Population Eradication...

**~~brokensickle~~** · 07 May 07, 05:46

Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion
Sea Shepherd founder says mankind is a 'virus' and we need to 're-wild the planet.'

By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
5/6/2007 7:41:33 PM

Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.

The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn’t sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.

Watson was invoking the worst of Robert Malthus, an English political economist who claimed that mankind was overpopulating the earth. That claimed first appeared in the late 1700s. Watson urged some solutions for mankind as part of a process to “need to re-wild the planet”:

· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.

· “We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.”

· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”

· “Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.”

· At least Watson was generous and said people could still talk with one another across great distances. “Communication systems can link the communities,” he proclaimed from on high.

The Watson rant kept on going calling for everything from cutting down on the population of domesticated dogs and cats to cutting down on everything else in what he called “simplify, simplify, simplify.”

Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”

I think he should start with himself...What do you think?

Ivan

**JAD_333** · 07 May 07, 06:21

Watson's concern is legitimate. His approach is a bit hamfisted.

He is also taking for granted that reducing population is for the greater good when the opposite may be true. Perhaps the population must go on increasing for some natural evolution we do not yet understand to play itself out. If we ignor that question, the debate will be meaningless.

We are less than 100 years away from total depopulation. No one have babies and that's that.

Personally, I am nostalgic for the days when there were more wide open space and frontiers to explore.

But this is a very good subject to explore.

**gunnut** · 07 May 07, 08:20

Do you think he's for or against global warming?

I think he's for.

Global warming is the best way to reduce human population, according to the cultists.

**pdf27** · 07 May 07, 10:29

Yet another example of where environmentalism is turning into a religion. He isn't arguing in favour of population control to give humans a batter life, but because it is somehow good for the Earth and the other species present.
Fundamentally he's a Pagan earth-worshipper pretending (possibly even to himself) that he's an environmentalist.

**glyn** · 07 May 07, 10:40

I enjoy eccentrics. Life would be tedious without them. Is what this one is saying any worse than what the majority of people think? I think its reported just to ridicule him. It's more likely to make people think - and thats never a bad thing. We are over-populating the planet. We are harming it and all the other species we share it with.

**ChrisF202** · 07 May 07, 14:20

Originally Posted by glyn

I enjoy eccentrics. Life would be tedious without them. Is what this one is saying any worse than what the majority of people think? I think its reported just to ridicule him. It's more likely to make people think - and thats never a bad thing. We are over-populating the planet. We are harming it and all the other species we share it with.

That is true.

We have 300 million people in the US now (plus 20 to 30 million illegals who are not counted). By 2040 the US population is predicted to add another 100 million plus illegals so im guessing about 420 million then. There is no way we (or any other nation) can sustain that much growth that quickly. You have housing, sanitation, etc we just cant handle it.

**glyn** · 07 May 07, 14:38

The two most populous nations have virtually 2.5 billion between them. I can't see them readily agreeing with Paul Wilson!

**Debbie** · 07 May 07, 16:17

Originally Posted by glyn

We are over-populating the planet.

I've said this for years.

**JAD_333** · 07 May 07, 17:55

Originally Posted by Debbie

I've said this for years.

Well, then you've been wrong for years. You will know it's "over" when we have a pronounced shortage of Post-it note pads. Don't depend on ipso facto to protect you from punishment. Cheers

**JAD_333** · 07 May 07, 18:33

Let's set some permeters here. By over-population do we mean global? Yes.

What is over population? Is it the point at which the globe cannot sustain its population of living species? Yes.

If we agree on the latter, then we must have formulas to determine when over population occurs.

That means we need to know how much food the globe can produce to feed all living species.

We need to know how much space we need to sustain life.

We need to know how much water we need.

And we need know all the other key factors necessary to sustain life and how much of each.

In this way we will be able to say when over-population has truly arrived.

But we must be careful to include in such calculations such variables as the effect of new techniques for increasing food production becaue yields per acre of farmland continue to grow.

Waste is rampant today in some countries. So, reduction in waste is a factor.

But even if the formulas tell us that the globe can support twice the current population, we must consider the phychological impact on people. Will over crowding drive people nuts?

In my way of seeing things, we are already over-populated because I like it better when there are fewer people and I dislike the fact that open spaces are disappearing and that wild animals are being crowded out of their natural habitat. If there are enough people who share my feelings, then over-population will occur (or has already) long before the ability of the globe to sustain life is exhausted.

I would be interested in how others here feel about which criteria defines over-population: the scientific or the psychological.

**dave lukins** · 07 May 07, 19:44

[QUOTE=glyn; We are over-populating the planet. [/QUOTE]

And we all all to blame

How many on WAB have kids and G'kids? It's how the World works

**dalem** · 07 May 07, 20:37

All alarmism and doomsturbation scenarios have proven false, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

-dale

**glyn** · 07 May 07, 22:56

Originally Posted by dalem

All alarmism and doomsturbation scenarios have proven false, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

-dale

They may for some time, but ultimately they will be proved right. The world can forget the freedoms we have today. It will be minutely regulated to ensure everyone has precisely the same amount of room and the same amount of food. It will be the ultimate communist society. What a wonderful scenario to pass on to later generations.

**wkllaw** · 07 May 07, 23:20

I think he should start with himself...What do you think?

I agree, if he wants a less populated world then he should start with himself, but I think if we are in a crisis where we run out of oil or coal then we would probably invest in renewable energy and make more progress then we ever have in a short time. As for food shortage that's happening right now.

Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”

Yes we can survive like that, but the life of luxury is the most important reason and pretty much my only motivation to work hard.

**omon** · 07 May 07, 23:25

he claerly sees the problem, but his solutions are uniplementable,

Thread: Population Eradication...

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Population Eradication...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

U.S. Population to Hit 300 Million in 2006

Fraudulent Palestinian Population Statistics Exposed

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions