(LifeSiteNews) — Tesla CEO Elon Musk, now the richest man in the world and a father of eight, is insisting that not only is the earth not overpopulated, but it could healthily sustain “many times” its current population.
In perhaps his most radically unorthodox claim to date about the so-called overpopulation problem, Musk stated Sunday, “Earth could sustain many times its current human population and the ecosystem would be fine. We definitely don’t have ‘too many people.’”
Mainstream media often promotes the idea that we have already exceeded the earth’s carrying capacity, the idea that there is a maximum population our environment can sustain indefinitely. However, there is in fact a wide range of opinions on what that capacity is, if there is indeed a limit, as shown by studies on the subject compiled by the Australian Academy of Science.
While 20 studies say it is 8 billion people or less (the current world population is now nearly 8 billion), 14 studies peg the world’s carrying capacity at twice that amount, 16 billion, and 18 other studies notch that number way up, with seven studies estimating the earth can sustain as many as 64 billion people, and one study estimating it at 1,024 billion people.
Jordan Peterson has noted that “dire predictions” about the state of the world by the year 2000 made by the globalist Club of Rome based on ideas of overpopulation have been way off the mark. Peterson explained on a recent Chris Williamson podcast that the Club of Rome predicted “riots and mass starvation … and all the things you hear about climate change, because there’s too many people on the planet.”
Peterson continued, “That just didn’t happen at all … it wasn’t just wrong, it was anti-true. It was absolutely wrong. What happened instead was that everyone got way richer and the [poorest] section of the population … got lifted out of poverty.”
Dave Rubin (left) hosts one of the most popular conservative chat-shows on YouTube, but we now know his views are as extreme as many on the left.
Not only are Rubin and his homosexual partner using surrogate mothers to bear two babies, thus deliberately depriving the children of their true mothers' care once born, but he also admitted those babies would have been aborted if found to have severe disabilities.
SIGN the petition telling Dave Rubin that true conservatives protect life and uphold the right of children to be raised by their mothers.
Mr. Rubin recently said he also supports abortion up until 12 weeks, compounding the regrettable pro-eugenics stance he has taken towards unborn babies with severe disabilities.
There are few things more tragic in our world today than the disposable attitude of many people towards innocent human life, but that is exactly what Rubin thinks is acceptable.
This must be called out - it's simply abhorrent to treat the disabled, the unwanted, and the vulnerable with such callous disregard.
Tell Dave Rubin that his pro-eugenics views have no place in a humane society.
Can you imagine finding out your parents would have aborted you if you had a severe disability?
Well, that's unfortunately what will happen to the children Rubin raises if they someday read his latest book, "Don't Burn This Country".
There he shares that he and his family's decision would have been to "terminate the pregnancy" if a severe disability was found in one of the babies now being borne by their surrogate mothers.
Rubin must understand how cruel this entire situation is, not only for the mothers and their children who will be taken away, but also for disabled people to know they are essentially thought of as "lives unworthy of life."
Real conservatives must speak up now and tell Rubin that his pro-abortion views are abhorrent.
Mr. Rubin's public split with the left is to be welcomed, but "conservative" leaders like him will do much more harm than good if they continue using their platform to undermine the family and the right of children to be born.
If we let these cornerstones of society be attacked from within, what hope have we of building a culture we can be proud to hand on?
Make a stand today for unborn children and their mothers - tell Dave Rubin that he's wrong.
True conservatives cannot afford to take the easy shortcut of ignoring Rubin's cruel position, lest we continue to be shunted further left, becoming radical liberals in everything but name.
So, please SIGN and SHARE this petition today,
Why are leading conservatives congratulating Dave Rubin and his 'husband'? - LifeSiteNews
Dave Rubin says he'd ask his surrogate to abort any disabled child - The Bridgehead
**Main Image: YouTube screenshot of Dave Rubin talking to Donald Trump Jr.**
Eric Metaxas has noted that such false predictions were built on Thomas Malthus’s “iron law of population,” an idea cited by Charles Darwin, which states that population increases must of necessity outstrip food production.
According to environmental scientist Erle C. Ellis, history shows that populations have always been sustained that were “well in excess of what a strictly Malthusian calculation would have predicted,” due to technology. Ellis maintains that “there is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity” due to existing technologies, and that there “really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity.”
Musks’ statement that the earth can support many times its current population was a reply to a tweet in which reporter Emel Akan referenced Musk’s own claim that “the greatest challenge the world will face in 20 years is population collapse.” Akan shared a recent Epoch Times report lending credence to Musk’s stance, highlighting two recent demographic studies predicting population collapse.
The article cites a Gates Foundation-funded study published in the Lancet, which predicts that the global population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064, and then start to decline. “Once global population decline begins, it will probably continue inexorably,” the authors wrote.
By 2100, the researchers anticipate a total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.66, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 A staggering 183 out of the world’s 195 countries are “forecasted to have a TFR lower than replacement by 2100,” the researchers wrote.
Stanford University economist Charles I. Jones describes this scenario of population decline as an “Empty Planet result: knowledge and living standards stagnate for a population that gradually vanishes.”
According to the Lancet study, this trend of declining fertility will be accelerated by increased women’s education and access to contraception, both major missions of the Gates Foundation: “Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth.”
Despite the cultural mores opposing birth control in its targeted nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has pushed heavily for years to distribute contraception in developing countries, pumping billions of dollars into its initiatives, under the guise of reducing poverty and helping women.
Despite the “economic” and “geopolitical risks” of population decline, the study authors frame “a decline in total world population in the latter half of the century” as “potentially good news for the global environment,” since “Fewer people on the planet in every year between now and 2100 … would mean less carbon emission, less stress on global food systems, and less likelihood of transgressing planetary boundaries.”
Jordan Peterson remarked to Williamson, “This idea that the planet has too many people on it — there’s no sentiment more implicitly genocidal than that statement.”