A world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet, an essay in Scientific American magazine claims.
The opinion piece, authored by Stephanie Feldstein, points to the U.N. predicting dozens of countries will have shrinking populations by 2050 as “good news.” [emphasis, links added]
Fewer people require less feeding and less energy, the piece maintains, further declaring, “We should all be celebrating population decline.”
The premise is further enhanced by the claim the planet is suffering from overpopulation that diminishes wildlife habitats and ecosystems as the human impact has a deleterious effect on everything around it.
The essay states:
The loss of biodiversity is tragic in itself. A world without elephants, hellbender salamanders and the million other species at risk of extinction in the coming decades would be deeply impoverished. Wild plants and animals enrich our lives and hold vital ecosystems together. The fresh water we need to survive, the plants we rely on for food and medicine, and the forests we depend on for clean air and carbon sequestration are all the product of complex interactions between life-forms ranging from microbes and pollinators to carnivores and scavengers.
When even a single thread is pulled from that tapestry, the entire system can unravel.
Ultimately the opinion piece, written by the “population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity” states, “Population decline is only a threat to an economy based on growth. Shifting to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside lower fertility rates will help fight climate change and increase wealth and well-being.”
Humans, therefore, must choose between population growth and the survival of the planet, the essay posits, repeating previous claims that “declining populations and aging demographics” help governments meet climate change goals:
“We also need to bring together the reproductive rights and gender equity movements, and the environmental movement. Environmental toxicity, reproductive health, and wildlife protection are deeply intertwined.
“Pollution, climate change, and degraded ecosystems harm pregnant people, fetuses, and children, and make it difficult to raise safe and healthy families,” the essay further states.
The author points to recent globalist forecasts for the planet and climate as a further driver for limiting human population growth.
[…] we need what the United Nations’ most recent climate and biodiversity reports drive home, and conservationists, climate scientists and policy makers have demanded for decades: a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and sustainable food systems and a global commitment to halting human-caused extinctions now.
Population stabilization and decline will inevitably be achieved by centering human rights. Policy makers must guarantee bodily autonomy and access to reproductive health care, gender equity, and women and girls’ education.
Ultimately the essay delivers a plea to address “the crises in front of us” with everyone deciding “if and when to have children, and planning for population decline, we can choose a future of sustainable abundance.”
The essay is the second time in less than 12 months that a globalist urging for a decline in the human population has been heard.
Read rest at Breitbart
Fewer people coming through the mill means fewer to support the older generations in their old age; hence it will lead to shorter and leaner retirements for most people!
JUST ANOTHER LEFTISTS RAG SELLING FALSE NEWS AND JUNK SCIENCE JUST LIKE TH REST OF THEM
“Stephanie Feldstein”.
How many children? How many brothers and sisters? How many nephews and nieces?
Does she live what she preaches?
David Suzuki was questioned about his large (5 children) contribution to the Earth’s woes. The geneticist replied that his kids were the kind of people that the Earth needed. Yes, Earth needed 5 more self-righteous parasites like him.
Ouch. As you say; “Yes, Earth needed 5 more self-righteous parasites like him.”
Scientific American pushing leftwing agency along with other scientific journals. Smithsonian included. As a scientist for 50 years I stopped purchasing the garage they are spewing.