There are so many levels of bad in the National Academy of Sciences’ recent study into human population reduction to solve environmental problems. The study asked the question: What would happen if the world was quickly subjected to a Chinese-style, one-child policy. The only good news coming from the study was that such a policy could not reduce pollution the human population by 2100. The study’s abstract summarized, “There are consequently more frequent calls to address environmental problems by advocating further reductions in human fertility. To examine how quickly this could lead to a smaller human population, we used scenario-based matrix modeling to project the global population to the year 2100. Assuming a continuation of current trends in mortality reduction, even a rapid transition to a worldwide one-child policy leads to a population similar to today’s by 2100. Even a catastrophic mass mortality event of 2 billion deaths over a hypothetical 5-year window in the mid-21st century would still yield around 8.5 billion people by 2100.” Hoping for a mass disaster? Trying to reduce human fertility? This smacks of a GMO combining environmentalism and eugenics. And to think that the American taxpayer provided the funds for this question to be considered seriously. We in our humble shop wait for the adherents of this and similar “studies” to take the lead in population reduction – but we aren’t holding our breath. More…