Thursday, December 10, 2009

The Green Movement, a Division of the Culture of Death

The Green movement is, at its core, an anti-life crusade.  How could it be otherwise?  The logic is simple.  If one believes that people are destroying the planet, and one's overriding goal is to protect the planet from this putative destruction, one is ultimately led to the convenient--but diabolical--conclusion that the only final and lasting way to save the earth from mankind is to reduce the number of men. 

Whether the world should achieve this reduction on the front end (via contraception, abortion, and infanticide) or on the back end (via some variant of euthanasia) is up for debate, with the front-enders usually carrying the day due to humanity's widespread difficulty understanding that little people are just as valuable as big people.  Of course, the population control underpinnings of the Green movement--and the inherent hatred of humanity that they imply--are rarely admitted or publicized.  But they are there.  Diane Francis, for example, advocates front-end population reduction in the online version of Canada's Financial Post:
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.  A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
I'll get to the fallacy of overpopulation in a moment, but first let's consider whether China's one-child policy is a good thing--a system under which, even if we believe in overpopulation, we'd like to live.  Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, and an expert on Chinese culture and the one-child policy, writes:
Still in force today, the “technical policy” requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control surgeries—abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions—were averaging more than thirty million a year. Many, if not most, of these procedures were performed on women who submitted only under duress. . .
A quarter century after the Chinese got deadly serious about family planning, the program continues to be carried out against the popular will by means of a variety of coercive measures. In presenting the program to foreigners, who can be squeamish about such things, Chinese family planning officials are careful to emphasize “voluntarism.” In speaking to their own cadres, however, the only form of coercion ever condemned is the actual use of physical force—tying down pregnant women for abortions, for instance. But while force is frowned upon, it is never punished. Home-wrecking, unlawful detentions, heavily punitive fines, and like measures continue to be, as they have been from the late 1970s, the whip hand of the program. Women are psychologically and physically pressured to abort unauthorized children to the point of being dragged to the abortion mill. Networks of paid informants are used to report on unauthorized pregnancies of neighbors, family, and friends. Entire villages are punished for out-of-plan births. Officials conduct nighttime raids on couples suspected of having unauthorized children, and they keep detailed records on the sexual activity of every woman in their jurisdiction—so much for privacy. And to make the coercive regime complete, the “family planning centers” have prison cells—complete with bars—to detain those who resist forced abortion or sterilization. Forced sterilization is used not only as a means of population birth control, but sometimes as punishment for men and women who disobey the rules.
This is the way the one-child policy has worked in real life.  Not pretty.  Women don't want forced contraception, forced sterilization, or forced abortion, yet tyranny like this is what enlightened Greens like Diane Francis would shove down their throats.  Oh sure, Diane probably imagines that her version of the one-child policy would be kinder and gentler.  But how, pray tell, can a non-voluntary one-child policy be anything other than, well, forced?  Even the docile Canadians to whom Diane writes (who have practically sterilized themselves) won't stand for that! 

And the notion of overpopulation being legitimate--or something about which to be legitimately worried--is laughable.  Past purveyors of overpopulation alarmism (the disgraced Paul Ehrlich, for example) have been proven wrong time and again, as human population has burst through the supposed limits of our resources.  In actuality, we are facing a grave crisis of underpopulation that threatens to destroy life as we know it (including our ability to care for the environment). From the website of the powerful documentary Demographic Winter (which you should watch, along with its sequel):
Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in a June 15, 2005 column in The Washington Post: “It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling.” Samuelson warned: “Europe as we know it is going out of business…. Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.” . . .   In developed nations, today, 20% of the population is over 60. By 2050, the proportion of elderly will rise to 36%. By then, these societies will have two elderly for every child.

If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.  Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the nation with the largest land mass?  Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.

This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.
Of course, Greens like Diane Francis may not see the misery and decline of human society as a bad thing.  Perhaps eventually, humanity will die out altogether, and then the earth will finally have a little peace and quiet.

Here's a quick little film from Steven Mosher's Population Research Institute that explains the genesis and fallacy of the overpopulation myth.  Enjoy!
 

1 comment:

  1. Good post. Of all you noted, the reference to 30 million abortions in China per year is MOST staggering, heartbreaking, unfathomable.

    ReplyDelete