One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth

November 17, 2009

Overpopulation Climate Change And The Eugenics Agenda Of The Global EliteAs negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change treaty intensify, environmental extremists are once again attempting to link climate change with overpopulation and are warning that if drastic measures are not taken to reduce population growth it may mean the end of the world as we know it.  Unfortunately, the ranks of these environmental extremists are not limited to a few wacky professors and a couple psychos who are running around out there slashing the tires of SUVs.  Rather, those pushing an agenda to control “overpopulation” include high ranking members of the U.S. government, some of the most prominent scientists in the world of academia and some of the wealthiest men and women on the entire planet.

There are even very powerful international organizations that do nothing but sit around and think of ways to attack the “overpopulation” problem.

For example, the Optimum Population Trust bills itself as “the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment”. Some really big names are involved in the Optimum Population Trust including Sir David Attenborough, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich and Dr. Jane Goodall. One of the stated goals of the organization is to “advance the education of the public in issues relating to human population worldwide and its impact on environmental sustainability”.

In a recent press release, the Optimum Population Trust clearly linked the issue of overpopulation to the fight against climate change and the upcoming Cophenhagen treaty. In their statement, the OPT strongly urged nations across the globe to enact policies to “stabilize” population growth and to fund “family planning” programs in poorer countries…..

“The Optimum Population Trust says today (August 17, 2009) that the climate change talks which will culminate at Copenhagen in December must ensure that all countries adopt non-coercive policies to limit and stabilise population growth. Family planning programmes in poorer countries should be treated as “legitimate candidates for climate change funding.”

Their site even includes a “Stop At Two” pledge in which they ask visitors to their site to take “another green step towards environmental survival for all” by making the following pledge:

I’m going to try not to have more than two children!

But unfortunately the Optimum Population Trust is far from alone on this issue.

At a recent roundtable discussion on “climate change” in India, Hillary Clinton noted that “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”

“That was an incredibly important point,” Clinton went on to add. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”

In fact, key Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff was even more blunt when she recently told the BBC One Planet program the following:

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

While it may be easy to dismiss the ramblings of Hillary Clinton and her advisers, the reality is that even the United Nations appears to be totally committed to reducing the population of the earth.

One incredibly disturbing example of this population reduction agenda is the recently discovered U.N. Population Division policy brief from March 2009.  This shocking document openly asks how fertility decline in the least developed countries can be accelerated.

The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief can be found right here (it is a PDF document so you will need a PDF viewer to view it):

When you first open up the policy brief, you are greeted by this cheery headline:

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

The report goes on to discuss how big a problem overpopulation is (especially in “poor” countries) and what can be done to make sure that fewer babies are born in the “least developed” nations.

So why do the global elite have such an obsession with population control?

Well, the truth is that many of them actually believe that overpopulation is going to destroy the environment and bring about the end of the world as we know it.

For example, in a recent interview for his new book, “Will Population + Technology = Armageddon?”, Syracuse University professor Henry Mullins offers a chilling forecast for the future of the world if the population is not reduced…..

When a system gets knocked out of equilibrium, feedback within it brings it back, or the system collapses.

I have three story lines. We exceed the carrying capacity, the earth system adjusts, and we have an equilibrium number of people at our carrying capacity. Everything’s fine.

Another possibility is the catastrophe — nuclear winter, or pandemics, or runaway greenhouse effect, whatever. It causes a drastic reduction in our numbers. We go back to pre-industrial times, when we only had a few billion people on the planet.

Worst-case scenario is extinction. Most species before us — about 99.9 percent — are now extinct. We’ve only been here a short period of geologic time.

While most people simply cannot understand why the global elite are so incredibly obsessed with population issues, the inescapable reality is that they are. 

But now this obsession with population is spreading – particularly through colleges and universities.  You see, professors such as Henry Mullins get to spend all day shaping impressionable young minds in the classroom.  Inevitably, at least a few of them are going to become convinced of the need to reduce the population.

In particular, those who consider themselves to be “environmentalists” seem to be very willing to embrace the philosophy that humanity is a disease which is spreading too quickly.

For instance, there is actually a website entitled “One Less Child” that openly seeks to promote the idea that couples should have less children. Their mission statement says the following about the need to control the population…..

To have couples consider population reduction through less offspring. Having less offspring actually increases the quality of life of your current offspring, which is what every couple wants.

Not only that, but in a position paper published in November 2007, the Sierra Club made this stunning statement: “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the programs – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”

This bizarre population control agenda is even represented in the White House. Barack Obama’s “science czar”, John P. Holdren, once co-authored a textbook entitled “Ecoscience” in which he advocated population control measures that are so extreme that it is hard to believe that a sane man came up with them.  The following are actual quotes from Holdren’s textbook…..

Pages 787 and 788…..

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would haveto meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Pages 786 and 787…..

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838…..

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Remember, Holdren is Barack Obama’s top science advisor.

In addition, some of the wealthiest men and women in the world are also absolutely obsessed with overpopulation.  Back on May 5th, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and several other of the wealthiest people in the world gathered for a clandestine meeting in Manhattan.  The meeting was supposed to be so absolutely secret that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told that they were at “security briefings”.

So just what was the meeting about?

Fortunately some details from the meeting have emerged.

According to one major U.K. newspaper, one individual who attended this meeting confessed that “a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”

Once again we see another example of the absolute obsession that the global elite has with overpopulation.

The article quotes one attendee of the meeting as saying the following about the overpopulation problem…..

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers.”

Apparently they do not intend to include the rest of us as they come up with their “big-brain answers”.

The truth is that most in the global elite consider overpopulation to be the number one problem in the world.  They are absolutely committed to trying to “solve” this “problem” in this generation.

So what will their “solutions” look like?

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, the spreading obsession with population control is even reflected in comments by visitors to this site.  In our recent article about the coming global famine, two visitors made the following comments…..

Timothy J. Frohlick:

It means that we must reduce the human population by humane methods without recourse to war or starvation. On the other hand, if humanity stubbornly persists in overbreeding then we will probably lose one to three billion people in the next ten years.

Perhaps a mumps virus that induces sterility in all affected males would do the trick. It would certainly be better than being fried in wars or dying of nutrient deficiencies such as Kwashiokor or pellagra.


The problem isn’t children about to be born, it is feeding the humans currently sucking air on the big blue marble. We are already overpopulated.

People actually believe this stuff.  But the truth is that there are vast tracts of land all over the world that are barely populated.  There is much more land that could be used for farming and for food production.  There would be more than enough food and resources for everyone – if the global elite were not so incredibly, incredibly greedy.

You see, the top 20 percent of the world’s people who live in the highest income countries have access to 86 percent of world gross domestic product. The bottom fifth, in the poorest countries, have about one percent.

In addition, the assets of the world’s three richest men exceed the combined gross domestic products of the world’s 48 poorest countries.

The problem is not overpopulation.  The world could easily accommodate billions more.  The problem is greed.  The vast majority of the world’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few.  Now that they have accumulated so much of the wealth, they have decided that they do not need nearly as many slaves serving the system that they have created.

So in the name of fighting “climate change”, these elitists plan to implement measures to address the “overpopulation problem” that they are determined to solve.  As these elitists pursue their sick obsession with population, it will have serious implications for every man, woman and child on earth.  May God have mercy on us all.

Be Sociable, Share!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.


  • Missy

    Awesome article! The facts in this article are great!

  • Rhonda

    In our concern to help those countries poorer than us, let’s please not think that coercisive redistribution of wealth is the answer. Forced sharing results in less desire to work for the giver (because profits are taken) and a sense of entitlement for the receiver. The only way to have a truly harmonious world is for each individual to do what’s right BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT. We are here on this earth to become better people. We become better people through loving, learning, and serving. We become more obsessed with self-preservation when decisions are forced on us. God, not the earth, is the ultimate good.

