The Scientific American has an idea for addressing global warming (or, if you prefer, climate change; whatever): contraception and abortion, The goal: reduce the earth’s population and, therefore, the “carbon footprint” left by all those babies who are never permitted to get outside the womb alive.
David Bielo begins the article with a breathlessly delivered statistic and a hopeful prognostication:
An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.
There are so many ways this could be lampooned, the mind boggles.
First, there’s the whole climate change folderol, which in another decade will be the butt of endless jokes, except for Al Gore and his enviro-nuts who have drunk uncounted gallons of the kool-aid.
Second, there is the link between population and the so-called carbon footprint. On one hand, the advanced nations are already in population decline (a fact ignored by Bielo in The Scientific American), a decline so severe that it is nearing irreversibility in Russia, Italy, and the Netherlands. A panicked South Korea, where three out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion, has decided to begin enforcing a long-ignored ban on abortions because of its now-irreversible population implosion, a fate also facing Japan.
According to The Scientific American, this is all a very good thing and needs badly to be replicated in the United States and in those parts of Europe not already in precipitous population decline.
Finally, if one reads between the lines, it is not hard to find an anti-human, pro-anything-but-human ethic behind all this. Jeff Poor, commenting on The Scientific American article for the Media Research Center Network, notes that even more radical ideas are out there:
Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.
Okay, that’s radical, I suppose. But it is any more radical than agitating for increasing the number of abortions, already in the tens of millions annually? Is it any more radical than agitating for entire nations to commit demographic suicide?
[This blog is cross-posted to Faith and Gender.]
I’ve long considered environmentalists to be whacked out tree-hugging pagans, even before I became a Christian. Besotted with the standard religious values of all pagans since mankind spread out from Babel, you might have thought them to be essentially harmless, even if you thought their agenda was economically and politically toxic.
But, in the past couple of decades, parties wtihin this pan-pagan demographic have begun to show a bit of tooth and claw toward those who don’t toe the environmentalist line. Red tooth and claw at that.
In fact, eco-terrorism is now sufficiently prevalent that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has an official definition for it: “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”
My, my. With a definition like that, you’d think these folks might be attempting to bore their environmentally insensitive opponents to death. But, $200 million of property damage between 2003 and 2008 has prompted most states to pass laws against environmental terrorism. Doh.
But the essence of terrorism is to … well, to terrorize, right? And, so, that’s how we should understand the shoe-dropping, jaw-dropping endorsement of violent murder against those who disagree with global warming. And, no, I’m not exaggerating. In Merry Old England, which also spawned a massive campaign of academic fraud and professional intimidation against scientists who challenge global warming hysterics, one of their propagandist organizations decided that global warming wasn’t getting enough good press. So, what do they do?
Well, they decided it would be a barrel of fun and laughs to make a film showing three scenarios, in which there are a few folks (very few, among the masses) who don’t want to go along with helping to avert global warming. And, then — this is the funny part, so get ready to laugh until you cry! — the mini-film shows a global-warming proponent blowing up the few folks who don’t want to do anything to stop global warming.
It’s not a cartoon. It’s as realistically portrayed as a Freddy Krueger slasher movie. It’s as bloody as a Sam Pekinpah festival of gore-galore. Think buckets of blood splattered throughout the classroom. That’s right — the first two people to be turned into chopped liver and lungs and brains are kids. In a classroom.
You may view the film by clicking on the You-tube link below. But, be warned. If the sight of buckets of blood splattered around, along with ground-up chunks of human flesh, puts you off your feed … well, maybe you’d better take my word for it. Or the word of a friend with a stomach for this kind of thing. In the meantime, forget that idea you had about environmentalist organizations promoting flowers and bunnies and lovely trees needing a hug.