Wanting to reduce population is not necessarily a mainstream Warmist tenant, but it does dovetail into the greater enviroweenie notion of a “population bomb” and the top end Progressive notion of eugenics, abortion, and limiting population. The extremists, well, the extreme extremists (kinda like the difference between a Nazi party member and a member of the SS. Or, your average Bin Laden supporter and a member of the Taliban), actually discuss it in terms of killing off humans
(Independent.ie) The remarkable thing is that the real cause of global warming is rarely mentioned. It is the elephant in the room. Everyone can see it but no one wants to speak about it, presumably because this subject is a contentious one and challenges the core beliefs of many religions.
The undeniable fact is that we, the human race, are the cause of our own difficulties and unless we reduce our numbers, we will self-destruct.
But, of course, even the extreme extremist Warmists usually couch who they want to kill off subtly
The highest population growth currently occurs in nations with the greatest poverty. In peasant societies, large families are seen as a form of wealth and an insurance against poverty and starvation in old age.
Interestingly, the nations with high standards of living have in general, low or zero rates of population growth.
We send money to poor nations to help sink wells and buy livestock but do little or nothing about helping them control their rate of reproduction, which in turn creates further famines.
Assistance and education in introducing birth control would surely provide a more lasting solution.
Again, this dovetails nicely into the Progressive notion of eugenics, wanting to limit the number of “minorities”. It is a tenant based on racism and bigotry, on hatred for others.
How many kids do you have Teach?
I thought that progressives believed in “choice”? For them apparently but not others.
Then we have their Saint of Planned Parenthood- Margaret Sanger of course. Who strongly believed in ridding the world of minorities.
I think that their racism is showing…
The tenet that we should at least consider slowing population growth is not based on hatred, or racism or bigotry. It’s based on arithmetic laced with ignorance.
The poor in underdeveloped nations are not the ones dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, but rather it’s the Chinese, Australians, Americans, Canadians, French, Indians, Koreans, Germans, Swiss, Fins, etc. Wyomingites emit 113 tons CO2/person/year, while Congolese emit 0.4 tons CO2/person/year.
If one’s goal is to reduce carbon emissions by killing humans one should start where it does some incremental good: Wyoming.
But of course, that’s not what Mr. Barry was suggesting. He advocated the communication about birth control to slow the burgeoning populations of nations like India and Ethiopia. The population growth of most advanced nations has already slowed or stopped. If you think we have problems with 7 billion Earthlings, imagine 10 billion. But make no mistake – global warming was not created by the teeming poor of Africa but by the affluent west.
Trish
A mon judgemental question
Of course “progressives” believe in choice
Do you ?
J- “the poor of the world are not the ones dumping CO2 into the atmosphere…” But it’s the poor who are the ones that end up dying of pollution. Burning dung in one’s hut to keep warm and drinking water out of streams used for waste tends to that. But let’s keep their energy costs high so they can stay poor and undeveloped. Countries don’t become developed without cheap energy, and it’s rich, developed countries that have the time and money to fight pollution.
jl- that is one of the best short version of a long drawn out story of CO2/pollution and remedies I’ve heard to date!!!
