Less people means more oxygen: Population reduction is becoming a “holy cause” and a “mythical“ fight against CO2 emissions

A recent article in Scientific American entitled “Population reduction will change the world for the better” attracted attention with its frank headline. Although there is nothing shockingly new in its content for those who, without any conspiracy theories, simply follow the latest ideological trends.

As author Stephanie Feldstein writes, “Population decline will ease the pressure that nine billion people are putting on our planet. As Director of Population and Sustainability at the Center for Biodiversity, I see the devastating impact our growing presence is having on ecosystems.”

The more people, the more rare animal species die out, the worse it is for the planet, and in general, according to the author, “we should stop considering demography and ecology as two separate areas.”

Decreasing fertility will reduce carbon emissions and increase equity.

Responding to those who fear slowdowns in economic growth due to population decline, she writes that we should “heed the warning signs that the planet is being pushed to its limits, put the brakes on the ecological catastrophe, and choose a different way of defining prosperity based on equity.” and conservation of the natural world.”

In general, there should be fewer people, and a decrease in the rate of natural growth can only be warmly welcomed. Less people means more oxygen. This thesis is behind what from the outside may seem to us pure madness, and which in recent years has become an almost obligatory roadmap.

There is a famous saying by William Shakespeare: “All madness has its own logic.” And another famous author, G. K. Chesterton, wrote that “the usual opinion about madness is deceptive: a person does not lose logic at all; he loses everything but logic.” Within the framework of a delusional picture of the world, the actions of a madman are absolutely logical and consistent. It seems to us that people are pouring monstrous money into promoting the agenda because they are demented, but this is because we do not understand what they are afraid of and what they want to achieve.

The article in Scientific American explains in plain text – depopulation. This is not news, they have been talking about it for a long time, but, as it were, in the background. The ideology of the richest and most influential people on the planet is the ideology of anti-natalism, fundamental hostility to childbearing.

It proceeds from the fact that global warming is undoubtedly caused by people, and as the world’s population grows, the situation will rapidly worsen.

The famous media mogul, founder of CNN Ted Turner, for example, paints the future in the darkest colors. Population growth (if left unchecked) will lead to “disastrous consequences: the average temperature in the world will rise by 8-9 degrees in 30-40 years, no crops will grow, most people will die (except for those who resort to cannibalism). Civilization will collapse. The few survivors will live in crumbling states like Somalia. Living conditions will be unbearable. The droughts will be so bad that no crops will grow. We must stabilize the population. Population growth threatens humanity as suicidal as thermonuclear war.”

Back in 2009, the richest people on the planet, such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller and the already mentioned Ted Turner, formed the so-called “Kind Club” in order to somehow respond to the challenges facing humanity. In particular, on the alleged overpopulation.

The gloomy outlook for the planet justifies the most drastic measures to reduce the birth rate – and measures are being taken.

There’s nothing secret about it, it’s not a conspiracy. It cannot be said that this is especially advertised, but everything is in open now.

It is from here that the roots of mass ideology grow, which considers children evil, motherhood a criminal irresponsibility, and fruitless perversions worthy of all support and promotion.

Within the framework of this ideology, people who announced a sex change and performed the corresponding operation are not poor patients, but heroes and good fellows who save the planet from future generations. Those who left the natural use of the female sex, maybe not so heroes, but also great, have the right to be proud. But the traditional family – a man, a woman and (a nightmare!) children – is evil and a stronghold of all kinds of oppression and phobias.

Mass migration, of course, inevitably enters the program: someone will have to feed the aging population of developed countries. It is assumed, however, that other cultures will gradually accept the ideals of anti-natalism, and the earth will be saved from the terrible fate that Turner and his colleagues foresee.

The promotion of this program is accompanied by talk of personal rights, of empathy for people who suffer injustice and resentment because of their harmless personal preferences. But these people are more of a means than an end.

Of course, from the outside looking in, the dire prophecies of Turner (and Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , etc.) look like a continuation of a long series of failed demographic doomsday predictions. A terrible famine on the basis of overpopulation was promised by the British scientist Thomas Robert Malthus, who published his “Experience on the Law of Population” in 1798.

The second thing worth noting is that the anti-natalism movement is bearing fruit in developed countries, where the birth rate is already low. In those cultures where it is high, its preachers are met with extremely unfriendly. The fighters against overpopulation are trying to fill the flood and warm the fire and preach fundamental childlessness to those who are already prone to extinction.

Therefore, we should stick to traditional common sense: the family is the most important thing in the world, and motherhood is worthy of the highest honor and all possible support.