Oxford Professor Sarah Harper, who Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies of the World Economic Forum (WEF), claims the declines in fertility and the prospect of a population collapse is “good for the planet.”
Once a “right-wing conspiracy,” de-population is now being acknowledged by news outlets like The Telegraph.
Prof Harper told the Telegraph:
“I think it’s a good thing that the high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are reducing the number of children that they’re having. I’m quite positive about that.”
The WEF professor said declining fertility would help to address the “general overconsumption that we have at the moment,” which she claims has a negative impact on the planet.
The WEF advisor also points out that a population collapse as a result in declines in births will bring about reductions in CO2 emissions.
Great, so we can all relax then?
According to research, wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon footprints than poorer countries because they can buy more goods, travel, and do other activities that generate emissions.
World Bank figures show that carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger than low-income countries.
Igor Chudov from The Daily Sceptic has some very valid questions about the WEF goals:
Here’s the strange part: If the leadership of the World Economic Forum wanted to reduce emissions from wealthy countries, I could understand how they would hope that population reductions would lead to a decline in economic output. Aside from moral implications, it is simple math that fewer people means fewer cars on the road, less food consumed, and so on.
However, something entirely different is going on! While the population of local-born natives is no longer reproducing at the levels needed to maintain the population, new immigration picks up. It accounts for a larger and larger share of births!
While the number of births in Britain is declining, the share of children born to parents who immigrated from outside Britain has hit a record high.
Almost one in three children born last year were delivered by mothers born outside of the U.K. The number of births by women born outside the U.K. rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3% of all births. The previous peak was 29.3% in 2020.
When including the father, more than one in three children born last year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the figure was two-thirds.
This development is inconsistent with wanting to reduce the populations of high-consumption countries. It seems self-defeating to celebrate birth reductions while simultaneously amping up the arrivals of new immigrants who work hard to live well, consume a lot, have many children, and realize the ‘British dream.’
Please do not interpret me pointing out the above inconsistency as my hostility towards immigrants: I immigrated to the United States, worked hard to have a good life, and am blessed with a beautiful family and two grown children. I am immensely thankful for the opportunity to live in this wonderful land of the free – and I am sure that most other immigrants want to live well and work hard, just as I did.
However, even though I am equally sympathetic towards immigrants, just as I am towards the natives, I cannot shake the feeling that Prof Harper and the WEF have an inconsistency between stated goals and actions that I cannot explain easily.
This inconsistency is not something I can quite understand: New immigrants want to consume just as much as native residents. Why encourage immigration from poor countries to rich countries if the goal is a reduction of carbon and other emissions that would occur due to declines in the population of rich countries?
In June, U.S. special climate envoy John Kerry declared that 10 billion humans on the planet is “unsustainable.”
The global population hit eight billion people in November 2022, three times the figure recorded in 1950.
According to U.N. projections, the current figure is set to hit 9.7 billion humans on the planet by the middle of the century.
However, John Kerry expressed fears about the current population growth, outlining his plans to the AFP.
“I don’t think it’s sustainable, personally,” Kerry said.
“We need to figure out how we’re going to deal with the issue of sustainability and the numbers of people we’re trying to take care of on the planet,” he added.
WATCH: Kamala Harris Slips Up on Goal of Climate Change Agenda: “Reduce Population”
The decline in population growth needs to happen in third world countries; the “high-consuming” countries – which have “high-providing” resources – have already cut family size dramatically. It is the world’s poor who have garbage in their front yards, unsanitary ‘plumbing’, poorly constructed/ insulated homes, and no resources to address the pollution issues; those countries are incapable of providing for themselves. If “high-consuming” countries stopped all assistance to “low consuming” countries, world population would plummet from starvation, disease, and war.
That’s not what they want. They can control those populations and of necessary do it through mass murder. It is the developed countries, primarily the United States that will violently fight back against any such programs. That is the primary goal of “gun control”, to prevent citizens from fighting back.
In other words, the third world is living like all of humanity throughout history, prior to Western Civilization and capitalism.
As far as I’m concerned, Ms Harper, J. Kerry and the other fascists on the WEF should all off themselves to set a good example for the rest of us. They’re at the top of the heap when it comes to the good life and and have reached their quota of emissions generated on their behalf. Ending their private jet flights alone will serve to buy carbon credits for the poor who are just trying to find enough sticks to B**n to stay warm and fed.
Let’s get all the WEF people to go first then to see if they are committed to their goals
Population Collapse is “Good for the Planet” OK Let’s start with you. WEF is a joke unfortunately a serious one. i know you think your Gods but your not.
Mars has Zero humans. Therefore it must be a Great planet..!
Tell us Leftists, how many people on earth is the Correct Amount..?
We can start with her.
Population Collapse is “Good for the Planet”… and Democrats.
Dead communists are good for the planet
John Kerrys gotta go. He’s old and emits a astronomical amount of co2. john, if you care about our planet, u need to euthenize urself.
The answer to population growth is to make all third world countries wealthy. They will then naturally lower their birth rates.
The Progressive agenda of high priced energy and food will instead mire the third world in poverty and reduce the middle and lower classes of the industrial world to poverty. That will increase birth rates.
Not that the global elites giver a rat’s backside. They’ve got theirs.