Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming


Click for the book

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

“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.”

They believe all these problems are created by humans but exacerbated by a growing population using technology. Changed attitudes and behavior basically means what it has meant from the time Thomas Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated. He believed charity and laws to help the poor were a major cause of the problem and it was necessary to reduce population through rules and regulations. TCOR ideas all ended up in the political activities of the Rio 1992 conference organized by Maurice Strong (a TCOR member) under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The assumptions and objectives became the main structure of Agenda 21, the master plan for the 21st Century. The global warming threat was confronted at Rio through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was structured to predetermine scientific proof that human CO2 was one contribution of the common enemy.

The IPCC was very successful. Despite all the revelations about corrupted science and their failed predictions (projections) CO2 remains central to global attention about energy and environment. For example, several websites, many provided by government, list CO2 output levels for new and used cars. Automobile companies work to build cars with lower CO2 output and, if for no other reason than to appear green, use it in advertising. The automotive industry, which has the scientists to know better, collectively surrenders to eco-bullying about CO2. They are not alone. They get away with it because they pass on the unnecessary costs to a befuddled “trying to do the right thing” population.

TCOR applied Thomas Malthus’s claim of a race to exhaustion of food to all resources. Both Malthus and COR believe limiting population was mandatory. Darwin took a copy of Malthus’s Essay on Population with him and remarked on its influence on his evolutionary theory in his Beagle journal in September 1838. The seeds of distortion about overpopulation were sown in Darwin’s acceptance of Malthus’s claims.

Paul Johnson’s biography of Charles Darwin comments on the contradiction between Darwin’s scientific methods and his acceptance of their omission in Malthus.

Malthuss aim was to discourage charity and reform the existing poor laws, which, he argued, encourage the destitute to breed and so aggravated the problem. That was not Darwins concern. What struck him was the contrast between geometrical progression (breeding) and arithmetical progression (food supplies). Not being a mathematician he did not check the reasoning and accuracy behind Malthus’s law in fact, Malthus’s law was nonsense. He did not prove it. He stated it. What strikes one reading Malthus is the lack of hard evidence throughout. Why did this not strike Darwin? A mystery. Malthuss only proof was the population expansion of the United States.

There was no point at which Malthuss geometrical/arithmetical rule could be made to square with the known facts. And he had no reason whatsoever to extrapolate from the high American rates to give a doubling effect every 25 years everywhere and in perpetuity.

He swallowed Malthusianism because it fitted his emotional need, he did not apply the tests and deploy the skepticism that a scientist should. It was a rare lapse from the discipline of his profession. But it was an important one.

Darwin’s promotion of Malthus undoubtedly gave the ideas credibility they didn’t deserve. Since then the Malthusian claim has dominated science, social science and latterly environmentalism. Even now many who accept the falsity of global warming due to humans continue to believe overpopulation is a real problem.

Overpopulation was central in all TCOR’s activities. Three books were important to their message, Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968) and Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment (1977) co-authored with John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, and Meadows et al., Limits to Growth, published in 1972 that anticipated the IPCC approach of computer model predictions (projections). The latter wrote

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.

Here is what the TCOR web site says about the book.

They created a computing model which took into account the relations between various global developments and produced computer simulations for alternative scenarios. Part of the modelling were different amounts of possibly available resources, different levels of agricultural productivity, birth control or environmental protection.

They estimated the current amount of a resource, determined the rate of consumption, and added an expanding demand because of increasing industrialization and population growth to determine, with simple linear trend analysis, that the world was doomed.

Economist Julian Simon challenged TCOR and Ehrlich’s assumptions.

In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” – a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with – Simon countered with “a public offer to stake US$10,000 … on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.

Simon proposed,

You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted – copper, tin, whatever – and select any date in the future, “any date more than a year away,” and Simon would bet that the commodity’s price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.

John Holdren selected the materials and the time. Simon won the bet.

Global warming used the idea that CO2 would increase to harmful levels because of increasing industrialization and expanding populations. The political manipulation of climate science was linked to development and population control in various ways. Here are comments from a PBS interview with Senator Tim Wirth in response to the question, What was it in the late 80s, do you think, that made the issue [of global warming] take off? He replied,

I think a number of things happened in the late 1980s. First of all, there were the [NASA scientist Jim] Hansen hearings [in 1988]. … We had introduced a major piece of legislation. Amazingly enough, it was an 18-part climate change bill; it had population in it, conservation, and it had nuclear in it. It had everything that we could think of that was related to climate change. … And so we had this set of hearings, and Jim Hansen was the star witness.

