International Conference on Population and Development

The United Nations coordinated an International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt from 5–13 September 1994. Its resulting Program of Action is the steering document for theUnited Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Some 20,000 delegates from various governments, UN agencies, NGOs, and the media gathered for a discussion of a variety of population issues, including immigration, infant mortality, birth control, family planning, the education of women, and protection for women from unsafe abortion services.

The conference received considerable media attention due to disputes regarding the assertion of reproductive rights. The Holy See and several predominantly Islamic nations were staunch critics and U.S. President Bill Clinton received considerable criticism from conservatives for his participation. The official spokesman for the Holy See was archbishop Renato Martino.

According to the official ICPD release, the conference delegates achieved consensus on the following four qualitative and quantitative goals:[1]

  1. Universal education: Universal primary education in all countries by 2015. Urge countries to provide wider access to women for secondary and higher level education as well as vocational and technical training.
  2. Reduction of infant and child mortality: Countries should strive to reduce infant and under-5 child mortality rates by one-third or to 50-70 deaths per 1000 by the year 2000. By 2015 all countries should aim to achieve a rate below 35 per 1,000 live births and under-five mortality rate below 45 per 1,000.
  3. Reduction of maternal mortality: A reduction by ½ the 1990 levels by 2000 and ½ of that by 2015. Disparities in maternal mortality within countries and between geographical regions, socio-economic and ethnic groups should be narrowed.
  4. Access to reproductive and sexual health services including family planning: Family-planning counseling, pre-natal care, safe delivery and post-natal care, prevention and appropriate treatment of infertility, prevention of abortion and the management of the consequences of abortion, treatment of reproductive tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and other reproductive health conditions; and education, counseling, as appropriate, on human sexuality, reproductive health and responsible parenthood. Services regarding HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, infertility, and delivery should be made available. Active discouragement of female genital mutilation (FGM).



  • 1 ICPD and abortion
  • 2 See also
  • 3 References
  • 4 External links

ICPD and abortion

During and after the ICPD, some interested parties attempted to interpret the term ‘reproductive health’ in the sense that it implies abortion as a means of family planning or, indeed, a right to abortion. These interpretations, however, do not reflect the consensus reached at the Conference. For the European Union, where legislation on abortion is certainly less restrictive than elsewhere, the Council Presidency has clearly stated that the Council’s commitment to promote ‘reproductive health’ did not include the promotion of abortion.[2] Likewise, the European Commission, in response to a question from a Member of the European Parliament, clarified:

“The term ‘reproductive health’ was defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. All Member States of the Union endorsed the Programme of Action adopted at Cairo. The Union has never adopted an alternative definition of ‘reproductive health’ to that given in the Programme of Action, which makes no reference to abortion.”[3]

With regard to the US, only a few days prior to the Cairo Conference, the head of the US delegation, Vice President Al Gore, had stated for the record:

“Let us get a false issue off the table: the US does not seek to establish a new international right to abortion, and we do not believe that abortion should be encouraged as a method of family planning.”[4]

Some years later, the position of the US Administration in this debate was reconfirmed by US Ambassador to the UN, Ellen Sauerbrey, when she stated at a meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women that: “nongovernmental organizations are attempting to assert that Beijing in some way creates or contributes to the creation of an internationally recognized fundamental right to abortion”.[5] She added: “There is no fundamental right to abortion. And yet it keeps coming up largely driven by NGOs trying to hijack the term and trying to make it into a definition”.[6]

See also

  • ICPD Beyond 2014 official website
  • Americans for UNFPA
  • Commission on Population and Development
  • Reproductive health
  • Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition


  1. ^ “Report of the International Conference on Population and Development”, UNFPA, 1995
  2. ^ European Parliament, 4 December 2003: Oral Question (H-0794/03) for Question Time at the part-session in December 2003 pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure by Dana Scallon to the Council. In the written record of that session, one reads: Posselt (PPE-DE): “Does the term ‘reproductive health’ include the promotion of abortion, yes or no?” – Antonione, Council: “No.”
  3. ^ European Parliament, 24 October 2002: Question no 86 by Dana Scallon (H-0670/02)
  4. ^ Jyoti Shankar Singh, Creating a New Consensus on Population (London: Earthscan, 1998), 60
  5. ^ Lederer, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 1 March 2005
  6. ^ Leopold, Reuters, 28 February 2005

Comment: This conference has had profound consequences on demography.

China will have to submit to euthanasia religion

NPR asks if one-child policy, gendercide are good for Chinese women


  • Tue Jun 04, 2013 08:13 EST

June 4, 2013 ( – Seeing hundreds of millions of forced abortions, pandemic cultural misogyny, and high female suicide rates, NPR wonders if the one-child policy and sex-selective abortion aren’t a huge step forward for feminism.

While writing this story last week, on the fact that the scarcity of women means that getting married now costs Chinese men 10 years’ income, I came across a “news” article written by National Public Radio.

The author, Louisa Lim, dedicated numerous paragraphs to the argument that women – at least, the ones who survive – can now demand high “bride prices.”

“In economic terms, the relative scarcity of women is giving them bargaining power,” she wrote, at U.S. taxpayer expense.

Indeed, our National Propaganda Radio sees a panoply of economic goods stemming from the Marxists’ inhuman policy of wholesale liquidation:

These women’s demands are making China’s economy grow even faster.

“Rising sex ratios contribute to two percentage points of GDP growth,” says Xiaobo Zhang, a professor of economics at Peking University, who also works at the International Food Policy Research Institute.

His studies have found that up to 25 percent of the growth in China’s economy stems back to the effect of the rising sex ratio. Together with Shang-Jin Wei, from Columbia University, he’s also found that 30 to 48 percent of the real estate appreciation in 35 major Chinese cities is directly linked to a man’s need to acquire wealth — in the form of property — to attract a wife.

Zhang has found families with sons in areas with higher gender imbalances are more likely to be unhappy, and to have to work harder in order to be able to afford that all-important wedding gift — the apartment.

“In order to save more, families with sons must work harder. They are more likely to become entrepreneurs, more likely to take risky jobs — like working in the construction sector — more likely to work longer hours. All this contributes to economic growth,” Zhang says.”

In the interest of equal coverage, NPR presented a one-paragraph response that perhaps “women aren’t necessarily benefiting” from seeing their sex decimated.


Leta Hong Fincher, who is earning her Ph.D. in sociology from Tsinghua University, says gendercide does not economically benefit women because parents buy homes in the for their sons rather than their daughters, and “women often transfer their life savings over to the man to finance the purchase of a marital home, which is then often registered solely in the man’s name.”

In fact, not just women but the entire nation of China’s economic future has been called into question because of its shrinking population. After growing accustomed to double-digit economic growth, tied closely to the size of its workforce, the Chinese labor pool contracted for the first time last year by3.45 million. An already limited population will continue to atrophy, as men are unable to marry or have children.

The Malthusian population control measure is already changing the personality of the children who survive and, with it, the nation’s financial fortunes. A recent study found the generation born since the one-child policy was instituted in 1979 is less trusting and more pessimistic. (I couldn’t imagine why.) The generation of only children is also considered more “spoiled.”

Professor Lisa Cameron of the Monash Centre for Development Economics said, “Our data show that people born under the One Child Policy were less likely to be in more risky occupations like self-employment. Thus, there may be implications for China in terms of a decline in entrepreneurial ability.”

The overall effect will produce the same lopsided workforce in China that other east Asian and western European nations are facing today. In 1990, there were 10 workers for each retiree. By 2030, there will be three.

Will China come up with an equally draconian solution to this “population surplus”? Will the one-child policy be followed by a period of mass euthanasia?

Despite the consequences, the Chinese Communist Party has shown no sign of abandoning the policy. Reggie Littlejohn, of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, told in an interview last year that the Chinese Communist Party is maintaining the policy of forced-abortion, because it “is instrumental in keeping them in power.

Of course, NPR’s utilitarian analysis would overlook the carnage of more than 300 million forced abortions and the terror of Beijing’s totalitarian state that puts them into practice, an oversight that requires moral blindness and an bias toward totalitarianism that borders on sycophancy.

Such is the state of nationally funded NPR “news.” It’s time to defund organs of the Left like public radio and television.

gwdisqus • a day ago

“Will China come up with an equally draconian solution to this
“population surplus”? Will the one-child policy be followed by a period 
of mass euthanasia?”

I think the writing on the wall answers both questions with, “Yes.”


Comment: Again, the Catholics draw the right demographic conclusion. As far as I know only my religion allows for euthanasia, and has this backed-up by eternal damnation. So China has to convert, or be destroyed.

Abortion v.s. Euthanasia

Twelve Reasons… Why Euthanasia Should Not be Legalised

<< back to euthanasia



This webpage was initially part of a private submission to the Government of the Northern Territory of Australia in 1994/5 at the time they were considering the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. The author, Peter Saunders MBChB FRACS, is a General Surgeon and General Secretary of CMF UK.

Twelve Reasons:

Voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatments exist

It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.

This has had its practical expression in the hospice movement, which has enabled patients symptoms to be managed either at home or in the context of a caring in-patient facility. It is no surprise that in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is now accepted, there is only a very rudimentary hospice movement. By contrast, in the UK, which has well developed facilities to care specifically for the terminally ill, a House of Lords committee recently ruled that there should be no change in the law to allow euthanasia.[1]

This is not to deny that there are many patients presently dying in homes and hospitals who are not benefiting from these advances. There are indeed many having suboptimal care. This is usually because facilities do not exist in the immediate area or because local medical practitioners lack the training and skills necessary to manage terminally ill patients properly. The solution to this is to make appropriate and effective care and training more widely available, not to give doctors the easy option of euthanasia. A law enabling euthanasia will undermine individual and corporate incentives for creative caring.

The same can be said of abortion, and then in spades.

Requests for voluntary euthanasia are rarely free and voluntary

A patient with a terminal illness is vulnerable. He lacks the knowledge and skills to alleviate his own symptoms, and may well be suffering from fear about the future and anxiety about the effect his illness is having on others. It is very difficult for him to be entirely objective about his own situation. Those who regularly manage terminally ill patients recognise that they often suffer from depression or a false sense of worthlessness which may affect their judgment. Their decision-making may equally be affected by confusion, dementia or troublesome symptoms which could be relieved with appropriate treatment. Patients who on admission say ‘let me die’ usually after effective symptom relief are most grateful that their request was not acceded to. Terminally ill patients also adapt to a level of disability that they would not have previously anticipated they could live with. They come to value what little quality of life they have left.

Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia ‘freely and voluntarily’. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are.

Abortion is never voluntary on part of the embryo/fetus. The woman in question can be pressured as well. Many people question whether consensual sex is possible in this society, so why abortion could be? The age of consent is often higher than the age on which abortion is performed on young women.

Voluntary euthanasia denies patients the final stage of growth

It is during the time of a terminal illness that people have a unique opportunity to reflect on the way they have lived their lives, to make amends for wrongs done, to provide for the future security of loved ones and to prepare mentally and spiritually for their own death. Not all make full use of this opportunity, but those involved in hospice work often observe a mending of family relationships and rediscovery of mutual love and responsibility that may not have been evident for years.

It is often through facing the hardship that terminal illness brings, and through learning to accept the practical help of others that human character and maturity develops most fully. Death if properly managed can be the final stage of growth. It can also be a time when words are spoken and strength imparted that will help sustain ‘those left behind’ through the years ahead.

Losing the opportunity of caring for vulnerable people denies us an essential part of our humanity. We conquer suffering, not by being insulated from its realities, but by facing it. Voluntary euthanasia, by artificially shortening life, denies these possibilities.

Pregnancy can be chance for psychological growth as well.

Voluntary euthanasia undermines medical research

One of the major driving forces behind the exceptional medical advances made this century has been the desire to develop treatments for previously fatal illnesses, and the eagerness to alleviate hitherto unmanageable symptoms. Medical research is essential if medicine is to advance further. When the focus changes from curing the condition to killing the individual with the condition, this whole process is threatened. The increasing acceptance of prenatal diagnosis and abortion for conditions like spina bifida, Down’s syndrome and cystic fibrosis is threatening the very dramatic progress made in the management of these conditions, especially over the last two decades. Rather than being employed to care and console, funds are being diverted to fuel the strategy of ‘search and destroy’.

If euthanasia is legalised we can expect advances in ktenology (the science of killing) at the expense of treatment and symptom control. This will in turn encourage further calls for euthanasia.

Again, the same could be argued for abortion with prenatal selection.

Hard cases make bad laws

Legalisation of euthanasia is usually championed by those who have witnessed a loved one die in unpleasant circumstances, often without the benefits of optimal palliative care. This leads to demands for a ‘right to die’. In reality the slogan is misleading. What we are considering is not the right to die at all, but rather the right to be killed by a doctor; more specifically we are talking of giving doctors a legal right to kill. This has its own dangers which we shall consider shortly.

Allowing difficult cases to create a precedent for legalised killing is the wrong response. We need rather to evaluate these difficult cases so that we can do better in the future. This was clearly demonstrated in the case of Nigel Cox, the Winchester rheumatologist found guilty of attempted murder after giving a patient with rheumatoid arthritis a lethal injection of potassium chloride in August 1991. Had he been willing to consult those specialised in pain management, he could have relieved his patient’s symptoms without killing her.[2] If errors of omission are acknowledged, changes can be made.

The European Association for Palliative Care recently registered its strong opposition to the legalisation of euthanasia.[3] If care is aimed at achieving ‘the best possible quality of life for patients and their families’ by focusing on a patient’s physical, psychosocial, and spiritual suffering, requests for euthanasia are extremely uncommon.

The answer is not to change the law, but rather to improve our standards of care.

Abortion is built on hard cases as well.

Autonomy is important but never absolute

Autonomy is important. We all value the opportunity of living in a free society, but also recognise that personal autonomy has its limits. Rights need protection, but must be balanced against responsibilities and restrictions if we are to be truly free.

We are not free to do things which limit or violate the reasonable freedoms of others. No man is an island. No person makes the decision to end his or her life in isolation. There are others who are affected: friends and relatives left behind, and the healthcare staff involved in the decision-making process.

Western society no longer recognises suicide as a crime, but still appreciates that a person’s decision to take his or her own life can have profound, often lifelong effects on the lives of others. There may be guilt, anger or bitterness felt by those left behind. Personal autonomy is never absolute. The effect of personal decisions on others now living or in future generations must also be considered.

The autonomy of the embryo/fetus is never respected, and often that of the (young) woman neither.

Voluntary euthanasia leads to euthanasia tourism

Once voluntary euthanasia is legalised in a single country or state, people from neighbouring constituencies will take advantage of it. In this way no territory can act in isolation. The decisions we make have implications for other nations, not only for their citizens who choose ‘euthanasia tourism’ but also for future changes in their own laws.

Any state considering a change in its laws in this regard has a responsibility not just to its own citizens but to the whole international community.

Abortion tourism.

Voluntary euthanasia changes the public conscience

The law is a very powerful educator of the public conscience. When a practice becomes legal, accepted and widely practised in society, people cease to have strong feelings about it. This was most dramatically demonstrated in Nazi Germany. Many of those involved in the euthanasia programme there were doctors who were motivated initially by compassion for their victims. Their consciences, and that of the society which allowed them to do what they did, became numbed. The testimony at Nuremberg of Karl Brandt, the medic responsible for co-ordinating the German euthanasia programme is a chilling reminder of how conscience can gradually change: ‘My underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves… such considerations should not be regarded as inhuman. Nor did I feel it in any way to be unethical or immoral… I am convinced that if Hippocrates were alive today he would change the wording of his oath… in which a doctor is forbidden to administer poison to an invalid even on demand… I have a perfectly clear conscience about the part I played in the affair. I am perfectly conscious that when I said yes to euthanasia I did so with the greatest conviction, just as it is my conviction today that it is right.’[4]

He sincerely believed he was innocent. This demonstrates that once doctors start killing, it is possible for them to carry on doing it without feeling any guilt.

Same with abortion.

Voluntary euthanasia violates historically accepted codes of medical ethics

Traditional medical ethical codes have never sanctioned euthanasia, even on request for compassionate motives. The Hippocratic Oath states ‘I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel….’ The International Code of Medical Ethics[5] as originally adopted by the World Medical Association in 1949, in response to the Nazi holocaust, declares ‘a doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from the time of conception until death’. In its 1992 Statement of Marbella, the World Medical Association[6] confirmed that assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. When a doctor intentionally and deliberately enables an individual to end his life, the doctor acts unethically.

Again, same with abortion.

Voluntary euthanasia gives too much power to doctors

Calls for voluntary euthanasia have been encouraged either by the failure of doctors to provide adequate symptom control, or by their insistence on providing inappropriate and meddlesome interventions which neither lengthen life nor improve its quality. This has understandably provoked a distrust of doctors by patients who feel that they are being neglected or exploited. The natural reaction is to seek to make doctors more accountable.

Ironically, voluntary euthanasia legislation makes doctors less accountable, and gives them more power. Patients generally decide in favour of euthanasia on the basis of information given to them by doctors: information about their diagnosis, prognosis, treatments available and anticipated degree of future suffering. If a doctor confidently suggests a certain course of action it can be very difficult for a patient to resist. However it can be very difficult to be certain in these areas. Diagnoses may be mistaken.[7] Prognoses may be wildly misjudged. New treatments which the doctor is unaware of may have recently been developed or about to be developed. The doctor may not be up-to-date in symptom control.

Doctors are human and subject to temptation. Sometimes their own decision-making may be affected, consciously or unconsciously, by their degree of tiredness or the way they feel about the patient. Voluntary euthanasia gives the medical practitioner power which can be too easily abused, and a level of responsibility he should not rightly be entitled to have. Voluntary euthanasia makes the doctor the most dangerous man in the state.

Maybe euthanasia should be performed by someone else than the doctor?

Voluntary euthanasia leads inevitably to involuntary euthanasia

When voluntary euthanasia has been previously accepted and legalised, it has led inevitably to involuntary euthanasia, regardless of the intentions of the legislators. According to the Remmelink Report,[8] commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, there were over 3,000 deaths from euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1990. More than 1,000 of these were not voluntary. Other assessments have been far less conservative, and these figures pre-date February 1994 when euthanasia in that country was effectively legalised.

Holland is moving rapidly down the slippery slope with the public conscience changing quickly to accept such action as acceptable. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) and the Dutch Commission for the acceptability of life terminating Action have recommended that the active termination of the lives of patients suffering from dementia is morally acceptable under certain conditions. Two earlier reports of the commission affirmed the acceptability of similar action for severely handicapped neonates and comatose patients.[9] Case reports include a child killed for no other reason than it possessed abnormal genitalia and a woman killed at her own request for reasons of ‘mental suffering’.[10]

I have already alluded to the Nazi holocaust. Many are unaware that what ended in the 1940s in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Belsen and Treblinka had far more humble beginnings in the 1930s: in nursing homes, geriatric institutions and psychiatric hospitals all over Germany. Leo Alexander,[11] a psychiatrist who worked with the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg, described the process in the New England Medical Journal in July 1949: ‘The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non- Germans.’

Such a progression requires only four accelerating factors: favourable public opinion, a handful of willing doctors, economic pressure and a law allowing it. In most Western countries the first three ingredients are present already. When legislation comes into effect, and political and economic interests are brought to bear, the generated momentum can prove overwhelming.

History has shown clearly that once voluntary euthanasia is legal, involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows.

Abortion, China, India.

In 1994 the British House of Lords recommended no change to the law on euthanasia after an extensive enquiry

In view of increasing public interest in euthanasia, and in the light of the Nigel Cox and Tony Bland cases, the House of Lords set up a Select Committee on Medical Ethics to look seriously into this issue in 1993. During their deliberations they took submissions from a variety of persons and parties. Of these the Department of Health, the Home Office, The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing all argued against any change in the law. The committee in its final report in February 1994, despite being earlier undecided on the issue, unanimously ruled that there should be no change in the law.[12] Lord Walton, the committee chairman, reflected on this in a speech to the House of Lords on 9 May 1994 in saying: ‘We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people – the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed – would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.’

