by Brandon Turbeville
May 3, 2012
Clearly in the tradition of Malthus and Ehrlich,
a recent report released by the Royal Society predicts a “downward spiral of
economic and environmental ills” if the world’s population is not soon
The study, entitled, “People
And The Planet,” openly calls for Western deindustrialization,
increased “family planning” (particularly in the Third World),
Agenda 21, and a solidification of the
current claims that population increases are directly related to
within the public discourse.
The report, whose alleged goal was to evaluate the state of humanity for the
next 100 years and provide recommendations for its improvement, calls for
the issues of population and consumption be pushed to the top of the global
political and economic agendas.
The report begins by stating that,
“The number of people living on the planet
has never been higher, their levels of consumption are unprecedented and
vast changes are taking place in the environment.”
This statement, of course, is true.
Yet the number of people on the planet, as it
currently stands, is not responsible for these changes. This much has been
Nevertheless, the report establishes two issues that it claims are
absolutely critical to the health and wellbeing of the planet as well as
“future generations” - population growth and the consumption economy.
The report states:
The annual rate of global population growth
has slowed from its peak at above 2.0% in the mid 1960s; fertility rates
have fallen so that in 2010 almost 48% of world population had a total
fertility of less than 2.1 children per woman (UN 2011a).
However, rapid population growth continues
in some parts of the world. The upward population trend will not reach
its peak for another 40 years or more because present day children and
the unborn have yet to have children themselves.
In relation to the consumption issue, it says:
The second major issue facing the planet is
that, taken as a whole, per capita consumption is increasing. Total
consumption will continue to increase as the population gets larger, as
more people on the planet means more mouths to feed and more goods to
satisfy their aspirations.
People depend on their natural environment
for meeting many of those needs and desires but overconsumption of
material resources is eroding this natural capital.
Access to sufficient
food, water and fuel for everybody is already a problem (UNDP 2011).
After a great deal of discourse regarding the
state of the world’s poor and the increasing level of environmental
degradation, “People And The Planet” finally arrives at the familiar
conclusion deduced by population reductionists of every generation - that
human population growth is currently at a state that will soon outstrip the
In other words, as posited by Thomas Malthus,
Paul Ehrlich, and Ted Turner - indefinite growth is not
possible in a finite world.
eugenicists such as Thomas Malthus
have long been proven wrong. Those more
recent myth purveyors such as
Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren have also
been exposed as nothing more than
anti-human propagandists serving a much higher agenda than that which is
presented to the public.
Now, even after the failures of these theories and predictions, the Royal
Society, itself entirely
overtaken by the eugenics movement many
years ago, has produced “People And The Planet,” another piece of
apocalyptic propaganda that will no doubt be proven false just as its
predecessors have been in the past.
But the report is not only a critique of the population “boom.”
In fact, the Royal Society researchers are
forced to admit that there is no population boom due to the fact that there
has been a drastic reduction in fertility of the average person, with the
notable exception of much of the Third World.
"While the average annual rate of population
change peaked in the 1960s at 2% and now stands at 1.1% per year, the
absolute rate of growth peaked at 89 million per annum in 1988 and now
stands at 78 million..."
That being said, the report does offer nine
recommendations as to how to combat what it claims is an inevitable disaster
so long as humans continue to reproduce.
These recommendations are familiar to anyone who
has been following the eugenics/population reduction/eco-fascist agenda for
any length of time.
They are as follows:
The international community must bring
the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of
absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the
world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas
including economic development, education, family planning and
The most developed and the emerging
economies must stabilize and then reduce material consumption levels
through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency,
including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources,
technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling
economic activity from environmental impact.
Reproductive health and voluntary family
planning programs urgently require political leadership and
financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is
needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates,
especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is
Population and the environment should
not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and
the influences on them, should be factored into economic and
environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as
the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent
Governments should realize the potential
of urbanization to reduce material consumption and environmental
impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of
water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid
slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.
