Remember how depopulation was called a right-wing conspiracy theory? Things have changed, and ‘population collapse’, which can no longer be denied, is now good for us!
The Telegraph picked the perfect messenger to communicate the new way we should think about population declines. A high-level WEF adviser tells us:
Oxford Professor Sarah Harper is a very important person. The Telegraph article listing her credentials forgot to mention that she serves on the Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies of the World Economic Forum.
Prof Harper is thrilled about recent declines in fertility:
Prof Harper told the Telegraph: “I think it’s a good thing that the high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are reducing the number of children that they’re having. I’m quite positive about that.”
The academic said declining fertility in rich countries would help to address the “general overconsumption that we have at the moment”, which has a negative impact on the planet.
Most importantly, declines in births will bring about reductions in CO2 emissions from wealthy nations, Prof Harper points out:
Research has found that wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon footprints than poorer countries, as rich people can afford to buy more goods, travel more and do other activities that generate emissions.
Carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger than low-income countries on a per capita basis in 2020, World Bank figures show.
Population Declines or Population Replacement?
Here’s the strange part: If the leadership of the World Economic Forum wanted to reduce emissions from wealthy countries, I could understand how they would hope that population reductions would lead to a decline in economic output. Aside from moral implications, it is simple math that fewer people means fewer cars on the road, less food consumed and so on.
However, something entirely different is going on! While the population of local-born natives is no longer reproducing at the levels needed to maintain the population, new immigration picks up. It accounts for a larger and larger share of births!
While the number of births in Britain is declining, the share of children born to parents who immigrated from outside Britain has hit a record high.
Almost one in three children born last year were delivered by mothers born outside of the U.K. The number of births by women born outside the U.K. rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3% of all births. The previous peak was 29.3% in 2020.
When including the father, more than one in three children born last year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the figure was two thirds.
This development is inconsistent with wanting to reduce the populations of high-consumption countries. It seems self-defeating to celebrate birth reductions while simultaneously amping up the arrivals of new immigrants who work hard to live well, consume a lot, have many children and realise the ‘British dream’.
Please do not interpret me pointing out the above inconsistency as my hostility towards immigrants: I immigrated to the United States, worked hard to have a good life and am blessed with a beautiful family and two grown children. I am immensely thankful for the opportunity to live in this wonderful land of the free – and I am sure that most other immigrants want to live well and work hard, just as I did.
However, even though I am equally sympathetic towards immigrants, just as I am towards the natives, I cannot shake the feeling that Prof Harper and the WEF have an inconsistency between stated goals and actions that I cannot explain easily.
This inconsistency is not something I can quite understand: New immigrants want to consume just as much as native residents. Why encourage immigration from poor countries to rich countries if the goal is a reduction of carbon and other emissions that would occur due to declines in the population of rich countries?
Help me understand this puzzle! Are we missing something? What do they really want?
This article was first published on Igor’s Substack page. Subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My dear fellow, the answer to your puzzle is plain: they want Europeans to stop reproducing the better to resettle our ancient homelands with wholly alien populations. It’s called the Great Replacement, officially denied, stigmatised to the point of illegality and happening in plain view – the brain child of our fourth phase Marxist elite.
To destroy National Identities with mass immigration so we all feel just like citizens of the world rather than citizens of Individual Nations with our own culture and values.
To prevent another attempt to remove a particular “ethnic group” by “nationalists” in Europe.
And yet if this were true; if this represents the animating impulse behind the terrible developments of the last forty years, then surely its sponsors would be shooting themselves in the foot; for the populations imported from the Islamic world have no love for the ethnic group to which I believe you are referring.
Indeed, many such migrants have incubated and nourished their hatred for that section of society throughout the second half of the twentieth century and they are almost solely responsible for contemporary outrages against it.
True, people can make mistakes, but even if a member of the group in question, looking back in anger upon his ancestors’ suffering, concludes that the answer is to abolish the culture which he holds responsible for bringing that suffering about, he would merely be making the same errors intellectually which draw all fools towards “wokedom”, no matter what their origin.
Therefore, to look for motivations in “grudge” or historic memory is a blind alley. We must simply make the principled case for the worth and survival of our society no matter who tries to destroy it – and in the process we will rescue people from the mental darkness which the left has imposed upon them – with any luck, bloodlessly.
And finally, many of the strongest and most fearless defenders of our society today hail from that much persecuted category; and it cannot be described (any more than any other group) as thinking like some species of monolith.
Finding a false but convenient target for the wrath brewed in our hearts by hard left malice is to play the left’s game. Please – don’t fall for it.
Precisely. Perhaps they imagine they’ll be able to hollow out other societies in the same way; or perhaps they have cultivated such hatred for the “bourgeois” Europe which resisted their idiotic “revolution”, that they simply wish to destroy it. Many of them find justification for this dark, secret agenda in the tyranny of guilt, which is itself a condition of pathological narcissism.
I would put it down more to conflicting interests. The ambition of reducing the global population, which probably most peoplr misguidedly support, clashes head on with the imperative of economic growth on which our entire financial system relies.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks the world is overpopulated should do the logical thing and top themselves.
Do you really think she cares about economic growth? I think she’s just yet another “educated” “intelligent” “kind” white person who feels uncomfortable with our success.
I must take leave to differ. Japan – population senescent and falling – grew by several orders of magnitude whilst its population remained static, post-war. So economic growth does not mean a rising population – if anything, it brings about the reverse, especially today, with automation reducing the need for rank upon rank of skill, from common labour to refined judgement.
I’m not quite sure why you think the population of Japan hasn’t grown post WWII. It more than doubled.
In recent years, when it has stagnated and begun to decline, it’s hard to discern how much of its very feeble economic growth is due to increase in productivity and how much is due to the money printing and massive expansion of debt.
In any case, it’s economic growth is pretty feeble.
Its populace doubled; it’s economy grew by several orders of magnitude. Counter example: Africa – population explosion, economic stagnation. Your equation just doesn’t add up.
Japan birth rates are not high enough to replace workers and pay pensions which is why they gave tax relief to married people to have children. Ofcourse the UK and Europe just import migrants for that purpose regardless of the effect on National Identity.
Yep——-Population growth is highest in the poorest countries. Once people become prosperous, they get better educated, they live more organised lives, they use contraception and birth rates fall to those seen in the wealthy west. ——-The only way poor people can become prosperous and develop though is to use the same fuels as we did. —-Coal Oil and Gas. But the pretend to save the planet people at the UN coerce poor people to leave those fuels in the ground. This is ofcourse a diabolical disgrace.
That’s the nice theory. But the ugly practice is very likely more a case of natural horror vacui: Europe is very fertile and has a nice, temperate climate. Due to the habitual self-poisoning of European women who desire to be liberated by menial service and office work instead of being enslaved masters of their own households, the European peoples are slowdy dying out. Thus, they’re being replaced by immigrants from cultures where this self-poisoning isn’t yet en vogue. Our ruling elite believes that’s just fine because they also believe that all people are – as individuals – equally of no value beyond their economic usefulness. But they’re in for a rude awakeing as they’re not really in control once the new rulers come armed and in force, which they eventually will. Pensioners waving immigration laws won’t stop them.
So the culprit is prosperous feminism. I don’t believe it. Natural instinct would normally be far too strong to prevent women from having families, so it must be more than the canting prattle of man-hating harpies.
It is surely the cat’s cradle of counter-productive laws, along with over-crowding, unaffordable housing, the demoralising effect of seeing your homeland over-run and your ethno-culture denigrated.
There lies the reason for our withering away; and it is against this vicious raft of self-hatred, wilfully spawned by a left so desperate to “win” that it is sawing the tree of western culture down at the very root, that we must direct our full-time opposition.
So the culprit is prosperous feminism. I don’t believe it.
Neither did I write it. During the 1950s, the so-called Wirtschaftswunder in Germany led to full employment, as it was called at that time. But this was really about 50% unemployment as it wasn’t yet regarded as normal for women to work as well. Forming sexual relationships, that is, more-or-less stable couples, seems to be a natural instinct for humans, hence, it couldn’t possibly be in another way as someone needed to look after all the children which used to be born because of this. Over the course of the next decade, couples with unemployed women and large numbers of children gradually transitioned to childless (or mostly childless) couples with both partners working, effective chemical contraception being the enabler here. Then, populations started shrinking because for them to remain stable or even grow, fertile women/ men (not all of them are) need to have at least three children on average, preferably more, and this in a pretty narrow time band, basically, the 10 years between 20 and 30. But this would mean 22.5% of these ten years lost due to pregancies alone and no meaninful professional career is going to survive that, if it’s an option at all. Which isn’t the case for poorer working people.
The invasion of Europe by Extraeuropeans only seriously started once the number of natives had shrunken to the point of this becoming feasible. The fantasies of the Harpers of these world notwithstanding, Europe is going to remain densely settled and probably, rather rich as well, even despite white people are looking to become the Neanderthals of the not too distant future.
Well, let’s not argue about words. You seem to lay the blame on a small population arising from the pill, sexual liberation, small families and women having careers – I’d call that a neo-religious critique of first phase feminism – but still. As for your chronology – it seems mistaken. Mass immigration began and continued whilst larger native families were still relatively normal. I well recall government advertisements urging couples – white couples, at least if the posters were anything to go by – NOT to have that third child, even as the newcomers were flooding into the city centres. And finally your economic view that growth equals population is simply wrong – demonstrably, clearly, universally mistaken. Growth arises from technological innovation within a culture which replaces itself; yes – Japan, until fairly recently. If this were not so, Africa would be rich. QED.
I’m very specifically not writing about any of this meta stuff like women having careers (sound rather more positive than women renting out their ability to work to someone else who profits more from that than they do) etc what you like to refer to as feminism and I certainly haven’t written anything about an economic view that growth equals population, just about the following: Effective contraception enabled (white) women to be recruited into the work force at the expense of them no more getting children. Hence, trajectory towards ethnic suicide of white peoples. Hence, mass immigration from poorer parts of the world into Europe. This wouldn’t have happened at a time when Europeans where mass emigrating in order to escape economic misery at home, as they did during the first 2/3 (roughly) of the 19th century.
The gut behind that was supposed to be that population replacement is doubtlessly happening but that that’s exactly what it does: It’s happening because the opportunity has manifested itself and not because of some grand plan to accomplish this or that and the people who wrongly believe to be in control of this would be powerless to stop it should they chose to extert their supposed control to do something either than waving Welcome!-placards.
Your line about renting out work to others who profit etc exposes you as a Marxist. No wonder your economics are so badly skew-whiff. Second, limiting population growth does not necessarily lead to full scale population decline. The tendency to smaller, later families is associated with prosperity and freedom and is noticeable in the mercantile cities of the later middle ages. Populations stabilise; normally, they don’t fall. The expression “ethnic suicide” is hence exaggerated and misleading; it is in fact a slow ethno-cultural murder, imposed by your ideological cousins, the cultural Marxists, currently running the western show. Finally, a falling population does not necessarily “suck in” alien groups because automation, increased working life and AI can easily fill the gaps – indeed, they are going to do so in any case. The decision to flood Europe with migrants then is not unavoidable; it is not economic; it is political, it is hard left and it should be stopped.
Your line about renting out work to others who profit etc exposes you as a Marxist.
You’re seriously confused in your keyword universe full of readily assignable culprit mannequins. Companies couldn’t make a profit if the workers where paid the full value of their work. That’s something Marx first put into words, the so-called Mehrwert (added value) theory but this makes it no less real. But ok, AI can easily fill the gaps, completely lost in fantasyland, I see.
Sorry for trying to be serious. Keep on dreaming.
So, I have nailed you as a Marxist and then – in the wake of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and company – you accuse ME of “dreaming”. How typically hard left.
But, for the information of anyone reading, capitalism, so-called, is generative, not extractive, which means that surplus arises from the effectiveness with which the energies and skills of labour are organised, NOT from failing to pay the mythical “full value” of its work.
And in that deceitful use of the word “full” can be found all the mendacity and blood-soaked failure of Marxism and Marxist regimes: for a fair wage is never a proportion of profits. These naturally belong to those who create, own or inherit the fruitful organisation of the workplace.
A full, fair wage, meanwhile, is a compound of subsistence and compensation for energy and time: that is all. And since it far exceeds in financial value anything obtainable by solitary or uncoordinated labour – not to mention the slave labour extracted by a Marxist state – it represents far more than the so-called “full value” of work ever could.
Were this not so, the Berlin Wall would have fallen the other way.
Well, well – an angry, unrepentant little red smoked out on the threads of the Daily Sceptic! Whatever next?
Dead right, and it is the very countries whose politicians are refusing to ”bend over for Islam” which are being vindicated for their decision and having the last laugh when compared to the rest of us. Couldn’t agree with the Hungarian President more. Some wise leaders evidently remember and have learned from history.
”That these Islamic depredations are so etched in the minds of at least some eastern European leaders — namely, the more historically knowledgeable — is evident in the fact that Hungary’s own president, Viktor Orbán, who is committed to securing his nation against Muslims and preserving its Christian identity, has made the same observations as the archbishop. Back in 2015, he said of migrants:
The prime minister went on to invoke history, sounding just like the Hungarian archbishop:
https://stream.org/its-just-so-weird-and-random-why-nations-once-tormented-by-muslims-are-skeptical-of-them-today/
Yes. Orban is one tiny point of light and honour among the ruck of scum who pass for Europe’s political class.
Despite the agenda being in full view for 20 years or more the majority the people have voted for their own replacement. No doubt a large swathe of them will continue their folly in 2024. The old saying that if you want to hide something then place it in full view springs to mind.
I had very similar thoughts on reading the original piece in the Telegraph, although my main thought was ‘How could an Oxford professor be so stupid as to come to conclusions about population change based on only one metric (births)? I even wrote a comment to that effect under the article (though I didn’t include the word ‘stupid’). I wasn’t alone. Now I see all comments have disappeared. The DT is in a real bind, it would seem; it hates its own readers and their opinions.
When I looked no comments were allowed on the DT article.
As for Harper, she’s yet another professor who appears lacking in the thinking department. Her association with WEF is inevitable, sooner or later we are going to have to deal with the Schwabheads in any way necessary.
Do not subscribe to the DT… Why would anyone pay even a penny to be censored that they do on the DT forum
The only good thing about the centre-left DT is that it possible to have a puzzles only subscription, which gives access to just the crosswords.
Or “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for Industrial civilisation to collapse and isn’t it our duty to bring that about”? ——-Maurice Strong. ————Population and climate change are linked and make no mistake, climate change is the tool of the anti capitalists one world government people and has little to do with the climate. It is about total control of the worlds wealth and resources.
She hates white people. I hate her in return.
“The 21st Century is Certainly African”
“The 21st Century is Certainly African”: An Interview with Professor Sarah Harper, Director of Oxford Institute of Population Ageing (harvard.edu)
If anything, she hates people in general and seems a bit miffed that African women won’t even use free contraceptives to slowly kill off their own peoples despite they’re so educated that they should easily understand that only the lives of part-time wage slaves deserve to be called desirable. In a sense, it’s good that idiots like Harper are dying out. Mankind as a whole – as much as I personally regret that – is certainly better off without them.
You mat well be right about hating people in general. Maybe she doesn’t really love life, or hersel.
She is probably hot for FGM, as well.
Maybe because they were clever enough to avoid the jab. Unlike the stupid sheep here.
Karma.
Africa will win. Geert Vanden Bosche.
I think the author meant that they were going to have more children and outnumber us. She is right. Europe will eventually be subsumed.
There were certainly many sheep here, but I am not so sure that it was cleverness that led to lower “vaccine” uptake in Africa. But I don’t know enough to be confident.
The presidents of Tanzania and Burundi both said they had no need of the jabs as their populations were mainly young and didn’t sign up to full-on jabbing. Perhaps their chief medical officers had brains and used them?
Odd how both them’died’.
Good point. I remember Tanzania, was not aware of Burundi. Thanks.
More profit to be made in rich countries governed by corrupt fools, much more than poor countries governed by even more corrupt people who aren’t much bothered with virtue signalling.
How many government departments does she advise?
One would be too many.
It is now in fact inevitable global population will decline, because global birth rate is decreasing. As sure as eggs are eggs this will at some point lead to population reduction. It isn’t for now only because globally life expectancy is increasing.
See this video.
https://youtu.be/xvlt_JId91M?t=155
this of course means another plank of the climate catastrophist narrative has gone.
So now we know there is global greening. It’s a fact a Forrest and green cover is increasing globally due to increased CO2, which is essentially a plant growth stimulant. More food is growing.
Population growth will – contrary to what most people think – be decreasing.
So there will not be too many people and too few resources.
With each degree increased temp far fewer people die from a temperature related cause than with each degree decreased temperature (but this doesn’t change the overall population reduction trend identified above).
(more polar bears and coral than ever and more ice at the South Pole!)
So, remind me, just what is the climate catastrophe?
If it was only people like her stop reproducing, I’d agree.
#eliteoverproduction
Nobody seems to have addressed the question as far as I can see, which is why replace one population with another? I also struggle to see the point of this, hence struggle to believe the great replacement theory. Any benefit in cultural replacement would surely be a short-lived one. For once, I find myself siding with Toby Young on this and think what’s going on is more likely down to gross incompetence than anything more sinister. More than happy if anyone can put together an argument to persuade me otherwise.
A replacement of one group by another that has lower expectations as they are from a poorer background could reduce overall long-term demands. If the incoming group has different beliefs and social norms: that could provide any number of benefits for those promoting it if they begin to dominate the society.
However, maybe it is just to stimulate confrontation and all affected populations are considered equally disposable. If that seems unlikely, take a look at Ukraine.
Ok, that’s a reasonable explanation, but… the only reason one group would want to migrate is for a better standard of living, so their expectations would not be that significantly lower or be necessarily long-term. That’s my problem with the whole theory.
Thanks though. At least you put together an argument, rather than just downvoting without a reason.
Living standards are relative and what people migrate for may not match the reality of the outcome.
Either way, some groups other than the migrants must benefit from this. For example, the traffickers who go seemingly unchallenged and whoever lets the situation continue.
I may not upvote but I don’t downvote.
Immigration is unpopular yet successive governments allow it.
Just another cockup.
Israel built a wall, and it worked.
Some white people, like the woman in the article, have some kind of fetish and or guilt complex when it comes to Africa.
Not all walls are equal. Trump wall bad, Israeli wall good or best not spoken of.
Spot on
Surely this is just a case of balancing two conflicting requirements? One is to reduce demand on the planet’s resources, the other is to have enough to people of working age to support our aging population (which is itself the result of reductions in fertility). It is a tricky balancing act but it doesn’t mean that either requirement is invalid.
The second that you implement a “welfare state” Ponzi scheme, that becomes an issue.
Moving Afghans, Somalis, Roma, Syrians and Nigerians to England doesn’t reduce demands on the planets resources, and the vast majority of immigrants are not net contributors to the public finances, even if you only look at current expenditure and ignore the extra capital expenditure required by an expanding population.
The impact of immigrants on public finances is hard to calculate but small one way or the other. However, they reduce the average of the population and thus provide the basis of a working population in the future. Of course them moving here does not reduce demands on the planet’s resources – which was exactly my point – that is one horn of the dilemma.
The impact of immigrants on public finances may be bad enough, but I don’t care. I want my people and culture to survive. That is not going to happen.
That study, as far as I can see, doesn’t take into account the extra capital expenditure required by a rapidly increasing population.
And it doesn’t contradict my point that the vast majority are not net contributors to current expenditure: one high-earner can compensate for several burdens.
But we really don’t need studies by bent academics, we can just observe that after 26 years of by far the highest immigration in our history the public finances are in a desperately poor position, taxes are at their highest for a biblical lifetime, the public sector provides a dismally poor and declining service and our infrastructure is falling apart.
And our culture is being destroyed
Yes, but I was just sticking to the economics.
Fair enough. I just think that might be something of a rabbit hole. People like MTF will bring out all sorts of arguments in favour of more immigration. I just want England to remain English, and believe we can manage OK. I mean, we could possibly do better economically if we suddenly imported the 100 million cleverest, hardest working people in China, but no thank.
I don’t regard the Han as human in the sense that we are.
I would not want to live in China.
Correlation does not entail causation. A lot of things have happened in the last 25 years.
I want to live in England. I want my descendents to live in England. That is not going to happen. There are other ways to solve this “tricky balancing act” that don’t involve the murder/suicide of the most successful cultures and peoples in human history. If you are happy to see the death of your country so we can have more cheap labour, I would rather not live in the same country as you.
What are the other ways of providing a work force to support the aging population?
Get the lazy idiots who are already citizens to work?
Anyway, it’s not my problem to solve and I don’t care. I don’t want to live in a third world country. I’d rather see England shrivel and die as England then drift into becoming African.
I am willing to take my chances. I’d back myself and the people from this forum, apart from you, to make a go of it.
The “White British” – that is, the indigenous population – have a lower unemployment rate than all non-white groups.
I will take your word for it, though I expect there are a fair few of them loafing around too. I was kind of assuming that we’re stuck with everyone who already has the legal right to live in the UK. Just don’t want to add any more. Not just net zero, but simply zero (unless it’s returning Brits).
Not my word, official government stats.
I’m disappointed that you’ve bought the propaganda.
Well, you could cut the school leaving age back to 14 and abandon the policy of sending as many people to university as possible.
And then you could abandon the policy of making white people go on courses that tell them how evil they are and that black people really built this country: that, combined with the pension changes, is why hundreds of thousands of competent white people over the age of 55 have left the workforce in recent years.
“which is itself the result of reductions in fertility) —This is a statement of certainty where there is none. If there is a reduction n fertility why does the third world still have high birthrates that only start to fall when a poor country becomes more prosperous? (Usually by using fossil fuels)
I think we at cross purposes. I was trying to point out that the reduction in fertility in the UK (which is not in question) is one of the reasons we have an ageing population. This is not controversial whatever your politics.so I think there must be a misunderstanding.
We’re being replaced by islamists.
Yup, can’t argue with the evidence which is all around us. No signs of that easing off either.
As I already wrote in an older comment: That’s just evolution at work. Reproduce or die out. And self-induced reproductional disadvantages work just as good as natural ones.
It gladdens my heart to have my suspicions confirmed. ( Paywall but Esc trick works )
”A new batch of updated COVID vaccines should be ready to inject into Americans’ arms by the end of next month. But demand may not be strong enough to reverse the market slide of Moderna, the Cambridge maker of the messenger RNA shots that helped arrest the pandemic and became a major biotech player in the process.
Analysts point to broad-based “COVID fatigue” ― dimming enthusiasm for another round of vaccinations. Fatigue has taken hold even as COVID hospital admissions nationwide have trended up in August, climbing 14.3 percent to 10,320 for the week ending Aug. 5, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But virus-related hospitalizations remain far below the 42,813 during the same period last summer.
Investors, meanwhile, have cooled on Moderna, a pandemic-era biotech superstar. Despite its pipeline of nearly 50 experimental drugs, from cancer vaccines to rare disease therapies, Moderna has lost more than 40 percent of its market value this year amid doubts over how soon profitable new drugs will be able to offset slumping vaccine sales. For now, the COVID vaccine remains its only approved product.
Moderna’s shares were trading down 1.4 percent at $104.68 in mid-morning Friday on the Nasdaq exchange.
Mani Foroohar, a stock analyst with Boston investment bank Leerink Partners, said Moderna was one of many biotechs that expanded too fast during the pandemic. The company may now be heading for a “headcount reduction,” he wrote in a recent note to investors, citing its plans to spend $6 billion this year on research, employees, and other costs.
“If they don’t see a sharp recovery in COVID vaccine volumes in [the] third and fourth quarter, this company becomes, almost inevitably in our mind, a restructuring candidate,” Foroohar said in an interview Thursday. “I can’t see another responsible avenue for this company.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/08/18/business/moderna-readies-its-updated-covid-vaccine-fall-demand-could-be-tepid/
At least have the decency to headline your post as off-topic. That’s just being polite to the author who’s spent time and effort writing the article.
Note: you’ve twice previously gone after me without reason, so I’m simply returning the favour. See how that works? It’s known as a reaction.
This inconsistency is easily explained: These people want money and they know where to get it. That’s why they invented bullshit statistics like per capita CO2 emissions. Assuming the GHG theory of global warming was true, only the abolute amount of CO2 emissions would matter, ie, India, China and the USA would always be the main culprits for this, regardless of the number of people living in either country. But that’s not a scare-and-shame-story which makes rich Europeans part with their money or rather, provides a useful pretext for general taxpayer plundering by the so-called ‘democratic’ (west-)European governments.
Sarah Harper, Ph.D. of misused statistics and professor for practical applications of bullshit, and her ilk are lying whenever they open their mouths. They have no other mode of operation because they damn well know that they’re just poor frauds most people on this planet happily ignore unless they bring money with them.
Oxford University with its immense wealth, students that can be described as not poor immigrants will not be offering to reduce its massive resource consumption by closing anytime soon – or by retiring some of its professors.
beware of anybody who talks up depopulation what they are supporting is genocide.
Meanwhile, back in February of this year the UK Health Security Agency advertised a job for a Vaccine Supply Operations Lead
https://t.me/robinmg/29651
To the WEF you and your family are not human beings, you are excess carbon emitters. Unless you are useful to them in some way – the elites require a servant class to attend their whims of course – then you are no better than vermin.
Sarah Harper’s immediate loss to the planet would definitely be grounds for ‘a large one.’