A world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet, an essay in Scientific American magazine claims.
Less people require less feeding and less energy, the piece maintains, further declaring “we should all be celebrating population decline.”
The premise is further enhanced by the claim the planet is suffering from overpopulation that diminishes wildlife habitats and ecosystems as human impact has a deleterious effect on everything around it. The essay states:
The loss of biodiversity is tragic in itself. A world without elephants, hellbender salamanders and the million other species at risk of extinction in the coming decades would be deeply impoverished. Wild plants and animals enrich our lives and hold vital ecosystems together. The fresh water we need to survive, the plants we rely on for food and medicine, and the forests we depend on for clean air and carbon sequestration are all the product of complex interactions between life-forms ranging from microbes and pollinators to carnivores and scavengers.
When even a single thread is pulled from that tapestry, the entire system can unravel.
Ultimately the opinion piece, written by the “population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity, ” states, “Population decline is only a threat to an economy based on growth. Shifting to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside lower fertility rates will help fight climate change and increase wealth and well-being.”
Humans therefore must choose between population growth and the survival of the planet, the essay posits, repeating previous claims that “declining populations and ageing demographics” help governments meet climate change goals:
Less people to save the planet? https://t.co/3KwltT198a
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 12, 2021
“We also need to bring together the reproductive rights and gender equity movements, and the environmental movement. Environmental toxicity, reproductive health and wildlife protection are deeply intertwined. Pollution, climate change and degraded ecosystems harm pregnant people, fetuses and children, and make it difficult to raise safe and healthy families,” the essay further states.
The author points to recent globalist forecasts for the planet and climate as a further driver for limiting human population growth.
[…] we need what the United Nations’ most recent climate and biodiversity reports drive home, and conservationists, climate scientists and policy makers have demanded for decades: a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and sustainable food systems and a global commitment to halting human-caused extinctions now.
Population stabilization and decline will inevitably be achieved by centering human rights. Policy makers must guarantee bodily autonomy and access to reproductive health care, gender equity, and women and girls’ education.
Ultimately the essay delivers a plea to address “the crises in front of us” with everyone deciding “if and when to have children, and planning for population decline, we can choose a future of sustainable abundance.”
The essay is the second time in less than 12 months globalist urging for a decline in the human population has been heard.
As Breitbart News reported, Yuval Noah Harari, historian, futurist, and World Economic Forum (WEF) adviser, said last August, “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population” in the early 21st century given modern technologies’ rendering human labor economically and militarily “redundant.”
He assessed widespread contemporary disillusionment among “common people” as being rooted in a fear of being “left behind” in a future run by “smart people.”
Such fears are justified, he added, given his projection that emerging technologies will displace economic needs to many categories of existing work. With the triumph of those machines, the need for humans and their labor diminishes.