Revision, Volume II: Demographic Profiles (United Nations, 2011).
41 US Census Bureau, World Population data, Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050, www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_population.php.
42 Demographer and population historian, Steven Mosher, used this phrase in one of his presentations. See his speech at; www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLB9fvCIQ6s.
43 Phillip Longman used the phrase “gray tsunami” to express the massive rise in the aging population; “Think Again: Global Aging,” Foreign Policy, November 2012, online edition.
44 Phillip Longman, The Empty Cradle (Basic Books, 2004), p.35.
45 Jim Bohlen, “Toward a Global Green Constitution,” a contribution made to the World Environment Energy and Economic Conference, Sustainable Development for a New World Agenda (WEEEC proceedings, October, 1990, Winnipeg, Manitoba. See page 14 of the WEEEC report.
46 Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” as reprinted in The Environmental Handbook (Ballantine/Friends of the Earth, 1970), pp.46, 49.
47 A short jaunt through the Population Matters website will reveal these and other population “solutions.” (www.populationmatters.org).
48 Yuji Ishiguro, One-Bi'ion World (Rio, Brazil: Booklink, 2010), p.126.
49 Yuji Ishiguro, One-Bi'ion World (Rio, Brazil: Booklink, 2010), p.127.
50 Mikhail Gorbachev, On My Country and the World (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2000), p.243.
51 The Environmental Handbook: Prepared for the First National Environmental Teach-In, April 22, 1970 (New York,
NY: Ballantine/Friends of the Earth, 1970, edited by Garrett de Bell), p.324.
52 Yuji Ishiguro, One-Bi'ion World (Rio, Brazil: Booklink, 2010), p.121.
53 Jim Bohlen, “Toward a Global Green Constitution,” a contribution made to the World Environment Energy and Economic Conference, Sustainable Development for a New World Agenda (WEEEC proceedings, October, 1990, Winnipeg, Manitoba. See page 13.
54 Email to Marie Rumsby; Subject: People and the Planet - EVIDENCE submission, 24 August 2010. Letter on file.
55 Steven W. Mosher, “Illegal Babies Abducted by Chinese Population Control Officials,” Population Research Institute, Weekly Briefing 2011 (v.13).
57 Robert Zurbrin, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2012), pp.181-183.
58 For information on the American contribution, see, Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003). For more on the US and German side of the eugenics movement, see also, Stefan Kuhl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994).
59 See, Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
60 See, Marc Hillel and Clarissa Henry, Of Pure Blood (Geneva, Switzerland: Ferni Publishing House, 1979).
61 See, David Plotz, The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel
Prize Sperm Bank (New York, NY: Random
62 Arthur Bonner, Averting the Apocalypse: Social Movements in India Today (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), p.159.
63 John Jalsevac, “Shock: estimated 54,559,615 abortions since Roe v. Wade,” LifeSiteNews, January 23, 2012. www.lifesitenews.com/news/shock-estimated-54559615-abortions-since-roe-v.-wade
64 See pages 195 of Ehrlich’s The Population Explosion.
65 Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment, p.331.
66 Hillary Rodham Clinton, Remarks at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, June 22, 2012.
67 National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interest, December 10, 1974.
68 USAID, ADS Chapter 101: Agency Programs and Functions, partial revision date: 04/16/2012, section 101.2a.
69 R.T. Ravenholt, Director, Office of Population, US Agency for International Development, Memorandum of Information, October 14, 1977.
70 Betsy Hartmann, “The Return of Population Control: Incentives, Targets and the Backlash Against Cairo,” Different Takes, No. 79, Spring 2011, pp.1-2.
71 Ibid, p.160.
72 Syed Intishab Ali, “Get sterilized to get gas connection,” The Times of India, March 31, 2012, online edition.
73 Djananjay Mahapatra, “53 women sterilized in Bihar in 2 hours,” The Times of India, April 3, 2012, online edition.
74 “The World: The Issue that Inflamed India,” Time Magazine, April 4, 1977. This article can be found in the online archives of Time.
75 India and Family Planning: An Overview, briefing paper from the World Health Organization, p.2.
76 Ehrilic, The Population Bomb, p.166.
77 Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy (Public Affairs Press, 1947), p.45.
78 Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp.103-105.
79 Julian Huxley, New Bottles for New Wine (New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p.199.
80 Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (Second edition), p.435.
81 Ehrilich, The Population Explosion, p.224.
82 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York, NY: Plume, 1992/93), p.317.
83 Gustavo Lopez Ospina, Planetary Sustainability in the Age of the Information and Knowledge Society: For a Sustainable World and Future - Working Toward 2015 (UNESCO, 2003), p.69, 183.
84 Diane Francis, “The Real Inconvenient Truth,” Financial Post, December 8, 2009, online edition.