Neo-eugenicist John Seager to undergraduates: “you’re the ones who are going to be able to move this forward and complete what I see as one of the great social movements of our time.”

In a recent biennial report released last week by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) the projection for global population growth in 2050 has been raised with an additional 117 million people on top of the earlier projection of 8 billion people. As the UN keeps up the pressure an effort is underway to flood universities and colleges throughout the United States with population control propaganda. One of the people doing the rounds across academic America is former EPA chief John Seager, who now heads up an organization called “Population Connection”, dedicated to the selling of human population reduction.

On October 3 2012, Pennsylvania State University provided a stage for Seager, president of “Population Connection”, an organization promoting the culling of the overall human population. Accepting an invitation by the Institute of Environmental Studies, Seager attempted to convince a hall filled with undergraduates of the need to bring down the population for “sustainability” purposes.

In an October 4 article titled “Lecturer Explores Population Control Issues“, the Daily Pennsylvanian reports Population Connection aims to inform no less than three million k-12 students throughout the United States “about this issue and to lobby Congress to garner support for international family planning.”

“About 98 to 99 percent of all the population growth is happening in generally very poor places that are very far away [from America],” Seager told the Daily Pennsylvanian. “And to bring this issue to your average American is a very hard challenge.”

The man who extended the invitation, Stanley Laskowski, explained why he attracted Seager to lecture:

“population growth is the root of all environmental problems and his insight into the issue at hand is invaluable.”

This is exactly the idea Seager is promulgating across the US. As a former EPA chief appointed by the Clinton administration in the mid 90s, Seager has found an eager audience in the establishment academic scene. During one of his recent lectures, held at the Nicholas School of the Environment, he stressed that man is the foremost enemy to the planet and the global population should be curbed towards what he calls “sustainable levels.”

Speaking of the UN’s population projection for the next decades- which will have the human population at 8 billion by 2050- Seager (from 35 minutes onward) stresses that this “(…) if we move to that low line on the UN projection- in my view the best possible outcome in terms of human population growth (through voluntary programs)- it would be the biggest single slice of the carbon pie. It would do more than thousand mile per gallon cars. It would do more than that.”

 

Seager states that technological solutions to Co2 emissions will not be sufficient to prevent global climatic Armageddon.

“Tim Dyson at the London School of Economics found that if we reduced our carbon footprint by one percent a year in the developed world over the next forty years, a hundred percent of that is wiped out by population growth.”

Therefore, Seager argues, the birthrate in the developing countries should be drastically reduced. This is the global consensus in the scientific community today. Whatever we do to diminish our “carbon footprint” in the developed world, only a thorough culling of the Third World population will make sure the earth has a chance of survival. In 2005 an MIT professor told students (from 10 minutes, 10 seconds onward):

“The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”

Attempting to fence off the “critique” from both the left and the right questioning the right of these scientific elites to tell developing nation how many children to have, Seager states that, indeed, we have no right too so, he also states:

“That said, we have an opportunity to make options available…upon request. We do not go into any country until that country asks us to come in.”

Yeah. The mortally wounded deer will beg his attacker for death in the end. By the way, through many World Bank publications, such as the Reproductive Health Action Plan 2010-2015, published in April of 2010, we learn that the World Bank aims directly aims for the financial throat of a nation, saying in so many words that the financial lifeline will be discontinued if the Bank’s population policies are not being complied with double quick.

“The World Bank is uniquely positioned at the country level to take on advocacy for reproductive health, particularly in reaching Ministers of Finance. This will require utilizing the World Bank‟s economic analysis and technical resources to marshal arguments for investment in reproductive health. Bank’s country directors have key role to play in process of making RH a country priority through their policy dialogue with governments.”

The World Bank- as lender of last resort – has the dependent nations in a stranglehold. If nations do not comply with its directions, the Bank can cut the financial lifeline, no problem at all. A World Bank discussion-paper from 2007 titled Population Issues in the 21st century explains how this process works in more detail:

“The Bank has a potential comparative advantage to address these issues at the highest levels of country policy setting, not only with ministry of health counterparts, but also with officials from finance and planning. This is important given the increasing recognition that political economy is a critical factor in the implementation of population and reproductive health programs, particularly in high-fertility countries.”

Nothing voluntary about it, in other words. The decision is being made by UN technocrats and international bankers, and politicians in “high-fertility countries” are playing along to ensure their own survival. Now American undergraduates are being talked into this global “play or die” game as the UN agenda is moving forward.