|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Yesterday we published an article that highlighted that the United Nations’ (“UN’s”) “30×30” goal is the biggest land grab in the history of the world. It is the theft of land and natural resources on a grand scale. To convince the public the UN’s goal is a “good thing,” the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) and the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) have chosen three leading influencers – Greta Thunberg, Jane Goodall and David Attenborough – to market the ideology under the guise of a “new deal for nature.”
But these three marketeers aren’t just mis-selling the “new deal for nature,” at least two of them – Goodall and Attenborough – are openly marketing depopulation, the killing of billions of people, under the fraudulent “climate change” ideology. Perhaps Thunberg is their apprentice and will take over the reins when one of her mentors has been “depopulated.”
In this article, we take a brief look at Goodall who is portrayed as a kindly grandmother that wouldn’t hurt a fly and someone even our youngest can trust. However, as with the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood, she is not as her public image or name suggests. After learning a little about Goodall’s underlying beliefs, wisdom would say that children should stay well clear. Children should only watch documentaries or films associated with these marketeers in the presence of responsible adults. Adults who can negate any nuances which have been deliberately included to “nudge” or manipulate beliefs towards ideologies that are harmful not only to us but also to our natural world.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Jane Goodall is best known for her work with primates – her image of kindness has given her enormous credibility. But do not be fooled by the public image the propaganda machine portrays. To demonstrate Goodall’s underlying beliefs, we look at some of the remarks she has made over the years.
Wikispooks has noted two quotes from Goodall. The first was made in 2007:
“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.” – Jane Goodall, November 2007
And the second was made in 2020. Goodall was chosen to take the podium at the 2020 WEF annual meeting where she could help prepare business and government managers for the need for a drastic population reduction. Goodall was speaking at a panel discussion called ‘Securing a Sustainable Future for the Amazon’. She proclaimed:
“All these [environmental] things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.”
PolitiFact rushed to Goodall’s defence, albeit from a “Goodall’s population comments didn’t spark the pandemic” angle. “Goodall did make the human population growth comments seen in the video, but she has been making the same arguments for years,” the blogging site PolitiFact wrote. This is true. In the video below, Goodall admits that what she sees as a population problem “really hit” her in 1990, over 30 years ago. It was her perception of the “population problem” in Africa that convinced her.
The Critic sums it up succinctly: “When eco-warriors talk of population control, they mean the world would be better off with fewer poor black people.” In other words, it is a eugenics programme hiding behind a purposefully manufactured “climate change” narrative. This is an appropriate conclusion in the context that this particular comment is raised and is bad enough on its own, but the implications are much larger than depopulating Africa.
Returning to her remarks in 2020, although Goodall doesn’t indicate what she believes the population of the world to be 500 years ago, according to Worldometer the global population in 1500 is estimated at 450 million. The current global population is estimated at a little over 8 billion. So, using simple mathematics, Goodall is promoting the death of more than 7.5 billion people. “This session was developed in partnership with the BBC,” WEF noted.
Repeatedly promoting depopulation increases Goodall’s guilt not diminishes it, a fact PolitiFact’s blogger doesn’t appear to be concerned with. Additionally, we can assume from the point of view of the blog’s publisher, PolitiFact, that advocating for the “depopulation” of over 7.5 billion people is all right as long as you’ve been at it for a long time.
As an article published by The Conversation quite rightly noted, “this remark might seem fairly innocuous, but it’s an argument that has grim implications … As these escalate, people must be prepared to challenge and reject the overpopulation argument.”
For those who struggle to translate what the term “depopulation” means in practical terms: It translates to enforcing a decline in birth rates – through infertility, miscarriages and abortions – and/or enforcing an increase in death rates – through mass murder and “nudging” people, including children, to commit suicide. Surely PolitiFact’s blogger understands that Goodall sees him and his loved ones as part of the “population problem” and so is in her sights to be “depopulated.”
If you’re wondering why PolitiFact would defend someone who promotes eugenics and genocide, looking at who provides the funds for their operations will give some clues. PolitiFact, unsurprisingly, receives large donations for “support of content and training” from all the usual propagandists such as Google News Initiative, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, Omidyar Network/Luminate, WhatsApp and so on. PolitiFact is merely publishing blogs that conform with the ideologies of their funders. Their blogs should be read and understood within that context – that they are promoting an agenda and not presenting unbiased facts.
Never take anything at face value that has been developed or promoted by tools – such as WEF, BBC and PolitiFact – used by the propaganda machine. Things are not as they portray.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come…
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…
Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support
We are being heavily censored. Please share this article…
Categories: Breaking News, World News
She has studied primates all her life and concluded Homo sapiens is the most cruel and destructive variant of them all.
Now we can disagree on what the solution to this problem is …… but she has a valid point.
In other words, you agree with eugenics.
You might want to look up the definition of eugenics before posting your erroneous interpretation of my statement.
What are eugenics and scientific racism?Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,” which gained popularity during the early 20th century. Eugenicists worldwide believed that they could perfect human beings and eliminate so-called social ills through genetics and heredity. They believed the use of methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit.
Scientific racism is an ideology that appropriates the methods and legitimacy of science to argue for the superiority of white Europeans and the inferiority of non-white people whose social and economic status have been historically marginalized. Like eugenics, scientific racism grew out of:
You looked up racism not eugenics.
True racists misuse the term.
exactly.. she is eugenics… the definition says it all… look at the above wow.. getting rid of the ill well.. the perfect human beings.. she has no empathy
She never said she wanted to get rid of them. She said that too many people can ruin an ecosystem. Which is true.
Providing birth control devices to populations that could benefit is not eugenics.
of course Voice agrees, as all “progressives” rely ultimately enslavement and murder to maintain and exercise their power.
Why would you assume that “population control” means killing people who are already on earth? Birth control is population control. And why is it eugenics when it is a known fact that it is certain areas of the world where families have several children and little knowledge of, money for or access to birth control. And that is where the majority of the overcrowding and lack of resources to support that population is happening. That’s just facts, not some evil plot.
Nope, just a few of them.
There is no such thing as “homo sapiens” a man made label! Man is made in the image of God, not so with apes and chimpanzees!
Granted, man left to himself without the restraining Word of God can only walk contrary to what God would have us do.
Indeed ‘Homo sapiens’ is a man made label so is the word ´God’.
These are just words representing ideas produced by human creatures.
“human creatures” says all one needs to know about yourself.
Your verbal Kung Fu is weak.
creatures only means “created beings” which all and every living being is. It’s all about the hubris, the lust, greed and narcissism that’s rampant. resist. fight against them. purge them from the system.
what’s your point? maybe we should communicate in electromagnetic or telepathic waves.
voice.. your not doing so well.. maybe dont visit this site anymore.. you will be better off
I agree, sane people like “Europe” and myself have no place on this website of brain-washed, illogical people.
Regardless of what word you want to describe evil, these demons need and will pay for their narrative, they had 20 maybe 50 years to plan this but will have to watch their lives going forward till they drop
I hope you’re right, about the timeline. We’ve got a huge infestation of parasites administering this nation’s government. Obama’s third term (Called Biden) is meant to crush America and “build back better,” as they say — build back along atheistic Marxist lines. They’re attacking every institution by which America has grown and prospered and become the greatest nation in history. It’s also the biggest obstacle to globalist totalitarian control — and they’re working to implement that.
Humans are humans, uniquely distinct and separate from the animal kingdom. We aren’t merely more evolved primates. We are made in the image of God with volition and accountability. When an actual primate kills another primate (which happens constantly — yes, they are extremely dangerous), why don’t we call it a “cruel and destructive variant” and then prosecute it in a court of law, convict it of murder, incarcerate it, and hold a funeral for the deceased primate?
We don’t try to hold it accountable because it’s an animal, utterly unlike us, incapable of making moral/ethical judgements. Why don’t we hold a funeral for the object of its violence (or a roadkill deer, or a frog that drowned in a pool…)?
We are not the same.
Many animals kill each other constantly as a way of life, but we chalk it up to instinct and survival. This pronouncement that humans are the most “cruel and destructive variant of them all” (if evolution were true and we are just part of the animal kingdom) would merely point out that humans are the most animalistic of all the animals, with no more reason to hold a man accountable for a killing than a lion. We don’t hold the lion up to legal prosecution for killing the antelope — or call it cruel and destructive. However, by calling humans cruel and destructive when they kill, you yourself acknowledge that humans bear a higher moral accountability for our actions.
If we’re animals, then why hold anyone accountable for doing what animals do? We marvel in wonder, impressed at the stealth and efficiency of predators in nature, but we abhor the efficiency of the Nazis in their genocide. We don’t call the lion “cruel” even though he targets the young, old, and infirm without a glimmer of guilty conscience. And rightly so. Because we aren’t animals.
How do you think Humans reached the top of the food chain. Not by being mister nice guy…. but by inventing a narrative of being somehow a chosen species, creating a completely imaginary religious world with a complete system of social controls exploited by some elites.
Most other animals only kill their prey for survival while Humans even invent weapons to destroy within their own species for silly disagreements.
And you want me to believe a God exists ?
That’s because man’s problem is a moral one.
Morality is a human narrative.
You’re totally full of animal shit. We didn’t invent a narrative, we recognized it. Imaginary religious world, eh? You’ll soon find out. You think old John at about 90 years old and in prison on the Isle of Patmos — was able to predict with such stunning accuracy the elements that would arise in human society at the end of the age? (Same goes for a much earlier figure — Isaiah.) ok, check it out and realize how foolish you are.
Wrong. Animals don’t just kill for survival. Foxes routinely kill dozens of chickens in one night just for the sport of it. Many male animals will kill other males to compete for mating rights with a female even though there are plenty of females to go around, or even instead of just taking turns with the same female. Besides, these points are a distraction. If humans are just animals, then humans killing other humans is just animals doing what animals do (with or without clever technology). It is you who assigned a moral judgment to these killings — but based on what? Your opinion? Is it immoral for the fox to kill the chickens in numbers it can’t possibly eat? If we’re animals, then there is no moral code to address an animal killing another animal, yet you assign a moral judgement (“cruel”) to humans that kill other humans. You can’t have it both ways.
You also claimed that morality is a human narrative. Do you mean an arbitrary human invention? If that’s so, then why have you yourself leveled a moral judgment against humans killing humans?
The fox is not killing for ‘sport’. Being with a large number of chickens in an enclosed space is unnatural so it’s hardly surprising that the fox acts in an unnatural way. In the wild a fox will only kill what it needs.
Right. And Democrats are Vegetables, like the ones in Little Shop of Horrors. Yes, we’re physically animals but spiritually made in the image of God.
You need to point the finger at the Globalist elites.. They neither care for humans or animals.. Schwab wants domestic pets culled, along with most of the population..
Does she differentiate between the 3 distinct hominid species or lump them all together thereby blaming Eskimos for barbarism observed in Africa?
Does she have any qualifications or just present her emotions? Why doesn’t she research the differences between Europeans, Asians and Africans?
sure she has a valid point. was there ever any doubt that human beings are the worst murderers and monsters — but their also the only species who works on behalf of others and commits acts of mercy. You don’t have to “study primates” to know all that. You just need the most critical faculty to anyone — not specialized knowledge or an academic degree — but common sense.
And precisely what is that point? That because some people are destructive, we should destroy people at random until there are too few of us to do any damage?
[…] The Expose […]
“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.” – Jane Goodall, November 2007
I hear this all the time… So what makes her one of the ‘chosen few’? If she thinks so highly of ‘there are so many of us’, what’s taking it for her to remove herself from earth… All of those that think ‘we are too many’ on earth, well… there is a solution for them!
These oldies are bitching on about eugenics but the real solutions is to end them. Too many old demented eugenicists in the world and they all need to be put down.
Maybe with a genetic injection ?
Quite easy when you’re around 90 years old – as Goodhall and Attenbrough are – to champion the elimination of millions.
The bit that gets me it really does … she is allowed too pursue an ideology of murdering 7 billion people with no penalty for her beliefs. But woe betide me if I was too think a few of these people (far less than 7 billion for sure) were killed to make a more peaceful world I would be branded a murderer etc. etc.
I do think the world is over populated but killing people to achieve their goal is not the answer! Just halting all monetary support too breed in everything would do the same job but it would take about 40 years of collapsing birth rates.
It costs money too have a child … many are being made too pay through taxation for anothers breeding privilige.
Want kids? Pay for your own! Very simple IMHO.
Overpopulated? The whole of the worlds population can comfortably fit into a corner of Texas with both a front and back garden to boot.
That leaves much of Earth uninhabited.
Purportedly, the population of Earth has exceeded 50 billion in past ages.
So where exactly do you get this over populated notion from?
I don’t know about 50 billion, only God knows. The pre-flood population could well have reached such a figure, even post-flood, especially when one considers the great ages the patriarchs lived to.
But, yes, you are correct the Earth is not currently overpopulated (it never could be!)-this is absolute fact. I understand the UK could fit in Texas four times-so seven billion people may well fit in Texas with a “back garden to boot”.
The population figure of past ages has purportedly reached 80 billion. I am being conservative when giving a 50 billion figure.
For the controllers, that is a population they could never control.
Control is the narrative that requires depopulation.
Whether it be three thousand trillion or more, or less, who but God in Christ can say?
It cannot be gainsaid that the abiding Word of God is under constant attack, can it? Why is this? The answer is because Satan is the god of this age. 2 Corinthians 4:4. Nevertheless, it is written: I will…make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude. Genesis 32:12.
Try counting the sand of the sea!
The devil will try to kill as many as he can, notwithstanding, God’s elect will prevail, for Satan was once, and forever defeated at the cross.
Ha,ha,ha you are a really funny guy.
And what did they look like these 50 billion ? They must have had a superior intelligence leaving no visible traces when they left our little planet.
“Purportedly.”
And voice from Europe is an imbecilic troll.
And yes, the intelligence and infrastructure of those ancient ages was far superior to that of today.
Purportedly.
“No visible traces” you say. Not only an imbecilic troll, but a blind one too.
Your ad hominem reply is a sign of weakness but never mind.
We don’t live on a “little planet.”
The Earth is NOT a planet. The Earth is the Earth, planets /stars , the sun and moon are totally insignificant in size in comparison with terra firma.
Your problem is that you believe the damnable heliocentric lie.
Where are the skeletons of these allegedly 50 billion people? Their buildings? Art?
A good starting point.
https://alcyonpleiades.blogspot.com/
Exactly – looking at the growth of the human race over time and what it has achieved fits in a lot better with the Bible’s 6000 years than the evolutionary theory of man evolving over 3 million years and being fully human for the last 90,000-200,000 yet achieving almost nothing in that time and the population somehow mysteriously constantly dying in that time – even though it’s grown almost continuously in the last few thousands of years, I think.
The population numbers are secondary to the “rate of replacement”, meaning a birthrate of at least 2.1%, globally. Most countries fall short of that by a little or a lot. Its been estimated that global population will peak at about 11 billion, then steadily decline until reaching equilibrium.
Certainly the world would be better off with less violent criminal black people.
We are all children of Adam.
What of less violent criminal WHITE people? There are plenty of them, I’ll have you know!
(I am white).
You are white so was Adam…. You lucky guy !
I’m colourblind and don’t have that problem.
From where did you get the information that Adam was white?
As for being a “lucky guy”, God doesn’t play dice.
The world would be a better place without psychopathic murderers regardless of their skin tone, race, religion, nationality or location.
The world is overpopulated meme has been around for decades especially by those who are older and mostly conservative.
There is a longing by these Conservatives to return to a reduced world pop from hundreds of years ago in the belief that the their world will be returned back to them minus all the crowds, and minorities and less pollution.
What has happened is that they see the end justifies the means and to ignore the millions of deaths and much suffering. This is wrong of course.
They are pushing life ending mRNA injections like it is humanity’s salvation, pop reduction is their new religion.
Their plan is criminal and murderous. I see now that these same eugenicists such as the Rockefellers and many powerful Americans like Prescott Bush along with German industrialists like IG Farben were extremely anti-semitic and sponsored Hitlers’ rise to power with the intention to eradicate the Jewish race via Hitler’s war on Jews.
It is terrible what happened during WWII especially when escapees from the death camps revealed the truth starting in 1942 and were completely ignored as not to offend the incredibly antisemitic US State Dept. But apparently Poland had thought there were too many Jews before SEPT 1st 1939.
So what I am saying is this mass killing has been happening since WWII, even really with the Rockefeller bacterial vaccine rollout that triggered the 1918 Spanish Flu which really started at a military base in Kansas.
Check out the 2008 paper that Fauci co-authored:
‘Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness’
BY: David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
I tried to find a website for this paper using duckduckgo search but it’s been taken off or simply blocked by search engines.
I have found this excellent online article re the paper mentioned above that was co-authored by Fauci:
Study: Bacterial pneumonia was main killer in 1918 flu pandemic
Robert Roos August 22, 2008
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/influenza-vaccines/study-bacterial-pneumonia-was-main-killer-1918-flu-pandemic
‘Bacterial pneumonia was main killer in 1918 flu pandemic’
Robert Roos August 22, 2008
Influenza Vaccines Influenza, General Pneumonia
Aug 22, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – It was secondary bacterial pneumonia—not the influenza virus by itself—that killed most of the millions who perished in the 1918 flu pandemic, which suggests that current pandemic preparations should include stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, influenza researchers reported this week.
Experts at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) examined pieces of lung tissue preserved from 58 victims of the 1918 pandemic and reviewed reports distilled from thousands of autopsies to reach their conclusions, published online by the Journal of Infectious Diseases.
“Histological and bacteriologic evidence suggests that the vast majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia,” says the report by David M. Morens, MD, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, and NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, MD.
Many accounts of the 1918 pandemic have emphasized how quickly patients succumbed to the infection, creating an impression that a large share of the victims died of the virus’s direct effects on the lungs or the immune system’s intense response to the infection. But the new report suggests that more than 90% actually died of invading bacterial pneumonia after the virus wiped out cells lining the bronchial tubes and lungs.
Why in the heck are you equating a handful of rich and evil people with the vast majority of older conservatives? And what makes you think those rich and evil people are conservatives to begin with?
She wouldn’t be famous unless she was part of the agenda.
Its All Lies, All the Time.
Here I would agree with you: It’s all lies and it has been for the past 6000 years.
These two depopulationists will soon add themselves to the absentee list and thus aid their own cause. Let’s hope they’re right with God, assuming they believe in God, which I doubt. Fuck ’em.
You do a great disservice to Dr. Goodall and the entire planet by equating population reduction with “eugenics and racism.” Simple voluntary birth control, increased standard of living in poor countries, and reduction of excessive resource use in developed and over-developed countries would help solve all the major ills facing the planet, literally. It need have nothing to do with racism and eugenics. I appreciate your analysis of the “plandemic” but you are really out to lunch on a lot of other issues. I suggest broadening your perspective to include other living things besides humans, including the entire life support system of Earth.
Exactly. Far too many humans simply do not comprehend the importance of the ecosystem to our survival. I dread to think how many species have become extinct in my lifetime.
Thank you for saying this! Goodall believes in the theory of evolution, the MOST PERNICIOUS of LIES, and thinks humans are just another ape. And destructive. She ignores the good humans do as well. If we are just another ape, why shouldn’t we kill burdensome advanced apes? Voice from Europe thinks she has a valid point. What is that point, Voice?
I call it the theory of adaptation: in a changing environment it is the species that is able to adapt the best that will survive and thrive. At the moment we call them Humans. But with hubris comes also the downfall and it seems it is of our own making.
My advice would be : always forgive, never forget.
[…] […]
[…] David Attenborough – to market the ideology under the guise of a “new deal for nature.” In a previous article, we briefly looked at Goodall, who is not good at all. In this article, we briefly look at […]
[…] Source […]
[…] David Attenborough – to market the ideology under the guise of a “new deal for nature.” In a previous article, we briefly looked at Goodall, who is not good at all. In this article, we briefly look at […]
What would be better for earth and nature is if we had LESS Satanically manipulated “people” like Goodall, Thunberg, Schwab, Harari, Gates, Fauci and all the rest of the 3 letter agencies screwing up humanity for their own godlike mindset. These people are sick and work for the devil…Satan is their god.
Totally Rhoda, as a veggie, i truly love and care/respect all forms of life. Some might seem inconsequential, if you’re prone to judge but if they’re beings our loving Designer created, they’re crucial to the design.
Blowing my own trumpet but was near 50 when i fell in love with chess through playing online.
Most players levels, including GMs supposedly decline 40+, how does one explain someone like me then? Definitely GM level, an in the wind player, players like Xie, Morozevic, Hou, Aronian. Grischuk, Topalov and myself, would create a tournament that would thrill non-chess players.
We’re not boring bot players, which now dominate, we love free thinking, in the wind chess, like it’s meant to be.
Carlsen started off as one us but capitulated.
Often compared to Xie and i can see why. However i am much more ruthless and don’t care if my games become a butchers shop.
Which is why i’m a stronger player, love being in the wind but happy to get deep down and dirty, even love it as i prettily easily come up with killer moves in the wind.
Top flight chess is now about boring, doing what the prog says and who makes a mistake first.
Eh? Surely it should be about who plays the game better?
Players who use the prog method are what’s called grinders. Bore your opponent to death method where they lose the will to live in the game.
Happy to say i’ve defeated nearly all progs, unless they go to daft levels.
Definitely GM level?
Like world champion Topalov at an age of over 50. Very impressive. Morozevich spells his name with an ‘h’, just for next time you come up against him in competition and need to write his name on the scoresheet.
[…] David Attenborough – to market the ideology under the guise of a “new deal for nature.” In a previous article, we briefly looked at Goodall, who is not good at all. In this article, we briefly look at […]
These green wankers are making a fundamental error in their thinking. They put “the planet” above humanity, when it should be the other way around, I mean, what’s the point of a planet when there’s no one on it?
[…] last week we have published articles highlighting two popular figures who champion depopulation: Jane Goodall and David Attenborough. For those who would agree with or defend their ideologies, this article […]
[…] last week we have published articles highlighting two popular figures who champion depopulation: Jane Goodall and David Attenborough. For those who would agree with or defend their ideologies, this article […]
[…] last week we have published articles highlighting two popular figures who champion depopulation: Jane Goodall and David Attenborough. For those who would agree with or defend their ideologies, this article […]
[…] semana hemos publicado artículos destacando dos figuras populares que defienden la despoblación: Jane Goodall y David Attenborough. Para aquellos que están de acuerdo o defienden sus ideologías, este […]
[…] By Rhoda Wiloson […]
I like what it said in the article. Do you think it has escaped her attention that she is in fact OLD and if she has gotten the death jab, she won’t be around much longer herself.
Would it not be better to allow nature to take its course?
Why not sit back rather than intervene in world population growth? 10, 20, 50 billion people on the planet. So what? If we cannot grow sufficient quantities of food or run out of drinking water, nature will take care of it. We will die. I’m pretty confident some of us will survive and the bodies of the dead can help re-fertilise the soil, fresh water will exist, and given that the human body is 70% water it will re-enter the water cycle (waste not….).
So these seem to be the choices afforded to us. We can be proactive and murder several billion people or sit back and watch the slow, painful and I’m sure violent death of the majority of our species. The only thing for certain is that failing the emergence of a new habitable exoplanet, we will reach a saturation point and billions of people will die one way or the other. We see this played out in nature all the time so why would it be any different for the human species? What interests me is when the world becomes conscious of the inevitability of our plight, how will it respond?
[…] on her website. One of them ‘The Jane Effect’ is devoted to Jane Goodall. Just like Feldstein, Goodall openly states her desire for a reduction in the world’s population. At the World Economic Forum’s Davos 2020 meeting, Goodall suggested the world human […]
[…] Jane Effect ‘ est attribué à Jane Goodall. Tout comme Feldstein, Goodall déclare ouvertement son désir d’une réduction de la population mondiale . Lors de la réunion de Davos 2020 du Forum économique mondial, Goodall a proposé que […]
[…] é a população ideal do planeta. Outra responsável pela agenda do Fórum Económico Mundial, Jane Goodall … diz que está perto dos 500 milhões. Eles não divulgaram o que acham que deveria ser a […]
[…] la población ideal del planeta. Otros participantes en la agenda del Foro Económico Mundial, Jane Goodall … dice que cerca de 500 millones. No han hecho público lo que creen que debería ser la […]