State Department Wacko: Earth Population ‘Exceeds Limits’

01 Apr, 2009 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

Nina Fedoroff, who was carried over from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration in the State Department and is admittedly, a brilliant scientist, is telling the BBC we have too many people on the planet,

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth’s “limits of sustainability”.

Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.
Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.
“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people,” Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing “wild lands”, and in particular water supplies.

Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

First off, people have been spinning this same old yarn not just for years, but for centuries. Most famously, Malthus was hitting this theme back in 1798,

A Malthusian catastrophe, sometimes known as a Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian dilemma, Malthusian disaster or Malthusian trap, is a return to subsistence-level conditions as a result of agricultural (or, in later formulations, economic) production being eventually outstripped by growth in population.

A few decades ago, Paul Ehrlich was pounding this same drum,

Increasingly, climate catastrophe is coming more and more to resemble the hysteria over the “population bomb” of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In those days, Paul Ehrlich was a frequent guest on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show, and there were government commissions launched here and abroad to ponder whether we needed an aggressive anti-natalist policy. The effort to develop a population policy in the U.S. collapsed quickly and quietly when someone pointed out that any anti-natalist policy would disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities. Oops.

Population pressures were and remain a genuine environmental concern, but it gradually became clear that Ehrlich and other alarmists had way overestimated the problem, and it looks very different today. (Indeed, the great social problem of the end of this century may be population that is falling too rapidly.) And while Ehrlich is still peddling the same Malthusian gloom, he never turns up on the Tonight Show any more; in fact, he doesn’t even make it on Hardball or Countdown with Krazy Keith.

Given the centuries long history of people predicting that populations were growing to unsustainable levels and being utterly, completely wrong, people should be very suspicious of this argument to begin with.

Additionally, these wide eyed “this growth isn’t sustainable” people creep me out because if they’re taken seriously, at best, their ideas will lead to dangerous levels of population erosion in Western nations.

By that, I mean that only Westerners pay any attention to these fruit loops and I believe that’s one of the factors that has caused a plunging birth rate in Europe — which, because they are bound and determined to maintain their welfare states, has led to European nations taking in frighteningly large numbers of immigrants whom they don’t seem to be able to assimilate. In twenty years, many Western European nations will likely have gone rapidly backwards on human rights, their economies, morals, freedom — you name it, precisely because their native populations aren’t having children.

That’s the best case scenario if people buy into this argument. The worst case scenario is genocide on a massive scale. As is, you have to wonder if this plays into the ferocious liberal opposition to the usage of DDT, which has most certainly led to the deaths of millions of Africans. Also, it’s very easy to imagine some liberal kook who thinks there are “already too many people on the planet” getting his hands on some potent biological weapons and using them in cities around the world to, in his mind, “save the world.”

You may think that sounds far fetched, but it’s where this school of thought ultimately leads. After all, if the world population, despite all evidence to the contrary, is not “sustainable,” and obviously, most people are not going to give up breeding or their lives voluntarily, then necessarily, somebody will have to kill billions so the rest of us can survive.

That’s why the word “sustainability” always has the seeds of genocide planted within it.