Purifying the World of Ourselves
Britain's Optimum Population Trust warned that Britain’s birthrate is growing at its fastest for nearly 30 years – at 1.87 children per couple and is, according to Professor John Guillebaud, an environmental liability. “Each new UK birth, through the inevitable resource consumption and pollution that UK affluence generates, is responsible for about 160 times as much climate-related environmental damage as a new birth in Ethiopia.” The Optimum Population Trust suggests that if voluntary restraints do not work then governments should impose mandatory restraints. (Times Online)
There was a nuanced BBC radio discussion on this subject to coincide with the Live Earth concert between the writer George Monbiot and Chris Rapley, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, in which Professor Rapley declared that population growth was the “Cinderella subject” in the environmental debate. More people equals more carbon emissions: simple as that. Monbiot agreed that the subject was not talked about as much as it should be and emphasised that if we’re talking about population control, we have to worry not just about the developing world but about the breeding habits of the affluent West. About us."
Most of the information conveyed in environmental conferences is not, as some might imagine, about the Earth. The scientific content in many environmental discussions is paltry. But what these discussions tell us most about is the content of the ideological environmentalist's mind. It conveys what they value most. And for many it is more important for the Earth to reach some imagined pristine state than it is to alleviate hunger.
I often tell the story of the swidden farmer I met on the slopes of Mount Apo, which was about to be reserved as a nature preserve for the Philippine Eagle. The environmentalists wanted all human beings evicted from the Park, notwithstanding the fact that it was only a Park in name and was crisscrossed by habitation. That meant of course, that the subsistence farmers in it would be driven off, losing what little they had. The farmer reacted to the proposal, telling me that if the preservation of the Philippine Eagle necessarily meant the death of his children by starvation it would be preferable for the Eagles to go extinct. I doubt many environmentalists would agree, but I can understand the father's point of view.
Reflecting on the position of the Optimum Population Trust, I realized that from an Environmental point of view, neither I nor my wife and child -- nor you my dear reader for that matter -- weight so much as an iota more than that Filipino subsistence farmer in the scales of their value system.
Update
Read here about the ultimate, Eco-Home.
Living in a New York City apartment on a journalist's budget is one way to rein in your greenhouse gas emissions. But a woman in Olympia, Washington, has it all over our two editors who are vying for green bragging rights. Dee Williams lives in a standalone house, not an apartment. But her house measures only 84 square feet.
The tiny house incorporates recycled materials and cost about $10,000 to build. It has heat, electricity and a composting toilet, but no running water.
Williams says she wanted to reduce her impact on the planet, and didn't feel right about spending a lot of time and money on a house when people in other parts of the world have so little.
posted by wretchardthecat at 7/13/2007 07:31:00 PM
14 Comments:
Here we get to the heart of it all.
Moonbat and others don't care about the environment (if they did they'd live in the mud and filth). What they DO care about is holding onto power.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Moonbat's and others have the same old dream. Kingship. Which they can't have if there are too many other claimants.
In the immortal words of Gordon Gekko:
"that's the thing with WASPS -- they like animals but they can't stand people"
"..the breeding habits of the affluent West.."
I believe though, that it has been well-established that if Brits won't breed, then Yemenis and Pakistanis will come and have their children in Merry Olde.
If Inigo Montoya listened to these "intellectuals" I'm sure he'd scratch his head and mutter "..thees word, I don't theenk it means what you theenk it means..."
Isn't a birthrate of 1.87 insufficient to maintain the present population of Britain?
Even though I am always grateful for you passing along stories that reveal this pessimistic scheming, I fear the large number of your readers are mostly in agreement with the depopulation agenda. It's indicated by their silence. Thus, don't expect many more favorable comments on this thread. I pray I'm wrong.
When we continue to speak politely with monsters, at what point do we become monsters ourselves? (I imagine those like C4 are laughing at you and me after reading that.)
I'm not going to bother linking the many commentaries I've written on this subject.
But I will link to Our Curmudgeon. In spring 2004 he started a series of maybe 10 screeds over 2 years under the theme The Convergence of The Death Cults. The second of them, entitled Are We Good for Us, was not too dissimilar from your title tonight.
One of his Islamo-Fascist screeds, or even his politics and economics essays, can generate 20-30 comments each. But after all his considerable investigation and writing on the human haters who hide behind enviral-pessimism's "morally corrective" actions, I think the total number of comments he got (not including mine) you could count on one hand. That's why even a man with your compelling writing style maynot be able to make a dent on those who've been indoctrinated with this mindset.
Those who have been convinced to have no posterity of their own are going to be used -- have been used -- to try and force those they call breeders onto their side of the aisle.
But all they managed to convince me of is that too many of these self-cut-off people exist on the same level as the Night of the Living Dead zombies but with a twist. They fear your brains and would eat your children. They'd happily do the last simply for spite.
Dr. Ferris,
Isn't a birthrate of 1.87 insufficient to maintain the present population of Britain?
It's below replacement. But in the Optimum Trust's calculus even that is too high given the level of prosperity. I suppose their little calculator would admit raising the birthrate somewhat if the Brits agreed to live like the Somalians. Their objective function is some calculated optimum State of Gaia and the dependent variables include the human race. People are the means to that end and can be added or subtracted, like ballast in a submarine, to trim the progress of Mother Earth.
Of course, it's not as if Mother Earth sent the BBC an email signed with a digital signature to convey her desires. Mother Earth is silent. No matter, we learn of what Mother Earth requires, nay demands, through the mediation of the hierophants, who have appointed themselves to speak on her behalf. We must bow to their authority. Why precisely, I don't know. Because starting from their implied assumption that man has no special place in the universe and is just another type of animal, vegetable or rock, I see no logical reason why I should acknowledge the authority of the rocks in the Optimum Trust. If I am worthless they are equally worthless and their opinions even more so. And while we're at it, couldn't they undertake to lighten the load on the earth by removing themselves from it as they seem so willing to let others do? Or are they special?
On utopianism:
Ever since the damned French Revolution we've been fighting these murderous utopianisms, whether Racial (German Nazism), or corporatist (Fascism), or classist (Communism). We're fighting Islamism, which seeks to restore the Caliphate, and on the other flank we are up against the enviros, who oppose all progress, unless it's their kind of progress.
To be conservative, by definition, means to be anti-utopian. It's a shame I have to suffer these thugs and useful idiots.
Just imagine the synergistic possibilities if only environmentalists could stop thinking retail by asking parents to have fewer children but would instead adopt right wing policies and attack overpopulation wholesale instead.
The key to understanding the possible combination of these two at first glance apparently incompatable world views is William H. McNeill’s Plagues and People. Among the several original concepts is Mr. McNeill discusses is that: Looked at from the point of view of other organisms, humankind therefore resembles an acute epidemic disease, whose occasional lapses into less virulent forms of behaviour have never yet sufficed to permit any really stable, chronic relationship to establish itself. This concept works on the global scale as well, with the rapidly multiplying humans seen as little more than lice upon the scalp of the earth.
But since mankind is a disease McNeil describes two ways it is controlled, firstly by microparasites (viruses, bacteria, or multi-celled creatures); and secondly and more originally, by means of macroparasites, the most important being man himself. War and unfair distribution of resources are the two main ways man as a macroparasite keeps his own numbers in check, not voluntary calls for fewer births.
So how long will it take before environmentalists recognize that the war in Iraq is reducing man’s carbon footprint upon the earth? While it is true that most killed are Iraqis who don’t actually consume all that many resources, every now and then a high consuming American soldier (or contractor) bites the dust, thus adding to the earth’s long term survival possibilities. Sure an Apache helicopter consumes quite a bit of fuel but that is a small price to pay for the generations of consumers who will never be born because of its good work. The environmentalist who calls for an end to the US occupation of Iraq is clearly being a traitor to the cause of saving the earth. A far better way to reduce the number of humankind is to call for stern action against Syria and Iran. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would also brighten the long-term prospects for global survival, as long as the amount of radiation released was limited.
But even more importantly, calls for universal health care in the States is a clear betrayal of the movement. The US’s high rate of infant death is a great way to limit the numbers of over-consuming Americans. And the concentration of most of the US health care resources towards the unproductive elderly instead of towards families and children also helps ensure a bright future for the earth. And just as kings of yesterday used to expropriate such large amounts of the peasants harvest that their children starved, the right wing approach of transferring taxes away from the rich and towards to poor serves the same purpose although in an admittedly less dramatic fashion. In any case it is clear the more wealth is concentrated the more the earth has a chance of surviving.
So instead of the futile call for fewer British births (they would just be replaced by immigrants, many of them high-consuming Americans disgusted by the post-9/11 degradation of America) these environmentalists should instead embrace macroparasite extraordinaire George Bush as the number one “Friend of the Earth” and preach the wisdom of his policies to their confused followers.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
...we have to worry not just about the developing world but about the breeding habits of the affluent West. About us."
"Breeding habits of the affluent West" - why does that sound so typically progressivist? And of course, the West is "breeding" too fast and soon thereafter these bozos will start implementing population control measures in order to prolong the lives of those already living on this planet, all in the quest to curb carbon footprints.
Cynically speaking, to prevent any infant from stepping out of the womb and making his/her first little carbon footprint on the world. Reeks of utopian delusions, doesn't it? A slippery slope argument that eventually leads the progressivists to condone infanticide in the future.
I'm sure they won't bother with worrying about the developing world at all; immigration policies will allow floodgates to swing open, with the ghettoisation of European Muslims expanding, more unrecorded births that continue to remain under the radar - demographic takeover in no time. You can be sure 'replacement rate' will take on an entirely sinister meaning once that happens.
This is just about one of the most suicidal statements made in order to justify the 'preservation of Earth'. "About us" - as if he suddenly had an epiphany that revealed that the key to saving his precious Earth was self-destruction.
Wow. On this score, I love being wrong.
Whatever prompted the sudden recognition of the threat? I hope it's connected to the human ingenuity and will to survive that has persistently made a fool of Malthus and neo-Malthusians.
Smitten Eagle, Harrison:
Your invoking Utopia coincides with a very short comment I wrote on Tuesday. The Secret of Utopias is revealed by the answer to "What provision do Utopians make for practical jokers and misanthropes?"
And something else that most people are unaware of. Sir Thomas More coined the word Utopia for his novel of that name. From the Greek, it literally means "no place."
Wretchard:
Their answer to your question "[C]ouldn't they undertake to lighten the load on the earth by removing themselves from it as they seem so willing to let others do?" is the same that the sane hear nihilists say. "The importance of our vision demands ruthlessness that the hoi polloi will never commit to."
"Breeding habits of the affluent West"
Germans, Italians and Japanese (affluent East), and probably Russians because of their universal health care - could become extinct in the 21st Century. Adam Smith said: "A poor woman in the highlands of Scotland will bear on average eleven children; a rich woman in London can scarce bear two."
Somalis have lots of kids; those that survive scrounge everything there is to be found. There probably isn't a tree to be found in Somalia, nor many baboons or anything that can be burned or eaten.
There's more forest land in the United States now than there was when Columbus landed. Wealth means conservation; poverty brings about despoliation.
These idiot environmentalists need a long vacation on the North Slope, out among the holy caribou herds, in May or June, when the mosquitoes and black flies are coming on, without of course unholy DEET, in order to affirm their commitment to Mother Gaia.
jafco
In First World countries, the break-even fertility rate is 2.1. The US is almost back up to that.
The UK and France both have high fertility rate, relative to the EU has a whole. But if you could get a fine grained breakdown, it's most likely that Muslim immigrants account for that anomaly. So, logically, the Optimum Trust should be trying to reduce their fertility rate. I predict that they won't. After all, it could be hazardous to their continued breathing.
"Heirophants!"
LOFL, I love you Wretchard the Cat.
And you're probably a Gene Wolfe fan too, with that word.
Like me and you, he's a good Catholic, even if he wasn't raised by nuns.
(PS --I've got four, so I'm doing my part...)
(PPS -- Mark Steyn is all over this topic... you should link something of his on it...)
Post a Comment
<< Home