prepareforchange--2019-08-04--What is the State of the Global Depopulation Program

What is the State of the Global Depopulation Program?

After the end of World War II, a covert plan to cull the world’s population was put into action. This plan intends to vastly reduce the number of humans on Earth down to as few as 500,000 people.  Throughout the last 15 years, we’ve learned about the global depopulation program. This program was established in the 1940s in an effort to get rid of as many people as possible. The reason for wanting to depopulate the Earth is not yet clear, but there is consensus among well-informed researchers that we are indeed being killed softly and without notice. While many researchers believe the elite’s decision was based on their assessment of future overcrowding and how this would endanger ourselves and the planet, equally in-depth independently gathered information points to a desire to use humanity as a commodity that could later be disposed of.  Since the depopulation program is widely known, one question that should concern us all is, what is the state of this program as we have entered the second decade of the 21st century?  The answer to this questions is that the depopulation program is running in very advanced stages. The West, led by the United States, has implemented a series of policies with the sole intent to drastically reducing human numbers in an attempt to curb what many believe is an out of control population growth. The fact that reproduction rates are out of control is still also debatable, but researchers are now giving more attention to educating the masses about the reality of global depopulation so that they can take matters into their own hands.  In a recent interview with Kevin Galalae, an author and historian who often contributes to this publication, he provided some insight about the progression of the global depopulation program. Mr. Galalae, who has been writing a series of articles on the topic for The Real Agenda News, has alerted us that the policies that govern the plan to reduce human numbers on Earth are progressing rapidly. According to him, the elite are using methods that are more and more invasive because the previous ones they adopted are no longer keeping up with their expectations. Mr. Galalae, believes that the elite understood overpopulation as a time bomb and decided to secretly get rid of us, as supposed to educate us about the urgent need to consciously keep our numbers under control.  The latest addition to the global depopulation program is planetary geo-engineering also known as climatic geo-engineering. This tool, originally begun to be used in the 1940s as a way to wage weather warfare. However, not too long after, governments realized that controlling the weather would be synonymous of controlling their enemies. Today, humanity is the main enemy of the elite, it has always been. We are all that stands between them and their goal of getting human numbers to as little as 500 million people.  While discussing about depopulation efforts conducted by the elite, I realized that perhaps the elite had miscalculated. Perhaps humanity has overcome their lies to learn the truth. So I decided to ask Mr. Galalae about the progress of their agenda.  Luis Miranda: According to your best knowledge, 68 years ago or so, the elite attempted to reduce human population by secretly using chemical and biological weapons. They projected that this plan would reduce population considerably.  By how much?  Kevin Galalae: At first, in the early fifties, the objective was to merely halt population growth and to do so they focused entirely on undermining human fertility to reduce the total fertility rate (TFR) of every country to replacement level.  The implications of this move were not foreseen.  It was not realized that this would set in motion a demographic transition that will result in population profiles characterized by inverted pyramids and therefore the burden the old would place on the productive members of society would become unbearable and collapse the social systems of developed countries, eating away at the affluence gained by previous generations. They did not realize that once you start engineering small families you end up having to kill the old before they bankrupt society. They did not realize the mindboggling economic, social, cultural, political, ethical, moral, and medical ramifications of interfering with the human reproductive system.  No one knew where it would all lead.  No one could foresee.  Luis Miranda: If the depopulation program has not had the results that the elite expected, when will it reach that point?  Kevin Galalae: There were no timetables at first. There was no long-term plan that glimpsed decades into the future. The knowledge for such a plan and the foresight, as well as the statistical data and computing power that enabled long-term projections were non-existent. At its inception and until the 1970s the international community led by the US and the USSR was merely engaged in a desperate attempt to deal with the devastating aftermath of World War II and to prevent a repeat of history, which would now end in assured mutual annihilation due to thedevelopment of nuclear weapons.  Until the Nixon administration the population control timetable has always been dictated by the need to stay ahead of the always impending famine and resource scarcity and to do so they realized they would have to globalize the economy to facilitate the transfer of goods and services across national frontiers so as to better respond to crises situations and to better spread the benefits of development.  That is when globalization began.  And that is when an aggressive depopulation program became inevitable.  Why?  Because once they crunched the numbers it became clear as daylight that the planet could only support at most one billion people at the standard of living North Americans had become accustomed to and America always insisted on protecting its way of life, as have all other affluent countries and people throughout history.  To this day, the optimal number of people the earth can support remains a political decision that is yet to be made and that is being and will continue to be dictated by the lifestyle we want to have as a species.  Peaceful coexistence dictates that to avoid armed conflict we must share the wealth globally without distinction of race or nationality or religion.  Globalization enables us to share the earth’s resources without prejudice and to attain global prosperity.  It forces us to move in tandem and in peace towards an affluent global civilization.  But to achieve this goal we have no choice but to arrest and reverse our numbers.  How many human beings will live on the planet will be dictated by how well we want to live, by how many resources we want to have at our disposal per capita, and on how much the earth can give us without destabilizing its ecosystems.  With the current technology, my estimate is that the earth cannot sustain more than one billion people.  Luis Miranda: How successful has the plan been? Are the efforts keeping up with the rate of reproduction? In other words, if the plan is kept up, will human population peak at 9 billion in 2040? If not, will it peak in 2050 or 2060?  Kevin Galalae: It has been an uphill battle, the greatest battle humanity has ever engaged in, as we have taken on the mightiest natural enemies, the urge to procreate and the instinct to survive.  Every target set in the past to lower the TFR of all countries on earth has been missed.  To this day, many countries have yet to get there, India being the most populous on this list.  The chemical, biological, psychosocial and economic methods, both covert and overt, employed thus far have been only partially successful.  That is why GMOs have been developed.  GMOs represent the last straw, the last hope of the international community to halt and reverse human population covertly.  Judging by the global resistance against GMOs and by the fact that I have exposed the Global Depopulation Policy, the plan will not succeed. That is why policy makers and world leaders need to show courage and stand united in front of the world to announce and implement a global and universal one-child policy for the next three generations or until our numbers are sufficiently low to reestablish balance with nature. Absent such leadership to bring the depopulation effort into the open we are facing disaster and global conflict.  Luis Miranda: Why do you consider citing this projection made by the elite as a fallacy? Is it because it won’t happen or because people use it as if it will be the result of affluence and development?  Kevin Galalae: The latter.  What is a fallacy is the notion that low fertility rates and small families are the natural result of development and affluence.  This is a myth that was created to hide the fact that low fertility rates and small families are the result of covert population control methods: fluoride, BPA, vaccines, HIV/AIDS, artificial scarcity caused by deliberate economic manipulation, eugenic laws, and a battery of psychosocial methods designed to undermine the family.  Overpopulation deniers, however, use this myth to demonstrate that there is no need for population control because the global population is stabilizing on its own at 9 billion.  Overpopulation deniers do not realize that the reason the population will stabilize at 9 billion is because the international community employs a battery of covert methods to undermine human fertility and the family unit and that they have done so in strict secrecy since 1945.  The international community (UN, WHO, IMF, WB, etc.) and the military-industrial complex (especially that of the US, UK and Russia) – the brain and the arm of the globalization/depopulation policy – who have been in control of the secret depopulation program, are prevented from setting overpopulation denies straight by the continuing need to keep the myth alive, a myth which they have created to conceal the truth.  Luis Miranda: Many well-informed people who cite the figure of 9 billion are aware of the elite’s plan to exterminate many of us. They reference the data because they have read it in globalist white papers, speeches, etc.  