Wikipedia says about Wirth,

In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration’s views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol Wirth announced the U.S.’s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Gore chaired the 1988 “Hansen” Senate Hearing and was central to the promotion of population as basic to all other problems. He led the US delegation to the September 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo Egypt.

That conference emerged from Rio 1992 where they linked population to all other supposed problems.

Explicitly integrating population into economic and development strategies will both speed up the pace of sustainable development and poverty alleviation and contribute to the achievement of population objectives and an improved quality of life of the population.

This theme was central to Rio+20 held in June 2012 and designed to re-emphasize Rio 1992.

The Numbers

The world is not overpopulated. That fallacy is perpetuated in all environmental research, policy and planning including global warming and latterly climate change. So what are the facts about world population?

The US Census Bureau provides a running estimate of world population. It was 6,994,551,619 on February 15, 2012. On October 30, 2011 the UN claimed it passed 7 billion; the difference is 5,448,381. This is more than the population of 129 countries of the 242 listed by Wikipedia. It confirms most statistics are crude estimates, especially those of the UN who rely on individual member countries, yet no accurate census exists for any of them

Population density is a more meaningful measure. Most people are concentrated in coastal flood plains and deltas, which are about 5 percent of the land. Compare Canada, the second largest country in the world with approximately 35.3 million residents estimated in 2013 with California where an estimated 37.3 million people lived in 2010. Some illustrate the insignificance of the density issue by putting everyone in a known region. For example, Texas at 7,438,152,268,800 square feet divided by the 2012 world population 6,994,551,619 yields 1063.4 square feet per person. Fitting all the people in an area is different from them being able to live there. Most of the world is unoccupied by humans.

Population geographers separate ecumene, the inhabited area, from non-ecumene the uninhabited areas. The distribution of each changes over time because of technology, communications and food production capacity. Many of these changes deal with climate controls. Use of fire and clothing allowed survival in colder regions, while irrigation offset droughts and allowed settlement in arid regions. Modern environmentalists would likely oppose all of these touted evolutionary advances.

Ironically The Fallacious Problem is The Solution

It all sounds too familiar in the exploitation of science for a political and personal agenda. But there is an even bigger tragedy because the development the TCOR and IPCC condemn is actually the solution.

All of the population predictions Ehrlich and others made were wrong, but more important and damning was they ignored another pattern that was identified in 1929 and developed over the same period as the Mathusian claims. It is known as the Demographic Transition.


It shows and statistics confirm, population declines as nations industrialize and the economy grows. It is so dramatic in developed countries that the population pyramid results in insufficient young people to support the massively expensive social programs for the elderly. Some countries offset this with migration, but they are simply creating other problems. Countries that don’t allow or severely limit migration such as Japan face completely different problems. Some countries offer incentives for having more than two children, such as the announcement by Vladimir Putin in Russia. China took draconian, inhuman, steps by limiting families to one child. The irony, although there is nothing funny about it, is they are now the largest producer of CO2 and their economy booms. If they had simply studied the demographic transition and let things take a normal course the tragedies already incurred and yet to unfold could have been avoided.

The world is not overpopulated. Malthus began the idea suggesting the population would outgrow the food supply. Currently food production is believed sufficient to feed 25 billion people and growing. The issue is that in the developing world some 60 percent of production never makes it to the table. Developed nations cut this figure to 30 percent primarily through refrigeration. In their blind zeal those who brought you the IPCC fiasco cut their teeth on the technological solution to this problem – better and cheaper refrigeration. The CFC/ ozone issue was artificially created to ban CFCs and introduce global control through the Montreal Protocol. It, like the Kyoto Protocol was a massive, expensive, unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem.

TCOR and later UNEP’s Agenda 21 adopted and expanded the Malthusian idea of overpopulation to all resources making it the central tenet of all their politics and policies. The IPCC was set up to assign the blame of global warming and latterly climate change on human produced CO2 from an industrialized expanding population. They both developed from false assumptions, used manipulated data and science, which they combined into computer models whose projections were, not surprisingly, wrong. The result is the fallacy of global warming due to human CO2 is a subset built on the fallacy of overpopulation.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Global warming appears to be exaggerated, but I’m all for reducing world population, and I’m fed up with growth for growth’s sake.

