Enter your email address to subscribe:

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Population reduction: who will make it and who won't?

This is no conspiracy theory.

Mark Wallace posted a rather chilling article and accompanying spreadsheet on Conservative Home on the population figures the Optimum Population Trust would like to see in each country of the world.

Mark's article:
The Optimum Population Trust, for those of you who haven't yet come across them, are an odd bunch. Bluntly, they believe the best way to save the planet is to get rid of as many human beings as possible.

On the plus side, at least they are being more honest than most greens in their open contempt for human beings. The reality of many in the environmentalist movement is at core a deep anti-humanism, an arrogant dislike for people who are somehow too stupid to see the problem with their pursuit of a happy life and a healthy family.

On the down side, the OPT's aims are actually pretty worrying - verging on sinister, even. Buried in their website is a detailed spreadsheet [Excel link] laying out their ideal "sustainable" populations for each country. And those "ideal" populations are a little worrying, if you try to imagine the reality of them.

For example, the UK should shrink to 29 million people, from the 60 million we currently have. We are of course a small island, but ask yourself which half of your friends you would rather did not exist?

And we get things comparatively easy in the OPT's dystopian vision of the future.

Only one in six of the current Algerian population should really be allowed. Bosnians are unlikely to be overjoyed that 3 million of their 4 million people are, in the OPT's eyes, an inconvenience. Rwanda should apparently go from 7 million people to only 2 million.
What the OPT seem to forget is that these aren't just statistics. They aren't just "emitters", as their website terms them. They are real human beings, who live, love and laugh. It is peculiar that Sir David Attenborough, the Patron of the Trust, can show so much compassion for animals but is apparently happy to back such a dispassionate dismissal of the value of our fellow humans.
Yesterday, the OPT released the results of a Yougov opinion poll [Excel link] which they trumpeted as showing public support for their aims. "Public want smaller UK population", announces their website. However, when you actually read the tables for the polling results, it turns out that the public are bothered about far more real world, centre right issues than greenie pipe dreams.
It turns out, people are actually perfectly happy for us to be allowed to continue breeding - directly contrary to the OPT's aims.

One major question was, "Do you think people should take the impact on the environment into account when deciding how many children to have?"
The answer is pretty clear. A miniscule 15% say people either should not have any children or should only have one, while 24% either think "the number of children people have won't affect the environment" or that people shouldn't worry about it. Unsurprisingly, the biggest support  - 34% - is for people choosing to have two children, which is just about what people actually do have in real life. Far from endorsing the OPT's views, people are voting for no change, and life as usual.

Most interesting is the question which investigates public support for various policies on population. Most left those surveyed pretty unmoved, with only three gaining majority support:
  • Reduce immigration: 69%
  • Let people work after the retirement age: 63%
  • Better family planning support to reduce unwanted pregnancies: 62%
So, it turns out that far from being radical greens who want to interfere in people's family life, the public are just bothered about high levels of immigration and unplanned pregnancies, whilst wanting to allow pensioners to work. More back to basics than ban the babies.

17 comments:

AntiCitizenOne said...

The population would drop if we stopped subsidising immigration(and the quality of immigrant would probably improve too). It would drop even faster if we stopped subsidising parents (and the quality of children would probably improve too).

the current birthrate is 1.8; 2.1 is the static replacement rate so 3 generations ((1.8/2.1)^3=0.51) are needed for the population to halve with natural wastage.

Fausty said...

It certainly would ACO. It would also decrease over time if we encourage homosexuality, euthanasia and if we sterilise pregnant women and children with mercury.

Barking Spider said...

Rounding up all the illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers and booting them out of the country would be another good addition to AntiCitizenOne's suggestions, Fausty.

Fausty said...

I wonder why the government isn't doing that, Spidie.

Trooper Thompson said...

Population reduction is the real driving force behind the pseudo-enviro climatology cult - old-fashioned Malthusians: their problem; too many bloody peasants.

If the OPT are serious, let them show us the way by killing themselves. In the meantime, they can shove their China-style one-child policy up their arse.

INCOMING!!!!!!! said...

TT well said.

Fausty what the OPT and the transhumanist clowns can never grasp is that human beings are not machines and human intelligence is unique and not manufacturable.

These barking mad mind barphs will be full on full spectrum diversity and inclusivity psychopaths never seeing the irony of pigeon holeing everyone in a fucking spreadsheet.

Fausty said...

I wouldn't be surprised, Trooper. their rules are only for little people.

The irony's probably not lost on them Incoming, but they probaably imagine it's lost on us.

banned said...

I heard one of these Optimum Population Trust people on the radio ealier this year. He was very clear that they were not in favour of culling people ( wow, thanks very much ) but claimed that there was a clear benefit in 1 child per family. China gave up that policy some while ago.
Europe is said to have a 'problem' with its declining birthrate; much of the rest of the world is said to have a 'problem' with their increasing populations. surely they cannot both be 'problems' or have I missed something ?

AntiCitizenOne said...

The only problem with a declining population is that it reveals state retirement schemes as little more than ponzi schemes.

Maturecheese said...

This is something I have believed for a while now, that is that the population of the world is getting way out of hand. There does not have to be genocide or anything like that to reduce population, just common sense. Properly enforced migration policies, Laws on reproduction levels, and a good look at the negative effects of welfare. The big headache is how to control third world population growth.

I read somewhere recently that the optimum sustainable population of the world is something like 2 Billion
just relying on the energy of the sun and not Banked energy like coal and oil. With the world population currently at 6 billion and rising fast, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise that we are in a serious pickle. When politicians prattle on about global warming and green issues they conveniently forget to mention population and its part in all of that.

AntiCitizenOne said...

The Earths sustainable population is a function of the efficiency of technology.

James Higham said...

Well, the EU plans to help this along quite nicely. The Bavarian Bruderheist are behind the whole movement.

Fausty said...

They might not be into 'culling' people, but they probably have a few ideas as to how to 'help' along population reduction - such as euthanasia, reduction in cancer screening and drugs, etc. This is freaking out Americans right now.

I wonder if OPT get state funding. And if so, why does the NHS provide fertility treatment?

I agree, ACO.

James, didn't the enlightened ones begin their 'journey' in Bavaria?

Trooper Thompson said...

Mature Cheese, you believe what you've been told over and over again, back to Malthus and beyond.

Rich countries do not have problems with population growth, apart from the contrived problem of mass immigration. The poorest countries have the highest population growth. Help these people out of crippling poverty and their populations will stabilise. But instead the UN is running covert sterilisation programmes, while their corporate partners in crime continue to plunder the natural wealth of many of these places.

As for 'laws for reproduction levels', I'd rather live on a crowded planet than in such a hellish dystopia.

Fausty said...

I believe you've nailed it, Trooper.

Maturecheese said...

Trooper Thompson

Rich countries do not have problems with population growth, apart from the contrived problem of mass immigration

Is not 60 million and rising on a piece of land the size of Britian, a problem.

The emerging economic powerhouses China and India have 1 billion each, they are going to have a hard job stabilising their populations.

I'll take the 'Hellish Dystopia' anyday over an overcrowded planet. Look at it as chemo over death by cancerous growth.

Trooper Thompson said...

Maturecheese,

well go ahead and cut your own cancerous self out of the body of humanity. By your own measure, surely you can see you are superfluous to Gaia's requirements?

Related Posts with Thumbnails