Kevin Galalae: The data in globalist white papers is attributed to affluence/development so as to hide the true reason of low fertility rates, which are the covert methods I describe in my books and articles.  The need to proceed in secret with depopulation measures has begot deception to bypass democratic processes and the rule of law.  Government and the international community now exist primarily to hide the truth and break the law for that is the only way they can eliminate the vast majority of genetic lines alive today.  Luis Miranda: Knowledgeable people also cite the population peak of 9 billion to make people aware that despite the fact that the elite has planned to exterminate many of us and that the elite’s projection was to have a stable population by 2040, they still continue advancing stronger measures of depopulation.  Kevin Galalae: The reason they advance ever stronger methods of depopulation is because the methods they have employed so far have not been sufficient to reach the desperate goals previously set, goals that have only become more desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measure.   Now we are in do or die time. We no longer have a buffer time, which is why they are going for broke; hence the chemtrails, the GMOs and, soon, pandemic-causing viruses.  Luis Miranda: Could we say that these well informed people have failed to explain to the public that the elite are using more aggressive measures because their initial projection is not going to come to fruition?  Kevin Galalae: Yes, this is indeed the case.  In addition, the environmental impact has become critical.  Also critical are the social and economic strains, due to overcrowding and the need to share the same economic pie with an ever growing number of people, which means that each individual pie is shrinking from year to year, have compelled the authorities to unleash a new generation of population control methods; methods that are far more effective and far less subtle and that can only be forced on us by a police state and police state controls.  They do this not because they like or want tyranny but because we are facing collapse.  They reckon that a pre-emptive strike will prevent chaos.  They reckon that controlled population annihilation is preferable to the global disintegration of civilization into mayhem, which is what will happen if nothing is done.  And while they are right that doing something, however brutal, is better than doing nothing; they are wrong in choosing to go over our heads and against our will and at our cost only.  Humankind is better and smarter than they give us credit for.  We are capable of taking control of the depopulation effort.  We can do it legally and openly with the cooperation of the vast majority of people on earth, which will make the depopulation effort humane and far more effective and will preserve and strengthen the best traits of human nature, as well as our dignity, the intellectual and genetic endowment of humanity, and our rights and freedoms.  The OM Principles show how to protect our children, our planet, our dignity, and our humanity while at the same time accomplishing the hard targets imposed by the existential threats we face.  What stands in the way of the alternative I provide is a crisis of leadership at the top and a crisis of participation at the bottom.  What stands in the way is a general crisis of conscience.  Once people understood that there was a real effort going on to drastically reduce population numbers, they had to cope with the latest weapon used by the elite to carry out mass depopulation. The Global Climate Geo-engineering Program that is being carried out by the elite is perhaps the most effective of all tools they have ever employed. Why? Because different from vaccines, GMOs and other methods used before, spraying the skies with toxic chemicals so people are sistematically poisoned, is something no one can escape from. We all need to breath, don’t we?  One man who has been in the search for answers about Global Climate Geo-engineering for at least two decades is Dane Wigington. Mr. Wigington is well-known in the alternative media movement for his in-depth presentations about what many people call ‘chemtrails’ or chemical trails, which in reality are a form of geo-engineering. The elite has been in the business -there are patents and people are making money of it- for decades and they are not about to stop spraying the skies with their heavy metals just because we’ve found out. For over 70 years, planetary geo-engineering has gone from being a dream of the elite to becoming a reality. The problem is that it has cost humanity more than anyone believed.  According to Mr. Wigington’s research, climate geo-engineering has caused and continues to cause climate related disruptions, many of which are intended to bring down whole nations or at times certain areas of the planet. Global Climate Geo-engineering is responsible for extreme drought, ozone depletion, excessive methane release, drastic reduction in arctic sea ice, global oxygen content reductions, oceans on the brink of collapse, massive fish die offs, the extinction of at least 200 different species a day, a drastic rise in Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Dementia, the reduction of forests worldwide, the sterilization of soils, making it impossible for plants to grow without Monsanto’s aluminum resistant seeds, and yes global warming.  Mr. Wigington backs up his statements with solid data obtained from NOAA, NASA, patent documentation, which can be found on his website geoengineeringwatch.org. “The debate over whether geo-engineering programs are going on is now a moot point. We have more than enough data to confirm it. We have actual footage showing tankers spraying. The materials showing up on the ground are exactly the same materials mentioned in the numerous geo-engineering patents and documents,” says Wigington.  “Our atmosphere is nothing but a massive physics lab to geo-engineering scientists who have no concern whatsoever about the consequences to humanity or any living thing, including themselves. The experiments are literally tearing the planet apart and destroying life on earth.” Mr. Wigington recently explained in a conference in California that there is no such a thing as natural weather anymore. The elite behind the depopulation program are now capable of keeping large areas of the planet in drought while drowning the land across the continent by making it rain uncontrollably.  Climate Engineering Weather Warfare, and the Collapse of Civilization  The government’s covert use of deadly and dangerous Geo-engineering practices, which supposedly attempt to reduce global warming by artificially modifying the Earth’s climate systems through the reduction of solar radiation and the removal of Carbon Dioxide is seriously threatening life on Earth. That is the conclusion Dane Wigington has come to after conducting deep research into the ways that the chemicals sprayed over us are changing the environment. Along with Mr. Wigington’s research, documentaries such as What in the World are they Spraying and Why in the World are They Spraying have shed even more light into the Global Geo-engineering Program.  These documentaries provide scientific commentary and evidence about the toxic effects of such  programs on human life and the negative impact on eco-systems and weather patterns.  Global geo-engineering programs are literally ripping the atmosphere apart and changing climate patterns more rapidly out of control. Earth’s life support systems is also being decimated. The lethally toxic fallout from these same programs is poisoning every breath we take, and the entire web of life. If you think this sounds absurd, or impossible, take the time to examine the evidence yourself. The very essentials needed to sustain life on earth are being recklessly destroyed by these programs. This is not a topic that will begin to affect us in several years, but is now already causing massive animal and plant die off around the world, as well as human illness.  A tool for blowing the Global Climate Geo-engineering Cover up Open  A new initiative based documentary called Look up raises awareness about the current threat that Climate Geo-engineering  poses to planet Earth. Whether the elite began using geo-engineering to curb global warming or are doing solely to cull the global population is not important anymore. Either way, humanity and the rest of the species are being exterminated in the process. Look Up , the film directed by George Barnes, won the Hamptons Film Festival 2013, the AFI World Peace Best Environmental Short Film, the 2013 Action On Film Festival’s Best Documentary Short award, and the 2013 International Film Festival for Peace.  Perhaps part of its success is related to the fact the film comes accompanied by a mobile application called SyderAlert, which mobile phone users can download and use to document weather geo-engineering as it happens. The video captured by witnesses can then be sent to government representatives. The mobile application capture visual evidence of the potentially catastrophic activity, allows users to create petitions against it, and sends the evidence directly to the appropriate representative. Users can have their video automatically geo-located to ensure that the appropriate elected officials are selected.  The genocidal depopulation plan generally involves poisoning or sterilizing people through the use of chem. trails or water fluoridation. Agribusinesses transnational like Monsanto are often implicated in some sort of scheme to monopolize the world’s food supply so it can be easily tainted with deadly toxins. Just about anything that can be said to involve “chemicals” can be implicated in this nefarious scheme: vaccines, alleged covert geo-engineering schemes, genetically modified food, etc. Variants of the theory include those with an anti-abortion tinge who incorporate conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood, and AIDS conspiracy theorists who believe AIDS was concocted in a laboratory for the purpose of reducing the population. Another variant, largely attributable to Lyndon La Roche, has worldwide nuclear war as part of the conspirators’ alleged plan along with a deliberate economic collapse and de-industrialization to force the world back into a “new dark age.”  Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.


realclearpolitics--2019-05-29--A Declining Population Need Not Cause Angst

Total births in the United States fell last year to about 3.79 million, the smallest number in 32 years. The fertility rate hit a record low of 59 childbirths per 1,000 women. Americans are not having enough children to replace themselves.  This supposedly is bad news. Headlines are crying about a "Shortage of Americans" and "Demographic Decline."  I don't know. There seem to be plenty of Americans to go around. If population growth were the mark of national greatness, Oman, Equatorial Guinea and Angola would be the stars.  Of course, a sharply falling population would be cause for concern, but that's not the situation here. The United States has been below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman for decades. The total continues to grow because of immigration.  Fewer workers, we are told, can be problematic for an aging society. An expanding elderly population needs more taxpayers to support its health care and, in many cases, more caregivers to make meals. This is true, but these demographics were totally predictable. It's odd to see handwringing over the need for more tax revenues shortly after our leadership pushed through deep tax cuts that will drain the Treasury of said revenues.  As for who will fill caregiving jobs, the answer may be those whose previous work was taken over by robots. And if caregiving pays too low to attract workers, the answer is to pay more.  Meanwhile, there are nuggets of very good news embedded in the U.S. population numbers. The birthrate among teens and unmarried women has plummeted. More women are having children when they're older and, presumably, better able to support them. Also interesting, women with college degrees are having more children.  And thank you, Affordable Care Act, for making birth control, especially the long-acting kind, more available to women. That, not abortion, is behind the drop in unwanted pregnancies. Abortions are now at their lowest number and rate since around 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade.  Some causes of falling births were expected. The birthrate among Hispanic women -- once high relative to the rest of the population -- is now more in line with that of other groups.  Fewer Americans would be a welcome relief for those living in our highly congested urban corridors. One can argue that America's big, open spaces provide room galore for a far bigger population, but somehow natives and the foreign-born alike choose to shoehorn into densely populated areas.  Sadly, the habit of associating a dipping headcount with decline still plagues city leaders unable to deal with the numbers they already have. New York Mayor Bill De Blasio was so upset by the census report showing that his city's population shrunk by 40,000 -- a mere drop in a sea of 8.4 million souls -- that he questioned its methodology. At rush hour, some of the subway trains get so overcrowded the doors won't close because passengers can't get their hands and legs inside. And we can light a candle for the drivers consigned to the flames of perpetual gridlock.  Some take falling birthrates as a sign of lost confidence in the future. But those fretting about the millennials' lack of enthusiasm for reproducing might investigate deeper. They might start addressing the onerous burden of student debt. Babies are expensive.  They might look into today's crazy work schedules and, for those without college degrees or specialized skills, low pay. There was a time when parents could come home at 5:30 in the afternoon.  What makes for a strong society is healthy people, prosperous people and happy people -- not more people. Americans can put low birthrates at the bottom of their worry list.


sottnet--2019-01-07--Chinas population forecasted to reach 14 billion by 2029 before starting unstoppable decline

China's population forecasted to reach 1.4 billion by 2029 before starting 'unstoppable decline'

China's population is set to reach a peak of 1.442 billion in 2029 and start a long period of "unstoppable" decline in 2030, government scholars said in a research report published on Friday.The world's most populous countryaccording to the summary of the latest edition of the "Green Book of Population and Labor" published by the China Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).Growth in the working population had now stagnated, the report said, and the rising number of elderly people will have a far-reaching impact on the social and economic development in the country, especially if fertility rates remain low."From a theoretical point of view, the long-term population decline, especially when it is accompanied by a continuously ageing population, is bound to cause very unfavourable social and economic consequences," it said.China's population is expected to fall back to 1.36 billion by the middle of the century, it said, which could mean a decline in the workforce of as much as 200 million. If fertility rates remain unchanged, the population could fall to 1.17 billion by 2065, it said.aimed at curbing population growth and allow all couples to have two children. However, the country's birth rate still fell 3.5 percent in 2017 and is expected to have fallen again last year.China's- or the proportion of non-working people, including children and the elderly, in the total population -, and is widely predicted to increase further for at least the next few decades.The proportion of retirees is projected to rise until 2060, the CASS report said, and while the decision to relax "one-child" rules was designed to rebalance China's age structure, in the short term it will also lead to a greater dependency rate.According to previous forecasts, China's elderly population is expected to reach 400 million by the end of 2035, up from around 240 million last year.


sottnet--2019-05-07--Leftish apocalyptic environmentalism and the ideology of overpopulation

Gregory Barrett's rant against childbearing in Dissident Voice repeats a similar admonition by the author a year before in the same publication. Barrett, who now regrets having his two daughters, finds 2019 to be just as bad as 2018 to have offspring.While Barrett's article includes repeated references to his own thought, there is only one hyperlink to evidence purporting to support his view about "near-term human extinction" caused by the fertility of women. The cited report does not, in fact, support Barrett's argument, but rather supports this response to his essay. The report concludes : "We can no longer ignore the impact of current unsustainable production models and wasteful lifestyles." That is, population numbers are not the fundamental problem, but capitalist relations of production and consumption are.Barrett's complaint is encapsulated in the title of his article : "Doctrinaire left lines up with Trumpists, calls overpopulation 'myth': humans über alles...to the bitter end." Barrett does not identify the "doctrinaire left," though presumably those who read and publish in Dissident Voice are included. Nor does he provide evidence of the left lining up with so-called Trumpists.Trump did suspend US contributions to the UN Population Fund . But it was because Trump opposed women's reproductive freedom including access to abortion. In contrast, women's reproductive choice is an issue long supported by the left.While there are overpopulation theory proponents on the left, the theory has its origins and greatest publicists in bourgeois political thought.This ideological initiative in the service of international capital took place in the context of a wave of third world national liberation struggles in the post-war period. Peasant tillers of the soil were demanding land reform; workers were demanding just compensation.Let the people have their rightful means to land and livelihood, and they will take care of their own contraceptive needs. Where the standard of living and educational level of a population rises, especially for women, birthrates plummet Overpopulation theory claims, as Monthly Review editor John Bellamy Foster observes , "that all of the crucial problems of bourgeois society and indeed of the world could be traced to over-procreation on the part of the poor." Accordingly, Barrett warns that the "vast numbers of humans on our planet may be killing it," without distinguishing between the perpetrators and the victims.. Friends of the Earth reports , "People in rich countries consume up to 10 times more natural resources than those in the poorest countries." If we do have an over-population problem, it is too many too rich people depleting too many resources.The earth and its resources are undeniably finite, but currently there is more than enough food to meet the caloric needs of the world's population. Hunger exists in the world and even in the US,Over the last century, world population increased four times. However, world resource consumption increased over 20-fold, suggesting that even at zero population growth consumption of resources would still have grown over 500%.It is not population growth itself, nor even total human consumption,. These are determined not by the absolute numbers of humans but by the political economy imposed on them.It is instructive to compare climate change theory to overpopulation theory. Climate change predictions are based on science in contrast to the quackery of overpopulation theory. Scientific climate models provide clear quantitative benchmarks for when anthropogenic climate warming became a dominant factor, what level of COin the atmosphere should be targeted, and when this needs to be achieved.In contrast, the overpopulation theorists do not posit a time when there weren't too many humans. Instead, they base their simplistic plea that there are too many people in the world based on prejudice against the fertility of women of color (see also Sasser ), which has its antecedents in racist and classist eugenics When did the earth become overpopulated according to overpopulation theory? In 1798, Thomas Malthus, a seminal overpopulation theorist, wrote his Essay on the Principle of Population in opposition to the English Poor Laws. Malthus posited a "natural law" for population to increase beyond the means of subsistence.Malthus, as do modern-day proponents of overpopulation theory, do not contend that the earth will become over-populated in the future.As Friedrich Engels wrote in 1844, according to the logic of Malthus' theory "the earth was already over-populated when only one man existed."While climate scientists have empirically predicted the deleterious effects of global warming, the overpopulation ideologues have a consistent record of crying wolf. Take perhaps the leading and most respected overpopulation proponent in the US, Paul R. Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb , who predicted in print:Overpopulation theory has discredited itself as fake science by its own false predictions. Unrepentant, Ehrlich claims that his critics are "idiots," he "never made predictions," and he only made the "mistake" of presenting "scenarios."This is not to imply that population growth is not an important issue. Only from an environmental point-of-view, it needs to be coupled with an understanding of the social relations that generate patterns of consumption and distribution.Barrett, who calls himself a "refugee," could learn from the example of his adopted home in Germany, which is experiencing negative population growth . Germany is an example of a society where, to a significant degree, women have freedom of reproductive choice, improved equality, and a relatively secure standard of living. The lesson being that a society that provides for people's material and social needs, especially those of women, results in lower birth rates.In contrast, Syria, which is benighted by a US-backed regime-change war, has the world's highest birthrate of 7.37%. High fertility rates in such conflict zones may be understood as products of dysfunctional social relations. That is, high fertility rates are a symptom not the cause of social and environmental problems.The ideology of overpopulation serves to divert criticisms of capitalist social relations of unequal distribution. Wasteful and environmentally destructive economic mis-planning invariably results from those social relations. Barrett exemplifies the phenomenon of the uncritical acceptance of such bourgeois ideas by otherwise consistent leftists.Anne Hendrixson of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College observes The biggest danger of blaming overpopulation for environmental problems is that it ignores the real culprits.


sputnik--2019-06-18--World Population Predicted to Stop Growing by 2100 for First Time in Modern History - Report

The world’s population is expected to reach around 10.9 billion by 2100, while the annual growth rate will drop to less than 0.1%, which is a “steep decline,” according to Pew. Between 1950 and today, the global population increased between 1% and 2% every year, with the number of people increasing from 2.5 billion to more than 7.7 billion.  The global fertility rate is projected to fall from 2.5 births per woman to 1.9 by 2100. The replacement fertility rate (the number of births required to sustain a population’s size) is 2.1 births per woman.  The fertility rate is expected to drop below replacement by 2070. Meanwhile, the world’s median age is also expected to increase from the current 31 to 42 by 2100 due to factors such as increased life expectancy.  While the overall global birth rate will decrease, some world regions will experience population growth for the rest of the century. Africa’s population, for one, is projected to  increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion between 2020 and 2100. Most of these population increases will be in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, half of all baby births worldwide in 2100 will take place in Africa, according to the analysis.  While the population will grow at slower rates in much of the world toward the end of the century, half of all population growth by 2050 will occur in nine countries: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Egypt and the United States.  According to Amy Snover, director of the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group, population increases in sub-Saharan Africa will significantly impact climate change.  "Our impact on the climate is tied up with population in lots of different ways -- what resources people are using, how much industrial production is going on, how much energy is needed for heating, cooling and transportation," Snover told NBC News.  Migration from the rest of the world will drive population growth in the Northern America region, according to the report. The US immigrant population is expected to increase by over 85 million over the next 80 years. Migration is also expected to be a factor behind the population growth in Canada.  Pew’s findings also reveal that the populations of both Europe and Latin America will decline by 2100. Asia’s population is expected to increase from 4.6 billion in 2020 to 5.3 billion in 2055 and then begin to decline. India is predicted to become the world’s most populous country by 2027, taking China’s place.


sputnik--2019-08-02--Just Having More Children Wont Solve Problems Caused by Ageing Population - Scholar

Just Having More Children Won’t Solve Problems Caused by Ageing Population - Scholar

Sputnik: Official figures have revealed that the birth rate in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level for at least 80 years. Firstly, can you tell me how significant these findings are and is it really that surprising?  Stuart Gietel-Basten: It's not significant in the sense that the demographic impact of this that in Britain, for example, changes in migration are going to be much more important in shaping short term overall population trends and so until we see whether or not this trend continues into the long term I don't anticipate this to be a major change.  On the other hand, it is significant, because it's part of a general trend within many other countries which are characterized as having kind of high fertility, in the United Kingdom, but also in Northern Europe and in the United States where we've always assumed fertility would stay fairly high but it's actually starting to turn down.  That's why it might be tempting to say "Well this is Brexit or something" or "this is just uncertainty around political uncertainty at the moment" but it's not just confined to England and Wales, we actually see this in other parts of the world as well.  Sputnik: Why are these figures so low but also what effect is it having on society in England and Wales?  Stuart Gietel-Basten: We shouldn't get too carried away - it's not that low. I live in Hong Kong where fertility is just over 1; in South Korea is even lower than that so some of my colleagues here, in this part of the world, to be worried about a fertility rate, which is at like 1.7/1.8, is what they would really hope that they had a fertility rate like that.  So it's not really that low. Other factors will play into dealing with how we cope with, for example, population ageing, if we have a low fertility rate which is sustained in the long run, forgetting about migration that will lead to an increasing rates of population ageing but at the same time if our populations are getting healthier and they're getting better educated and they're getting better skilled and possibly getting richer as well, then we might be able to, we are more able to cope with more rapid population ageing which may come about through low fertility.  Sputnik: For the past decade at least in Britain, we've been told that we're moving to an aging population. How do these figures match up with an ever-ageing population and moreover what can be done to encourage individuals to have children?  Stuart Gietel-Basten: All populations are always ageing. That's just a fact. The question is whether or not the institutions that we have in place are fit for purpose. Whether it's the pension system or the NHS, is it able to cope with these challenges that will bring the come about through increased population ageing and will it be able to cope with new diseases or growing trends in certain diseases, for example in Alzheimer's.  Will we be able to cope with the challenges that we will need to invest in social care as much, if not more than, perhaps in primary healthcare. These are the kind of bigger issues around institutional reform. Now, you say about encouraging people to have more children...  Firstly, you could say arguably, it's not there's a moral question around encouraging people that have more children and when we say encouraging people to have more children, it's really about encouraging women to have more children.  Now, morally, one can easily make the argument that it's not the place of the state, to encourage or cajole people into having children just to bail out these institutional systems that are in place.  A more practical issue is that just having more children really doesn't solve the problems brought about by ageing. Babies don't work; you've got to wait 20 years, more than 20 years for any baby that's born today to actually become productive in society in terms of contributing to the economy.  Whilst it might look good on a spreadsheet, that you have more children in very practical terms, it really is a very crude and pretty useless way of offsetting the genuine challenges of population ageing, which are relating to our social institutions, like pensions like health care, like Social Security, and so on. There are much better ways of dealing with this then encouraging people to have more children.  Views and opinions, expressed in the article are those of Stuart Gietel-Basten and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.


tass--2019-01-24--How Russias population changed over the years

How Russia’s population changed over the years

MOSCOW, January 24. /TASS/. The Russian Federal State Statistics Service has published the preliminary data concerning Russia’s population in 2018. As of January 1, 2019, Russia’s population reached 146.794 million people, which shows a decrease by 86,000 people compared to last year. In the last 10 years, this is the first recorded decrease of the Russian population. TASS has prepared an overview of how the Russian population had changed over the years.  ## Tsarist Russia  The first comprehensive population census in Russia took place in 1897. According to the Russian Federal State Statistics Service, the population of the territory that is now considered the Russian Federation constituted 67.5 million people, and by 1914, it had reached 89.9 million. The First World War slowed down the natural population growth; however, it had not stopped completely, with the population reaching 91 million people in 1917.  ## The Soviet Union  According to the 1926 census, there were 100 million 891 thousand people living on the territory of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (the Russian Statistics Service provides a figure of 92.7 million people, as several regions that were considered part of the Russian Soviet Republic at the time were later integrated into other republics). Up until the start of the Second World War, the population had been growing steadily, reaching 108 million 379 thousand people by 1939.  The demographics of the Soviet Union suffered the first serious blow during the Second World War. According to the Soviet state commission on estimating the number of casualties in the war, about 25.3 million people born before June 22, 1941 died between 1941 and 1945. To this estimate, the experts added about 1.3 million children born during the war, who died prematurely. In total, according to data published in the All-Russian Memorial Book (1941-1945), the Soviet Union lost about 26.6 million people in the war. According to the Russian historian Viktor Zemskov, the direct human loss of life in the Soviet Union came up to 16 million people.  According to the Russian Federal Statistics Service, the population of the Russian Soviet Republic reached 97 million 457 thousand people in 1946, and only came up to 100 million by 1949.  According to the first post-war population census of 1959, 117 million 534 thousand people lived in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In 1970, the population came up to 130 million 79 thousand people, and in 1979, it reached 137 million 551 thousand. Despite the continued natural growth of the population (600-700 thousand people every year), the second half of the 1970s saw a demographic crisis, as the population born in the 1940s was now reaching adulthood. By 1980-1981, the fertility rate in the Russian Soviet Republic had decreased compared to the previous decade (in 1970-1971, the fertility rate reached 2.0) and came up to 1.895. The so-called demographic echo of the Second World War was among the factors influencing the demographic situation, along with urbanization, increased number of divorces and abortions, as well as high mortality rate among the male population due to alcoholism.  However, in the 1980s, the Russian demographic situation remained stable: by 1987, the fertility rate reached 2.23, and the population kept growing by 1-1.2 million people each year.  According to the last all-Soviet population census of 1989, the population of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic reached 147 million 401 thousand people.  ## Modern Russia  The 1990s saw another demographic crisis in Russia due to the so-called "second echo" of the Second World War, as the children born in the 1970s were reaching adulthood. Other factors influencing the crisis were the fall of the Soviet Union and the economic and social crises related to it. In the 1990s, the mortality rate in Russia was 1.5 higher than the fertility rate. The year 1992 marked the first year since the Second World War when the Russian population saw a decrease. At that point, 148.3 million people were living in Russia.  According to the Russian Federal Statistics Service, the Russian population decreased by 2.1% in the period from 1991 to 2002, and reached 145.2 million people.  The demographic decline continued until 2009, with the population low coming up to 142.7 million people.  In 2010, the generation born in the 1980s started reaching adulthood, which facilitated the growth of the country’s population. According to the 2010 census, 142 million 857 thousand people lived in Russia. In 2014, the Russian population increased by 400 thousand people compared to 2013, reaching 143.7 million. In 2015, due to Crimea starting to form part of Russia, the Russian population came up to 146.5 million people. The year 2015 also saw the highest fertility rate (1.78). The positive dynamic maintained itself until 2018, with the latest data signifying a population decrease.


thedailycaller--2019-06-17--Population Bomb China Expected To Have 400 Million Fewer People By 2100

Population Bomb? China Expected To Have 400 Million Fewer People By 2100

China may lose nearly 400 million people by the end of the century, according to a Pew Research Center report based on United Nations population projections.  China’s population is expected to decline by 374 million to slightly more than 1 billion people by 2100, down from more than 1.4 million in 2020, Pew reported Monday. Global population growth is expected to stall by the end of the century.  “By 2100, the world’s population is projected to reach approximately 10.9 billion, with annual growth of less than 0.1% – a steep decline from current levels,” Pew researchers wrote, saying the decline is “due in large part to falling global fertility rates.”  “Between 1950 and today, the world’s population grew between 1% and 2% each year, with the number of people rising from 2.5 billion to more than 7.7 billion,” Pew researchers added.  Population projections show China losing its spot as the world’s most populous country to India in 2100. Likewise, the U.S. is expected to lose its number three spot to Nigeria, which is expected to have 733 million people by 2100. (RELATED: US Reliance On OPEC Oil Hits 30-Year Low)  “Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion. Projections show these gains will come mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is expected to more than triple in population by 2100,” Pew researchers wrote.  Plummeting fertility rates will have massive economic and environmental implications. Decades ago, environmental activists and some scholars warned of a coming “population bomb” that would stretch the planet’s natural resources beyond its limits.  However, predictions of ecological calamity, along with mass famine, due to overpopulation have not come to pass. World population more than doubled from 3.5 billion in the 1960s to 7.7 billion today.  Population is also factored into global warming predictions. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s RCP 8.5 climate modeling scenario, often called the “worst-case,” projects global population hitting 12 billion by 2100.  Experts have increasingly begun to question the likelihood of a “worst-case” global warming scenario, including one 2018 study that called RCP 8.5 “exceptionally unlikely.”  The U.N. now expects the global population to peak at 10.9 billion with the fertility rate falling to 1.9 — below the population “replacement rate.”  Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


veteranstoday--2019-01-07--China faces unstoppable population decline India may already be worlds most populous country

China faces ‘unstoppable’ population decline, India may already be world’s most populous country

Russia Today: China’s population is set to peak at 1.44 billion in 2029 before beginning an “unstoppable” decline in 2030, according to a shocking new report. Data hints that India may already be the most populous country in the world.  According to the ‘Green Book of Population and Labor‘ published by the China Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) on Friday, growth in China’s working population has stagnated. Meanwhile, the country’s “dependency rate” (the population of non-working people including children and the elderly) is predicted to increase for decades to come in a trend which will have a far-reaching socioeconomic impact on the world’s most populous country.  “From a theoretical point of view, the long-term population decline, especially when it is accompanied by a continuously aging population, is bound to cause very unfavorable social and economic consequences,” the CASS report states.  By mid-century, China’s population is expected to fall to 1.36 billion, with a consequent drop in the workforce of roughly 200 million. If fertility rates remain in or around current levels, the population could drop as low as 1.17 billion by 2065, the report warns.  READ MORE: The devil you know: Old foes India & China strengthen ties as America proves too unreliable  “For the Chinese population, the most important demographic event in the first half of the 21st century is without a doubt the arrival of the era of negative population growth,” the report’s authors added.  The country’s birth rate fell by 3.5 percent in 2017 despite an end to the highly controversial “one-child policy.” However, this policy shift, in combination with a rising proportion of retirees thru 2060 will further exacerbate the dependency rate: at present, China’s elderly population is projected to reach 400 million by the end of 2035.  Also on rt.com The EU bubble is doomed to burst in 2019, financial analyst warns With roughly 83 million people being added to the world’s population every year, current estimates project that we will reach 11.2 billion by 2100. The UN estimates that India will overtake China by 2024 as the world’s most populous country, though some believe this already occurred last year.  By 2100, over 80 percent of the world’s population will live in either Asia or Africa.  READ MORE: China to mark economic miracle that pulled 700 million people out of poverty  Nigeria remains the most rapidly growing population (and seventh largest) and is expected to surpass the US by 2050. Fertility rates are declining in nearly all regions of the world, including Africa, the most fertile region, with Europe the only exception, according to UN 2017 report.  Between 2010 and 2015, fertility rates dropped below replacement level in 83 countries, accounting for roughly 46 percent of the world’s population. China, the United States of America, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Japan, Vietnam, Germany, Iran, Thailand, and the United Kingdom all feature among these 83.  Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


activistpost--2019-11-06--45 Population Control Quotes That Show The Elite Are Quite Eager To Reduce The Number Of People On T

45 Population Control Quotes That Show The Elite Are Quite Eager To Reduce The Number Of People On The Planet

At one time, the elite at least attempted to conceal their boundless enthusiasm for population control from the general public, but now they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.  On Tuesday, an alarming new study that advocates global population control as one of the solutions to the “climate emergency” that we are facing was published in the journal BioScience. This 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. 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 “scientific consensus” that this is necessary.  You can find a summary of the report here, and I would very much encourage you to read it, because it is essentially a blueprint for where the elite intend to take humanity in the years ahead.  But in order to achieve their goals, first they are going to have to convince us that planetary disaster is imminent, and in this study the authors boldly tell us “that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency”…  So what solutions are they proposing?  Well, the study breaks down the necessary solutions into six basic groupings…  If that sounds a lot like “the Green New Deal”, that is because it is a lot like “the Green New Deal”.  It is the sixth “objective” that concerns me the most. Because the truth is that they don’t want to just “stabilize” the global population.  According to the study, the population of the Earth really needs to be “gradually reduced”…  But if humans are the primary driver of climate change, and if we only have about 12 years before we reach the point of no return as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested, will a “gradual” reduction of the human population really be enough to satisfy the climate change zealots?  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. According to them, every one of us has “a carbon footprint”, and as the population grows the climate change crisis only gets worse. 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 “saving the planet”. 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.  And of course population control has been an obsession among the global elite for a very long time. Way before “global warming” and “climate change” were popularized, those at the top end of the social pyramid have been dreaming of dramatically culling the herd.  To 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…  1. Charles Darwin (his thinking is at the foundation of so many of our scientific theories today): “At 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.”  2. Bill Gates: “The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it’s in the very poorest places that you’re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. (…) And we’ve got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don’t have an impossible situation later.”  3. Bernie Sanders: “In 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.”  4. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson: “The primary challenge facing our species is the reproduction of our species itself…It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet…All the evidence shows that we can help reduce population growth, and world poverty, by promoting literacy and female emancipation and access to birth control.”  5. UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “The 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.”  6. Paul Ehrlich, a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb”: “Solving the population problem is not going to solve the problems of racism… of sexism… of religious intolerance… of war… of gross economic inequality. But if you don’t solve the population problem, you’re not going to solve any of those problems. Whatever problem you’re interested in, you’re not going to solve it unless you also solve the population problem.”  7. Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”  8. CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  9. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso: about medical patients with serious illnesses: “You cannot sleep well when you think it’s all paid by the government. This won’t be solved unless you let them hurry up and die.”  10. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”  11. Richard Branson: “The 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.”  12. Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On 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.”  13. HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”  14. Al Gore: “One 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… You have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s 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.”  15. MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The 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.”  16. Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s 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’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an 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.”  17. Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending 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.“  18. Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I 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 and viruses (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’t want to hear it.”  19. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General from 1997-2006: “The idea that population growth guarantees a better life — financially or otherwise — is a myth that only those who sell nappies, prams and the like have any right to believe.”  20. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UN Under-Secretary-General from 2000-2010: “We cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.”  21. Bill Nye: “In 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’s the speed at which it is changing that is going to be troublesome for so many large populations of humans around the world.”  22. Actress Cameron Diaz: “I think women are afraid to say that they don’t want children because they’re going to get shunned. But I think that’s changing too now. I have more girlfriends who don’t have kids than those that do. And, honestly? We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.”  23. Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”  24. Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But 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.”  25. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”  26. Gloria Steinem: “Everybody with a womb doesn’t have to have a child any more than everybody with vocal chords has to be an opera singer.”  27. Jane Goodall: “It’s our population growth that underlies just about every single one of the problems that we’ve inflicted on the planet. If there were just a few of us, then the nasty things we do wouldn’t really matter and Mother Nature would take care of it — but there are so many of us.”  28. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  29. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”  30. Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s 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.”  31. Paul Ehrlich: “Basically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birth rate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate — war, famine, pestilence — find us.”  32. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … 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.”


drudgereport--2019-12-22--EXODUS: California population growth slowest since 1900...

The Golden State remains stuck in the slow lane when it comes to population.  The number of Californians increased to 39.96 million, with new data from the Department of Finance showing mostly downward trends.  They are rooted in fewer births, coupled with increased deaths among an aging population. The Golden State, however, has also seen changes in international migration, along with more and more residents leaving the state.  The estimates, which indicate that California’s population grew by 141,300 people between July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, nonetheless signal a 0.35% growth rate, “down from 0.57% for the prior 12 months — the two lowest recorded growth rates since 1900,” department officials underscored  According to the agency, natural increase (with 452,200 births and 271,400 deaths) accounted for an additional 180,800 people to the state. Still, these gains were offset by losses in net migration — that is, the total amount of people moving into the state minus the total amount of people moving out. Notably, said Eddie Hunsinger, a demographer with the Department of Finance, even though the net international migration added to the state’s population, there was substantial negative domestic net migration, which resulted in a loss of 39,500 residents. This, said the department, marks “the first time since the 2010 Census that California has had more people leaving the state than moving in from abroad or other states.”  William Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Friday’s findings follow a trend that demographers have seen over several years. While California has always seen domestic outmigration — people moving to other states — the rate has grown over the last decade.  “For some years after the Great Recession housing crunch, California was losing domestic migrants — but not as much as it could have. Now that’s starting to push up again,” Frey said.  The most common destinations for those leaving the state were Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Washington, he said, as the economy has picked up throughout the west and other parts of the country. Aside from a lower cost-of-living, some Californians are drawn to areas with no state income tax.  One key contributor to the decline in growth is the dip in immigration levels, Frey added. Although California is still home to a large percentage of the nation’s immigrants, that number has declined.  “In the past, California would be growing because immigration would counteract domestic outmigration,” he said. “The outmigration is in places where housing prices are high and therefore immigration is not being able to counter that.”  In Los Angeles County, the region saw overall outmigration even when counting the influx of immigrants. Orange, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara and San Diego counties also had negative net migration, even with gains from immigration.  “California was the place, the big destination, for people around the country and around the world,” he said. “It’s lost its luster a little bit. The question is whether it’s short-term or long-term. I think the jury is still out. To me, it’s kind of a stunner to see that California is losing migrants. The land of dreams and the gold rush and all that, now turned the other direction.”  Frey said the decline in growth could have implications during the 2020 census count and the ensuing apportionment that is based on census figures.  “It’s something to be concerned about,” he said. “California could be on the cusp of losing a seat if it doesn’t show up with a decent count.”  In an email to The Times, demographer Hunsinger countered that “the estimates are for current and historical information (rather than the future).”  There were also some notable internal shifts. Within the state, smaller counties in remote areas either saw population declines or slight increases, with the exception of regions surrounding Butte County site of the 2018 Camp fire — the deadliest in California history. It destroyed the town of Paradise and, in addition to killing 86 people, displaced some 35,700 residents.  According to the Department of Finance, the bulk of those affected by the fire relocated to nearby cities in Butte or surrounding counties, including Colusa, Glenn, Plumas, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba. Four of these counties, in fact, were listed among the top 10 with the highest population growth rates. Beyond these exceptions, however, the statewide rate of population growth is shrinking .  Dowell Myers, an expert in demographics at USC, said the population growth in California has been slowing down for three years. The state recovered from the recession he said, but as things have “perked up” in California, not everyone has felt the benefits.  “Jobs are getting better, but people’s recovery has turned around and gone bad,” Myers said. “I think because of housing prices. The peak millennial is turning 30 in 2020. It’s a pivotal moment and they can’t find housing. So people aren’t coming as much, and they’re leaving here more.”  Myers noted that a big part of the lack of growth is the decline in birth rates — something he attributes to young couples’ inability to “find a nest,” or affordable housing, where they would want to raise children.  “People need to feel secure in having housing before they can start a family, " Myers said. “Other people won’t come because they have heard the news.”  He added: “We better get our act together pretty darn quick. This is as good as it’s going to get. People should be flourishing. The fact that the number of babies is going down is really worrisome.”  Los Angeles County saw a 17% decline in the amount of children in the area over the last decade, Myers said.  “We are worse off and we have the best economy,” he said.  “It’s not sustainable,” Myers added. “I think we need to have enough housing for workers to live in and for people to start families. Older people have the right to stay in their houses, but we need to make room for the young people or else we will turn into a retirement city by the sea.”


lifesitenews--2019-12-11--Spain registers more deaths than births as native population heads for collapse

MADRID, December 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Spanish authorities revealed that tens of thousands more citizens died than were born in the first six months of 2019. The alarming statistics not only reveal this time period to have the lowest birthrate in almost 80 years, but they also highlight the country’s trend toward what observers are calling the country’s “demographic suicide.”  According to the Spanish National Statistical Institute (INE), between January and June of this year, Spain saw only 170,074 children born. In this same time frame, 215,478 citizens died. This means that there was a decline in Spain’s population by 45,404 persons during that period. Having a death rate higher than the birth rate indicates a shrinking population.  According to the INE, the number of births registered for January-June this year represents a drop of 6.2% in comparison to the same period in 2018. This is the worst birth rate ever registered by Spain, which began keeping birth statistics in 1941, just two years after the devastating civil war in the country that caused as many as 2 million deaths in just three years.  Spain’s total population grew slightly last year by 284,387 people (0.6%), thanks to immigration, putting the total at 47 million in 2018. This was the first overall increase since 2013. The total population had dropped during the intervening years. Spain is a favorite destination not only for European tourists, but also elderly European pensioners and young migrants from Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.  Stats show that Spain’s population is getting older. The average age of all residents is 43.4 years. The average age of native-born Spaniards is 44.2 years, while foreigners average 36.1 years. Foreigners constitute the younger crowd in Spain: 55% of foreigners are between the ages of 16 to 44 years, while Spaniards of that age bracket represent 34.1%.  Births to foreign-born women are more likely than those to native Spaniards, according to INE, which showed that during the first six months of this year they comprised 21.5% of the total number of births. This showed growth from the 20.1% registered during the first six months of 2018.  Observers in Spain have noted the influence that abortion has on the birth dearth. After five years of decreasing abortion numbers, 2017 saw an uptick by more than 4,000 aborted babies over 2016. According to a government report, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 women in 2017, as opposed to the years before 2010, when there were 11.71 abortions per 1,000 women. It was in 2018 that the government lessened the protections for unborn babies. Abortion is now permitted for girls as young as 16, with parental permission.  According to the pro-life Institute for Family Policy (IPF), more than 2 million abortions were committed in Spain between 1985 and 2015. Spain now has the third-highest number of abortions in Europe, lagging behind France and the United Kingdom.  The Institute reported in May that various regions of Spain are “trending toward demographic suicide” because of a low population growth rate largely due to a high abortion rate.


liveaction--2019-06-19--WATCH Pro-Life Replies Is abortion necessary to prevent overpopulation

WATCH Pro-Life Replies: Is abortion necessary to prevent overpopulation?

The latest video in Live Action’s “Pro-Life Replies” series was released today in response to the claim, “Abortion will stop overpopulation.” Very recently, the news media has been sounding the alarm about our world’s population crisis — but not in the way you might expect. Recent headlines have noted that the current population crisis is not one of having too many people, but too few. Countries are not achieving replacement level to support their aging populations or maintain their workforces, and this could lead to dire consequences and severe economic instability.  Despite this, many abortion advocates hold to the idea that the world is suffering not from a demographic winter, but from overpopulation — and they claim abortion is necessary to avert a crisis. But, as the video below asks, “Even if it were true, would aborting large numbers of people be a moral way to respond?” Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute addresses this argument in the video below:  According to the website for the Population Research Institute, Steven Mosher was invited to China by the Chinese government as a social scientist in 1979, “where he had access to government documents and actually witnessed women being forced to have abortions under the new ‘one-child policy.'” At that time, Mosher was pro-choice but became pro-life after witnessing these abortions.  WATCH: ‘Personally pro-life’? This new video may cause you to rethink that.  Mass slaughter should never be a solution to overpopulation  Mosher notes, “It goes without saying that mass slaughter is a crime against humanity, and should never ever be proposed as the solution to any human problem. Overpopulation or no, would you support the annihilation of any segment of humanity — the elderly, for example, or the very young — or women, or men, or people of a certain race or culture? Of course not…. And yet, there are those who not only support the mass slaughter of the preborn, but are actually engaged in carrying it out. All in the name of combatting something called “overpopulation.”  Mosher mentions China, India, and Indonesia, and the horror of forced abortions and sex-selective abortions, all done under the banner of preventing overpopulation.  We have enough resources to feed billions  Mosher points out that global resources for feeding people aren’t lacking — but getting that food to those people is the issue — something that abortion definitely won’t solve. Mosher says:  There are currently 7 ½ billion people on the planet, but we could easily feed, with current agricultural technology, twice that number.  Since the “Green Revolution” of the 1970s, we are producing more food on less land, and humanity is eating better than ever before. Are there still hungry people? Of course.  But this is not because there is a global shortage of food but because of corrupt governments, poor distribution systems, and ongoing wars and civil unrest.  READ: Nearly half of countries have ‘insufficient children’ to maintain populations  It’s underpopulation that is the real danger  Mosher states, ” … [T]he evidence indicates that the world isn’t in danger from overpopulation; it’s in danger from underpopulation. Around the world, birth rates have fallen, work forces are shrinking, while the numbers of elderly are dramatically increasing… As David Brooks has written in the New York Times, ‘For decades, people took dynamism and economic growth for granted and saw population growth as a problem. Now we’ve gone to the other extreme, and it’s clear that young people are the scarce resource. In the 21st century, the U.S. could be the slowly aging leader of a rapidly aging world.'”  Mosher adds, “Dozens of countries now have shrinking populations, and nearly have adopted policies that encourage people to date, get married, and have children.” While many of the younger generation forego having children due to apparently concerns over population growth and climate change, Mosher says the truth is that children are the most important resource any country can have. The world does not need fewer children.  Visit Pro-Life Replies for more on this and other videos in the series.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


liveaction--2019-11-08--Population control will save earth, say 11,000 scientists. There’s a problem with that.

A group of 11,000 scientists (some from outside the climate and energy fields) has signed a letter suggesting that population control methods should be used to stop global warming. In addition to altering our energy sources, reducing emissions, eating more plant-based foods, protecting natural habits, and creating a carbon-free economy, the scientists behind the letter believe efforts should also be focused on “family planning.” Not everyone agrees.  “Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to ‘tell it like it is,'” the letter states. “On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”  The letter states that the global population is increasing by about 80 million people each year, and calls for the “world population to be stabilized – and, ideally, gradually reduced.” The scientists are pushing for family-planning services – ie: contraception, abortion and sterilization – to be made available to “all people.” They also call for full gender equity and primary and secondary education for everyone globally – especially girls and young women.  But as James Temple reports for TechnologyReview.com, other scientists see serious problems here. It seems to be wealthy nations which already have dangerously low birth rates, and they don’t seem to be improving. Experts believe this will lead to an economic crisis. For example, Hungary is actually offering incentives and tax breaks to encourage couples to have more children.  Birth rates in poorer nations, however, are not slowing down — and apparently that’s where the issue lies for these scientists.  READ: African woman to UN: Pushing abortion on Africa is colonization  “[…R]ich nations generally already have flat or declining birth rates, so the proposal largely seems directed at fast-growing developing nations in Africa and Asia,” wrote Temple. “Specifically, the UN projects that nine countries will account for more than half of projected growth between now and 2050, including (in descending order) India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia, Egypt, and the US (where migration is expected to be the main driver of growth).”  It is the wealthy, however, that are the driving forces behind the “excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle,” including number of air passengers carried, and the “most affluent countries are mainly responsible for the historical GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions,” the letter reads.  So if the wealthy of the world are not contributing to the increase in population, but are the main contributors to global warming, that means the scientists’ plan to stop climate change lands on the poor of the world — the ones who are doing the least to hurt the environment. It would be these individuals — the poor African and Asian nations — that the scientists would be targeting for contraception, abortion, and sterilization, because the wealthy people of the world are allegedly destroying the planet.  Meanwhile, it’s the wealthy who fund the organizations that are working overtime to ensure that people of Africa have access to the contraception and abortion that they don’t want in the first place. Obianuju Ekeocha, founder and president of Culture of Life Africa calls this “ideological colonization.”  “A bunch of white people in the developed world saying population should be reduced is the definition of an imperialist framing,” tweeted Arvind Ravikumar, an assistant professor of energy engineering at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology.  According to Temple, the idea that population control should be used to save the environment could be “abused to justify more aggressive tactics of population control, or racist attitudes toward growing parts of the developing world.” It is reminiscent, he says, of the days of openly-promoted eugenics. Sadly, in those days African-American women and women with disabilities were sterilized without their consent.  As Townhall notes, this latest statement warning against a climate emergency sounds like the latest case of scientists crying wolf on climate change. Dire warnings of impending doom have been issued for the last 50 years. Famine was forecasted for 1975 with food rationing by 1980, and a new ice age was predicted for the start of the 21st century. It’s a tale that’s been on repeat for half a century.  Rather than forcing (underprivileged) human beings not to have children in order to rectify the damage caused by the privileged, perhaps scientists should be focused on designing and building new ways of reducing emissions and creating less waste.  “Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


newsweek--2019-01-02--Chinas Population Is Degenerating Into a Small Group of the Old and the Weak Experts Say

China’s Population Is ‘Degenerating Into a Small Group of the Old and the Weak,’ Experts Say

China may have the largest population of any country, but its citizens are aging and the birth rate is plummeting.  Yi Fuxian, a researcher from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Su Jian, an economist at Peking University, co-authored a paper suggesting that China has entered a long-term downward population spiral. The experts warned that the past year will be “remembered as a historical turning point for [the] Chinese population,” arguing that China is “degenerating into a small group of the old and the weak thanks to wrong demographic policies,” the South China Morning Post reported Wednesday.  “The Chinese population has started to fall, the ageing problems has accelerated, and economic vitality has weakened,” the academics wrote in their paper.  Although China has yet to release its nationwide report on births in the country for 2018, with a population just under 1.39 billion, the number of births is believed to have dropped below 15 million in 2018, according to the Post, more than two million fewer than 2017. That’s also far short of the government’s previous projected estimate of 20 million.  In late December, the BBC reported that the birth rate was expected to continue to decline further in China next year and beyond as the overall population ages. Within the next decade, the amount of Chinese aged 23 to 30 will decline by 40 percent, making increasing births even more unlikely. As China’s economic growth is already slowing, a declining population could have a drastic long-term effect on the Asian powerhouse’s prosperity.  Part of the problem, according to analysts, is China’s long-standing one-child policy, which was relaxed in 2016. Yi and others have long criticized the approach to limit population growth, now warning that the impact could be difficult to reverse.  Hua Changchun, an economist with Guotai Junan Securities, also warned of the ballooning effect. “A sharp drop in new births is probably the beginning of a long new era, during which population will see contraction,” he said, according to the Post.  Meanwhile, China’s elderly population is projected to reach some 400 million by 2035, a significant increase from its current level of 240 million, Reuters reported. As a result, many in China, including the government and the Communist Party, have expressed concern for the future.  Official propaganda slogans have been issued encouraging couples to “have children for the country,” according to the BBC. There is also talk of providing cash incentives to new parents and extending maternity leave in a bid to encourage more births. Unless a major shift occurs, there will only be about eight million births per year within 10 years.  But after three decades of strict family planning, which forced abortions and slapped hefty fines on parents who had multiple children, young Chinese have seen the personal benefits of not having siblings. This allowed them to be the center of their parents' attention, while also saving their family money. Young people in the country told the BBC that they are not interested in having more than one child as a result.


newyorkpost--2019-01-10--Americans arent making enough babies to sustain the population

Americans aren’t making enough babies to sustain the population

Americans aren’t making enough babies for the population to replace itself, according to a government report released Thursday which found fertility rates at their lowest since 1978.  The US marked its seventh straight year of declining fertility rates in 2017, which saw the biggest drop yet — just 1,765.5 births per 1,000 women, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.  That’s roughly 16 percent below the number needed — 2,100 births per 1,000 women — for the population to reproduce itself, according to US News & World Report.  The 2017 statistics are down from 1,820.5 in 2016, 1,843.5 in 2015, and 1,862.5 in 2014.  The annual CDC report broke down the number of births per state and race.  Two states — South Dakota and Utah — had rates above the number needed for a stable population.  The District of Columbia, meanwhile, had the lowest.  Hispanics had the most babies in 2017 — 2,006.5 per 1,000 women — while white women had the fewest at a rate of 1,666.5. African-American women were in the middle with 1,824.5.  The report doesn’t offer reasons behind the waning birth rates. But experts pointed to a combination of economic changes, access to contraception and better education when it comes to sex — leading to a drop in babies born to teen moms.  “We’ve been seeing, year after year, a precipitous drop in the number of births to teenage girls,” Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, told NBC News. “That’s good news. Not only are these children not having children, but they’re also getting a chance to finish high school. And that makes a huge difference to their lives.”  The fertility rate decline also underscores a dynamic shift in women’s societal roles — they are more career-oriented now and less focused on being homemakers.  “In general women are getting married later in life,” Rowe added. “They are leaving the home and launching their families later.”  More young women are delaying expanding their families — but opting to freeze their eggs.  John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Donna Strobino suggested that the birth rates may even out in the future.  “It may not be all doom and gloom,” she said. “I think it may stabilize once women who have been postponing pregnancy have the births they are planning to have.”


observer--2019-04-26--Is Thanos Right That We Need To Destroy Half Our Population To Survive

Is Thanos Right That We Need To Destroy Half Our Population To Survive?

In Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, the super villain Thanos assembles six Infinity Stones to wipe out half of the world’s people in order to cure all of the ills of overpopulation in society. It’s not a new idea, but in addition to its ethical issues, it wouldn’t work. In this article, you’ll see what could cure the globe of its population explosion.  The purple-skinned, gold-gloved antagonist of Marvel’s Avengers, is hardly the first pop-culture population control proponent. There’s also the villain of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon book-turned-movie Inferno who said:  Consider this. It took the earth’s population thousands of years—from the early dawn of man all the way to the early 1800s—to reach one billion people. Then astoundingly, it took only about a hundred years to double the population to two billion in the 1920s. After that, it took a mere 50 years for the population to double again to four billion in the 1970s. As you can imagine, we’re well on track to reach eight billion very soon. Just today, the human race added another quarter-billion people to planet Earth. A quarter-million. And this happens every day—rain or shine. Currently every year we’re adding the equivalent of the entire country of Germany.  Those statistics sure shock my students when we cover them in my International Politics class on demographics. The problem seems hopeless. Only some magic stones could be the cure.  But as you’ll see, even if you wipe out half the Earth’s people, it wouldn’t take long for the population to rebound. If you think about it, every year of World War II, the world’s population grew. Hitler’s Holocaust, Stalin’s purges and Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward,” the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, and even “Hotel Rwanda” couldn’t slow population growth.  Overpopulation is a real concern. Most articles about Thanos and this subject insist that population growth isn’t a bad thing. That’s not correct. An increase in people, and a decrease in resources, is a recipe for disaster, as Rev. Thomas Malthus pointed out in his 1798 paper “An Essay on the Principles of Population.”  So where does the problem come from?  To fight the problem, you have to understand it first. And the best way to do that is to learn about the “Demographic Transition Model.”  Our story begins with the traditional society, conservative on social issues, agrarian-based, with a high birth rate and a high death rate. You need a big family to run a farm, and your religious-based society approves the increase in kids. Things are in equilibrium, so population growth isn’t a big deal.  But then we get into the transition phase during industrialization. Suddenly, improvements are being made in health care and sanitation, and one’s quality of life, which leads to longer life and a dropping death rate thanks to factors like a lower infant mortality. But the society tends to keep those old-fashioned traditional ideas about birth control, abortion and being fruitful and multiplying. So the birth rate stays high, and that’s where the population increase comes from. And when more kids are living long enough to have kids, you have “Demographic Momentum,” a prescription for overpopulation.  It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Sri Lanka is a perfect example of the Demographic Transition Model.  And with the legacy of the island’s terrorism and repression, the recent Easter bomb blasts don’t seem so unusual in that small crowded country.  This is where Thanos would fail. It wouldn’t take long for global population growth to bounce back after his big population purge. It’s about a change in attitudes, not a change in the volume of people.  So what can be done?  In order to move a country from the transition phase to the modern phase, you need a drop in birth rates. Conservatives are likely to howl about a loss of “traditional” values, but that doesn’t mean a country has to have lots of abortions.  One of the stronger indicators of development is increasing a country’s education prospects, especially for women. As women pursue college, and put off having kids until later, the population numbers begin to fall.  As a country shifts to a post-industrial world with a sophisticated economy, kids get pretty expensive too. In a class exercise, I ask students their gender and how many kids they’d like to have. Male students typically want an average of one kid more than the female students. But after we review how much having kids costs (hospital, education, clothes, health care, food… and infant formula is pretty expensive!), everyone revises their expectations down significantly.  How do we know it works? It’s already happening now.  Look at Europe, North America and Northeast Asia. These First World countries with their developed economies are following this exact playbook. In fact, it’s worked so well that some of these nations are getting worried that their population growth has fallen too much.  Meanwhile, in the Third World, countries are exploding with population. Refugees from conflict, environmental problems and resource shortages are spilling into the West, triggering a debate between those who want walls and those who want immigrants to shore up their shrinking populations.  Some compromises on immigration, traditional values, economic modernization and foreign aid can and should be reached to bring the world back to equilibrium. It’s not too late, and it would be more effective for striking that balance between people and the Earth’s carrying capacity, a more effective solution than anything a would-be Thanos could achieve.  John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia—read his full bio here.


prisonplanet--2019-02-08--New Outrage Japans Deputy PM Blames Women Not Giving Birth For Declining Population

New Outrage: “Japan’s Deputy PM Blames Women ‘Not Giving Birth’ For Declining Population”

Suggesting women having less babies causes population numbers to decline is now verboten.  Both CNN and the Guardian picked up this story:  The Guardian had the most details:  Japan’s gaffe-prone deputy prime minister, Taro Aso, has been forced to retract remarks that appeared to blame women who do not have children for problems associated with the country’s low birthrate and ageing population. Aso, who doubles as finance minister, told a constituency meeting in Fukuoka, south-west Japan, at the weekend that older people were being unfairly singled out to explain the country’s demographic crisis. “There are lots of weird people who say the elderly are at fault, but that’s incorrect,” Japanese media quoted him as saying. “Rather, those who aren’t giving birth to children are the problem.” “The ageing population, combined with the diminishing number of children, is the grave issue in the mid and long term.” Aso later withdrew the remarks after opposition MPs accused him of insensitivity towards couples who want to have children but are unable to do so. The 78-year-old claimed media had taken his worlds out of context and that he had simple attempted to highlight the threat the declining birth rate poses to Japan’s economic health. But he added: “I’d like to withdraw my comments and will be careful with my words in the days ahead.”  Glad to see he apologized, though wouldn’t seppuku be more appropriate considering the extremity of the gaffe?  Mr. Aso should have known that the problem with Japan’s declining population is that not enough 78-year-old men (and women) are giving birth. This is common sense and anyone who says otherwise is a sexist bigot!  Everyone knows the solution to a declining population is unlimited immigration.  As Joe Biden knows better than anyone, that’s how you make your country strong!  This article was posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 at 6:29 am