On the Malthusian Fallacy, don’t miss Dan Brown’s latest ‘Robert Langdon’ tale Inferno.


GregS, I have never met anyone who promotes population growth for growth’s sake, so stop with the silly strawmen.
The only conceivable reason for stopping population growth would be if you could demonstrate that it is a problem. To date, no one has been able to do that, indeed, the opposite is probably true. As Julian Simon stated, more people means more minds working on the world’s problems.


re: “population declines as nations industrialize”
I think it’s the advent of pension systems. No pension: = people have ~8 kids to ensure there is one to take care of them when they are old.
Coldly calculated Industrialization means the need to keep people in the workforce and not taking care of elderly parents. Social Security wasn’t just DC being nice.
Why don’t any of the stop-overpopulation campaigners get this? I don’t mean you. I mean folks like Bill Gates.

Cheyne Gordon

So the world is not overpopulated: I’m sure the 300 million women who have no access to family planning will feel a lot better when you tell them that.
Family planning remains the most cost-effective technology we have for reducing poverty.
So the world can produce much more food? Tell that to the elephant, orang-utan and tiger. I’m sure they will happily give up their habitats for you to grow more food.
Take a walk through the slums of Africa or Asia, and then tell me again that the world is not over-populated.


I forgot to add, I want a sustainable earth, too. Its just that the way to do it is
-have everyone on earth due an old age pension
-change the monetary system to one where money is not created as debt
CO2 is irrelevant. CAGW is the warmists way of praying. They simply do not know how to actually achieve what they really want.

wayne Job

Thank you Dr Ball a very good article. Much needs to be done to educate our current crop of politicians.

GregS: How would you reduce world population? Grinding poverty, lack of industrialization, diseases like malaria, Chinese-type population control, war, euthanasia? And for what reason? The predictions made by Malthus, TCOR and idiots like Ehrlich have been demonstrably false. Remember, Ehrlich was predicting mass starvation, wars over non-existent resources, failure of energy supplies and the next ice age by the mid-1980’s.
Good essay, Dr. Ball. You very nicely summarize the failed predictions of the environmentalists and others. I keep being amazed by the fact that people can still make claims like climate refugees, climate wars, energy failure from peak oil/coal/etc, when the facts are demonstrably just the opposite.
Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity nor the power of human stupidity. Which will win?


@Cheyne Gordon,
the very fact that you need to invite me on an imaginary journey to “the slums of Africa or Asia”, to let me see what you want to show me, proves that your argument doesn’t hold water. If THE WORLD were overpopulated, similar sights would logically be found less than a few miles away from you or me, not only on other continents. The situation in the slums of Africa or Asia might indicate that these slums are overpopulated, it says NOTHING about the world as a whole.

ed mister jones

What are CBR, BDR? Combined (?) Birth Rate & Combined (?) Death Rate? It is left to be ciphered or researched.

Lil Fella from OZ

I hope more people read this article than this blog. It demonstrates the wider battle the average person is up against, against the Left (I am Left because I can use your money to destroy your way of life!).

R. Shearer

There is a big universe out there and we don’t occupy much of it.

Kit Blanke

Bob Geene wrote
“Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity nor the power of human stupidity. Which will win?”
The ingenuity will be used to get out the hole stupidity dug

Dodgy Geezer

You mentioned Julian Simon!
Don’t you know that he was supposed to be written out of history?
He used real data to blow all the doom-mongers out of the water, and is a hate figure of the Left second only to Margaret Thatcher. They spent a lot of time and trouble suppressing his memory. By now I honestly didn’t expect to hear his name spoken of again…

North of 43 and south of 44

GregS says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:19 pm
Global warming appears to be exaggerated, but I’m all for reducing world population, and I’m fed up with growth for growth’s sake.
You may lead by example.

Pat Frank

Malthus was correct concerning populations in a native environment. Boom-bust populations have been verified in predator-prey relationships; overview seminar slides here (pdf download). Boom-busts occur because natural populations overshoot their food supply and then crash. It happened in early human societies, too, with crashes mainly occurring due to famine years after poor harvests. Malthus grew up in a society that had only just emerged from the ever-present threat of famine and mass starvation.
Darwin applied Malthus’ idea to the natural populations he observed, and was correct to do so. His perceptive hypothesis has been widely verified since then.
Humans have escaped the Malthus trap only because of science and technology, plus the creative innovation brought by individual freedom. The first door out of the Malthus trap was the early modern agricultural revolution that began in Holland in the 17th century and then spread to England. Amazingly, that revolution involved the dual discovery that clover crops increased soil fertility, and that rotating crops husbanded soils further. These two truly revolutionary discoveries increased available farmlands immediately by 1/3 and increased crop yields, both. Holland and England were free of famine by 1750, with the rest of Europe following later.
Malthus was wrong about humanity only because he could not forsee the impact of science and technology. These, operating in freedom, are the drivers of the good news about the non-crisis of population in Tim Ball’s essay.
Modern farming can feed the entire present population of the world without increasing the land now under cultivation — something that cannot be said of organic farms. One may suppose that, as Africa and Asia enter into modern industrialized economies, the improvement in their own agricultural methods up to modern standards will actually reduce the amount of land needed for food production. The truly eco-conscious will applaud that transition, in view of the concommittant increase in wilderness habitat that will accompany it.

Cheyne Gordon: 300 million women have not access to family planning? Does approximately 8% of the world population not having access to family planning cause world poverty? And why don’t they have access or practice family planning? I believe you will find as technology and societal wealth increases, the population growth rate decreases. Poverty is the problem, not some lack of family planning.
The slums of Africa and Asia are signs of over population or are they really signs of lack of technological growth, such as clean water, inexpensive power and the like? Environmentalists policies will do more to increase and sustain poverty than technological growth.
Population control to reduce poverty? How would you do it? I believe we’ve had enough failed eugenics policies over the past century or so.


Doug Huffman says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm
I enjoy Dan Brown’s novels, and the portrayal of Langdon by Tom Hanks in the movies. But, they are fantasy novels, not reality. The best fiction, or at least, the most fun for me, draws you in because it has vestiges of truth which allow you to become absorbed in the story while suspending disbelief. But, the Merovingians were not actually descendents of Jesus of Nazereth, and an air-burst of a nuclear weapons-level explosion above Rome at helicopter altitudes would actually be much worse than a ground burst.
Cheyne Gordon says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm
“So the world can produce much more food? Tell that to the elephant, orang-utan and tiger. I’m sure they will happily give up their habitats for you to grow more food.”
Elephants, orangutans, and tigers are threatened by poachers who can sell their body parts to get scarce food, not by efficient plots of farmland which could be created to feed those poachers and their families.
What should appall you, if you really care about endangered species, is the slaughter of rare raptors by useless windmills.


A quote from part 3 of a BBC radio programme The Age We Made sums up its themes, in particular CAGW, that humanity is doomed to annihilate itself:
“I like to compare what’s going on today to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, except now we’re the asteroid.”
(Andrew Luck-Baker, a science producer at the BBC, is with the Spirit of Mawson expedition and was involved in making The Age We Made.)

Gary Pearse

Population is on track to level off at ~ 9B by 2050, a UN calculation no less.
U.N. estimates for 2050 are down from 9.4 billion to 8.9 billion. The population is expected to stabilize at 9 billion by 2300.
As an engineer, I like to size up “problems” rather than stare at a big number. Some years ago, I calculated that 6B people could fit into Lake Superior, each with 15sqm to tread water in – not a nice thought but it did quantify the problem. The rest of the math was that 90B people could fit into the lake with a square meter to tread water in. Now spread them out over the globe…. and think about it.
The declining fertility rate with economic development is well known. If, instead of blocking economic development in Africa by denying them fossil-fired or even the hated clean hydro electrical power, plus the activities the anti-development NGOs and their minions who frustrate development of mineral resources and other prosperity avenues, the peak would probably come earlier (I’ve seen NGOs in action from fledgling beginnings in Africa from as far back as the 1960s and in later visits a decade ago, I was appalled to see so little real development – apparently by 2000, over $50 trillion had been spent and this is what they got out of it!)
There is no lack of resources, just lack of imagination by the naysayers.

