For true believers in the cause, there would be no faster way of turning this crisis around than to radically reduce the population of the planet.\u00a0 According to them, every one of us has \u201ca carbon footprint\u201d, and as the population grows the climate change crisis only gets worse.\u00a0 So a logical extension of this thinking would be that anyone that can find a way to significantly reduce the global population would literally be \u201csaving the planet\u201d.\u00a0 To you and I, the idea of millions or billions of people dying is absolutely horrific, but for those that have fully embraced the climate change narrative such an outcome would be extremely desirable.<\/span><\/p>\nAnd of course population control has been an obsession among the global elite for a very long time.\u00a0 Way before \u201cglobal warming\u201d and \u201cclimate change\u201d were popularized, those at the top end of the social pyramid have been dreaming of dramatically culling the herd.<\/span><\/p>\nTo demonstrate this, I would like to share with you 45 quotes that prove the elite really do want to dramatically reduce the number of people on the planet\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Charles Darwin<\/strong><\/span><\/a> (his thinking is at the foundation of so many of our scientific theories today): \u201cAt some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Bill Gates<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cThe problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it\u2019s in the very poorest places that you\u2019re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. (\u2026) And we\u2019ve got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don\u2019t have an impossible situation later.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Bernie Sanders<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cIn poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cThe primary challenge facing our species is the reproduction of our species itself\u2026It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet\u2026All the evidence shows that we can help reduce population growth, and world poverty, by promoting literacy and female emancipation and access to birth control.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cThe human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Paul Ehrlich<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of \u201cThe Population Bomb\u201d: \u201cSolving the population problem is not going to solve the problems of racism\u2026 of sexism\u2026 of religious intolerance\u2026 of war\u2026 of gross economic inequality. But if you don\u2019t solve the population problem, you\u2019re not going to solve any of those problems. Whatever problem you\u2019re interested in, you\u2019re not going to solve it unless you also solve the population problem.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Dave Foreman<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, the co-founder of Earth First: \u201cWe humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- CNN Founder Ted Turner<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cA total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Japan\u2019s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso<\/strong><\/span>:<\/a> about medical patients with serious illnesses: \u201cYou cannot sleep well when you think it\u2019s all paid by the government. This won\u2019t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- David Rockefeller<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cThe negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Richard Branson<\/a><\/strong><\/span>: \u201cThe truth is this: the Earth cannot provide enough food and fresh water for 10 billion people, never mind homes, never mind roads, hospitals and schools.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Environmental activist Roger Martin<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cOn a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- HBO personality Bill Maher<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cI\u2019m pro-choice, I\u2019m for assisted suicide, I\u2019m for regular suicide, I\u2019m for whatever gets the freeway moving \u2013 that\u2019s what I\u2019m for. It\u2019s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Al Gore<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cOne of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children\u2026 You have to educate girls and empower women. And that\u2019s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- MIT professor Penny Chisholm<\/strong><\/span><\/a>:\u00a0\u201cThe real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Julia Whitty<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, a columnist for Mother Jones: \u201cThe only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it\u2019s decelerating now and eventually reverse it\u2014at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet\u2019s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we\u2019ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today\u2014an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro<\/strong><\/span><\/a> in a paper entitled \u201cClimate Ethics and Population Policy\u201d: \u201cEnding human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.\u201c<\/em><\/span><\/li>\n
- Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin\u00a0Eric R. Pianka<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cI have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and viruses<\/strong><\/span><\/a> (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don\u2019t want to hear it.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General from 1997-2006<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cThe idea that population growth guarantees a better life \u2014 financially or otherwise \u2014 is a myth that only those who sell nappies, prams and the like have any right to believe.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UN Under-Secretary-General from 2000-2010<\/strong><\/span><\/a>:\u00a0\u201cWe cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Bill Nye<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cIn 1750, there were about a billion humans in the world. Now, there are well over seven billion people in the world. It more than doubled in my lifetime. So all these people trying to live the way we live in the developed world is filling the atmosphere with a great deal more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than existed a couple of centuries ago. It\u2019s the speed at which it is changing that is going to be troublesome for so many large populations of humans around the world.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Actress Cameron Diaz<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cI think women are afraid to say that they don\u2019t want children because they\u2019re going to get shunned. But I think that\u2019s changing too now. I have more girlfriends who don\u2019t have kids than those that do. And, honestly? We don\u2019t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Democrat strategist Steven Rattner<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cWE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently \u2014 rationing, by its proper name \u2014 the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Matthew Yglesias<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled \u201cThe Case for Death Panels, in One Chart\u201d: \u201cBut not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cAll of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Gloria Steinem<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cEverybody with a womb doesn\u2019t have to have a child any more than everybody with vocal chords has to be an opera singer.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Jane Goodall<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cIt\u2019s our population growth that underlies just about every single one of the problems that we\u2019ve inflicted on the planet. If there were just a few of us, then the nasty things we do wouldn\u2019t really matter and Mother Nature would take care of it \u2014 but there are so many of us.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cFrankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don\u2019t want to have too many of.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cThe most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams<\/strong><\/span><\/a> in an article entitled \u201cSo What If Abortion Ends Life?\u201d: \u201cAll life is not equal. That\u2019s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Paul Ehrlich<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cBasically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a \u2018birth rate solution,\u2019 in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a \u2018death rate solution,\u2019 in which ways to raise the death rate \u2014 war, famine, pestilence \u2014 find us.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne<\/strong><\/span><\/a> in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: \u201c[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. \u2026 [W]e propose to call this practice \u2018after-birth abortion\u2019, rather than \u2018infanticide,\u2019 to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus \u2026 rather than to that of a child.\u00a0 Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Nina Fedoroff<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: \u201cWe need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can\u2019t support many more people.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Barack Obama\u2019s primary science adviser, John Holdren<\/a><\/strong><\/span>: \u201cA 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.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Another quote from John Holdren<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cIf population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- David Brower<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: \u201cChildbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license \u2026 All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Maurice Strong<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cEither we reduce the world\u2019s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Thomas Ferguson<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: \u201cThere is a single theme behind all our work\u2013we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
- Mikhail Gorbachev<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cWe must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren\u2019t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/population_control.jpg\")
<\/a>At one time, the elite at least attempted to conceal their boundless enthusiasm for population control from the general public, but now they aren\u2019t even trying to hide it anymore.\u00a0 On Tuesday, an alarming new study<\/a><\/strong><\/span> that advocates global population control as one of the solutions to the \u201cclimate emergency\u201d that we are facing was published in the journal BioScience.\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0This document has already been signed by 11,258 scientists from 153 different countries, and it openly calls for a reduction in the human population of our planet.\u00a0 This has always been the endgame for the climate change cult, but now a big push is being made to make the public believe that there is a \u201cscientific consensus\u201d that this is necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n