Breaking news: people are – themselves – pollutants. In a shoddy little piece of propaganda issued earlier today, Britain’s Daily Telegraph quotes a recent study by the London School of Economics (LSE) titled: Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost. The bottom line? Babies are burdensome… not only to their parents, but to society at large and, indeed, to the entire human race:
“The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.” The Daily Telegraph, 09/09/09
The spin continues, “If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.”
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, (yes folks, that actually exists) said: “It’s always been [obvious] that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
In sum, human beings – themselves the supposed authors of climate change – are becoming a bona fide hazard to global health, and if we could only provide adequate family planning resources (read: harmful, cancer-causing contraceptives, condoms which increase risky sexual behaviors, and abortion on demand), maybe… just maybe we can save this planet from ourselves.
What is actually inherent in the equation “More Humans = More Pollution” is the obvious converse: “Fewer Humans = Healthier Planet.”
And isn’t that what the climate control junkies have been harping after for decades? They don’t want to save the world “for the sake of the children” … They don’t want there to be any children. Period. Except for those whom they selectively deign worthy of existence. Healthy ones. Fit ones. Those who fit the socioeconomic designs of their mercenary mothers and fathers.
Perhaps my acerbity is unnecessary, but then, how does one respond to the charge that human beings are trash? That the human person is intrinsically parasitic? Can one be too politically insensitive when answering such a charge? I think not. Maybe it’s the mother bear in me, but anyone who purports that curtailing “40% of the world’s pregnancies” would solve some pressing issues relating to the utterly unsubstantiated and unproven “epidemic” of global warming has some ‘splaining to do. Particularly in light of all the “chatter” surrounding the great health care debate over here in the States.
Yes, by all means, let’s make the Pill more readily available for human consumption. That will surely stop the crushing wheels of progress from lurching forward over unsuspecting subspecies and biomes. But then, there’s the mounting evidence (as mentioned here and here) that contraceptive sex ain’t the panacea it’s cracked up to be, particularly from the perspective of environmental impact.
So maybe the Pill’s not the ideal solution to curb that nasty, child-producing epidemic know colloquially as “sexual intercourse.” Maybe there’s an easier way… a “greener” way. Maybe we ought to be looking down the pike for the eventuality of the ultimate rationalization: forced sterilization.
We have licenses to drive. Licenses to wed. Licenses to install plumbing on build sites… shouldn’t we, you know, set up some kind of government authorization process whereby individuals can be screened, processed and labelled “fit to breed?”
Don’t think it’s not coming just because it’s terrifying. Twenty years ago, the notion of starving a disabled person to death was terrifying. Forty years ago, there existed no such notion as “consensual sex” between a sixteen-year old boy and a 22-year old college man. Seventy years ago, the specter of gender-selective abortion was terrifying (well, everywhere but in Nazi Germany).
Which brings us to today. And which brings me to the close of my rant. And the following article, which I’d suggest you share with as many people as possible, with the caveat that you prepare in advance to offer a solid rebuttal to the fallacies contained within.