  • One of said envrionmentalists

    Are you kidding me?

    First off, you say that there’s lots more space for people. 2 points: first of all a lot of the space on this planet is either ocean or marginal land, that people can’t even build on, much less farm. I don’t know exactly what land you think could actually be used for farming, but chances are it can’t be done in any sustainable manner – as it is a lot of the world’s farmland (e.g. most of the american midwest, as well as all the rainforest being cut down in the amazon to clear farmland) is completely unsustainable due to rapid topsoil depletion. Secondly, even if we could feed everyone (at the expense of every other living thing on the planet except the the things we eat), and even if we had infinite resources to just keep building and building, do you actually want to live in a world with billions more people? Take a moment and imagine what that would actually be like. With population doubling every 7 years, how long would it take before the whole planet looked like Soylent Green? Do you really want your children to have to live in that world?

    And let me add, I’m not some academic leftist. Most leftists don’t want to talk about overpopulation because of its implications (i.e. that the 3rd world is the problem, or that it may imply limiting peoples “reproductive rights” – which of course would only piss off the feminists). Obviously you’ve never actually interacted with any of these people. Most of them are far more concerned with human welfare than the welfare of the biosphere – in fact they could care less unless it affects what they perceive as human well-being directly.

    I really have no idea if really there is some new world order trying to reduce overpopulation or not. But frankly, if there is, I can imagine that they would be smart enough to be doing something about overpopulation simply because they would realize it would be a threat to their dominance (the people at the bilderberg conferences or whatever its called now aren’t dumb, anyway). Not because overpopulation and the environmental crisis is a good scare tactic, but because it is a threat that is all too real. Debate the ethics of their methods if you want, but denying that human beings, especially six billion human beings, have a negative impact on the rest of the planet is beyond ludicrous. And frankly, I don’t see you coming up with any better solutions.

    I think people like you just don’t want to believe that human-beings aren’t the apex of creation or the center of the universe. Sorry, but whether you like it or not, its that view that is killing all other life on this planet. You can’t honestly believe that human beings dumping crap in the atmosphere and in the water for 200 years is not going to have an impact? Human beings aren’t a disease (we’re just a species among many), but when there’s far too many of us we sure seem like one, given what we’re doing to the planet.

    And I’m sorry, but the earth for me is the ultimate good, because I happen to live on it, and my children are going to live on it, and I don’t want to see my home become a total hole because of some self-absorbed new agey punks who still think their species is the center of the universe.

    And believe me. those of us, who actually love life and creation will fight with our lives to see it prevail.

  • Dr. Eric Tangumonkem

    Selfishness, greed, ungodliness is what is driving some of these ideas. Who said man is not at the apex of creation? Who said we are just another species? We are more than flesh and blood and made in the image and likeness of God. We can not abandon the Creator and start worshiping the creation He made.
    Nobody is calling for redistribution of wealth, but it is written to him that more is given more is expected and that we have to love our neighbors as our selves. A few individuals have amazed most of the wealth at a great environmental price. Now these same individuals are calling on others to pay the price of having a cleaner earth. How much did it cost for them to have all the billions they now worth? If they loved the earth so much, then give away all the money to those who want to clean the mess.
    What future are we talking about? A future without children? We should stop playing God for we are not.

  • Charles Gross

    The earth, and its resources, are finite. At today’s level of technology and science, and that which is foreseeable in the near term future, the sustainable human population is limited, particularly if one values the higher life forms.

    The core issue is this: are we as a species better off with a steady state world population of 1 GP (gigapersons), featuring large open natural spaces, or 100 GP, featuring mega-cities with large numbers of folks crammed in close proximity to each other, and driving species that get in our way extinct?

    Questions: What is the advantage accrued to homo sapiens to having more than 1 GP? What is the advantage accrued to the elephant (pick your favorite non-human species) to having more than 1 GP?

    Charlie G

  • Luis Zardo

    When people keeps using religions and the will of God, as if they really knew what the will of God is as arguments I can see everything is lost.

    aparently, these same people who think are defending the divine right of man to reproduce and subdue our planet do not have the slightest notion that already fourth of our population IS starving and do not even have drinkable water.

    They do not have the notion that we must protect biodiversity which is threatened by our expansion not just because its beautiful, but ultimately because we as a species depends on these other species in order to survive.

    and, again, they never give any solution or proof that there´s no problem, against every evidence is provided all they do is to just dismiss the problem

  • Fighting facts
  • matthew whittaker

    You know what I didn’t even read the entire article for one simple reason well a question. What are you for? War, starvation, poverty and generally the subjegation of the vast majority of our species so we can sit on the top (I am not rich) OR population control. It is simply one or the other, REALLY. I study Environmental Sciences and Politics. I spend half my time being told how we are F-CK-D and the other half of the time being told how there is nothing we can do about it due to generally an uneducated (in the realities of the world) population living in a democratic system where purchasing power measures your worth and unfettered capitalism pervails.

    Dont get me wrong I’m not suggesting a cull. I’d like to see ioverpopulation adressed in an organised humane way but if not then let the new world order do what they like.

    As much as I hate the oligarchy that in reality runs the world, I’d rather they were in charge and deal with population than we continue the way we are and wait for a virus or world war three to deal with the problem that is overpopulation.

    Just because something doesn’t fit your world view or moral compass doesnt meen its not an issue. I appretiate most of the points and comments posted above but Dr. Eric Tangumonkem get real. If god existed would he be OK with the elimination of 99.99999999999% of his creation (and probably us too if we carry on this way). Even the bible states we are stewards and right now we are acting like butchers and yes we (I meen all of us, you me everybody, predominantly in the west) are responsible!

    I would happilly defend my stance to anybody. Feal free to show me where im going wrong and enter into constructive debate. Stating your wrong or its all OK does not make it so. Oh and for religiouse people I use logic and rationality if thats too much for you sorry but thats how you find answers not through myth and superstition at best.

    I am an atheist but am exceptionally moral because I view myself as human rather than this or that. All man is my neighbour and I would like to be able to treat them as such but the systems we live in do not allow this. Everything we live in is a human construct and we can change it. I think most of us are aware we need to! Any constructive suggestions or intelligent debate would be more than happilly received :)

  • Pingback: Anonymous()

  • Pingback: Shuffling the deck for the end game | A CROOKED PATH()

  • Grady Becker

    Thank you. I am doing an TED talk about this stuff that you guys have and i have used all of this in my TED talk but the say I need more to it but I sad that it was a lot of information and they said you need at least a page and a have and I only have a page and I cant find anything else.

    So thank you guys again for the help.

  • Pingback: What do you think about this video: how to die? | NOURISHING NATION()

  • Pingback: Population Control Agenda Of The Radical Humanists Would Love For You And I To Die - ALIPAC()

  • Pingback: The Population Control Agenda Of The Radical Humanists Who Would Love For You And I To Die « Endtime News With Prophecy In Mind()

  • Pingback: The Population Control Agenda Of The Radical Humanists Who Would Love For You And I To Die « A Truth Soldier()

  • Pingback: The Population Control Agenda Of The Radical Humanists Who Would Love For You And I To Die – The Final Transmission()

  • Pingback: Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch | Sovereign Independent UK()

  • L Carol Auten

    What jobs are left for the 50% of worlds population than have below average abilities? One thing I hope the oligarchs can do is reduce the worlds population by attrition. I am 70 years old and have seen population more than double. There is a HUGE difference in freedoms left. More people less freedom, national land is already in grave danger, nature in crisis. I can’t understand why some feel the earth belongs to homo sapiens.

Hi I am Michael160 ABOUT ME160 Follow Me On facebook160 Follow Me On twitter

Micheals Book