This is no conspiracy theory.
Mark Wallace posted a rather chilling article and accompanying spreadsheet on Conservative Home on the population figures the Optimum Population Trust would like to see in each country of the world.
Fausty’s Libertarian Blog
November 24, 2009
Mark’s article:
The Optimum Population Trust, for those of you who haven’t yet come across them, are an odd bunch. Bluntly, they believe the best way to save the planet is to get rid of as many human beings as possible.
On the plus side, at least they are being more honest than most greens in their open contempt for human beings. The reality of many in the environmentalist movement is at core a deep anti-humanism, an arrogant dislike for people who are somehow too stupid to see the problem with their pursuit of a happy life and a healthy family.
On the down side, the OPT’s aims are actually pretty worrying – verging on sinister, even. Buried in their website is a detailed spreadsheet [Excel link] laying out their ideal “sustainable” populations for each country. And those “ideal” populations are a little worrying, if you try to imagine the reality of them.
For example, the UK should shrink to 29 million people, from the 60 million we currently have. We are of course a small island, but ask yourself which half of your friends you would rather did not exist?And we get things comparatively easy in the OPT’s dystopian vision of the future.
Only one in six of the current Algerian population should really be allowed. Bosnians are unlikely to be overjoyed that 3 million of their 4 million people are, in the OPT’s eyes, an inconvenience. Rwanda should apparently go from 7 million people to only 2 million.
What the OPT seem to forget is that these aren’t just statistics. They aren’t just “emitters”, as their website terms them. They are real human beings, who live, love and laugh. It is peculiar that Sir David Attenborough, the Patron of the Trust, can show so much compassion for animals but is apparently happy to back such a dispassionate dismissal of the value of our fellow humans.
Yesterday, the OPT released the results of a Yougov opinion poll [Excel link] which they trumpeted as showing public support for their aims. “Public want smaller UK population”, announces their website. However, when you actually read the tables for the polling results, it turns out that the public are bothered about far more real world, centre right issues than greenie pipe dreams.
It turns out, people are actually perfectly happy for us to be allowed to continue breeding – directly contrary to the OPT’s aims.
One major question was, “Do you think people should take the impact on the environment into account when deciding how many children to have?”
The answer is pretty clear. A miniscule 15% say people either should not have any children or should only have one, while 24% either think “the number of children people have won’t affect the environment” or that people shouldn’t worry about it. Unsurprisingly, the biggest support – 34% – is for people choosing to have two children, which is just about what people actually do have in real life. Far from endorsing the OPT’s views, people are voting for no change, and life as usual.
Most interesting is the question which investigates public support for various policies on population. Most left those surveyed pretty unmoved, with only three gaining majority support:
- Reduce immigration: 69%
- Let people work after the retirement age: 63%
- Better family planning support to reduce unwanted pregnancies: 62%
So, it turns out that far from being radical greens who want to interfere in people’s family life, the public are just bothered about high levels of immigration and unplanned pregnancies, whilst wanting to allow pensioners to work. More back to basics than ban the babies.
dprogram.wordpress.com 
“Do you think people should take the impact on the environment into account when deciding how many children to have?”
Yes, you should take EVERYTHING you can think of into account. Hello!?
In addition to the impact your children would have on the environment, I suggest you also consider the impact the environment would have on your children. Earth ain’t the cleanest bed in the maternity ward these days, and its going to get worse before it gets better.
According to Wikipedia, the United States occupies a land area of 3.79 million square miles. I converted this to square feet to get a more familiar idea of how big this really is. So:
1 mile = 5280 ft
1 sq. mi. = 5280^2 = 27878400 sq. ft.
3790000 sq mi x 27878400 sq ft (per sq mi) = 105659136000000 sq ft
Let’s set aside 2/3 of this area for purposes such as farming or institutions; that leaves us with 1/3 of this space to use for building homes.
Assuming that every person needs a living space of 1000 sq. ft in their homes:
105659136000000 sq ft / 3 = 35219712000000 sq ft
35219712000000 sq ft / 1000 = 35219712000 people
That’s 35.2 billion people we’re talking about here just in the country of the United States!!! Imagine how many US there are in the world. Like a dozen or so! Given that half the world is uninhabitable, that would still be 35.2 billion times 6 = 211318272000 people! That’s well over 200 BILLION PEOPLE maximum capacity that the Earth can support!
OVERPOPULATION IS PROPAGANDA! HELLO HELLO HELLO HELLO !!!!!
Watch the Demographic Bomb then anyone can see the greens have lied to the people. Population are going down.
Only a fool would believe the Greens on any subject. The arth has been clean up greatly animal populations are doing great.
First lesson the greens lies all the time.