Thank you, an excellent article, Dr Ball. It has always seemed to me that people who protest about overpopulation come from crowded cities and often travel from crowded city to crowded city at high speed via planes. This gives a warped view of the rest of the world, most of which does not contain anyone at all.
The world is a lot larger than we think, and a lot tougher, too, yet people are taught to think of it as small and fragile. Add to that looking out over crowds, and you have a population sucked into believing the worst of humankind and seeing “sin” everywhere.
I would like to see some of these alarmists taken out to wilderness areas and left to walk home. I’ve lived out there, I know what it’s like. They’d soon learn appreciation for vastness, but alas, we are too kind with them.


Gary Pearse says:
January 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Well said.

There was no Great Famine ?


Most of the world is near zero-population growth (ignoring immigration), the main exceptions being equatorial Africa and parts of south Asia. Even there, population growth is slowing.
We may well see a stable global population by the middle of this century.
As Dr. Ball polnts out, the main driver to less fecundity is a modern lifestyle. In other words, widespread affluence will ultimately reduce the pressure on the world’s resources, a counter-intuitive result.

Leon Brozyna

Taking their elitist thinking to its logical conclusion, they would view genocide as a viable option to reining in the growth of human population.


Cheyne Gordon says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm
“Take a walk through the slums of Africa or Asia, and then tell me again that the world is not over-populated.”
Why spend all the money on a plane ticket? Just take a stroll through the slums of America . . .
The economies of Asia and much of Africa are among the fastest growing today.
Much of Asia already has a problem of declining populations, it’s only a matter of time before industrialized Africa faces the same demographic transition.

Cheyne Gordon says:
“Family planning remains the most cost-effective technology we have for reducing poverty.”
Well, that is a completely wrong statement. Captialism is the most cost-effective effective technology we have for reducing poverty, bar none.
When you begin with an incorrect premise, your conclusions will necessarily be wrong.
Dr Ball writes:
The world is not overpopulated.
That is certainly true. We had this discussion here a few years ago. The entire population of the Earth could fit within a 1-cubic kilometer sphere, with plenty of room to spare.
The ‘problem’ is that people want to live in choice places, and since there are not enough choice places, those places get crowded. But we live on a big, big planet, and we can easily produce enough food to feed everyone. Therefore, “overpopulation” is an invented non-problem. Want to avoid overpopulation? Then move to the boonies, and away from everyone. ‘Problem’ solved. But of course, new problems will appear.
AGW is a similar non-problem. But because there is a Chicken Little syndrome present in a large part of the population, self-serving scamsters have appeared to prey upon their fears. But the reality is that AGW is only a tiny acorn — it is not the sky falling.

I argue that resources also increase exponentially:
1-we explore more of the earth’s surface
2- We explore deeper in the earth
3 – we can recover less concentrated materials
4- we material more efficiently
Example: oil – deeper wells; fracking

Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as.


Another educational and provocative post by Dr. Ball. A question, stemming from this: “It confirms most statistics are crude estimates, especially those of the UN who rely on individual member countries, yet no accurate census exists for any of them” I’ve searched the www but cannot find a serious answer as to how many, or even which countries carry out a census.


I did GIS estimate of my country’s populated area by both cadastre data, and by clutter usage (more accurate by showing where the actual people are, but less politically correct) and both my conclusions were WTF! and WTF!!! respectively.
There is no such thing as an overpopulated country. There are some densely populated hot spots, but that still is not a problem of overpopulation. The vast majority of arable areas are in pristine wild condition, and the population is not growing. The other resources fare the same.
So yeah, nice one Dr. Ball

Steve from Rockwood

Egads, what a terrible article.

Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Greens Kill Birds and Bats and Other Living Things. They kill by Building Bird and Bat Killing Wind Turbines and Skyrocketing Energy prices that causes fuel poverty that impoverish and Kill Poor people. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/15/james-hansens-policies-are-shafting-the-poor/ Greens kill by Converting tropical rain forests and land that grows food crops into land that grows biofuel crops. Eugenists with a Green shirt.

Cheyne Gordon says:
January 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm
So the world is not overpopulated: I’m sure the 300 million women who have no access to family planning will feel a lot better when you tell them that.
Family planning remains the most cost-effective technology we have for reducing poverty.
So the world can produce much more food? Tell that to the elephant, orang-utan and tiger. I’m sure they will happily give up their habitats for you to grow more food.
Take a walk through the slums of Africa or Asia, and then tell me again that the world is not over-populated.
And that has nothing to do with overpopulation and all to do with corrupt governments and corrupter greens who won’t allow cheap energy into these places.

charles stegiel

You are really too kind. The emotions behind Agenda 21 and Club of Rome are raving racism and misanthropy coupled with strong class privilege and a desire by a small class of men to create a Neo-Feudal New World Order.

Some members of The Club of Rome:
George Soros
Bill Clinton
Kofi Annan
Henry Kissinger
Mikhail Gorbachev
Anne Ehrlich (wife of Paul Erlich)


The green elites see the world as portrayed in the book and film Soylent Green.
Al Gore and the rest of the green elite (who deserve it, naturally) live in air conditioned luxury with pretty girls and strawberries, while the rest of the world peddles bikes to keep a light going and eats dead people.
And they will do WHATEVER it takes to ensure this future.


it sure looks like all the consternation is pretty much the nature of living in a city.
we don’t have pollution in the country, we don’t have crime (well, ok- people dump stuff in the woods sometimes), we don’t have a lot of violence or waste or neighbors we don’t know…we don’t have much of anything worthy of enquiring minds’ daily feed…

Gail Combs

Cheyne Gordon says: @ January 5, 2014 at 3:34 pm
So the world is not overpopulated: I’m sure the 300 million women who have no access to family planning will feel a lot better when you tell them that…..
Those 300 million women have been intentionally keep poor and therefore breeding like rabbits by the policies of the world elite. It is industrialization that slows birth rate to replacement rate or below. You can see that in this chart
Although I will agree the ‘Poor Laws’ need to be redone. The US government has created a new job catagory – Unwed mother.


This (post) won’t end good.
Best I hold my tongue.


The most cost effective plan for reducing poverty is the creation of wealth.

Mac the Knife

Gary Pearse says:
January 5, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Solid reasoning, from the first word to the last.

[quote] North of 43 and south of 44 says:
January 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm
You may lead by example.[/quote]
Agreed, and I am, so far, anyway – 49 with no children. Try to follow my lead everyone. A lot of you will fail, which is ok because if you all succeeded that wouldn’t be good.

Argh – I can’t even quote properly – just as well someone stupid like me hasn’t bred.


GregS says:
January 5, 2014 at 5:16 pm
“Agreed, and I am, so far, anyway – 49 with no children. Try to follow my lead everyone. A lot of you will fail, which is ok because if you all succeeded that wouldn’t be good.”
Congratulations for not having offspring. It makes the next generation smarter.

Translation from progressive/commie speak:
Life for me, but not for thee.

Gail Combs

u.k.(us) says: @ January 5, 2014 at 4:59 pm
This (post) won’t end good.
Unfortunately the truth sometimes hurts. The facts Dr. Ball presents can all be backed up from many different sources. I figured the same thing out from a completely different angle.
You can search key words: UNESCO Huxley eugenics and get for example: Over the course of his lifetime, Julian Huxley developed a multifaceted position regarding eugenics, the applied science of improving the genetic composition of the human population. Eugenicists sought to achieve this goal through both encouraging reproduction among fit individuals and discouraging breeding among unfit populations. Huxley was the first director of UNESCO.
or The eugenics movement Britain wants to forget
Now consider the fact that both in the USA and the UK newborns have their DNA taken and stored without the consent of their parents. The USA is also taking the DNA from those accused of a crime and even at police blockades set up for the purpose along with doing alcohol tests.
Then there is the USDA grant used to develop a spermicidal corn. link
So in this day and age, Why is Royal Society hosting pro-eugenics conference? (2004)

England’s population density, spread over the earth…Approximately 130 Billion…
England, not too crowded. Japan – Too crowded due to lack of flat land space. Italy similar problem.
If the USA wasn’t so “cowardly” we could have had 1000 of these:
Say one has a reactor go bad. What do you do? Tow it to the Marianas Trench, sink it. Consumed by the subduction zone eventually.

Sorry I forgot to make my point. Had we produced, say, 1000 of 500 MWE Roving Liberty Ship power plants, we could have ELECTRIFIED THE WORLD after WWII. The PR would have been INCREDIBLE.
Instead, the USA has Pearl Harbor and 9/11 because of our ill educated, self centered, fear of technology, and Neanderthal population.

Mac the Knife

The link Dr. Ball provided (Demographic Transition: http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm) should be reviewed in depth. There is a wealth of information there that may focus critical thinking and (perhaps) realign preconceived notions.
Good post, Dr. Ball!