Earth4All describes itself as “a vibrant collective of leading economic thinkers, scientists, and advocates convened by The Club of Rome, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School.” It bills itself as “a platform to connect and amplify the voices that want to upgrade our economies.” The organization has impeccable globalist credentials, which is reason for it to be suspect out here in flyover country.
Why would the rubes in flyover country be suspicious? Well, for as long as most folks can remember, there has been nonstop yammering – from the wealthiest and most well-connected one-world types and their mainstream media mouthpieces – about “saving the planet,” “equality” and “redistribution of resources.”
A more recent iteration is “diversity, equity and inclusion.” All the while, decent-paying jobs disappear and standards of living decline. A good number of flyover country folks have tumbled to the realization that all this glorious globalism is goring their ox. They are not sold on yet another planetary levelling scheme that somehow enables globalist elites to amass more wealth while further tightening the noose on working folks.
What does this globalist “vibrant collective” have to do with demography? They’ve just released Working Paper #1 in response to a call for research from the Global Challenges Foundation entitled People and Planet: 21st Century Sustainable Population scenarios and possible living standards within planetary boundaries.
Earth4All’s population study predicts humanity’s future via two population projection scenarios.
The first is “Too Little Too Late,” projecting peak population in 2050 at 8.6 billion, falling to 7 billion by 2100. This scenario is predicated on global development proceeding along a “decision making as usual” basis, which is “declining labour participation rates, declining trust in government, a steady increase in inequality and a steady increase in the ecological footprint along with huge losses of wildlife.”
“Declining trust in government?” I’ve been on board with that since my salad days in the imperial capital. Trust the government? Are they kidding?
Their second scenario, preferred by the study’s authors, is the “Giant Leap,” with population peaking at 8.5 billion about 2040, decreasing to 6 billion by century’s end. This is a much lower projection than other studies and is contingent upon a “progressive” agenda (cloaked in high-sounding verbiage). This scenario occurs when governments, businesses and society are able to implement “five extraordinary turnarounds:”
- Ending poverty
- Addressing gross inequality
- Empowering women
- Making our food system healthy for people and ecosystems
- Transitioning to clean energy.
Whenever politicians, policy wonks and the like raise such issues, watch out. Let’s break down what those global “extraordinary turnarounds” could mean in practicality:
- “Ending poverty?” I agree – but that usually means the nanny state robbing Peter to pay Paul and a bloated anti-poverty bureaucracy to implement it. I guarantee you that lowering taxes on the middle class is not in the mix. Meaningful tax relief might fuel economic growth, but that would be bad for the environment.
- “Ending inequality?” Sure – but we already have equality before the law. What we don’t have is equality of result, and even the most oppressive race laws such as quotas and affirmative action can’t make that happen. The sheer hubris in the notion that some humans can make all humans “equal” is mind-boggling. The folly has revealed itself, so has been repackaged as “equity.”
- “Empowering women?” Earth4All describes it as “gender equity.” Does anyone doubt that means management by misandrist malcontents, aka radical feminists?
- “Making our food system healthy?” Better to have at least some junk food out there rather than government mandating what we’re to eat. Remember the Big Apple’s failed soda ban?
- How about “clean energy?” Again, sounds great. But is this about forcing folks to curtail their enjoyment of life in order to reduce the carbon footprint? Oh, and lest we forget, having fewer or no children fits nicely into that agenda. Those pesky wee ones do a number on the environment.
So Earth4All’s “Great Leap” scenario welcomes a rapidly ageing world. Coping with that could open unforeseen cans of worms such as “assisted dying” and other measures intended to more efficiently manage the planet. All for our own good, you see.
But even where industrial (productive) capitalism reigns, fertility is falling. Is this nature’s payback for humanity’s rampant hubris and runaway greed?
The Earth4All’s “Great Leap” scenario, despite their denial, is as utopian as it gets. To implement any utopian scheme, everyone must be on board. We’re told that is a major reason why Soviet Communism failed. People just didn’t believe.
A warning to utopians everywhere: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Get the Free Mercator Newsletter
Get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox.
Your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell you personal data.
Another consideration regarding Earth4All’s projections is how they compare with three leading population projections issued by the United Nations, the Wittengenstein Centre-International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (WC-IIASA) and The Lancet. Here is a summary of their most likely (median) projections:
The UN’s 2022 Revision of World Population Prospects projects global population to peak around 2080 at 10.25 billion and then begin a slow decline to 10.2 by 2100. This is a “cautious” assessment, not fully factoring in the unexpected acceleration of fertility decline.
WC-IIASA (EU funded) projects peak population in 2070 at 9.4 billion declining to 8.95 billion by 2100. This model assumes that education gradually decreases fertility, especially in the Global South.
The Lancet study (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) projects peak population at about 9.733 billion in 2064, with a precipitous decline to 6.290 billion by 2100. Increased immigration plus pro-natalist policies are seen as essential to sustain the industrialized world’s GDP.
The Earth4All study is different as their methodology emphasizes “economic advancement.” Mind you, this is not economic development. Should the world proceed along an unwoke, uncaring, trash-the-environment and women-oppressing basis as it has since Reagan’s time, we’ll have too many people: “The dominant economic model is destabilising societies. And the planet. It is time for a change.”
I couldn’t agree more, though I have a feeling that we might part company when discussing what kind of change. The globalist West, under the thumb of exploitative finance capitalism, believes in open-borders ideology to keep the cheap labour flowing. It would be wonderful to have a new paradigm prioritizing a living wage. That would be a boon for families.
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.