In order to meet previously agreed goals
for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school
attendance need to work with international funders and
organizations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and
Education For All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be
overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for
all the world’s young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and
Natural and social scientists need to
increase their research efforts on the interaction between
consumption, demographic change and environmental impact. They have
a unique and vital role in developing a fuller picture of the
problems, the uncertainties found in all such analyses, the efficacy
of potential solutions, and providing an open, trusted source of
information for policy makers and the public.
National Governments should accelerate
the development of comprehensive wealth measures. This should
include reforms to the system of national accounts, and improvement
in natural asset accounting.
Collaboration between National
Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and
institutions that are not dependent on continued material
consumption growth. This will inform the development and
implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to
In all fairness, not all of these solutions, at
least on their face, are sinister.
No one can seriously argue that consumerism is a
healthy lifestyle, environmentally friendly, or sustainable. However, we
must be careful not to let flowery language and small areas of bleed-over
agreement deceive us into believing that the solutions offered by the
writers of this report are anything but a plan to reduce the population of
what they see as the unfit, useless eaters.
What was once expressed in direct, contemptuous language now requires
shadowy coded terminology in order to convey the same concept and, most
importantly, to convince the masses that it is for their own best interest
for their herd to be culled. Indeed, such wordplay is also necessary so
those who are more geared toward self-preservation are not inclined to
suspect the threats they must preserve themselves against.
For instance, the term “family planning” is merely another less
politically-charged name for abortion and sterilization. Similarly, the
UN-based term “sustainable development” represents the removal of humans
from rural areas and a return of the average citizen’s living standards to
that of the days of feudalism.
Thus, one sees a preponderance of these terms listed in the report’s
Yet, although much of the language of the report
is couched, the authors are still blatant enough to openly state that one of
their goals is the continuance “of the downward trajectory of fertility
While one may be tempted to believe that the term “family planning” repeated
ad nauseam in “People And The Planet” merely refers to “sexual
education” programs and the distribution of contraceptives, when one reads
the report further, it becomes clear that it is, in fact, abortion and
various sterilization methods which are favored.
This is because, while the former might be
cheaper, the latter is much more effective.
In addition, while the authors continuously claim that these population
reduction methods must be voluntary, it is also apparent that the opposite
will actually be the case. Indeed, the very fact that there is an oligarchy
of “experts” guiding the acceptable amount of human beings allowed on the
planet by methods involving coercion and/or deceit goes against the very
nature of volunteerism.
One should likewise be aware of the treachery contained within the terms,
All of these terms used in the context of this
report refer to the ultimate goal of herding a drastically reduced
population of humans into a few major cities under strict guidelines of
rationing food and other necessities.
This precisely what is meant when the authors of this report refer to,
“the potential of urbanization to reduce
material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency
measures” as well as the “well planned provision of water supply, waste
disposal, power and other services.”
All of these recommendations are being
implemented currently under plans such as
What is not being implemented at the
international level via treaties and agreements between nations is being
implemented at the state or even the local level. This local implementation
of Agenda 21 is precisely what I discussed in “South
Carolina Moves To Implement Agenda 21 Guidelines.”
Because of the cloaked and stealthy nature of these guidelines and,
unfortunately, the misguided aims of decent, well-meaning people as well as
the duplicity of ill-intentioned ones, it is often exceptionally difficult
to convince the average person of the dangers of plans such as Agenda 21 and
those proposed in “People And The Planet.”
However, it is imperative that we do just that
as time is fast running out.
For all the increase in propaganda coming from organizations associated with
United Nations and various well-funded Foundations, there has
also been an increase in the level of awareness of these sinister plans by
the general public.
Tennessee have taken steps to expose and
oppose anti-human programs such as Agenda 21.
Arizona has also considered legislation
against the proposals.
There are numerous sources from a variety of different backgrounds that
discuss the dangers of Agenda 21, and there is never a better time than the
present to take advantage of these sources to educate your friends, family,
and fellow citizens as to the gradual extinction and mechanization that
faces us all.
Don’t be fooled by reports like “People
And The Planet.”
As one delves deeper into the true motivation
behind the implementation of its recommendations, it becomes clear that the
army of “experts” expected to guide society into the future truly care about
neither the people nor the planet.