The Agent Smith Theory Of Global Warming: Children Bad For Planet; Environmentalist Calls Humanity A "Virus," Seeks 4.5 Billion Human Deaths

The article labels this guy an "eco-extremist." That may be true, but it's misleading: Talk to any lefty environmental bleeding heart and they will, eventually, express the same desire for massive deaths of humans on an unprecedented scale. They actively root for epidemics and natural disasters.

Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.

The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn’t sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.

Watson was invoking the worst of Robert Malthus, an English political economist who claimed that mankind was overpopulating the earth. That claimed first appeared in the late 1700s. Watson urged some solutions for mankind as part of a process to “need to re-wild the planet”:

· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.

...

· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.

...

Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”

The whole column is here. It's a doozy. While he grieves over the extinction of the big animals that used to roam the earth not so terribly long ago -- mastodons, mammoths, etc. -- one can almost hear his pants strain to hold down his erection at the thought of one fairly large hominid -- humans -- becoming extinct or nearly so.

And of course there is that terrible, awful carbon footprint caused by having children.

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

In his latest comments the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.

Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the population growth will take place in developing countries. The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. In some countries, such as France, the government is so concerned it has introduced financial incentives for women to have more than two children.

Despite this, Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

Convenient, isn't it, that the class of people most hypocritical on the issue of global warming -- the yuppie coastal jetsetters -- can now claim massive "carbon offsets" for their (usually selfishly motivated) decision to have no children or one fashion-accessory kid?

Mark Steyn here lays out Laurie David's rather massive carbon footprint (perhaps it's more fitting to refer to it as her "massive carbon artificially-expanded bra-size"), which is hardly "offset" at all by her bringing her own garment bags to the dry-cleaners.

However, she almost can claim massive offsets in the form of children not produced beyond the Ministry of Love approved two.

Any beyond that is a sexcrime and therefore treason.

posted by Ace at 01:21 PM

| Access Comments