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.