Les Jones

Responses to Jonathon Porritt’s polemic on limiting the number of children

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 | Environment, Population |

From Ann Althouse:

“The Optimum Population Trust… says each baby born in Britain will… burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland….”

Why old-growth oak woodland? Why specify your absolute favorite form of vegetation in comparison to a completely generic baby? We’re just talking about carbon emissions over the course of a lifetime. Why not weigh one largish cornfield against the entire lifetime of love and service of somebody’s adorable grandma?

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

Yeah, why cure illnesses? Let them loose to off more people with carbon footprints. True, it’s not as good as abortion, where you avoid the entire life of an old-growth forest killer. But a couple of middle-age disease deaths is the equivalent of an abortion, and these things add up. Just think of the immense progress in population control we could get with a major flu epidemic or bold new plague.

And one more thing. Why are we supposed to care about carbon footprints? Because of global warming? But why do we care about global warming? Because it will hurt people. If we see people as the problem, then there’s nothing to care about anymore.

James Lilieks:

It hasn’t taken long, but it’s taken hold: children, to some, are not bundles of joys, but bundles of sticks whose inevitable combustion harms the planet. It doesn’t matter whether reducing the population might deprive the world of another Mozart or a scientist who can cure cancer; the latter would just mean people living longer and going more harm, and it’s an act of pure cultural arrogance and classism to suggest we need another Mozart anyway.

Yep. According to mainstream environmentalism we’re supposed to save the planet for the children. And what’s the biggest threat to the planet? The children.

We should save Mother Earth for the children. Which we shouldn’t have, because they’re bad for Mother Earth.

Thinking of children? Think of the children!

If you had loved Mother Earth you wouldn’t have been born.

This sort of environmentalist thinking taken to its logical conclusion is madness and makes a person hate humanity and themselves.

2 Comments to Responses to Jonathon Porritt’s polemic on limiting the number of children

chrisb
February 5, 2009

Bravo! This is perfect, and illustrates well, just how crazy the nutty envirosocialist nutters are. They will use government to force their twisted views on us, if they are allowed to. Right now, they are trying to indoctrinate the children they could not murder in the womb.

chrisb´s last blog post..English Rip Babes From Grandparents Arms, and Give Them to Gays

Leave a comment

Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail