According to a Scientific American magazine opinion piece, a world with fewer people means a different climate and better outcomes for the planet’s remaining inhabitants – human and otherwise.
Stephanie Feldstein’s opinion article refers to the United Nations’ forecasting that dozens of countries’ populations will be shrinking by 2050 as “good news”:
This is good news. Considering no other large animal’s population has grown as much, as quickly or as devastatingly for other species as ours, we should all be celebrating population decline.
Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better, Stephanie Feldstein, Scientific American, 4 May 2023
The article asserts that fewer people require less feeding and energy.
The assumption is bolstered further by the notion that the globe is suffering from overpopulation, which is reducing wildlife habitats and ecosystems as human involvement has a negative impact on everything around it.
Ultimately the opinion piece, written by the Population and Sustainability Director at the Centre 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 ageing demographics” help governments meet climate change goals. Slowing population growth “helps reduce carbon emissions,” Feldstein says.
The above is extracted from an article published by Britmax News on 9 May 2023 titled ‘Scientific American magazine says population decline must be celebrated’. Read the full article HERE.
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…
Igor Chudov has written several articles highlighting reductions in live births and increases in mortality around the world so Stephanie Feldstein’s remarks in Scientific American caught his eye. Chudov noted that Feldstein recommends two books 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 population should be reduced to an estimated 450 million.
Feldstein leads the Centre for Biological Diversity’s work to “highlight and address threats to endangered species and wild places from runaway human population growth and overconsumption.” Linking human population and consumption is the basis of The Limits to Growth. Similarly, when she refers to “a model based on degrowth [ ] alongside lower fertility rates,” she is parroting The Limits to Growth ideology.
The Limits to Growth is a report commissioned by the Club of Rome in the run-up to the United Nations’ first-ever environmental summit in Stockholm in 1972. Through a computer-simulated model, the report “identified that human decision-making was luring our entire population slowly but inexorably toward environmental disaster,” an article published by the Club of Rome stated. As we have learnt through Neil Ferguson’s manipulation of data through computer modelling from the start of the covid era, predictive computer modelling can easily cherry-pick, skew, and re-frame data sets according to the desired outcome of controllers of the computer programmers. And as we mentioned in a previous article, it appears this is exactly what the models used to produce The Limits to Growth did.
Twenty years after The Limits to Growth was published, co-founder of the Club of Rome Dr. Alexander King admitted the essential fraud of their environmental agenda in his 1991 book, ‘The First Global Revolution’. He admitted that the “pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine” was merely a ploy to justify an attack on “humanity itself.” King famously said: “The real enemy [ ] is humanity itself.” This “zero growth” anti-human agenda, whose early proponents also include David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong, is now being rolled out as The Great Reset, Agenda 2030, and the Net Zero Carbon ruse.
Dennis Meadows, his wife Donella Meadows, Jay Forrester and Jørgen Randers authored The Limits to Growth. In 1992, on the 20th anniversary, the team updated Limits in a book called ‘Beyond the Limits’. In 2002, three of the original authors – Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows – published another updated study ‘Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update’. Donella Meadows died in 2001, the year before the latest publication.
Despite the admission of King ten years earlier that the Club of Rome’s environmental agenda was a ploy and that “the real enemy [ ] is humanity itself.” The message in The 30-Year Update remained the same.
The authors concluded that “humanity is dangerously in a state of overshoot.” This is alarmist wording even based on their own definition of the terminology. A synopsis of The 30-Year Update explained what an “overshoot” meant: “When an overshoot occurs, it induces stresses that begin to slow and stop growth.”
Yet, curiously, the only solution to the perceived, or perhaps more accurately contrived, problems that the authors suggest is to control the human population. The synopsis went on to state that the world can respond in three ways to signals that resource use and pollution emissions have gone beyond their sustainable limits:
- One way is to disguise, deny, or confuse the signals.
- A second way is to alleviate the pressures from limits by employing technical or economic fixes. “These approaches, however, will not eliminate the causes of these pressures,” the synopsis stated.
- The third way is to work on the underlying causes. To do this, the models used to produce The Limits to Growth can provide the answers, so the synopsis claimed. These are the same models that manipulated data sets. It’s no surprise then that the answer the models came up with was what the controllers were looking for: that couples limit their family size to two children, that people moderate their material lifestyle, and that technologies are added to abate pollution, conserve resources, increase land yield, and protect agricultural land. With these implemented, the synopsis of The 30-Year Update declared: “The resulting society is sustainable.”
On the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Limits to Growth, The Donella Meadows Project, created to preserve Donella Meadows’s legacy, published an interview with Dennis Meadows. When asked how reality was tracking with his scenarios created 50 years before, Meadows gave a response which should raise the eyebrows of even the most faithful follower:
… accuracy is not really the issue here. Our goal in doing the original analysis was to provide a conceptual framework within which people could think about their own options and about the events that they saw around them. When we evaluate models, we always ask whether they’re more useful, not whether they’re more accurate.
Dennis Meadows on the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Limits to Growth, The Donella Meadows Project, 4 March 2022
And, when asked how he viewed the impacts of pollution and a series of “depletion crises” caused by a growing population, Meadows gave another eye-opening response for the faithful:
… there is, of course, no possibility of avoiding climate change, even if we did reduce emissions to net zero.
We’re far above sustainable levels. Even if we could avoid climate change, there is no possibility of sustaining 8 billion people at anything near the living standards we’ve come to expect. There have been some academic exercises to calculate how many people the earth could support. That’s really a silly sort of exercise, because it ignores most of the values and goals that we have for making human life on this planet worthwhile: equity, liberty, welfare, human health. These things are all intimately affected by overpopulation. I don’t know what a sustainable population level is now, but it’s probably much closer to a billion people, or fewer, if we aspire for them to have the kind of living standards and the political circumstances that we enjoy in the West.
Dennis Meadows on the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Limits to Growth, The Donella Meadows Project, 4 March 2022
From the above we can surmise that for Meadows, at least, depopulation is not about the environment, “climate change” or “saving the planet.” For Meadows, reducing the world’s population is to maintain or improve “living standards and political circumstances.”
However, Stephanie Feldstein who has been infected by the Club of Rome’s ideology, still attempts to justify depopulation using “climate change.” Although she does also include Meadows’ idea of “living standards” by adding depopulation will increase “wealth and well-being.” It won’t, of course.
According to former intelligence officer Dr. John Coleman, the Club of Rome is an international foreign policy arm of the Committee of 300. The members of the Committee of 300 represent the world’s wealthiest families. This offers a relatively quick and simple solution to improving the wealth, well-being, political circumstances and more of the world’s population, one which seems to have eluded Meadows, Feldstein and others who follow The Limits to Growth ideology.
In January 2023, Oxfam published an article that stated the “richest 1% bagged nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years.” According to Oxfam, billionaire fortunes are increasing by US$2.7 billion a day with the richest 1% taking nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth US$42 trillion created since 2020. Putting it another way, a billionaire gained roughly US$1.7 million for every US$1 of new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90%. The trend showed no signs of slowing down as profiteering from the covid era began to tail off. Billionaire wealth surged in 2022 with rapidly rising food and energy profits.
Oxfam also noted that at the same time that the 1% were accumulating eye-watering wealth, “at least 1.7 billion workers live in countries where inflation is outpacing wages, and over 820 million people – roughly one in ten people on Earth – are going hungry.”
Oxfam is calling for a systemic and wide-ranging increase in taxation of the super-rich to claw back crisis gains driven by public money and profiteering. However, we are going further and calling for the entire wealth of the super-rich to be redistributed to the 90% – when they own nothing, only then will we be happy.

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help..
Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
.
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
Categories: Breaking News, World News
I should imagine to repair some of the climate problems. Every country should do something about it. When you allow the Philippines to have over 1 million fires a day and chopping trees down without licence, what chance have we got to repair this problem in this country is getting hotter, but nobody does anything about it in other countries like UK is getting wetter nobody is doing enough about it in America this fires Australia this fires the world is changing
People don’t understand why it’s changing when I’m going to tell you when you have millions of fires all over the world goes to the ozone layer and damages the ozone layer that will now go to the icecap and the icecap will start melting. It melts into the sea that changes the weather is as simple as that. But what does people do about it. Very little
Hi John, when you say what “do people do about it,” which people are you referring to? The Globalists and their lunatic followers are doing something about it. Because they are eugenicists with god complexes, their solution is to cull most of the population, you included, and control every aspect of the lives of those left alive. This is their solution to all the “problems” they contrive. All the Globalists need to do is convince people that their solution is good so that people willing comply, and in some cases assist, with their own destruction.
When reference is made to the percieved problems caused by climate change, we need to be confident about what causes climate change and what the results of that change are. A lot of the perceived problems you mention in your second paragraph are disputed. And so the cause of them is highly questionable, as are the consequences.
Due to natural forces the climate has always changed and will always change. Periods of global warming, for example, are not destructive to life as you have been led to believe. The climate warmed after the ice age; was that period of global warming destructive to life or did life blosom and flourish as the climate warmed up? Additionally, man’s activities neither caused the ice age nor the subsequent global warming – and for those who think they are gods and can control the climate, there is nothing man could have done to stop the ice age or the subsequent warming.
I’m afraid you have been hoodwinked by the climate zealots. Contrary to the hysteria being pushed by governments and the bought and paid for mainstream media, the statistics show that severe weather events are actually decreasing. Wild fires are as well. Remember 97% of scientists consensus on climate warming or change, depending on which of their predictions fails to come true. You would be closer if you said 3% consensus. Carbon dioxide is not driving any change of the climate it rises or falls in reaction to the climate. The main driver of the climate is the sun and our distance from it as we orbit it.
The best forensic observations on ‘anthropogenic climate change’ are being made by Tony Heller of RealClimateScience. Tony is an expert in historical weather data mining. Tony’s review of numerous historical weather records confirms that ‘adjustments’ are being made to historical weather data to give the false impression of a recent sudden catastrophic temperature rise. Tony’s forensic methodology uses primary original data and avoids computer modelling confabulations. John Robson of ClimateDefenceNetwork is also excellent.
Tony Heller also uses original historical data to show that, contrary to the claims of modern climate cult hysteria, numerous wild fires in the earlier years of colonial settlement in Australia Australia were in fact much larger and much more damaging than any of today’s wild fires.
You do know that cliamte science equals covid science do you?
Deluded comment. I suggest you go look at the data and see what the real science is saying. They were predicting all sorts of rubbish in the 1980 and non of it has come true. No sea level rises. The Northpole ice caps getting thicker, more polar bears etc…etc. Me need co2 to live and the earth could never be green without c02. Humans have negligible effects. H2o gases affects the climate and green housing to 95%. The earth is covered in water. wake up and stop believing the propaganda
For all western countries stop importing Mislims and blacks is the only thing they have to do to stop growth of their population.
The fact that WEF driven governments in western countries are doing the exact opposite proves they have very bad plans for their population and this world.
What initiated Deagel’s forecast for population worldwide, who initiated it, and what data/model did they use to get their 2025 figures?
[…] Details to Director of biodiversity charity celebrates population decline as it will help governments meet clim… […]
i have said it before and il say it again, all these people calling for population reduction get your self to the front of the cue and be the change you want to see!! and when your all gone the rest of us can live in peace without you telling us there are to many people about!
Hi pierre,
Same in the UK, our MP Boris Johnson, was at the front pushing the C19.
If he was so worried about population control. Why did he have 6 children that we know about.
They never want to be at the front for culling.
Same as they are never on the front line, during any wars they start.
[…] https://expose-news.com/2023/05/10/biodiversity-charity-celebrates-population-decline/ […]
[…] Director of biodiversity charity celebrates population decline as it will help governments meet clim…According to a Scientific American magazine opinion piece, a world with fewer people means a different climate and better outcomes for the planet’s remaining inhabitants – human and otherwise. Stephanie Feldstein’s opinion article refers to the United Nations’ forecasting that dozens of countries’ populations will be shrinking by 2050 as “good news”: […]
[…] by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News: […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] The above is extracted from an article published by Britmax News on 9 May 2023 titled ‘Scientific American magazine says population decline must be celebrated’. Read More […]
[…] Director of biodiversity charity celebrates population decline as it will help governments meet clim…According to a Scientific American magazine opinion piece, a world with fewer people means a different climate and better outcomes for the planet’s remaining inhabitants – human and otherwise. Stephanie Feldstein’s opinion article refers to the United Nations’ forecasting that dozens of countries’ populations will be shrinking by 2050 as “good news”: […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] from getting warm, Stephanie Feldstein, who wrote an op-ed recently for Scientific American, believes that depopulation, meaning a world with far fewer people, is the […]
[…] zu verhindern, dass das Wetter wärmer wird, glaubt Stephanie Feldstein, die kürzlich einen Leitartikel für Scientific American […]
[…] Director of biodiversity charity celebrates population decline as it will help governments meet clim… […]