Numerous press agencies have reported on the recent remarks of Britain’s Prince William on “population pressures” affecting conservation efforts. Apparently trying to follow in the hoof-prints of his father and grandfather, Prince William addressed the Tusk Conservation Awards on Nov. 23 in London, remarking that increased pressure is being put on “wildlife and wild spaces as a result of human population” (particularly on the continent of Africa), which represents a “huge challenge for conservationists, as it does the world over.”
He went on to say, “But it is imperative that the natural world is protected not only for its contribution to our economies, jobs and livelihoods, but for the health, wellbeing and future of humanity.”
His remarks were met with derision and anger from several quarters. Journalist Nadine Batchelor-Hunt tweeted that “Africa isn’t even in the top two most populated continents—it’s Asia, then (surprise, surprise) EUROPE. The U.K. is also one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Prince William needs to mind his own rarted [slang for “retarded”] business and take his neo-colonial mindset elsewhere.”
Adam Armstrong, self-described as a “Social Scientist,” tweeted, “It would be helpful if Prince William paid attention to history. By far the greatest losses of wildlife in Africa occurred in the early 1900s when Europeans arrived with guns and hunted across the continent. To blame African civilians is to totally misunderstand African history.”
Dr. John Njenga Karugia PhD, a lecturer and researcher associated with the Goethe and Humboldt Universities, tweeted, “Mr. William has no moral authority to say anything about Africa or about Africans and their lives. He should spend his time reading good history books and raising his many children and spending time with his very huge family spread out across the world. His opinion is sewage.”
Just for comparison, the country of Monaco has a population density of 19,341/sq. km, while Rwanda, the most densely populated country in Africa, has 967/sq. km.
Of course, a family of five can hardly be considered a “large” family, and any collaborator of The LaRouche Organization understands that there’s no such thing as “overpopulation.”
