...Ultimately, the Global Warming crusade is a frontal assault on procreation, the family and the future of mankind.
In the December 9th edition of Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Barry Walters urges a one-time
"baby levy" of $5,000, followed by an annual tax of $800 per child, on Australian families with more than two children.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of
greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by
breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our
society," writes Walters, who calls childbearing "greenhouse unfriendly
behavior."
Walters will have to look hard for families to tax. Australia's
fertility rate (the number of children the average woman has) is 1.75
-- well below replacement level (2.1) and less than half of what it was
in 1960 (3.6) ....
.....................................................................................................................
...Beyond the fiscal flogging to be administered to families who
stubbornly continue to procreate, Walters says he wants the Australian
government to consider population control measures like China's, with
its one-child-per-family policy backed by draconian penalties,
sterilization and forced abortions.
In Britain, a group called The Optimum Population Trust has the same
agenda. The Trust is horrified by a brief blip in the U.K. birthrate --
up from 1.8 in 2005 to 1.87 in 2006.
It notes that the lifetime energy consumption, or "carbon footprint,"
of a child born in Britain today is the equivalent of 620 roundtrip,
trans-Atlantic flights. The Trust urges government coercion for Brits
who don't follow the Planned Parenthood model.
"One solution to the crisis (a hot globe) is for people to stop having so many babies," says a March 14th posting by Dave Johnson at that fount of idiocy, The Huffington Post.
"We've already used up the fisheries. The cattle being raised to feed so many meat-eaters is as big a problem as the cars
we're all driving." So the solution is to stop having babies and become bicycle-riding vegans.
"The
population explosion has severely disturbed the ecological
relationships between human beings and the environment," the Sierra
Club warns. "In recognition of the growing magnitude of this
conservation issue, the Sierra Club supports a greatly increased
program of education on the need for population control." The left is
really into control.
Global
Warming fanaticism seems to lend itself to self-loathing. In 1989,
David Graber, then a biologist with the National Park Service, was
quoted in the Los Angeles Times observing: "Human happiness and
certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy
planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of
nature, but it isn't true... We have become a plague upon ourselves and
upon Earth. Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin
nature (by wearing natural fibers and living in trees?)
some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
And they call them
misanthropes.
Is
the right plague what Jacques Cousteau had in mind, when he wrote in
1991: "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but its just as
bad not to say it." A speaker at Gorbachev's 1996 State of the World
Forum in San Francisco called for cutting the global population by 90%.
He did not specify the method.
Most
of the Global Warming-ists are content to make preposterous predictions
and induce panic, while leaving their ultimate agenda unstated.
Thus,
in accepting his politically correct Nobel Peace prize, Al Gore (the
Herman Munster of Global Warming) declared that, "We have begun to wage
war on the Earth itself." Gore predicts that our trashing of the ozone
layer could cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet in this century. Would
that be before or after New York City is covered by a glacier, a la
"The Day After Tomorrow"?....
......................................................................................................
....Hence, the inevitable conclusion:
The world would be better off with all of us dead.
·
"Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only
would the Earth's community of Life continue to exist, but in all
probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence in short is not
needed," Paul Taylor in "Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental
Ethics."
·
"We have no problem in principle with humans reducing their numbers by killing one another.
It's an excellent way of making humans extinct," a spokes-creature for the Gaia Liberation Front.
·
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs," John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First.
· In
the book "The World Without Us," Alan Weisman celebrates what he sees
as the inevitable extinction of humanity, as vine and branch, deer and
bear, reclaim our cities.
·
There's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which describes
itself as "the humanitarian alternative to human disasters." VHEMT
explains that "the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of
species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one
species: Homo sapiens... us."
·
Continuing with this grotesquely morbid line of thought: "When every
human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to
return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to
live, die, evolve... and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's
'experiments' have done throughout the eons." Is that why
liberals seem to be disappearing?
The let's-all-die-for the-planet movement may be the fringe of Global
Warming. But their conclusion is the logical expression of its ethos.
Why settle for the gradual extinction of humanity through
below-replacement birthrates and deindustrialization when we can
accomplish the same thing in a generation? (For other Global
Warming-ists, their death wish is more subconscious.)
But rather than having the decency to just kill themselves, they need
to make a statement -- like the poor bastards who go to a mall with a
high-powered rifle to see how many innocent bystanders they can take
with them.
If you see Al Gore in a shopping center with what looks like a
semi-automatic -- or at a podium handing out Kool-Aid -- run.
Recent Comments