NPG Releases New Position Paper Urgently Needed Now: A National Policy to Reduce U.S. Population

NPG Releases New Position Paper
Urgently Needed Now:  A National Policy to Reduce U.S. Population

Sees Census Bureau projections as evidence for critical need
to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth.

View this release on PRWeb.

This press release was picked up by 279 news outlets across the country, including: The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Sacramento Bee, The Boston Globe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and local affiliates from coast to coast for all major television networks.

Alexandria, VA (August 5, 2014) – With conservative Census Bureau projections estimating that our nation’s population will reach 420 million or more by 2060, Negative Population Growth (NPG) released a new position paper on July 28th highlighting the urgent need for a national policy to decrease U.S. population size.

In the position paper, NPG President Donald Mann states:  “It is widely recognized that further population growth carries with it the threat of catastrophic environmental disaster… a very real possibility.  But we are also faced with the virtual certainty that further population growth, and even population stabilization at more than some fraction of today’s numbers, will condemn billions of men, women, and children…” to an unlivable future.

Mann notes:  “If humanity is, or should be, in the business of trying to eliminate hunger and poverty, of trying to create a society that will be sustainable indefinitely in a sound and healthy environment, with a base of material prosperity that will minimize human suffering and allow civilization to flourish, then we had better set about without further delay to halt and then reverse population growth.”

Mann suggests that, while the task of reversing the tide of population growth may seem overwhelming, we must not give in to the temptation of further avoidance – nor continue to worship the false hope of technological salvation.  “We can have either overpopulation, or a good life.  We cannot, with all our science and technology, to which we owe so much, have both.  No responsible scientist can discern any scientific or technological miracle on the horizon that could save us from the inevitable consequences of overpopulation.”

Mann also warns against placing our ultimate faith in “green” movements or simply reducing our consumption of natural resources – the so-called “solutions” proposed by many proponents of further growth.  He notes:  “Conservation measures, the elimination of waste, increased recycling, and simplification of lifestyles are all necessary.  They would not be sufficient, however, to reduce material demand to a sustainable level, without a substantial reduction in our numbers.

However, Mann is not without hope for the future.  In the position paper, he adds:  “We are living at a momentous time in history.  We still have the power – if we can only develop the will – to halt and reverse population growth.”  That moment, however, he believes will be short-lived.  Mann warns:  “That power, if not exercised, may no longer exist even a few years from now.

He concludes:  “The population size of the United States is a vital national issue.  Our individual welfare and national well-being are inextricably bound up with this question.  Eventually, U.S. population must be stabilized.  …It is becoming increasingly apparent that our resource base is simply not adequate to support our present numbers, let alone a larger population size.  …Only with an explicit national population policy could such a reduction in population be achieved.”


There is no remedy that can possibly avert disastrous Climate Change and Global Warming unless we first address the problem of world population size and growth, and its impact on the size of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.That means that we need to address the population size and growth of each nation, which together make up the world total.

World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now.In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!

From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem.None at all.So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one?What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?
Like and Share:


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial