UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt

UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt

www.timesonline.co.uk

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Here it comes, we are going to see more and more of this as water and food become more uneven. Is this the first signs of the NWO population cull?

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.

Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.

They'll tell you it will be natural, but how are they going to achieve that in a meaningful time frame?

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Before everyone goes loopy over a possible "NWO population cull", it might be worth pointing out the conclusions of this report are that "the UK must reduce it's population to be able to feed itself sustainably".

This means that in order for the UK to be self reliant on food and other resources, the population must be 1/2 what it is now. It doesn't say we need to reduce the population full stop, just if we want to be self-sufficient.

Considering that the "NWO" seems to be wanting an integrated world, not one of self-sufficient nation states, this report doesn't appear to be in the NWO camp.

It is a sensible argument they make anyway. The UK can no longer produce enough food or other essential resources to maintain the population, meaning we have to import products. I cannot remember the exact figures, but the UK can only produce enough food for around 60-70% of the current population and we are net importers of Oil and Gas, bringing in around 20% of our needs from abroad.

reply to post by stumason


I completely disagree with you

Everything and everyone would be ffine if it wasn't for war and greed!

Poverty is NOT a necessicity or a natural result of the planet's people way of living.

More people can very much mean more production if it wasn't for corruption.

first of all let me just say that i love your avatar! that is friggin awesome. makes me wonder if the cat was going for the hotdog or for the camerman. i bet we won't be seeing part 2 of that picture.

anyway, the last time i got into a popluation reduction thread it quickly became a bleeding heart, humanitarian thread that denounced anything to do with having less humans on the planet because we should all love care and respect each other so much. i hope this thread sticks to reality a little more. (was that a long sentence or what?)

now to the point. the population will reduce itself in time whether you like it or not or whether we do anything about it or not. you cannot sustain exponential growth. making plans about it is only going to help.

reducing the popluation, however, is not the answer and it never will be. at best it will give you 30-40 years unless you mass sterilize people on a consistent basis. in which case you will have people leaving the cities and breeding on their own. then of course you will have barbarian tribes raiding the cities and killing your ever so precious breeders that the world now can't live without. it's a hairy situation and it gets worse as it moves along.

And this guy is a moderate. Only killing half the population? He's not radical enough. There's people who want to kill 90% of the population and some other crazies, like in 12 Monkeys, ALL OF IT.

And of course, before killing, there will be control, which we already see, and open sterilisation, probably the next step, even if they are already doing it.

reply to post by Shere Khaan


When watching a stricken animal in a wildlife documentary , call out for its mother or attempt to raise its wasted body to stand - the narrator often reminds us that it is not right to intervene , its for the good of the herd etc.

I would hope that we could withstand the ultimate test of our "humanity" and resist such possible urgings , should such a calamity befall our species.

It would take very little for our civilisation to regress , each one of us is charged with being the guardians of our fellow man.
A test i hope none of us ever have to face.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Oh, how silly of me. What a simple solution to a simple problem.

What you "completely disagree with me" about doesn't seem to be anywhere near what I was saying.

It is a fact the UK does not produce enough food to feed the population, it has nothing to do with greed. Sure, if people cut down on food waste then it may mitigate the problem, but we'd still be short.

Even in the 1940's the UK barely made enough food to feed everyone, hence the rationing when the shipping lanes were being preyed upon and that was back when people were quite poor, wasted little food if any and didn't eat takeaway's.

All the report say's, according to the articles I have read, is that in order for the UK to be able to be self-sufficient on food the population must be as it was in the late 1800's, which incidentally was when we didn't import much food at all and even then it was luxuries like banana's and other exotic stuff.

Quite simple really.

reply to post by Vitchilo


It say's nothing about killing anyone. You're reading what isn't there.

Out of this economic meltdown could come a fresh approach ..... i can barely finish typing that sentence with the wave of cynicism washing over me

Are we so locked into this consumerism etc. Products designed to fail , disposable everything , such waste .The same resources used wisely could see us through a greater span of time.

If somethings gotta give, then let it be our lifestyles first.

When someone who delivers pizza`s in some Western capital can have a better standard of living than someone doing 14 hour shifts in a sweatshop , we have to question how we have ultimately designed and profited from this system, be that directly or indirectly .


The world will not know peace until we do.

Originally posted by stumason

It is a fact the UK does not produce enough food to feed the population, it has nothing to do with greed. Sure, if people cut down on food waste then it may mitigate the problem, but we'd still be short.

that is a result of corruption.
but holy moly that is opening a can of worms!

I remember going to the UK, soooo muchhhh foooddddddddddd.
Especially around places with alot of east indians, fruits and vegetables everywhereeeeeeeeee.

talk about a surplus of food!!!

Originally posted by stumason
Before everyone goes loopy over a possible "NWO population cull", it might be worth pointing out the conclusions of this report are that "the UK must reduce it's population to be able to feed itself sustainably".

This means that in order for the UK to be self reliant on food and other resources, the population must be 1/2 what it is now. It doesn't say we need to reduce the population full stop, just if we want to be self-sufficient.

Considering that the "NWO" seems to be wanting an integrated world, not one of self-sufficient nation states, this report doesn't appear to be in the NWO camp.

It is a sensible argument they make anyway. The UK can no longer produce enough food or other essential resources to maintain the population, meaning we have to import products. I cannot remember the exact figures, but the UK can only produce enough food for around 60-70% of the current population and we are net importers of Oil and Gas, bringing in around 20% of our needs from abroad.

Yes and no, sustainably does not mean putting a burden on another countries resources to feed it unless justified, such as supporting a necessary endeavour in non viable places such as where mining is needed.

I do agree that a lower population is important and will solve a lot of problems to do with the environment and resources. It's just how it's gone about.

The title of this thread can be a little off-putting
though looking at Jonathon Porritt's blog, his suggested methods for population reduction are well-thought.

9. The first is to allow into our country no more people than leave it on an annual basis. That’s called “net zero immigration”. This is not xenophobic, let alone racist. It’s just common sense.

10. The second is to see if we might persuade (please note, persuade, not coerce!) the 26% of women in the UK who are currently expected to have more than two children to ‘stop at two’. (The other 74% already do stop at two, or have one child or none.) If we did this, we would be able to cut our forecast population by around 7 million people.

reply to post by stumason


So, why did this advisor of your PM claims that "you must cull the population", instead of saying "you must increase production of food"?...

That is the sensible response to your problem. Culling the population is only part of the plan of TPTB so they can control people more.

Instead of agreeing with the claim that your population, or the population of the world must be destroyed or removed, because at the end that is what "cull the population" means, you should understand that the problem, you, and much of the world has is that we need to increase the production of food, which is more than possible.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Ok, he suggested how to cut fore-casted growth. But there are 60 millions now. How ,even with nullifying natural growth and stopping immigration ,you get to 30 million???
It is either one kid allowed per family or throwing people out. I see no other "reasonable' choice. So get ready to kid licenses,guys.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


I am expecting much worse. Just like under Obama now the government has the power to say what treatments people should have, instead of this being a decision of the doctors. Many people, and more so the older people, will not get proper treatment, and will die sooner, all in the name of culling down the world's population.

Other countries such as England will follow suit. I also expect such countries adopting a One Child Policy like China does.

There are ways to feed the current population just fine.

There are dozens of programs where Park Rangers have to literally destroy, and kill herds of animals whose meat goes to waste and could feed a lot of people.

There is more than enough space to increase food production, but of course with the excuse of the carbon hoax TPTB now have the ability to stop the increase in food production because this also releases CO2, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

There is nothing good that will come from these plans, except the total control over every human being in this world.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by stumason

 

I completely disagree with you

Everything and everyone would be ffine if it wasn't for war and greed!

Poverty is NOT a necessicity or a natural result of the planet's people way of living.

More people can very much mean more production if it wasn't for corruption.

And where do you suggest we find the land on which to farm produce and rear cattle?

This isn't just about money. I agree with your sentiment in that we spend far too much on war and we allow for far too much greed, but there are simple practical issues here that relate.

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with any NWO plans, this is about common sense. Just look at some of the most populated areas on Earth, and you'll see the glaring facts for themselves.

We are already at a point where the Human race cannot provide for itself. Either through greed and corruption or through lack of sustainable farming, this is a fact.
The only way to change this is through each country taking responsibility to lower birth rates to within a sustainable limit. This is done through education and a change in moral opinions.

We need to start by educating kids properly, showing them just what it means to have children, what they'll have to give up.

A one child policy would surely halve the population within about 60 years??? Although I kind of support this I don't think it's possible in a world of such human rights, I would more so prefer a way of temporarily sterilising people until there mid 20s before they can have kids although this would probably just increase the hedonistic culture I find so vile....

Dirty bomb it is!

[edit]
Thinking about it maybe the new cervical cancer injection all the young girls are having may infact have the horrible side affect of sterilisation... now that would be a shame.

[edit on 24/3/2009 by spitefulgod]

I think I have two questions regarding this:

- Since when is self sufficiency an issue?

- But more importantly, why?

Is there something we are not being told here?

[edit on 3/24/2009 by corvin77]

Self sufficiency is an issue because with growing populations more countries will be having food shortages. If you can't sustain yourself and you can't buy the food then you're in for real social trouble.

Just last year there was a hiccup in rice markets. prices went up, supply went down and suddenly countries like Thailand and India put limits on rice exports. The Phillipines who relied on those exports were suddenly left in the cold. Things got back to normal pretty fast, but as more strain goes onto food production, the inevitable shortfalls from natural disasters become more and more dangerous to the food supply.

No ones needs to be self sustaining now, but it is a good idea as a long term strategy given the projected world population.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by stumason

It is a fact the UK does not produce enough food to feed the population, it has nothing to do with greed. Sure, if people cut down on food waste then it may mitigate the problem, but we'd still be short.

that is a result of corruption.
but holy moly that is opening a can of worms!

I remember going to the UK, soooo muchhhh foooddddddddddd.
Especially around places with alot of east indians, fruits and vegetables everywhereeeeeeeeee.

talk about a surplus of food!!!

An estimated 6.7 million tonnes of household food waste is produced each year in the UK, most of which could have been eaten. This wastes good food, costs us all money and adversely impacts on the environment. The amount of food we throw away is a major contributor to the production of greenhouse gases in the UK.

Source