# Climate Claim: “All Available Options Should be Assessed” for Reducing Population Growth

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to ScienceMag, the issue of Climate Change is now so urgent that all available options should be considered to reduce population growth in fast growing regions like Sub-saharan Africa.

Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold?

John Bongaarts 1, Brian C. O’Neill 2,3

1 Population Council, New York, NY, USA.
2 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA.
3 University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
Email: jbongaarts@popcouncil.org
Science 17 Aug 2018:=
Vol. 361, Issue 6403, pp. 650-652
DOI: 10.1126/science.aat8680

Would slowing human population growth lessen future impacts of anthropogenic climate change? With an additional 4 billion people expected on the planet by 2100, the answer seems an obvious “yes.” Indeed, substantial scientific literature backs up this intuition. Many nongovernmental organizations undertake climate- and population-related activities, and national adaptation plans for most of the least-developed countries recognize population growth as an important component of vulnerability to climate impacts (1). But despite this evidence, much of the climate community, notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary source of scientific information for the international climate change policy process, is largely silent about the potential for population policy to reduce risks from global warming. Though the latest IPCC report (2) includes an assessment of technical aspects of ways in which population and climate change influence each other, the assessment does not extend to population policy as part of a wide range of potential adaptation and mitigation responses. We suggest that four misperceptions by many in the climate change community play a substantial role in neglect of this topic, and propose remedies for the IPCC as it prepares for the sixth cycle of its multiyear assessment process.

Over the past decade, two unexpected developments have led to renewed concern about future population growth, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Fortunately, AIDS mortality has dropped sharply as treatment has become more accessible worldwide. In addition, and contrary to expectations, birth rates across sub-Saharan Africa have remained high, and declines in birth rates have stalled in several countries. As a result, the latest UN world population projection is the highest ever, expecting 11.2 billion in 2100, a nearly 4 billion rise from 2015 (4). Much of this rise is projected in sub-Saharan Africa (from 1 billion in 2015 to 4 billion in 2100), but Asia (excluding East Asia) and Latin America are also projected to grow substantially.

Policy Levers

Rapid population growth is one of the key drivers of emissions and one of the determinants of vulnerability to impacts; it therefore should be considered as a potential climate policy lever. A key first step in remedying the current neglect of the issue is for the IPCC to include population policy in its assessment of the literature on mitigation and adaptation options. Although the outline for the sixth IPCC assessment report has already been agreed upon (with no explicit mention of population policy), there is ample opportunity within its structure to assess literature on population policy as a component of mitigation or adaptation responses, as well as its costs and benefits, implementation barriers, and links to SDGs (see supplementary materials). The IPCC should also consider the inclusion of more social scientists experienced in reproductive health and population policy.

Beyond the IPCC, the climate and environmental communities and international development institutions should embrace scientifically sound analyses of population policy and human rights–based reproductive health programs. Other international environmental assessments (11, 15) have done somewhat better than the IPCC in covering this topic. Given the urgency of addressing climate change, all available options, especially those that have multiple benefits for sustainable development, should be assessed by experts and considered by governments.

This all seems awfully familiar – scientists promoting the view that scale adjustments to global population are desperately required to save the world from a catastrophe which is predicted by their models.

## 284 thoughts on “Climate Claim: “All Available Options Should be Assessed” for Reducing Population Growth”

1. Sweet Old Bob says:

Well ….haters love to hate ….

• James Bull says:

If you asked them to start the process with themselves and theirs it would be a whole different ball game.

James Bull

• Bryan A says:

ALL OPTIONS…
I wonder if that would include mandatory sterilization of all warmunist offspring?

• Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia says:

They do it. By promoting childless lifestyle choices.

• Sara says:

Simple solution: have ALL Leftreds/libidiots/greenbeans spayed and neutered as the first step. Stop throwing money at poor countries and let them sort themselves out, like they did before the self-important know-it-alls got there.
In the mornings on my commute, when I was working, I used to see twits on the Outer Drive holding up signs ‘400,000 dead in Somalia’ – stuff like that- and wondered where they got their statistics and why they weren’t over in Somalia trying to stop the slaughter themselves.
While my reaction to pronouncements like this article is ‘this too shall pass’, it’s best to keep a weather eye on it. Those who want to reduce populations to “save the planet” should volunteer to go first.

• rocketscientist says:

The phantasm of John Malthus rises yet again to cast a pall over dim minds. Are the authors perchance acolytes of Paul Ehrlich?

• Red94ViperRT10 says:

This smells much more like Margaret Sanger.

2. commieBob says:

So … we’ve got these white folks deciding that black folks should have fewer children … surely somebody will condemn that as racist. LOL Well, actually, they seem to get a pass. How does that work anyway?

The best solution for the environment and population control is wealth. When the Africans start to experience western living conditions, their population growth will also drop below replacement. Also, the environment will become more valued. Poor folks tend to have other priorities besides the environment … like eating, for instance.

• Latitude says:

” When the Africans start to experience western living conditions,”…I dunno
They seem to be consistently determined to shoot themselves in the foot…

• Gary Pearse says:

You are wrong there Lat. You can see that the people of Africa have been screwed for over a Century – NGOs have been gatekeepers keeping prosperity out- anti mining and industrial development.Look at the prevention of fossil fuel power generation by UN/World Bank…

You havent taken the trouble to investigate why things are kept the way they are there (as you have with global climateering). Think. If they are now happy to disenfranchise, destroy the economic base and suspend freedoms for “Deplorables” in the US, how do you think they would deal with Africans?

• Gary Pearse says:

I’ve been rejoicing that China has done an end run around the clogged NGO sewer and Uropeein neocolonialism and is building dozens of coal fired plants in Africa. Yeah, they’ll profit big time off it. I’m sorry we were too stupid and “Dark Continent” minded to do the same. The place is a treasure grove and the spoils go to the newcomer, but Africa is going to benefit bigtime. Stanley and Livingstone have become a comedy team.

• Latitude says:

I was thinking about taking over farms..they can’t possibly run

• commieBob says:

It is probably not politically correct to observe that Africa has had more than its share of bad governance.

There is reason to be optimistic. link The indicators are uneven but the trend does seem to be positive. By and large, Africans are getting healthier and wealthier.

• Joel O'Bryan says:

The Left pursues “equality of outcome” with a predictable outcome due to human nature.

When (not “if”) South Africa black-run ANC starts seizing white owned farms, the country will descend into chaos. It will spread an international investment contagion across the region. Already, we are seeing early financial flight from those markets.

South African agriculture will collapse, just as it did in Zimbabwe.
The government will print money. The SA economy will collapse, just as it did in Zimbabwe.
And Much of sub-Saharan Africa will also then suffer as the entire region descends into chaos. Ten’s of Millions will starve across South Africa.

That’s how the those who want “equality of outcome” will ensure the African population diminishes.

• Hugs says:

When (not “if”) South Africa black-run ANC starts seizing white owned farms, the country will descend into chaos.

I’m not thinking South Africans really want to copy what Zimbabwe has done, even though you should never underestimate the power of populism. There IS a very disturbing development going on in the RSA, and Zimbabwe while now stablish is not capable of getting rid of massive corruption.

The good thing is the destruction of Zimbabwe is very visible at the streets of the SA, so people should know better what to not do. Zimbabwe is in a very difficult situation since who would invest on farms whose holders don’t own them legally nor know how to farm. People (mostly ‘black’) working on the farms had to leave, and guess where many of them now are – in South Africa.

Sub-Saharan is a big word. Namibia is pretty stable and doing better and better. I’ve not heard much bad of Botswana either. Lesotho is very poor, but politically stable I guess. The big big problems lie in Congo(s), which just is not stable, and Nigeria which has a large population exploding right now. On the other hand, so was India not very long ago.

I find it very disturbing to pack the Sub-Saharan Africa in one sentence. It is a very large place.

• 2hotel9 says:

“I’m not thinking South Africans really want to copy what Zimbabwe has done,”

If they follow the Zimbabwe model then Zimbabwe is what they will get, and that is exactly what they are determined to do.

• Tim says:

SS Africa will always be problematic.

• 2hotel9 says:

From reports I read today they have apparently jammed the throttle to the stops and lashed it down. Any whites in SA need to get out now, the MauMau are coming and no one is going to help them this time.

• commieBob says:

Cyril Ramaphosa has a big problem with land expropriation without compensation. link The policy has popular support so he can’t ignore it without being booted out at the next election. If he doesn’t get rid of it, money will flee the country.

It looks like Cyril Ramaphosa is making a sincere effort to stamp out corruption. He has a hard row to hoe.

• Bruce Ranta says:

I was in Namibia recently. A very small population and very worried that chaos could come quickly on the heels of ‘collapse’ of SA. There is a lot of unreported violence in rural SA. Dangerous times indeed.

• John Endicott says:

“I’m not thinking South Africans really want to copy what Zimbabwe has done”

When you travel the same path, the same results lie at the end of it.

“People (mostly ‘black’) working on the farms had to leave, and guess where many of them now are – in South Africa.”

And guess which country is poised to follow Zimbabwe’s path – South Africa. Coincidence?

It’s like the Cali-nuts that flee California only to try to makeover whatever state they move to into California.

• Bro. Steve says:

John Endicott: Transplant and ruin. Yes. The same thing happens when northeastern socialists flee their workers’ paradise as pirate-level taxation and insanely intrusive government become unbearable. The destinations of choice are Florida and North Carolina, where the “indigenous” population is getting slowly overwhelmed with meddlesome newbies demanding everything from toll roads to increased taxes on everything. Didn’t these guys learn anything in Manhattan? Anything at all?

• rocketscientist says:

They only learn to move when it stinks.
What they didn’t learn was they were the cause of the calamity.

• Doubtng Thomas says:

Some folks learn from the mistakes of others, some just have to pee on the electric fence themselves.

• rocketscientist says:

But its not just them who are forced to learn the hard way. They want everyone to hold their hand as they electrocute themselves, and everyone who is holding their hand.

• DonM says:

It just baffles me as to how they can get others to hold their hand(s) as they are peeing on the fence.

They (the hand holders) really must have some sort of an inkling of an idea that the whole situation wrong.

• honest liberty says:

white farmers are being slaughtered in South Africa, just like mob violence against whites never gets any exposure in American media. It goes against the narrative. whitegirlbleedalot.com has cataloged tons of first hand video evidence of exactly that disgusting violence based on race, in America.

In SA, they are literally chopping up babies, raping, crucifying them in front of their parents, boiling, etc etc. We are talking the most foul, satanic, demonic behavior possible. because it is against whites it is given a pass, rather than eliminating those offenders without trial. Immediate execution for any of those people who committed such atrocities.

Where is the MSM? crickets. It flies directly in the face of their white bashing narrative. People like Chris don’t want to participate in reality, because they can’t compete in the real world with real ideas. They don’t have independent thought. They are exactly the types of limited beings that the left loves to absorb into their collective hive mind. unthinking automatons that don’t believe in a human soul.

• honest liberty says:

crickets from Chris too.
c’mon bub, be a man. be authentic. look into the information and respond.

• Kenji says:

Exactly. But don’t forget ‘FREE’ abortions along with that wealth. Our abortion industry (operated by very wealthy people) has done a FANTASTIC job in controlling the black population (statistically). The statistics Bear this out as a huge percentage of abortions are of children ovvvvv culllller. Nice job abortionists!

• Chris says:

“operated by very wealthy people.” evidence to support that claim?

• Hal says:

Dianne Derzis.

• 2hotel9 says:

Planned Parenthood, no poor people running that genocide factory.

• Chris says:

Evidence that folks working at Planned Parenthood are wealthy? Or is this just another 2hotel9 “proof by assertion” post?

• MarkW says:

Fascinating.
2h9 specifically talks about the people running planned parenthood and other groups, but Chris insists on talking about the people who work there.

Yet another attempt to move the goal posts after you realize your original claim is unsupportable.

• Chris says:

Markw says “Planned Parenthood and other groups.” Specifically which other groups? Of course my claim is supportable. Kenji talked about “very wealthy people.” That’s plural, not singular.

George (below) states that Cecile Richards made over $600K last year. That’s quite reasonable for an organization with a$1.3B annual budget and 600 clinics. So one person making $600K per year is “multiple very wealthy people”? • Cube says: Griff • 2hotel9 says: Ahh, did I make you cry again? Go ahead, defend your genocide of black babies, tell those lies long enough and you might just believe them. • Chris says: Another content free post from 2hotel9. You’re just a drive by debater, too lazy to defend your rants. Pathetic. • 2hotel9 says: Here you go, Chrisee, some content from one of the flagships of your media,https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/ And here is some more from a paragon of your political ideology, http://prospect.org/article/demographics-abortion-its-not-what-you-think Not enough, cupcake? OK, more, http://blackdemographics.com/health-2/abortion/ I was quite careful to only supply content from sources your delicate sensibilities consider reliable, nothing from CDC or Census, since you call these sources biased. Have fun, sweety, I am off to Provincetown to enjoy life. Be sure to have that extensive list of all the poor people who run Planned Parenthood for us. • Red94ViperRT10 says: • MarkW says: And Chris doubles down on the goal post relocation. • George Daddis says: I doubt the RNs “run” PP. (2Hotel9) did not say “working at” PP.) Cecile Richards made over$ 600,000 annually.

• honest liberty says:

here is some real journalism for you chris,
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-271-planned-parenthood-exposed/

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and racist, who deplored non-whites and the poor. Her goal was to reduce their population through direct measures. When you break down the actual hardest hit communities, blacks are suffering immensely. But, of course NPR and other socialist media networks who just love abortion are going to skew the information (no, actually they are deliberately lying about the information).

It is all out there for you. Don’t forget, there are two ways to be fooled. In your case, it is refusing to believe what is true. This much is evidenced by your typical posts.

• Chris says:

hahahaha – The Corbett Report. Have fun in fringe land.

• MarkW says:

Typical reaction to data that you can’t refute.

• honest liberty says:

“Chris
hahahaha – The Corbett Report. Have fun in fringe land.

0 ReplyAugust 20, 2018 8:03 am”

And there it is for any bystanders that questioned the motives of chrissy.
Apparently, genuine journalism is supposedly “fringe land”, as opposed to where you get your news? Lemme guess, your facebook feed?

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/social-media-censorship-here-are-the-deep-basics/

let me hold your hand and walk you toward the truth, like the little petulant child you are. Jon Rappaport, Corbett Report, Tragedy&Hope.com with Richard Grove, School Sucks podcast… – that is real investigative journalism at work, that is how the press was supposed to operate. But you don’t have the mental capacity to recognize patterns or discern fact from fiction.

Stefan Molyneux, that is real philosophy and quality discourse. But no, reality is uncomfortable so you stay chained to the cave, salivating over the dancing shadow figures. This is why you lash out and scoff at the freed prisoner who comes back to tell you they are just hand puppets, there is a real world out there. So sad that you are the literal representation of the chained slaves in Plato’s Allegory. Literally…TRAGIC.

But you have bought into the lies because you are weak in mind and spirit. You are a child, boy. A child. And a despicably entitled one at that. Let me not mince words. You are a liar. Sadly, as is typical with such low level thinking automatons such as yourself, that deceit originates with the self. You lie to yourself. It is a pathetic disposition and it is people like you that are responsible for the active destruction of the great western society. You know, the one that you have benefited from IMMENSELY.

I would wager that just like on this website, you likely contribute nothing of genuine value in the real world. I’d be surprised if you could even balance a checkbook

• Chris says:

Honest Liberty, are you paid by the word? You’re colossally boring, your diatribes are laughably weak. But I digress. What matters about Planned Parenthood is the work they are doing today. They are one of the only providers of medical care for the poor. Abortions are only a tiny percentage of the services they provide. You, of course, don’t care about the poor and working poor, so that fact doesn’t matter to you.

• Joel Snider says:

‘You, of course, don’t care about the poor and working poor, so that fact doesn’t matter to you.’

Yeah, Chris is just like George Costanza – he’s showing us how he can relate to the commoners.

• Chris says:

Oh, and as far as your “go to” sources. You mentioned Jon Rappaport, who is a contributor to Infowars, whose owner Alex Jones has said that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged. That tells me all I need to know about you.

• MarkW says:

“You’re colossally boring, your diatribes are laughably weak.”

Irony is lost on your average troll. Especially those who are paid by the post.

I see Chris has finally figured out how to use a brand new logical fallacy.
Guilt by association.

Who says socialists can’t learn.

• Honest liberty says:

Mark, wonderful in’it? The depths to which liars must crawl to continue to pretend they have a valid position. Logical fallacies are the only form of discourse fools like Chris can muster… Funny thing is they aren’t methods of discourse, so they play thier hands as sophists.

Diatribes boring? Thanks. It’s refreshing to be validated regarding your intellect, or lack thereof. Come back with some decent arguments based in fact, until then you are just a provocateur.

• Gary Ashe says:

until then you are just a Twat…….fixed

• Honest liberty says:

And sadly, such one dimensional folks do not understand the necessity for dissecting the information, rather than the messangers. Small minds refuse to concede when reality Trumps their worldview. Kinda how Trump is dismantling their golden egg right before their eyes. Hahaha winning! I love it

• honest liberty says:

Editor’s note. This is Part One of a three-part series in which Dr. O’Bannon discusses Myths #1 and #2. Part Two will run on Monday with the conclusion appearing next Tuesday.

With its work and reputation facing unwanted scrutiny and many in Congress and the administration talking about defunding the abortion giant, Planned Parenthood is fighting back. PPFA is calling in its political and media allies, trotting out high profile Hollywood celebrities, cranking up its expensive marketing machine to try to make the case that they’re the good guys, facing unfair and unwarranted assaults.

But truth is a stubborn thing. You can say you’re not about abortion but when you performed well over 300,000 abortions each and every year, the numbers scream otherwise.

Despite impassioned pleadings that Planned Parenthood wants nothing more than to “set the record straight,” an examination of the seven myths PPFA peddles quickly tells us that at some serious factchecking and mythbusting is in order.

MYTH #1: Abortion represents only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s business.

It’s a statistic so often repeated and so often challenged that even some of Planned Parenthood’s erstwhile defenders are beginning to question it (e.g., Washington Post, 8/12/15). Anytime people start talking about PPFA as the largest abortion provider in the world, some Planned Parenthood spokesperson or political or media defender tries to minimize its significance, saying it represents only “3% of its services.”

Planned Parenthood is only able to generate this counterfactual statistic by some rather bizarre accounting acrobatics, e.g., counting every packet of birth control pills given out, every STD test, every pregnancy test as a separate “service.” A woman coming in for an abortion is likely to get all those things.

If all services are counted separately and equally, regardless of price or medical value or necessity, abortion looks like one service among many – 323,999 against a backdrop of 9,455,582 “services.” This is about 3.4%.

But change that denominator to “patients” (individual women or men) instead of “services,” that 3.4% figure jumps to nearly 13% — more than one in every eight. Planned Parenthood says that is sees “approximately two and a half million patients.”

Even that misrepresents abortion’s importance to Planned Parenthood. At going rates for the most basic surgical abortion, Planned Parenthood’s revenues from 323,999 abortions would run at least $150 million. Because they also advertise and perform chemical abortions and later surgical abortions, which cost considerably more, that figure is probably a significant underestimate. Even so, at$150 million, that would represent more revenue in 2014 than all that Planned Parenthood brought in (if current market rates prevail there) from reversible contraceptives , breast exams, and cervical “cancer screenings” or pap tests, and pregnancy tests combined.

Try to be kind and call it misleading, call it deceptive, but the “3% figure” in no way reflects the actual figure, let alone the importance of abortion to Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.

And should’t someone point out, that whether it’s 48%, 13%, or 3%, taxpayer dollars shouldn’t go to anyone who makes killing innocent babies any part of their business?

MYTH #2: Planned Parenthood is all about women getting mammograms and “cancer screenings.

Over and over, when faced with the prospect that their extensive abortion performance may threaten their government funding, Planned Parenthood and its defenders start talking about all the mammograms and “cancer screenings” they perform that they say would never be performed if they disappeared. Often a woman will be brought out to claim that a cancer screening at Planned Parenthood saved her life.

There are serious problems with this defense, however.

First, as we, along with many of nation’s best fact-checkers have pointed out, Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms (e.g., Washington Post, 3/9/17). Never has, has not announced any plans to add them anywhere. If a woman’s life was saved by a mammogram detecting early signs of cancer, it didn’t happen at a Planned Parenthood.

Second, for someone so concerned about women’s cancer screenings, there’s a lot of explaining Planned Parenthood needs to do about its own recent service patterns.

In its most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood reported performing 682,208 “cancer screenings” for 2014. For 2009, they reported nearly three times that many. The number of cancer screenings, breast exams, pap tests, colonoscopies has also fallen every year in between.

Why, if those are so critical? Has demand just dropped? Thankfully, new cervical cancer cases are down in the U.S. in recent years, and breast cancer rates are slightly down from what they were in the 1990s (see data from the National Cancer Institute). But they have not fallen at anywhere near the rate that cervical and breast cancer patients have at Planned Parenthood, not by two-thirds!

It doesn’t seem like it could be that money is tight at Planned Parenthood. Revenues went up during that time from just over $1 billion dollars a year to right at$1.3 billion. Other services like contraception and prenatal care saw some decline, but one offering stayed fairly steady – abortion.

Note: even while Planned Parenthood clinics were closing and abortions were dropping everywhere else across the U.S., the number of abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics held fairly steady, generally between 320,000 and 330,000 a year,

If cancer screenings fell because of the 179 clinics Planned Parenthood closed between 2010 and 2015, then why didn’t the number of abortions? The obvious answer would be that Planned Parenthood kept the clinics performing abortions open, but not those performing just the cancer screenings and other less profitable services.

Planned Parenthood maintained the abortion services, improved its revenues, but lost about 2/3 of its vaunted “cancer screenings.”

So what exactly are “non-profit” Planned Parenthood’s priorities? How dedicated are they to “cancer screenings” if they chose not to maintain the levels of five years ago, even with increased government funding? (FY 2010 $487.4 million vs. FY 2015$553.7 million)

• honest liberty says:

Yes, many of these are pro-life folks writing these articles. So they are not pro-death for unborn babies. Look at the facts. oh wait. moral relativists don’t believe in that because then they realize they have no personal constitution or backbone. Hedonists don’t much care for rigidity in life so I suppose these facts are just opinions.

don’t believe they are babies? Maybe you should pay attention to the pro-choice high visibility women who have stopped pretending they aren’t and have started to admit the reality of the situation:

• Joel Snider says:

‘Oh, and as far as your “go to” sources. You mentioned Jon Rappaport, who is a contributor to Infowars,’

Gee, any Soros in your philosophy, Chris?

• Chris says:

No Soros, Joel, just pointing out that 2hotel’s go to guy is a contributor to a despicable site that said that Sandy Hook was staged.

• 2hotel9 says:

Corbett is your boy, own him, sweety.

• Honest liberty says:

2 hotel- I’m the one who has been referencing Corbett as a reliable, credible journalist. And he is. Most independent journalists are, even that egomaniac Alex Jones is right, about 25% the time. He does embellish and utter many half truths, but even at half truth they are twice as credible as the legacy media.

Rappaport is on a whole other level the likes of Chris, et.al. couldn’t sniff on an anomalously best personal day. They are what has been referenced as useless eaters, because the folks who use them to parrot their fake news actually look upon them with disgust. This is probably the funniest, albeit tragic aspect: they are doing the bidding of the very evil, ruthless super elite they so despise, completely unaware, and allthewhile those elitists are viewing them with total disgust that they could be so stupid as to willfully restrain themselves and others.

The worst part is that by their actions they enslave those of us who desire a voluntary society

• 2hotel9 says:

Chrisee hailed Corbett as the be all end all, then he craps all over Corbett, then he will turn around and praise Corbett as the Greatest Journalist Of a Generation, then turn around and crap on him. Twirl&spin, it is what Chrisee does, like some many other leftards do.

• honest liberty says:

I don’t see where he said anything other than negative about Corbett, claiming him tin foil.

I was the one claiming him legit, because he is. Chris is still a bum though. sometimes I wish I could see what these people look like behind the scene. I bet Chris is fat, pimply faced, sophomore at community college living with mommy and daddy. not even worth engagin

• 2hotel9 says:

Got to go back awhile, trolls are creatures of habit, Chrisee is quite habitual, and totally untrustworthy. Idles at 250-300 rpm, can reach 2500 when provoked. Provocation is anything Chrisee arbitrarily decides is provocative. Forewarned is forearmed, though I have never known him to throw a forearm, bit of a squish.

• Cube says:

Chris aka Griff is not fooled he is paid

• Chris says:

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have arrived on the scene!

• Honest liberty says:

I’m interested to see if Anthony would look into sock puppetting with regards these typical provocateurs. I bet dollars to donuts we have some overlap

• JonScott says:

You mean by letting them burn coal for example ? 🙂

• Leonard Lane says:

Africa is the poorest continent and has about a billion people. How like the leftists/greens to pick on the poorest people to keep your green blob going.

3. John Dilks says:

How about we invest in their standard of living? That has worked for the rest of the world. When people no longer need lots of children, they don’t have lots of children.

• 2hotel9 says:

How about THEY invest in themselves and stop chasing the lie of socialism?

4. SMC says:

How nice…NOT. My imagination sees industrial scale death camps, what a horror…. Didn’t Germany teach us that lesson in WWII?

• Gary Pearse says:

The lesson has been well learned by elitist Malthusians. The whole subject is old, failed, diabolical, hysterical stuff. Marx is old, failed, hysterical stuff. I believe there is room in the Lexicon of clinical psychology for a major mental
disorder to classify this ugliness as a disease, but guess what? Psychology is too corrupted to recognize it. A lot of “heal thyself” needed. You can bet a lot of these social psychos and socioscientists will be needed for the grizzly tasks to be handed out

• Susan says:

How about a One Child policy as tested by China? What could possibly go wrong?

• John Endicott says:

You could always ask all the Chinese males who will never have a girlfriend/wife, I’m sure they’ll sing the praises of the policy. right?

• MarkW says:

If China ever does get into another war they have to ensure 2 things. First they must win, and second, they can’t let too many people die.
The reason is many of those kids represent 2 parents and 4 grandparents. If the male dies, all those families end. No other heirs.
If a lot of kids die in a conflict, the social upheaval will be more than even the Chinese would be able to suppress.
Add to that kids, who have been pampered by 4 grandparents their entire lives are not the stuff to build a military out of.

• Darrin says:

I agree the policy has been a disaster but I also see the Chinese as practical. If the male population was obliterated in a war the government would likely start pushing for plural marriages couched in terms of the peoples duty which is likely to work. I doubt the left over male population would complain to much going from absolutely no women available to being way to many. I’ve read that border villagers have taken to raiding villages in other countries to find women.

• MarkW says:

It’s not the left over males who would be doing the complaining. They are too young to be influential anyway.
It’s the two parents and 4 grandparents who are going to be doing the complaining. They have no heir, the family ends with them. That’s a big deal in China.

5. Not Chicken Little says:

Maybe they could just put Maduro of Venezuela in charge? That would fix things rather quickly…

6. donb says:

Many “greens” are working on the “problem”.
Not allowing the very poor in Africa and Asia to have fossil fuel for energy is quite good at reducing unwanted population.

7. Tom Halla says:

Ehrlich and the Club of Rome still seem to be the guiding philosophy of the green blob. How dare those uppity third-world-persons-of -color expect to be anything but peasants?
Shades of Margaret Sanger and eugenics.

8. Any human who thinks that there are too many humans on this planet should look into a mirror where he or she will find one of those extra humans that should not be here.

Like everything else, depopulation begins at home.

• Gary Pearse says:

Designer-brained education product. Nothing of your own in this kool aid recipe.

• Dave Fair says:

Ask the next population-controller if he would be OK with his mother having an abortion.

• rocketscientist says:

Ex post facto?

• James Beaver says:

Retroactively?
(in English for those of us who have to look up Latin phrases)

9. Gary Pearse says:

This is horrific stuff! They throw in “human rights based reproductive health” as a sugar coated pill to not appear to be considering draconian measures. This is classic “gradualism” or thin edge of the wedge thinking with a terrible end game that can be ratcheted up as people develop a stomach for it.

Agenda 21, which is part of the plan to destroy rights and freedoms, is so nicely couched in motherhood type language that, like frogs in tepid water gradually being heated until it’s too late, we learn the boiling was planned first and how to do it in an acceptable way was worked out later.

How do we stop this lefty ugliness after neglecting this plague for a couple of generations. This is “Not a shot was fired” recipe for the takeover.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/pt1_shot.htm

10. markl says:

I’m always amazed that someone, anyone, would lament the population growth and not take into account their own being.

• Alan the Brit says:

Probably a type of NIMBY mentality, Not In My Back Yard!!!!

11. Mike says:

I have always believed that over population was a problem. Nothing to do with climate change though, more that there are so many people that we have, or are in the process of, destroying what was once a very beautiful natural system. (yes I’m aware that you can argue that humans are also part of the natural system) But there is no denying that there is unbalance brought about by human inventiveness. In a ”natural system”, population expansion is mainly governed by food availability and environmental control. Two things which humans have been able to manipulate.
If we believe that we should prolong the ”Earth habitat” for as long as possible (also arguable) then sooner or later population growth will need to slow down and eventually stop.
The way I see it, one of the proven ways to depress population is the increase of living standards as evidenced by the current situation the West.
P.S. The increase of Co2 emissions from over-population should not even enter on the list of reasons for a reduction in growth. To me it seems to be one of the few benefits.

• Mike says:

“Our species is better off in just about every measurable material way,”

This is a human centric view. There is more to the planet’s ecosystem than the human species. In fact the more ”better off” humans are the less ”better off” other species are. The worse off other species are, the worse off we eventually become. Everything is interconnected. Sure we can get to the point where there are so many of us we are living like rats. We are certainly capable of that.

”As for global deforestation, “the world is not being deforested; it is being reforested in general.”

I didn’t bother to read further than this. We’ve managed to remove half of the earth’s forest cover in a few hundred years. It’s still going on at break-neck speed.
You cannot escape the fact that sooner or later humans need to find an equilibrium with their environment if they are to enjoy perpetuity on this planet.

My belief was not changed by that article.

• dodgy geezer says:

what a shame. all of the assertions are fully backed by completely trustworthy evidence, and you will find that the Earth is also improving. But then, it’s hard to shift religious belief with fact….

• MarkW says:

In other words, once you ran across an absolute fact, that countered what you wanted to believe, you stopped reading out of fear of learning something you didn’t want to know.

• MarkW says:

The Earth habitat is in great shape and getting better, even as the population grows.

12. TonyL says:

It is worse than that. For better or worse, the days of the Colonial Powers are over. In the past, the European colonial powers in Africa built the most successful African states. Kenya, Rhodesia, and South Africa come to mind. But those days are long gone.
The current thinking is that Africa will have to solve Africa’s problems, and it will be done by Africans on their own terms, or not at all. Economic development seems as far away as ever. After getting independence, Rhodesia regressed all the way back to the stone age. South Africa is deliberately(!) following the same path. Elsewhere, wars of extermination driven by tribalism and religion are the norm. Petty dictators and massive corruption are endemic to the entire region. Things are not looking good.

The population is expanding rapidly way past the area’s ability support the numbers. So how will the population crisis resolve itself? The same way it always has.
In time the weather will shift, as it always has. Drought will lead to crop failures. Huge numbers of farm animals will die of thirst and starvation. Then we will see an absolutely disastrous famine, epic in scope, across the entire region. Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions will die. There will not be enough international relief aid available to make a difference. Aid which is delivered will be taken by one side of a war to prevent it’s delivery to an opposing population. Millions more will die.

Warlords fight for years to attain total power. Once achieved, they show no interest or ability to actually administer or govern the country they have taken over.

TIA : This Is Africa

• Latitude says:

wash..rinse…repeat

• kat says:

>>>”There will not be enough international relief aid available to make a difference. ”
Providing aid undermines local industry and thence the economy; increasing unemployment. Locals become dependent on “free stuff”.

• Ron Braud says:

“Then we will see an absolutely disastrous famine, epic in scope, across the entire region. Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions will die.”

Well! After all the subject is how to reduce population. Add to it the disease that will accompany it and it should go a a fair bit of the way toward the IPCC goal. But what a tragedy!

• Jim Gorman says:

Warlords and tribalism. Tribalism will doom Africa to endless wars and its associated ills. As long as the tribe comes first, social advancement will keep hitting a wall and rebounding back. Liberals wail against nation-states, but that allowed people to rally around a common goal of a better society rather than supporting just the local warlord. Africa has yet to move to that concept wholeheartedly even though they have something like “states” imposed on them.

• rocketscientist says:

It’s rather more depressing than that. Recently after visiting Kenya, I was remarking how one tribe which populated the area around Mount Kenya had earthen brick homes (albeit crude by western standards) while not 200 miles away near the Mara river the tribes there where still in the dab-and-wattle hut construction level of advancement.
Really!! In less than 200 miles you have several hundred years (if not more) of technological advancement difference? Sun-dried bricks take no more time to create than smearing mud on a woven stick frame, and the homes don’t have to be abandoned when termites eat away the very structural elements of the building, but somehow this advancement has not been disseminated between tribes a mere 200 miles apart.
And tribalism is VERY strong. I was amazed at how our driver could rattle off individual tribal affiliations of passers-by based upon mere visual appearances in physiology, dress and mannerism.

13. Gingoro says:

It seems to me that resources on this planet are finite and reducing population growth is a good idea regardless of what one things of CAGW.

• Richard111 says:

How will food be grown when the cold comes?

• dodgy geezer says:

With the warming system. You tell me when the cold will come, and what will cause it, and I will tell you all about the human response to the problem, which hasn’t been invented yet.

You are committing the age-old fallacy of extrapolating problems into the future, while assuming that we will only have current technology to fix them. But then, if you won’t read Julian Simon……

• RyanS says:

• dodgy geezer says:

you don’t have any problem with the data, then? It’s just the person you object to?

Would you complain if the same thing was said by an ex-head of Greenpeace? Because it has been…

• RyanS says:

Simon was an interesting thinker but in the end was is a cornucopian captured by the chimera of infinite growth…and he has been dead for 20 years.

• MarkW says:

Ryan’s mind refuses to accept any fact that doesn’t fit into his, “we’re all doomed” religion.

• MarkW says:

Once again, Ryan demonstrates that his mind is closed to any fact that doesn’t support his religion.
We are talking economics here, not biology.

• MarkW says:

While the resources may be finite, with human ingenuity we are always finding ways to do more with less.
Regardless, we are no where close to running out of any resource and probably never will.

• Thomas Homer says:

Gingoro: ” resources on this planet are finite ”

Indeed, Water and Carbon are finite on Earth (except what is exchanged with space). Water and Carbon are each resources for life, but each has a Cycle such that it matters not that each is ‘finite’. It is the Cycle that is paramount and the Carbon Cycle of Life is made more robust by increasing atmospheric CO2 from its current level.

• James Beaver says:

… and we’ll industrialize space resources, which are virtually limitless.

14. Cliff Hilton says:

I have to agree with them, we should reduce the population. Let’s begin with all those that think we should reduce the population. I don’t know, that should work.

• John Endicott says:

Um, you know you’ve inadvertently just included your self in those we should begin with 😉 That said, I do agree that anyone who wishes to reduce the population should start with themselves.

15. Rob says:

Leftists are planning their biggest genocide ever, under the guise of they climate change scam.

• Lark says:

They always have some perfectly good reason why they need to kill off lots and lots of people.

16. Doug Proctor says:

The existential crisis of the SJW Green: racially and ethnically and culturally based population reduction. White Euro Christians are already declining. The “problem” lies elsewhere.

17. Jacob Frank says:

I love the smell of liberal mass slaughter fantasies in the morning, smells like victory

• RyanS says:

A dog whistler like Eric must raise a punched yeaya when he reads stuff like this. I think you’re “mass slaughter fantasies” are a projection.

• Hal says:

If you want to be a bomb-thrower maybe you should try a spell checker.

• MarkW says:

Despite having actual quotes, Ryan keeps insisting that the priests of his religion didn’t say what they said.

• beng135 says:

Funny, a projector making accusations of projection. I think your screen light bulb is out….

18. Alan Tomalty says:

The author got the World Bank number of 11.2 billion correct , but didnt mention that the same report said that was the level of population where there was no more growth in % increase. 11.2 billion is the number where the population of the world stops. Right now in 2018 it is at 1.15% growth but has been heading downhill since 1960 when it was 2.1 % growth rate. So the only argument is Do you think 11.2 billion people is enough or too much? I think the world can easily accomodate 3.5 billion more people and there will be enough resources as well .

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

And how long do you think the world can support 11.2 billion people? Or do you believe all resources are infinite?

• RACookPE1978 says:

Well, except for those few kilograms launched out of earth orbit by satellite, every gram started on this planet is still on this planet – and most of which has ever been mined is now more concentrated in more accessible forms than when it was rust and oxides underground. (Helium is an irretrievable lost noble gas though.)

We do need to get off of this planet before (1) the sun goes nova or (2) the many liberal-national socialist parties take over again.

• rocketscientist says:

And with the cosmic detritus raining down upon us the Earth keeps growing every day…at about the same rate the climate is changing.

• Gary Ashe says:

No it isn’t our atmosphere escapes, not much granted, but it is lot over millenia.

• dodgy geezer says:

This shows how resources are infinite. Raw materials are less so, but we do have a universe full of them…

• Hal says:

No. Resources are not infinite. But human ingenuity is.

• John Endicott says:

Resources are not infinite, but they are infinitely recycled (both naturally and through man’s intervention). As RACookPE1978 points out nearly every gram started on this planet remains on this planet. (we’ve lost some by launching stuff into space, but we’ve also gained stuff when junk from space crashes into the planet).

• MarkW says:

Not just space junk, but every asteroid brings new material to the planet.

• RACookPE1978 says:

Good point. Thank you.
We now have MORE material on earth than when we started some 4 billion years ago.
(Except helium.)

• John Endicott says:

I was using the term “junk from space” as encompassing everything that falls to earth from space (man-made or natural, thus including asteroids and meteors) But thanks for the clarification anyway.

• Gary Ashe says:

No we exchange weight with space every day,…..
Since time began for this planet.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-planets-lose-their-atmospheres/
Our Planet’s Leaky Atmosphere
As Earth’s air slowly trickles away into space, will our planet come to look like Venus?

wiki

energy.[1]

Contents
1 Thermal escape mechanisms
2 Significance of solar winds
3 Comparison of non-thermal loss processes based on planet and particle mass
4 Phenomena of non-thermal loss processes on moons with atmospheres
5 Impact erosion
6 Sequestration
7 Dominant atmospheric escape and loss processes on Earth
8 References
Thermal escape mechanisms
One classical thermal escape mechanism is Jeans escape.[2] In a quantity of gas, the average velocity of any one molecule is measured by the gas’s temperature, but the velocities of individual molecules change as they collide with one another, gaining and losing kinetic energy. The variation in kinetic energy among the molecules is described by the Maxwell distribution. The kinetic energy and mass of a molecule determine its velocity by {\displaystyle E_{\mathit {kin}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}} E_{{{\mathit {kin}}}}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}.

Individual molecules in the high tail of the distribution may reach escape velocity, at a level in the atmosphere where the mean free path is comparable to the scale height, and leave the atmosphere.

• MarkW says:

Other than oil, all resources are infinite. Oil can be replaced by other things.

• Gary Ashe says:

Hydrocarbons could well be http://www.petroleum.co.uk/abiotic-oil-formation

Would you believe a so called consensus of industry and government science when every western economy is built on taxes from a finite resource, the finite adds value,…………

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

While you all seem to agree that all resources are infinite, can they be replaced as fast as they are being used up, and can they be recycled at a cost that is economically viable. Right now recycling is in trouble because the cost of recycling most things exceeds the amount companies are willing to pay for the recycled raw materials. And oil certainly isn’t replacing itself as fast as we are using it.

• MarkW says:

Can you name any resource that is close to being exhausted?

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

Sand, believe it or not, some species of fish like sardines, helium, some rare earth metals like lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and europium. Also eventually indium, rhodium, platinum, and palladium.
Although most of these things will not exactly run out, but become so rare that the price to attain these things will be unaffordable so as to make them economically inaccessible.

• James Beaver says:

That’s where companies like Planetary Resources come into play. The asteroids are chock full of valuable resources. We just need to improve our technology to bring those into reach. It’s going to happen.

• Gary Ashe says:

Get a grip, you could fit every single person of that 11.5 billion on the island i live on 33 m long 11 m wide, there wouldn’t be much room for dancing, but we could all stand there holding hands.

7.5 billion people utilise 3% of the the planets hard surface, i think we can spare 6% for 15 billion.
Especially with millions ofsquare kilometres of perma-frost thawed lands becoming habitable and another 100 years of technology.

19. A couple of decades ago, the description of an intellectual ( of course out of touch with reality) was someone who when hearing the opening chords of the “William Tell Overture” would not think of the “Lone Ranger”.
Since, in looking for a common theme uniting intellectuals since Malthus in the late 1790s, is that they are very distressed about too many people on Earth. The theme is to get rid of people.
Malthus hinted that the problem could be relieved by diminishing the numbers of the lower-classes.
Ehrlich was much more democratic and urged universal infertility pills.
Al Gore wants us all to be back in the stone age.
And it goes on.
The irony is that Communists did not want to reduce populations, but in trying to create the “Perfect Man” murdered some 100 million in the effort.
Don’t know how to classify the latter endevour.
Bob Hoye

• MarkW says:

An intellectual is someone who’s convinced that everyone’s life would be improved if only he were running them.

• GoatGuy says:

Insofar as that goes … perhaps it is best to recall that Mankind has a long-time-honored way of thinning the population. War. Reading up on the history of our warring nature (I’m pretty old, so have been reading on this for over 50 years), it is painfully obvious that War, straight up, is our preferred species-specific method of culling the herd.

Take almost all the male hot-heads (naturally, being between 15 and 25 years old, are VERY hot in the head), teach them to march, fight, strive and follow orders, and you have a nearly invincible engine of weak-male destruction.

Its not even as if Mankind … as a species … is particularly unique in this regard. quite a few animals kill off their weak males through dominance hierarchies rather brutally … every darn year. The vanquished males either die in the battle, or from injuries and disease acquired in the heat of combat. And they wander off, and die.

Mother nature also came up with an insidious program for culling the females… thru the combination of childbirth and reproductive system failure: women are much more likely than men of dying of uterine / breast / ovarian and more general “full body influence” hormone cycling cancers than men. At least men who don’t smoke like chimneys or eat incinerated foodstuffs, or who can’t find work other than coal mining and asbestos shoveling.

War. It works.

And it used to be an “honorable career” … for just about every excess male that was a tax on his extended family, without appreciable otherwise merit, and so on. The GLORY of war. Leaving as a wet-around-the-ears pimply kid, and either coming back in a box, or wearing a smartly laundered uniform, medals and a fine, strong bearing. And the willingness to take orders, give orders, and go on in non-com life as a darn decent working stiff.

War. Line up the excess males, and teach them to take orders; build up muscle, determination; cut out their childish fears, force them to “grow up quick”.

It works.
Just saying.

GoatGuy

• James Beaver says:

The movie character Thanos from “Avengers Infinity War” only wanted to whack half the population of the universe. He’s like Al Gore with a better personal trainer.

20. Louis Hooffstetter says:

Two disparate thoughts come to my mind:

First thought: In today’s world, natural selection no longer weeds people out. And when it does happen (on rare occasions), it’s always someone else’s fault. Case in point: the homeless woman who was killed when she rode her bicycle into the path of a self driving Tesla. Somehow, the car was at fault rather than the person who quite literally jumped directly into its’ path.

• Susan says:

Do you really mean that we need more mass shootings to reduce the population?

• David (nobody) says:

I imagine he means those that cannot protect themselves will be reduced. As in “Trust us, we’re from the government. We have your best interests at heart, we really, really do. But in order for us to protect you, you must follow our instructions to the letter, without questioning, without hesitation. Otherwise, we cannot be held responsible for what may happen.”

• Louis Hooffstetter says:

Third thought: Susan is the best argument for Natural Selection ever.

• Chris says:

Paranoia is alive and well in the US.

• MarkW says:

Once again, Chris demonstrates that what he knows and reality rarely intersect.

• James Beaver says:

History suggests otherwise.

• Joel Snider says:

Well, I for one am pretty tired of catering to progressive paranoia – pretty much anything that raises a wart on a snowflake’s ass has to be banned.

• MarkW says:

I see that Susan is one of those idiots who actually believes you can solve problems of violence by getting rid of guns.

Every single mass shooting was stopped by a good guy with a gun. The problem is that for the biggest mass shootings, because of bad laws, the nearest good guy with a gun was far away.

More guns would mean potential mass shooters would be stopped sooner, well before they can become mass shooters.

• More guns means more accidental shootings, more suicides, and more bad guys stealing guns from good guys.

• Darrin says:

Try reading up on how gun control is working in the UK, lots of people are getting sliced and diced with knives these days. So yeah, the population isn’t getting shot up but they are getting knifed with impunity. Granny has a hard time fending off a 250 pound bruiser with her paring knife, to bad she didn’t have access to a 9mm…

• Any comparison between the UK and the USA with regards to guns and knives is invalid. The USA has a homicide rate of 5.35 per 100,000, whereas the UK has 1.20 per 100,000. These stats shows you which country is more violent.

• Darrin says:

Then why in gun debates do anti gunners always bring up places that ban them as a shinning example?

Take away suicides and the gun deaths drop 50-60%. Discount the top 5 worst cities (mostly gang related) and the homicide by gun death rate drops to ~1 per 100,000. The US truly is a safe place to live so long as you don’t live in those 5 cities which also have very strict gun control. Amazing what a little fact and math gets you.

• MarkW says:

Try doing a little research.
The number of accidental shootings is very, very low.
Suicides are going to find a way. In Japan they jump off tall buildings.
Bad guys don’t need to steal guns. Even when guns are completely illegal to own, the bad guys have no trouble getting guns.

• Jim Gorman says:

There are what 300,000,000 guns in the US? Tell me again how a few more will affect the numbers. You want to ban guns because criminals steal them? Why don’t we ban cars because criminals steal them and sometimes kill people with them? How about knives, criminals steal them too, and swords and clubs. Why don’t we go back to strictly Darwinism where the biggest and strongest survive and lead?

• John Endicott says:

Even when you got rid of every gun in the world, the violence wouldn’t end. Killers will just find other ways to kills. cars, bombs, knives, blunt instruments, etc. those determined to kill are very inventive in finding ways to kill.

• You are correct John, but the widespread availability of guns makes it easy to kill. Much harder to kill with a knife than with a gun. The Vegas shooter would not have gotten such a high body count if all he had was a knife. The other issue with “a good guy with a gun” is the rash of killings by police of unarmed citizens. Even the best “good” guy will make a mistake.

• MarkW says:

The so called “rash of police killings” never existed.

It’s nice to see that you will believe any fantasy as long as it demonizes guns.
Yes, it’s easier to kill with a gun. It’s also easier to defend yourself with a gun. The good done with guns vastly outweighs the bad done with them.

• Lee Riffee says:

Yes, but what might have happened had the Vegas shooter stolen or hijacked a dump truck or a semi? Surely at least 50 people would be killed by plowing a multi-ton vehicle into a huge crowd – even if not hit by said vehicle many people would suffer injuries and fatalities from trampling to get out of the way….
Hey, wait a minute here – this sort of thing has already happened in France a few years ago – a country where almost no one but the police and military have guns. Yes, Virginia – there is indeed such thing a mass killer(s) determined to rack up a huge body count and finding a way to do so with out munitions.
Oh, and I almost forgot – does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?

• honest liberty says:

what the intellectually dishonest J.P.P. fails to recognize is the relative ease of obtaining gasoline and the excessive damage that can be done as opposed to a firearm. Or even the relative simplicity of making Pipe explosives. Are you really that obtuse?

would you rather take your chances with someone firing small projectiles with reckless abandon (you know a vital hit is extremely rare) or an explosive that is indiscriminate and blows shrapnel 360 degrees? Plus the shockwave. Yikes. you anti-2nd amendment folk are real gems, let me tell ya. I really wish the utopia you folks want to create was only mandated upon you. I’d love to sit back and watch all of you suffer the consequences of your egotistical endeavors. Oh the irony would be delectable.

As far as suicide. I don’t know why anyone brings this up? They were selfish and determined to end their life. it is theirs, not yours. let them do what they shall.

• Jim Gorman says:

How about bombs, are they outlawed? Does that stop killers from using them? How about airplanes into buildings? How about semi trucks into crowds? You simply can’t stop all the ways people can kill. What you need to concentrate on is how people can defend themselves. That allows law-abiding good citizens the best chance of surviving.

• John Endicott says:

JPP, the widespread availability of many things (automobiles, gasoline, ferterlizer, pressure cookers, etc) makes it easy to kill. And apparently knives are easy enough to use to kill for London to issue a ban on them due to rising knife violence. (Now the London mayor is considering banning cars in certain areas of the city, where will the insanity end?)

• MarkW says:

Guns are trivially easy to make, so the notion that we would ever get rid of them is nothing but a fantasy.

• James Beaver says:

Afghan villagers make firearms using nothing but raw steel bar stock and hand files, while sitting on dirt floors. Metal 3-D printers make it possible for relatively technical people to make near factory grade firearm components with no serial numbers. The idea that guns can be banned is right up there with the idea of controlling the weather.

21. Zurab Abayev says:

Again the same old nonsense
Malthus, Thanos…. ( sorry but I liked avengers infinity war)

• John Endicott says:

Yeah, the Malthusian lefties were no doubt confused when watching Avengers Infinity War: “I thought the Avengers were supposed to be good guys, why are they fighting against the obviously correct and heroic Thanos?”

22. Ken Mitchell says:

Any option to reduce population growth? Have we tried aerial spraying of depo provera?

• Hal says:

Maybe. Chemtrails anyone? Just kidding. Cogito.

23. dodgy geezer says:

…“All Available Options Should be Assessed” for Reducing Population Growth…

Birth control alone won’t do this.

The sort of options they should be looking at include WW3, the collapse of world agriculture, mass distribution of infectious diseases or the establishment of a World Suicide religion.

Kind of them to warn us….

• David (nobody) says:

I’ve heard this for years. Until recently I always thought it was a dumb conspiracy theory. This is just another nail in that coffin.

• Rick C PE says:

Or de-carbonization and de-industrialization of developed countries. That will work too.

24. Valin says:

Seen this movie before in the early 70’s.

25. JimG1 says:

Forget population control. We should be seriously looking at how to get off of this rock we live on as history tells us that eventually mother nature will make it either much less habitable or not habitable at all. Population growth will then be the goal, but where, might be the question. Besides it would seem that overcoming the distance and time blockade to reaching the stars is the greatest challenge that the Creator has given us.

• Mike Lowe says:

What Creator?

• Hal says:

The one mentioned in the preamble to the American constitution.

• John Endicott says:

You have a problem with the use of the phrase “the creator” but had no issue with the phrase “mother nature”?

• JimG1 says:

Is there a greater scientific challenge than reaching the stars? I, for one, can’t think of one. The resources being wasted on nonexistent problems such as AGW could possibly assist us in such a venture. Much more doable than changing our planetary climate or even protecting it from a catastrophe such as a major impact or super volcanic eruptions.

26. Airlie Beach Illusion says:

“Vegetarians will destroy the world”. Because 10 times as much vegetable food can be grown in place of animals. Therefore we can support 10 times as many people. OK there’s a few flaws in the argument, but isn’t there a correlation between vegetarian nations and overpopulation?

27. 4 Eyes says:

This article is written by people who do not have real jobs and who have never solved a problem because they’re incapable of identifying if a problem exists. We may, only may, have a problem if anthropogenic climate change occurs. We may, only may, get anthropogenic climate change if anthropogenic warming occurs. We may, only may, determine that we have anthropogenic warming when we determine what the natural warming rate is. Until then we don’t even know if we have a problem. There are an awful lot of scenarios here and these clowns skip over all of them directly to the doomsday case. Humans are where they are because they have generally been smarter than the intellectual dwarfs at Science Mag who seem to be extrapolating on Ehrlich’s failed predictions.

28. Hoyt Clagwell says:

I hope I don’t seem like I’m trying to pick a fight, but for those that think that the world is not overpopulated, I would suggest you make a list of the benefits of doubling the population. A list of the problems that will come with a doubling of the population should be obvious, primarily the strain on resources where the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Also it would help if those who respond have been to mainland China for a few weeks to see what living in an endless, densly populated city looks like. I’m just being logical here, the problems far outweigh the imagined benefits of adding more people. And before anyone gets snarky, no I don’t have any children and I was born before half the people on this planet were born, literally, so I don’t feel like I am part of the problem. I’m really interested to see your lists.

• RyanS says:

“the problems far outweigh the imagined benefits of adding more people”

Of course, but this is not about population, its just an excuse to wheel out the old genocidal bogeyman, now in the guise of evil climate scientists. A complete non seqitor of course, but doesn’t matter to the faithful – its guaranteed to get a few clicks.

• dodgy geezer says:

twice the human ingenuity to solve problems. Which is why we are doing so well ever since the population started taking off…

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

But the problems they are tasked to solve are probably caused by having too many people in the first place. It’s a vicious circle.

• MarkW says:

Probably caused??? Is that really the best you can do?

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

Ok, are definitely caused. Starvation, pollution, housing, traffic, war, disease, crime, devastation from storms, floods, tornadoes, and fires are all things off the top of my head that get worse the more people you have. Do you disagree? in fact, I will challenge you to name for me any current problems that wouldn’t get significantly better if there were half the number of people living on this planet.

• drednicolson says:

“If there’s less people to be negatively affected by X, there will be less X.” Sounds so temptingly tautological, don’t it? But there’s a flaw in that reasoning, and I’ll leave finding it as an exercise for the lurkers.

• drednicolson says:

One’s logic can be ironclad, but if the premises are mistaken, the argument will still fall flat.

Roughly 3% of the total land area on Earth is currently taken up by the trappings of human civilization. While not all parts of the planet are suitable for human habitation, we are in no danger of running out of room. The Internet and ready access to efficient transportation make it increasingly unnecessary to crowd ourselves in urban megalopolises. Decentralized habitation and centralized communication are now achievable simultaneously. Cities as we know them are becoming an anachronism. We are slow to realize this, because five thousand year-old habits die hard.

Also, any talk of Earth’s resources being finite is TBI. True But Irrelevant. Neo-Malthusians love to extrapolate present-day consumption rates into the future, as if we’ll be incapable of doing or discovering anything different.

• MarkW says:

One constant I’ve noticed with alarmists. They worship trend lines. They honestly believe that all trend lines will continue unto infinity.

• MarkW says:

With modern transportation, even areas that aren’t currently suited for habitation can become so.

• Bruce says:

China does not have a particularly high population density, not even in the top 20. Most European countries have a much higher population density.

• mikewaite says:

Bruce, to be fair to Hoyt he did specify “cities” and I think most of us have seen TV documentaries like “wild China” to know that there are , at present anyway , some sparsely populated areas left.
From the viewpoint of someone living on the edge of a metropolitan area in one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and its associated scramble for somewhere to live , and the horrors of mass commuting (now thankfully behind me) I thought that his comments were fair , reasonable and certainly resonated with me.

• MarkW says:

The world is virtually unpopulated. You need to get out of the city and see how big the world really is.
I don’t see any problem doubling the population. The world could handle 10 times our current population.

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

Space is not really the issue. At 10 times the current population, how much arable land do you need to grow food for that many? I don’t think there’s that much farmland on Earth. I’d also like to point out that so far, no one but Dodgy Geezer has accepted my challenge of listing the benefits of doubling the population. And his singular idea really just proves that more humans equals more problems to solve. Not really a benefit. So why promote the idea of an ever growing population? What is the goal? We already recognize that our presence on Earth has limited the areas for wild animals to such an extent that we need to cull the herds of wild beasts often to keep them from running out of resources. Why do we think we can live in unlimited numbers while at the same time saying that animals have to live in limited numbers, so much so that we kill them regularly, be it kangaroos, elephants, lions, or coyotes and many others? What exactly is the need for more people and the problems that entails?

• MarkW says:

We don’t need 10 times the space, all we would need to do is bring the whole world up to US agro technology levels. Not to mention all of the improvements being worked on already.

Actually, it’s just your fevered imagination that proclaims that more people equals more problems to solve.

We cull herds because we killed off most of their predators, so humans have to take the place of the predators.

It really is fascinating how you to force every fact through the sieve of your religious beliefs.

• Hoyt Clagwell says:

Not economically viable. That’s what you keep missing. All of your answers to overpopulation don’t have enough people to pay for it. If there were, we wouldn’t have people starving and struggling for the bare necessities now. Besides, the unions in the U.S. have kept our agro industry in the 20th century requiring everything to be hand picked. Europe is way ahead of us on farming technology. But bringing the rest of the world up to speed on farming isn’t as easy as it sounds is it? Or else what’s taking so long?
Regarding the culling of herds, you miss the point I was making that we acknowledge that animals can’t be allowed to expand their numbers until they run out of room or food, but we don’t think that applies to ourselves. We don’t think we need to replace our predators.
As for religious beliefs, I’m an atheist, so I don’t know what religion you’re talking about.

29. Mat says:

Math says population will top out at 11 Billion naturally…
“Hans Rosling uses statistics to give an overview of population growth and an explanation of why the total human population will never reach 11 billion”
16:36 Published on Dec 1, 2015
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI

30. BruceC says:

Wonder if David Suzuki is involved, with his five kiddies and four or five houses spread around the globe?

31. Just wait, soon some fanatic alarmists will come up with ideas for a “final solution”!

32. manalive says:

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) population projections explicitly including education, which is one factor that leads to lower fertility rates and lower projections by IIASA compared to the UN:
IIASA researchers are major contributors to Working Groups II and III of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Wiki).
I’m wondering how the institute reconciles increasing higher education and increasing base-load energy use, as they would seem to be correlated.

• manalive says:

Clumsy, I’ll rephrase that: how in the institute’s view are increasing higher education and base load energy use reconciled in a ‘carbon-constrained’ future?

33. Malcolm andrew bryer says:

Don’t these idiots read? I thought everyone knew that predictions of population doom go back to Malthus who predicted in the early 19th century widespread famine ( using graphs, no computers being available) . It did not happen in the West because of….. free enterprise and market forces which made everyone richer better educated and with access to pensions and life insurance, the absence of which were some of the reasons for large families. Back to the past, rather than back to the future, shows that economic growth leads to population decline.
You do not need government to make it happen, just make it get out of the way.

34. The Malthusians have been proved wrong by History and the Marxist have been discredited by 27 field experiments with communism, and yet they still wish to inflict AIDS, famine, population control and the like on poor suffering sub-Saharan Africans in the futile belief that this will tame the World’s weather or preserve the dwindling resources that are proved to continually expand every day. No amount of science, fact or evidence can convince these Alarmists of their malevolent confusion.

• MarkW says:

But this time, they used a computer model. /sarc

35. Andy in Epsom says:

It is not Africa that they want to stop having children. We have had 20/30 years of constantly helping to feed, support and medically treat them way beyond the natural limitations of the land that they occupy. The process of moving these people to Europe/ North America to undermine the few stable parts of the world is well under way. This will make everyone scared and easy to manage in whatever way the “leaders” decide.

36. Gas chambers ARE GOOD FOR YOU.

Signed, “A Vegetarian Animal Lover.”

37. Moderately Cross of East Anglia says:

“The IPCC should also consider the inclusion of more social scientists experienced in reproductive health and population policy.”

It would be an interesting exercise to see if these same scientists were showing the rest of the world a good example in population control – but I cannot help suspecting that they may have on average rather more children as a control group than the rest of us. Funny that, it is always other people who are the problem not the scientifically disreputable and dishonest snakes at the top of the IPCC and the other Enviro-fascists who think their essential co-operation in the theft of billions worldwide represents some kind of virtue. Still just weather…after 40 years of these lies.

38. theButcher says:

The only solution is to stop all illegal immigration.

39. MattS says:

Global birth rate is down massively and is heading towards replacement level by 2030-2040, so after this, within 20 years, the population will peak.

Womens education is a big part of this change IMO, not turning women into baby factories at 16.

• drednicolson says:

The healthiest time to be pregnant, for both the mother and the child, is as a young adult (roughly the 10-year window between ages 19-29). After that, the chance of birth complications and defects starts to rise significantly, and the age of the mother is also a probable contributing factor for rates of autism. Menopause happens around age 40 for a reason, methinks.

Replacement birthrates don’t sound so great if we’re going to be replacing ourselves with offspring of increasingly precarious viability. That could be an unexpected long-term consequence of educated women putting off motherhood for ever longer periods (pun unintended).

40. 2hotel9 says:

Funny, these pointy headed white people always want to kill off non-white people. And they call anyone who disagrees with them racists. Incredible. Leftards are a stuck needle on a perpetually running turntable.

• Tom in Florida says:

Do I sense a volunteer? We thank you very much.

• John Endicott says:

Salvatore, you don’t need to wait for others to help curb the population you can do it by starting with yourself. If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite.

• MarkW says:

Why do you hate people?

• drednicolson says:

Two Words: You First.

41. Let’s let the population grow to infinity so everyone will perish. I see some are for that. Ridiculous!

• Bruce Cobb says:

Logic/fail.

• John Endicott says:

Who is suggesting population grow to infinity? no one. Population will naturally peak all on it’s own and there’s every indication that the level it peaks at 1) There is sufficient resources on this planet to sustain that peak* and 2) as the population becomes wealthier and better educated, population growth will decline on it’s own without need for draconian anti-human population reduction programs.

* the one caveat to that is that some forms of governance, such as totalitarian, communist, socialist and/or “green” policies, work against the people having the access they need to those resources, but that’s not a population problem that’s a poor governance problem, reducing the population won’t fix that problem, removing the failed governmental systems will.

• MarkW says:

What’s ridiculous is how you have to lie about what other people are saying in order to make yourself feel good about yourself.

• drednicolson says:

Another volley fired in the War on Straw.

• simple-touriste says:

What about the total of humans ever alive? Grows to infinity? No?

42. Steve O says:

What will progressives do? In what country with a generous state pensions system does the math not rely on an a steadily increasing population? Would the Left be willing to simultaneously propose reductions in social security payments along with reductions in financial support for childbirth?

Or do they mean to only reduce populations in poor countries? Maybe that’s why Westerners oppose effective prevention of malaria, which costs millions of lives.

• Gary Ashe says:

No they dont need ever growing pop’s.

Governments simply need to stop stealing pension fund monies, by stealth or simply ”borrowing” it,…………

If it were simply left invested, it would ALL still be there, and there would not be black holes.

• John Endicott says:

Actually, they kinda do. Socialist/progressive government pension programs tend to be glorified Ponzi schemes, relying on a growing pool of new payees to pay for the current recipients benefits. For each current payees that transfer into the recipient pool, multiple new payees are needed to cover the cost of those benefits.

So either you need a growing young population to pay the generous pensions of the old or else your “population reduction” needs to concentrate on reducing the number of the old rather than on (or alongside) reductions in childbirth.

43. Gary Ashe says:

Start by reducing the number of ”climate scientists’, and then incremental reduction to sustainable levels.

Great idea though, to save billions of future people from a changing climate, you just make sure they are never born, its progressive genius.

44. Mihaly Malzenicky says:

Every nation and state has the right to reproduce as you want, but only if it does not cause migration and air pollution. Otherwise, those concerned have the right to try to influence them.

• Tom in Florida says:

Bombs are an effective way.

• MarkW says:

Socialists are always looking for any excuse to control others.

45. old construction worker says:

“According to ScienceMag,…” Now we are down to the “brass tacks”. The real reason for the war on Co2. Control the population.

46. Tom in Florida says:

For those who believe in population reduction, the simple answer is to stop the use of anything that prevents or treats disease. Let nature take it’s course, let them wither and die, the weak will perish and the strong will survive. Does that seem harsh? But why sugar coat it, it’s what they want and is the fastest way to accomplish their desired results.

• drednicolson says:

That won’t fly with them. Disease is no respecter of social status and it’s hard to get your morning latte from inside an airlocked isolation dome. 🙂

47. Poor Richard, retrocrank says:

Obviously, we should keep the hands of those who think this way off the levers of power.

And to those who say, “There are too many people; we need to reduce the population,” I say: “You first.”

48. Sheri says:

China had the one child policy for decades and now is short on population to work and support the elderly in the population. Which brings up the rather interesting point that if we reduce populations, we also must cut benefits for the retirees. No more California-style hugh retirement deals. You work till you drop. There really isn’t any other option, short of private retirement funds only (which are based on what you actually saved) and even then we could run into problems. Asking to reduce the birth rate is asking to work till you die at your desk or running that piece of construction equipment, etc.

• RACookPE1978 says:

Sheri

Asking to reduce the birth rate is asking to work till you die at your desk or running that piece of construction equipment, etc.

Well, that must be a “good thing” since that’s what we used to do back with slave labor and animal transportation in the “perfect world” before Western white-heterosexual Christian families and inventors developed … er, fossil fuels. Ethics. Moral governments interested in individual freedom instead of national socialist dictatorships of theoretical academic beauty!

• Steve O says:

Any self-respecting welfare state has a level of benefits that requires an increasing population size. I wonder, if the Left had to choose between their state retirement benefits or their global warming dogma, which would they choose?

49. jon says:

I don’t think the sub-Sahara contributes much to the world’s CO2, so shouldn’t the rich countries be targeted instead? Why didn’t they deal with that issue?
Do they recoil from the ‘caring’ outlook when it’s their own families that need to be adjusted for the greater good?
A public demonstration and commitment to auto-castration for the male members could restore much-needed credibility.
Or perhaps they should all get honest jobs instead of depending on middle-class welfare, which is what the ACGW industry is, for their income.
Macdonalds is hiring now!

50. Ravelaer says:

Well…, it’s very easy to stop population growth in most poor regions:

1) stop bombing and sanctioning the hell out of these places
2) don’t interfere with their politics
3) make the Worldbank provide loans again to poor nations for building (cheap coal-) powerplants.

Child mortality = population growth

51. lower case fred says:

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the premise of the article, if you do not realize that the necessary technology to create diseases that will reduce the population of the earth already exists and is becoming available to a larger and larger number of people every day, you are uninformed.

To quote Admiral James Stavridis (link below), “The weaponization of biology is coming, and coming quickly. And our ability to control that process — or not – will determine our destiny.”

Foreign Policy magazine is not some obscure survivalist blog.

Because the financial and physical requirements are so low, keeping the technology out of the hands of people who might unleash a plague is probably not possible. What will happen is that defenses will become more sophisticated, but there will still be a lag between the introduction of a novel disease and the deployment of vaccines and treatments. Who gets what and when will be a political issue. Obviously there will be some sort of priority for first responders and other essential personnel.

The decision to unleash this sort of population control does not have to be that of some government or vast conspiracy, just a few dedicated believers in the righteousness of their cause.

Like the man said, “coming, and coming quickly.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/24/zika-is-just-the-first-front-in-the-21st-century-biowar/

• GoatGuy says:

Interesting, the hypothesis. I followed the link to the Foreign Affairs article. A thought-provoking story.

But thinking this out some, it seems that there should be telltale events that would precede such Doomsday bio-agent releases, that if we’re looking for, will be evident and thus alert inducing.

For instance, say the Glorious Wing Nutt, leader of Norkistan, decides that his nuclear program isn’t going to be very effective at bankrolling his anti-West amitions. But a factory that churns out biohazard agents, especially the ones that are alive and multiply like crazy … is perfect.

He goes into the production of various kinds of influenza virons, ostensibly to produce vaccines – especially since the technology is no further in the distance than a hypodermic needle and a bunch of fertile chicken eggs. At least the “producing them in quantity” angle. (Actually engineering … or digging up from graves and reintroducing … particularly virulent, destructive and high-mortality virii is quite a bit more complicated than just making MORE of them)

Thing is, that the bugs like to “get away”. Creep out of their Petri dishes and flasks, their vials and tubes. They aren’t imbued with consciousness, but their evolutionary proclivity to multiply like crazy, then hang out on surfaces waiting to be picked up by passing animals … almost guarantees that there’ll be accidents.

And the factory of chicken-eggs-making-virii suddenly comes down sick.

Or not! Their legitimate cover story, doing EXACTLY the same thing — producing quintillions of live viruses — which are turned into “safe” vaccines through partially denaturing (heat, chemicals) the little devils would have plenty of preëmptive vaccination antidote at the ready. One might never even have a local outbreak: King Krud’s henchmen would just vaccinate everyone working the plant, and quarantine the community (and vaccinate them like crazy) as well.

To me, this is why I think the INFLUENZA virus is potentially the most dangerous of agents in the technology base of an enterprising megalomaniac. They’re easy to reproduce, and very easy to acquire. From having biologist friends who were hip to talk about this back in the 1980s over dinner, it seems that even the mutation of the things “in vitro” (in labs) isn’t very difficult. Nuclear radiation is cheap and potent as a mutagen. Science can cook up hundreds of varieties of influenza viruses … if they want … in a matter of months. Sobering.

Thing is though, that even with the quarantining and walling-off of a nefarious production facility, even then … there are those pesky critters that people live with or raise for food. All the wild critters … birds especially, but also rats, squirrels, racoons, and so on. Dogs, cats, chickens, ducks, pigs, goats, sheep, cattle. They are ALL hosts to various inflenza viruses. Some of them are “close enough” to humans that they share influenza susceptabilities with us. Or are silent carriers.

Which is to say that in our 1980s discussions, we couldn’t make a credible argument for a totally impregnable compound in which the Bad Biologists would do their work, and which could totally keep the pathogens from escaping. Not without rather profound “prison compound on steroids” interlocks and expensive measures to purify the exhaust streams of the plant. Everything – sewage, ventillation exhaust, etc.

Anyway.
Happy thoughts.
If the “bad guys” really want to wage geographically total bio-war, they will be able to.

They have the PERFECT dispersal system as well: international airlines. Airports. FedEx. Tourists. Chinese trans-shipping agents. Imbedded operatives around the world. But mostly “families with kids” travelling. Kids are ridiculously fertile pathogen spreaders.

Back to our regular programming.
GoatGuy

• lower case fred says:

“But thinking this out some, it seems that there should be telltale events that would precede such Doomsday bio-agent releases, that if we’re looking for, will be evident and thus alert inducing.”

Google “Jackson Ramshaw virus” and read a bit. The world did not know what they were up to and they accidentally created a virus that would wipe out an exposed mouse population. Apply that same technology to a human pox and the balloon might go up.

IIRC, in the Jackson Ramshaw case the disease was 100% fatal without a vaccine and 50% with.

Smallpox has been supposedly isolated, but its genetic code is on the internet and there are, even today, people with the ability to create a virus from the code.

The whole point of my post and the article is that we are approaching the time when you do not have to have great resources at hand to accomplish the act. A few aerosol cans of weaponized pox released in the right places at the right time would do quite a job.

Forewarned is forearmed.

• simple-touriste says:

You are assuming there is such thing as an effective flu vaccine, and that the flu vaccine doesn’t encourage dissemination of the virus.

• michael hart says:

Most of the bio-scares are on the same level as the global warming scare.

Most of the few humans with competence in this area know that they are likely the first victims, so they will never try. Government scale malevolence will also know that they could not control the damage, so what would they gain by trying?

It takes so much effort, trial and error, and resources plus commitment to maybe even come close to producing what the nastiest people could imagine. And yet the biggest, most effective, and most evil laboratory in the world by far, is Mother Nature. Every day for the last few billion years she has been cooking up biological warfare organisms, usually with little success. The mammalian immune system wasn’t born yesterday.

Practice scrupulous hygiene, boil your water, sterilize objects and skins regularly, and you can defeat most of the worst of Mother Nature’s plagues without recourse to pharmaceuticals.
The biggest danger is if most people suddenly got so frightened that they wouldn’t go to work for several days. A bit like Christmas in the UK, because eventually they know they have to go back to work and carry on as before to pay the bills.

• simple-touriste says:

Vaccines may be more dangerous than the disease.

52. michael hart says:

“All available options” never seems to include the option where they STFU and instead do something that actually helps the world. It is always about “levers”, i.e. “how can we force people to bend to our will”. They want to be the people telling others what to do, never the people doing it.

53. In the end nature will take care the population one way or the other.

54. ResourceGuy says:

I guess insurance-funded opioid deaths relate to this issue. Especially since the issue was not called out until general life expectancy numbers started to show it with a data reporting lag.

55. jorgekafkazar says:

Soon these activists will drop the other shoe and declare that Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel. [The end justifies the means.]

• lower case fred says:

War has a way of expanding the “Overton window” of what means are justified.

56. n.n says:

#HateLovesAbortion

57. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a little less population density, but NOT by means of eradicating any current population, and NOT because of any connection whatsoever to the issue of climate change (human-caused or otherwise). I just think that the level of crowding in developed societies is ridiculous.

I think the focus of the population issue should be on economically DEVELOPED nations. Give the undeveloped nations a break, already. Help them to become developed, and encourage a population consciousness within that concept of “developing”.

Part of becoming more developed would seem to be allowing more breathing space for higher-level functioning in all respects. The crowding of developed civilization is what I find to be a contradiction of the whole idea of “development”. I think that “development” should be more spatially intelligent than I perceive that it currently is.

I think that there is intelligent population growth and intelligent development based on consciousness of clutter and crowding, and I do NOT, at all, associate this with climate. The climate card here is just parasitic opportunism, pushing a one-sided, fundamentally flawed point of view to fulfill an overriding political agenda.

58. Scott says:

Do all options include the one where they go first?

59. Gamecock says:

‘Would slowing human population growth lessen future impacts of anthropogenic climate change? With an additional 4 billion people expected on the planet by 2100, the answer seems an obvious “yes.”’

M’kay . . . these ‘future impacts’ will not limit population growth? Just how bad can these impacts be if we are going to increase population 50%?

“Climate change, where is thy sting?”

60. paul marchand says:

Best population control IMO:
1) your baby? then YOU (and sperm donor and your families etc) take care of it
2) INDIVIDUALS can contribute
3) NO government theft of taxpayer money to FORCE contributions

61. Dave Anderson says:

All Available Options –

I think we can still dig up the formula for Zylon B. If all means all.

62. paul marchand says:

The only viable conclusion I see is that sub-Saharans go for the immediate gratification with less concern for implications.
It seems until the ramifications hit them in the face, the explosive population growths will continue.
IMO we should not reward that with immigration allowances to Europe and the US, or they will overwhelm us, and the process continues.

• Jimmy says:

For globalists and liberal elites, overwhelming us is what it’s all about. Cheap labor and more votes.

63. Amber says:

You just knew that population pruning agenda was hiding behind the mask of the scary climate change industry .
I have yet to see an earth has a fever promoter not jump to the line…..” well the planet has too many people anyways ” when their earth has a fever arguments are exposed as an exaggerated fraud .

Are fuel poverty deaths a climate policy lever too ? What an efficient way to eliminate the poor and elderly by the tens of thousands per year . Heck almost as much as drug deaths . Over 70,000 per year in the USA and climbing fast . Perhaps drug deaths could be another “climate policy lever ” ?

Get the government in the business ,maybe give away free drugs as a price signal to encourage weak and addictive persons to get off the planet while hypocrite A holes like Suzuki multiply … well like maggots .

64. Nothing is stopping environmentalists and progressives from not having children. If they want to remove themselves from the Gene Pool, that is there right.

• Joel Snider says:

Yeah, but it’s really everyone else’s rights they’re concerned with.

65. Ewin Barnett says:

The phrase “All Available Options Should be Assessed” for Reducing Population Growth” proves my point. All available options are only the ones that converge on socialism. The only options that will be allowed end up justifying destruction of human lives and human prosperity on the speculation that humanity will be better off in the long run. This is nothing less that a renewal of Gaia worship, where the goal is to make the Earth pristine and pure once again by purging evil humanity from it.

66. Joel Snider says:

Well, they’re getting closer to openly calling for a human cull.
Remember, eugenics’ ‘final solution’ only wanted to get rid of ‘mongrel races.’

67. Richard Wakefield says:

So when do the human sacrifices start?

• Photios says:

They already have. Little old ladies are dying of cold because they cannot afford to heat their flats in the housing schemes in Scottish winters, as the price of electricity is pushed up so that rich landlords can have subsidies for bird-killing windmills on their lands. Little old ladies sacrificed on the twin altars of Gaia and Mammon.

68. philsalmon says:

What stops population growth is economic development involving growth of wealth with education:

https://youtu.be/fTznEIZRkLg

AGW activist policies that sabotage energy supply slow economic growth. They this also slow the deceleration of population growth and prolong higher CO2 emissions that would otherwise fall with birth rate reduction linked to economic improvement. Thus green energy policies are self-cancelling in regard to CO2 emissions and utterly pointless.

69. Paul Miller says:

Can anyone say Paul Erlich.

70. I lived 7 years in the Highland of Tanzania as a Vocational teacher.

Monthly income was 25$(now possibly 50$) – for the 10% of the population that had work. All the others lived as subsidence farmers, getting only one income after harvest.

Numbers of children per family about 5, the wealthier had less. If somebody would start a one-child policy, all the families would be at risk, if something would be happen to that one child. No social security.

Children helping on the farm, caring for the old people.

The poor do not emit CO2, but the wealthier with few kids.

Just give them wealth and the population growth will stop.

71. How do you reduce the population of the planet without being called a mass murderer, start a nuclear war. Relatively clean and simple, just a few billion deaths and lots of time to rebuild in their image.
Shared Climate Change Nobel prize for population control to Mao, Stalin, Pot and Hitler and all the other lesser mass murders.

72. ddpalmer says:

I stopped reading when the 2nd sentence said 4 billion more people expected by 2100. Every credible estimate I have seen projects topping out short of 10 billion (so 2.5 billion more) around 2070 followed by a slow decline.

73. My reply to population deniers has always been this:

You want to reduce the population for the good of all? Ok, you go first and the rest of us will see if we can live without you.

74. Bob Denby says:

Axiomatic: too much of virtually anything is problematical. Also true of self-anointed scholars!