While decisions made in the House of Lords are clearly not binding on other countries, such an extensive review and unambiguous decision does carry great weight. Others considering changes to the law would be well advised to examine the arguments which convinced it to come to the above conclusion.

The same country legalised abortion in 1967. Result: a rapidly graying population.


We need to recognise that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations where the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are properly met. As the symptoms which prompt the request for euthanasia can be almost always managed with therapies currently available, our highest priority must be to ensure that top quality terminal care is readily available.

While recognising the importance of individual patient autonomy, history has clearly demonstrated that legalised euthanasia poses serious risks to society as a whole. Patients can be coerced and exploited, the search for better therapies is compromised and involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows.

Legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia should be firmly resisted on the grounds that it sidesteps true compassionate care (because effective alternatives exist) and ultimately undermines rather than protects patient autonomy.


  1. Select Committee on Medical Ethics. Report. London:HMSO, 1994. (House of Lords paper 21-I)
  2. Twycross R (1993) A Doctor’s Dilemma. JCMF 39:1, 153:1-3
  3. Ventafridda V (1994) Euthanasia: More Palliative Care is Needed (letter) BMJ 309:472
  4. Brandt K (1948) Nuremberg Trials
  5. International Code of Medical Ethics adopted by 3rd World Medical Assembly,London, England, October 1949.
  6. Handbook of Declarations, WMA, 1992, France
  7. Rees, W et al (1987) ‘Patients with Terminal Cancer’ who have neither terminal illness nor cancer. BMJ 295:318-9
  8. Van der Maas PJ et al (1991) Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life. Lancet 338:669- 74
  9. Hellema H (1993) Dutch doctors support life termination in dementia BMJ 306:1364
  10. Sheldon T (1994) Judges make historic ruling on euthanasia. BMJ 309:7-8.
  11. Dutch doctors pushed on to ‘slippery slope’ over euthanasia. The Independent Wednesday 17 February 1993 p8.
  12. Select Committee on Medical Ethics. Report. London:HMSO, 1994. (House of Lords paper 21-I)

How much are the Yimas allowed to pollute?

Recently, there was a climate conference in Doha. A few years ago, there was a climate conference in Kyoto. The main point of the debate was which division of pollution was fair. Had the West polluted its share, and should now decline while other, upcoming industrial nations like China and India pollute their fair share? The West has been polluting a lot for a number of reasons; The industrial revolution, of which the whole world now reaps the benefits, the Christianity-caused population explosion, and the fact that the Middle-East keeps the West dependent on fossil fuels.

Now many people are angry that a minority causes the majority of the polution. But which minority? The West? Why not the oil sheiks, who practice both overpopulation and overconsumption? Singling out a minority is rather arbitrary.

Also, the assumption that each individual has the same right to pollute comes with a nasty little angle. Why not give each people, each culture a right to pollute? After all, linking the pollution rights to the number of individuals a culture, country or religion has, rewards enlarging your country or religion by conquest, conversion or birth rate, all of which leads environmental degradation, violence, and using your women as breeding machines. Do Chinese and Arabs want to grant their anti-Western presumptions also to the Yimas?

Free energy and Julian Simon

THEN the plot thickens. The Sikh shooter. The one Sikh who was shot dead has an interesting son as well. He’s part of the Neverendinglight productions. They were allegedly threatened by the government to stop production of the documentary. Sirius documentary is co-sponsored by Dr. Steven Greer. Greer says the UFO coverup is not about flying saucers but free energy. Coincidence? I saw Dr. Greer at a MUFON lecture in 2009. He had 8 armed guards perusing the room the entire time. The room was packed, at least 500 people. Now I know why he had those armed guards.

When I mentioned free energy first, I was considered a troll.

Free energy might be real, but if it is, and humanity implements it, we’ll most certainly run out of fresh water and arable soil — in short, we’ll destroy the ecology

And that is precisely the reason it is kept secret. There are still too many idiots who believe in uncontrolled growth, citing Julian Simon. But if Julian Simon is right, you do not have to fear an oil boycot either. After all, the free market always finds solutions. And religious fundamentalists have to believe in Julian Simon in order to justify their large families. Reminder: God exists and hell is eternal.