11,000 Experts Propose Final Solution to Global Warming: Just Kill Billions of People

Posted by Pecuniology 11 months, 3 weeks ago to Culture
30 comments | Share | Flag

Scroll down to the fifteen graphs labeled a-o.

Look at Graph b.

If there were a problem, then it already is sorting itself out. No need for genocide.

[We need a Category for Junk Science.]
SOURCE URL: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/11000-experts-make-modest-proposal-end-global-warming-just-kill-billions-people


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Abaco 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    One of my favorite quotes of all time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    Solutions to problems that do not exist will create disasters.

    This is the Malthus prediction dug up!
    Population always increases faster than food supply.
    A disaster that did not happen due to the industrial revolution.
    That came from scientific thinking (not The Science), property rights (private not community), free speech (not suppression of whatever they call hate-speech)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months, 3 weeks ago
      It's as if they didn't even bother looking at their own Graph b, which shows declining fertility rates.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 11 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yes, but it not worth looking at their graphs, well I did.
        Some are real dodgy, eg
        fossil fuel subsidies, a fallacy from funny accounting,
        Brazil's rain forest, yes a decline this year from fire but no significant long term change,
        tree cover loss increasing, dubious, no mention of proportion of earth's surface under vegetation -it is growing, satellite imagery evidence,
        more CO2, but from USA declining from increased energy efficiency, from China already the largest contributor and growing with a free hand under the Paris Agreement,
        some graphs show more CO2, so what? there is no CO2 temperature link from theory or observation,
        meat eating is growing but so is human health, height, and life expectancy,
        etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 11 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yeah, it kind of makes you wonder how the population is increasing per graph "a" with a decreasing fertility rate per graph "b". So much for the "experts". Edit add: After viewing "a" and "b", do I really need to look at the rest?

        I figure the signatures resulted from something like this: "If you want another research grant, sign here."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    If all those who were so 'concererned' would be so committed as to be proactive they would kill themselves. This would reduce the population, reduce food consumption, decrease the birth rate, reduce carbon emmissions (respiration, electricity use, the carbon footprint, and the amount of trash generated). More, being dead they would no longer be concerned by these issues causing them so much distress AND better I would no longer have to listen to them. Problem solved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months, 3 weeks ago
      That would require personal responsibility and effort, which are anathema to leftists.

      Leftists' preferred strategy is to perform 2/3rds of abortions on the 6% of the population who are—predominantly poor—Black women, and to promote chemical sterilization and genital mutilation of gender-confused children.

      It might not be as efficient as the policies that their ancestors supported a century ago, but that was all ruined by that nasty little socialist with the funny mustache, who gave eugenics and 'final solutions' to 'Problems' a bad name. Now, they have to be a bit more circumspect when liquidating 'undesirables' (their word, not mine).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 11 months, 3 weeks ago
        "when liquidating 'undesirables'"
        Now they are deplorables?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 11 months, 3 weeks ago
          Ah, see? That's your rationality bias showing.

          Remember that for leftists, words are just words. They feel that words do not have objective meanings, that reason is a myth, that emotions supersede facts, and that reality is a 'social construct'.

          They claim to hate Deplorables, but their blood-lust is always aimed at the alleged beneficiaries of their activism.

          They support mass abortion and sterilization of the world's black and brown people, the gender mutilation of the children of the kind of person who takes his toddler to Drag Queen Reading Hour, and AntiFA riots in the leftest cities with the strictest gun controls.

          They are all but nonexistent in Trump Country.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 11 months, 3 weeks ago
        That elusive "fairness" would raise its rotting head and declare that to be fair an equal chance must be given to all. That would be something like a draft were all citizens are listed and some way to decide how many would be taken out of the fertility pool for the rest of their lives be found. Then a random draw would required for those drawn to be permanently sterilized. The fairness liberals likely would go along with that final solution to population limits.
        /sarc off/ but as with the Germans, intelligent humans will find a reason to do that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    This is the kind of stuff they were throwing around in the 69s! We were all going to starve or be out of water beause of too many people.Since Bill Gates annoited himsef God, he believes it, and has the numbers we have to reduce to.
    Therer seems to be a major lack of knowledge about science in the population as a whole. Even the UN missed the Sun cycles when figuring climate models, and over included CO2 info. It is nto that hard, Grand Solar Minimum, until next Soloar maximum. Factor in the e00,000year cycle for the switching of the earch magnetic poles, also now in play, and you have climate.No wonder the head of the science dept asked me to switch majors to science, saying her students had lower grades than mine, but could not even put the learing into words. And this is the crap we get from those of the same ilk.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    This is further proof that the environmentalists' priority is the environment over people, even without sufficient evidence that the environment is actually in danger.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months, 3 weeks ago
      Although environmentalists do not even bother to hide their nihilism, they lack the conviction to assume personal responsibility and commit suicide, or even live off the grid in the jungle. Instead, they want to plunge the rest of us into an animalistic state of nature, while they continue to wag their fingers at the rest of us from the safety, convenience, and comfort of their urban apartments and suburban houses.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Solver 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    Yet another collectivist based solution to put in “the greater good” category.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 11 months, 3 weeks ago
      Among the most revolting aspects of this hysteria mongering is that these 'scientists' cannot be bothered to run the basic numbers.

      Today, the world population is approximately 7 billion humans. The population densities of Hong Kong and Singapore are approximately 6,500 individuals per square kilometer. These are wealthy, modern cities, proving that a lot of people can live well in a tight space. If all of the individual humans in the world were contained within an area that were a bit larger than 1 million square kilometers, that would result in a population density comparable to those of Hong Kong and Singapore, and it would leave the entire rest of the surface of the earth available for energy and food production, manufacturing, and waste processing.

      There is no 'overpopulation'. There is only mismanagement.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 11 months, 3 weeks ago
        So, the entire world's population could fit into an area roughly equivalent to the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, if the population density were equivalent to Hong Kong. I'm not sure that's a desirable thing, but let's say it is. Who would you propose to do the "managing"? If this sort of management were to be implemented, it sounds a lot like the UN "Agenda 21" - where the human habitats are like forced labor camps? That's why we in the good ol' USA have the Second Amendment. Nobody is going to force me into a railroad cattle car. I've got my own 7-acre property in the country, and I'm not leaving.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    Graph B is incorrect.

    The fertility rate is declining only in developed countries.

    Asia, Africa and South America populations are growing leaps and bounds:

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=populat...

    What is happening is "population replacement" as people from overcrowded continents are filling the void in underpopulated countries such as Africans flowing to Europe.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 11 months, 3 weeks ago
      Hmm, maybe I should have read your post before responding above.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by exceller 11 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yeah, we tend to glance at charts like these and don't think about digging further.

        Whoever put the charts together was not a scientist but a crook. Even if he/she averaged the numbers, the trend is downward but up.

        I guess that is what these erstwhile "scientists" are worried about when they are calling for mass murder to cull the population.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BCRinFremont 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    Kill all the people. Brought to you by the same folks at the UN IPCC (international planetary climate crazies) who have been such an intimate part of human nurture since the 1960’s. Their current motto remains, “Global warming causes global cooling.”.

    Was Voltaire a pre-Objectivist?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    Of course. These people believe in progressivism but not actual progress. The history of the world shows that as the planet's population has increased, so has our efficiency in use of the land for farming, etc. The people who believe there are too many people on the planet are the same ones who think that everything consists of a fixed pie and they are out to expand their share. They just can't bring themselves to abandon their selfishness in favor of self-interest in which everyone wins.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 11 months, 3 weeks ago
    The thread heading and the article cited are false and misleading. "11,000 Experts" did not "Propose Final Solution To Global Warming: Just Kill Billions Of People". They did not advocate killing anyone, let alone "genocide", nor are they "experts" on climate or population.

    The position paper, jointly signed by 11,000 scientists from across a broad range of different fields, claims "The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle", and advocates reducing or reversing population growth as one factor. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/a...

    The paper advocates the usual activist policies for a "climate emergency" and includes the role of population, urging "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women". The 11,000 scientists are on the usual climate hysteria bandwagon, but did not call for a sensationalist "genocide" claimed in this thread.

    Their population recommendation cited a 2018 paper in Science magazine, "Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold? Population policies offer options to lessen climate risks", which referred to voluntary birth control and education as effective measures. http://demographic-challenge.com/file...

    A more credible report on the paper and the reaction to fertility rate reduction is in the MITTechnology Review: "Critics blast a proposal to curb climate change by halting population growth:
    More than 11,000 scientists signed a paper arguing the world needs to stabilize or gradually reduce the global population". https://www.technologyreview.com/s/61...

    "More than 11,000 scientists from a broad range of disciplines signed a new editorial declaring a 'climate emergency,' but other researchers immediately criticized one of the proposed remedies: halting population growth..."

    Much of the criticism is from the left, invoking the usual false race and eugenics accusations, and a fear that the population recommendation "feeds directly into the perception among conservatives that 'climate science and its conclusions are the product of an ideological movement,' one that prioritizes nature over humans."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo