<\/p>\n
READ HERE: There is a clear consensus among the global elite that overpopulation is the primary cause of the most important problems that our world is facing today. \u00a0Many of them are completely convinced that humans are literally a \u201cplague\u201d upon the Earth and that extreme measures are required to prevent us from destroying the entire planet. \u00a0To the elite, everything from global warming to our growing economic problems can be directly traced back to a lack of population control.\u00a0 They warn that if nothing is done about our exploding population, humanity will be facing a future full of poverty, war and suffering on a filthy, desolate planet.\u00a0 They complain that it \u201ccosts too much\u201d to keep elderly patients that are terminally ill alive, and they eagerly promote \u201cfamily planning\u201d in developing nations as a way to combat population growth. \u00a0Of course just about anything that reduces the human population in any way is a positive thing for those that believe in this philosophy.\u00a0 This very twisted philosophy is being promoted in our movies, in our television shows, in our music, in countless books, on many of our most prominent websites, and it is being taught at top colleges and universities all over the world.\u00a0 The people that are promoting this philosophy have very, very deep pockets, and they are actually convinced that they are helping to \u201csave the world\u201d by controlling the growth of the human population.\u00a0 In fact, many of them truly believe that they are engaged in a \u201clife or death\u201d struggle for the fate of the planet.<\/p>\n
The population of the world is currently sitting just above 8 billion, and the UN expects it to peak\u00a0at 10.3 billion<\/a>\u00a0later this century\u2026<\/p>\n The world\u2019s population is expected to grow by more than 2 billion people in the next decades and peak in the 2080s at around 10.3 billion, a major shift from a decade ago, a new report by the United Nations said Thursday.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From the time of Charles Darwin all the way to today, we have been relentlessly warned about what would happen if something was not done to reduce population growth.<\/p>\n Of course the dire consequences that we were warned about have never actually come to fruition.<\/p>\n But that hasn\u2019t stopped the elite from continuing to issue even more warnings.<\/p>\n The following are 47 shocking population control quotes from the global elite that will make you want to lose your lunch\u2026<\/p>\n 1.<\/strong>\u00a0Charles Darwin<\/a>: \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<\/p>\n 2.<\/strong>\u00a0Bill Gates<\/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<\/p>\n 3.<\/strong>\u00a0John D. Rockefeller<\/a>: \u201cThe population problem must be recognized by government as a principal element in long-range planning.\u201d<\/p>\n 4.<\/strong>\u00a0David Rockefeller<\/a>: \u201cThe negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.\u201d<\/p>\n 5.<\/strong>\u00a0Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger<\/a>: \u201cAll of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class\u201d<\/p>\n 6.<\/strong>\u00a0CNN Founder Ted Turner<\/a>: \u201cA total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.\u201d<\/p>\n 7.<\/strong>\u00a0HBO personality Bill Maher<\/a>: \u201cI\u2019m pro-choice, I\u2019m for assisted suicide, I\u2019m for regular suicide, I\u2019m for whatever gets the freeway moving\u2014that\u2019s what I\u2019m for. . . . It\u2019s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.\u201d<\/p>\n 8.<\/strong>\u00a0UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough<\/a>: \u201cWe are a plague on the Earth. It\u2019s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It\u2019s not just climate change; it\u2019s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now\u201d<\/p>\n 9.<\/strong>\u00a0Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson<\/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<\/p>\n 10.<\/strong>\u00a0Dave Foreman<\/a>, Earth First Co-Founder:\u00a0\u201c<\/span>My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it\u2019s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 11.<\/strong>\u00a0Paul Ehrlich<\/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<\/p>\n 12.<\/strong>\u00a0Richard Branson<\/a>: \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<\/p>\n 13.<\/strong>\u00a0Environmental activist Roger Martin<\/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<\/p>\n 14.<\/strong>\u00a0Al Gore<\/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<\/p>\n 15.<\/strong>\u00a0MIT professor Penny Chisholm<\/a>: \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<\/p>\n 16.<\/strong>\u00a0Julia Whitty<\/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<\/p>\n 17.<\/strong>\u00a0Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro<\/a>\u00a0in 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 18.<\/strong>\u00a0Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka<\/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\u00a0and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate,<\/sup>\u00a0flourishing 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<\/p>\n 19.<\/strong>\u00a0Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General from 1997-2006<\/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<\/p>\n 20.<\/strong>\u00a0Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UN Under-Secretary-General from 2000-2010<\/a>: \u201cWe cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.\u201d<\/p>\n 21.<\/strong>\u00a0Bill Nye<\/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<\/p>\n 22.<\/strong>\u00a0Actress Cameron Diaz<\/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<\/p>\n 23.<\/strong>\u00a0Democrat strategist Steven Rattner<\/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<\/p>\n 24.<\/strong>\u00a0Matthew Yglesias<\/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<\/p>\n 25.<\/strong>\u00a0Stephen Hawking<\/a>: \u201cIn the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9 per cent per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder.\u201d<\/p>\n 26.<\/strong>\u00a0Gloria Steinem<\/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<\/p>\n 27.<\/strong>\u00a0Jane Goodall<\/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<\/p>\n 28.<\/strong>\u00a0U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg<\/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<\/p>\n 29.<\/strong>\u00a0Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger<\/a>: \u201cThe most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.\u201d<\/p>\n 30.<\/strong>\u00a0Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams<\/a>\u00a0in 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<\/p>\n 31.<\/strong>\u00a0Paul Ehrlich<\/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<\/p>\n 32.<\/strong>\u00a0Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne<\/a>\u00a0in 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. 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<\/p>\n 33.<\/strong>\u00a0Nina Fedoroff<\/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<\/p>\n 34.<\/strong>\u00a0Barack Obama\u2019s primary science adviser,\u00a0John Holdren<\/a>: \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<\/p>\n 35.<\/strong>\u00a0Another quote from\u00a0John Holdren<\/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<\/p>\n 36.<\/strong>\u00a0David Brower<\/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<\/p>\n 37.<\/strong>\u00a0Maurice Strong<\/a>: \u201cEither we reduce the world\u2019s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.\u201d<\/p>\n 38.<\/strong>\u00a0Thomas Ferguson<\/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<\/p>\n 39.<\/strong>\u00a0Mikhail Gorbachev<\/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<\/p>\n 40.<\/strong>\u00a0Jacques Costeau<\/a>: \u201cIn order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.\u201d<\/p>\n 41.<\/strong>\u00a0Finnish environmentalist\u00a0Pentti Linkola<\/a>: \u201cIf there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die\u201d<\/p>\n 42.<\/strong>\u00a0Author Dan Brown<\/a>: \u201cOverpopulation is an issue so profound that all of us need to ask what should be done.\u201d<\/p>\n 43.<\/strong>\u00a0Prince Phillip<\/a>, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: \u201cIn the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.\u201d<\/p>\n 44.<\/strong>\u00a0Ashley Judd<\/a>: \u201cIt\u2019s unconscionable to breed, with the number of children who are starving to death in impoverished countries.\u201d<\/p>\n 45.<\/strong>\u00a0John Guillebaud<\/a>, professor of family planning at University College London: \u201cThe effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n 46.<\/strong>\u00a0Bill Gates<\/a>: \u201cThe world today has 6.8 billion people.\u202fThat\u2019s\u202fheaded up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.\u201d<\/p>\n