Read on Twitter
So this headline is... a dramatic work of journalistic malpractice? Pretty directly misrepresenting the actually quite clear statements of the underlying statement? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm
The headline "Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say" is a terrible way to paraphrase a group statement emphasizing that "The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle." https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
The statement that "the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity" is the last and least heavily emphasized of the six recommendations.
Compare to: "must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices and must replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables...Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystem"s, driven by economic growth, must be quickly curtailed"
11,000 Scientists: WE MUST MASSIVELY CURTAIL CONSUMPTION IMMEDIATELY STARTING YESTERDAY also let's think about bringing population growth down a bit maybe
BLOOMBERG: "World Scientists urge that poor people's reproductive organs be removed"
BLOOMBERG: "World Scientists urge that poor people's reproductive organs be removed"
I'm going to go ahead and say that my man Eric R did not get to write the headline to his article
