Solution to Global Warming Announced: Get Rid of People!

Article by John Seager: “Population control is critical in warming fight.”   

 Let’s unpack this a little:

“It’s time to open a “second front” in the battle against global warming by stressing the need for population stabilization. . . . As population increases, the challenge of slowing climate change becomes ever more difficult.  After all, it is people, not birds or bears, who drive Hummers and hybrids and who heat and cool homes and offices. Although the vast majority of population growth occurs in the least-developed nations, the people there, too, are using more fossil fuels every day as they seek better lives.”

He’s feeding us the well-worn claim that human beings are a plague upon the earth.  I think it’s important to remember that whenever people like Seager claim that they care about people, just want to help people, etc.: whatever passes as “love” and kindness in such a heart exists only for those human beings deemed worthy of existence.  Everyone else is a waste of space and natural resources. 

The essentially vile and totalitarian nature of the population-control crowd reveals itself also in their affinity for eugenics. Seager notes the well-known fact that most population growth (and, following his own “logic,” the vast majority of the problem) arises from the Third World.  What kills me is that he acknowledges, in the same breath, that those dirty little breeders are using fossil fuels because they are seeking better lives.  Translation: the poorest, most underdeveloped nations are full of people struggling to have decent through technological and industrial growth, but they must be stopped in that pursuit because the use of fossil fuels hurts the environment. Get back to your mud huts, you primitive polluters!  

Interestingly, Seager seems to exempt the animal world from climate damage.  But in fact, one breed of animal is responsible for the single biggest contribution to the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere, and that animal is not homo sapiens.  It’s cows.  What does Seager suggest–a bovine Holocaust?  But then PETA would be displeased. . .oh, to be trapped between the Scylla and Charybdis of one’s boneheaded shibboleths!  Such is the labyrinthine mental life of a liberal.   

“What can we do? We know that family planning works everywhere. When women and couples are free to make their own informed choices, they choose to have smaller families.  Thirty years ago, for example, Mexican women had almost seven children each. Today, thanks to education and the availability of family planning, they have an average of 2.4 children.”

Oh good–less Mexicans.  Nice, Mr. Seager.  Nice.  Mr. Seager’s latent racism aside, perhaps the most underreported story of the century is how the West is literally imploding as a result of too little procreation: most nations in Europe are well below the rate of reproduction required to sustain a society (especially one whose burgeoning elderly population depends on young workers to subsidize elaborate socialist welfare systems).  I defer to Mr. Mark Steyn on this topic, but to summarize his main point: radical Islam needs only to wait another 15 or 20 years to defeat the West, because we’re under-breeding ourselves out of existence while Muslim populations are booming in ever-larger numbers across the globe.  As Steyn would say, radical Islam will win by default.

I’d also like to suggest that Seager visit my hometown of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, where teenagers having babies is as common as the sun coming up in the morning.  These folks don’t reproduce like rabbits because they are uninformed about birth control or abortion.  No, no, no.  They just don’t want to use the birth control, no matter how much we throw it at them and “educate” them about their best interests.  Why should they care?  Every baby they have means more welfare, and a corresponding lower probability that they will ever have to work.  But such reality has no place in the mind of a liberal, where every ill can be cured by government intervention, and where no person’s circumstances are ever attributable to their own freely made choices. 

“Globally, at least 350 million couples lack family planning services. Here in the United States, one-third of all births are unplanned. And the Bush Administration’s family planning failures, from its Global Gag Rule to ideologically driven abstinence-only programs, contribute directly to millions of unwanted and unplanned births.”

Is Mr. Seager unaware that abortion is available in the United States, not to mention a wide variety of free birth control, regardless of what 8th-graders learn in their health classes?  Is Seager living in some parallel dimension where only abstinence is being discussed in educational settings, and where one can learn about the birds and the bees only from a teacher provided by the State?  Or is he suggesting that the cited millions of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies are a phenomenon entirely of the past 8 years; i.e., that the presence in the White House of a President who favors the advocation of abstinence (which is, after all the most reliable form of “family planning”) has literally resulted in millions of unwanted pregnancies?  Because if Seager is saying that, well, he’s a freakin’ idiot.  Only a liberal could blame a completely predictable biological process (sex –> pregnancy) on the ideological beliefs of a government official.

And as far as the Global Gag Rule goes, it’s not a gag rule.  Seager’s lazy terminology reminds me of the way liberals used to argue that Robert Mapplethorpe was being “censored” because the NEA wouldn’t pay him to take photographs.  Liberals seem incapable of distinguishing between being forcibly, often violently, prevented from doing a thing by the government (what is known as “censorship”) and not receiving taxpayer dollars to do that thing (what is known as “fiscal responsibility”).  Similarly, Bush’s so-called “Global Gag Rule” does not prevent anyone anywhere from discussing, advocating, or otherwise supporting/providing abortion.  Rather, it withholds American taxpayer dollars from non-governmental organizations that choose to do those things. 

I dare Mr. Seager to research where, and to whom, these unwanted pregnancies are happening, i.e., poor people and minorities.  It ain’t the rich, hyper-educated white people who are having boatloads of babies, and I think we all know that.  Is Seager willing to argue with a bold, straight face that the answer to our problems is getting the unwashed masses to stop reproducing? 

If Mr. Seager thinks there are too many humans leaving “environmental footprints” on the Earth, I nominate him to be the first one to go. 

“Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent” by Mr. Linder’s article is a welcome antidote:


~ by lewdandlascivious on February 20, 2007.

7 Responses to “Solution to Global Warming Announced: Get Rid of People!”

  1. Great response, Miss Allison.

    A lot of the undercurrent here is a mandate for abortion – iether forced, as in China, or on-demand, as in the United States. You are entirely correct that the population picture looks a lot different when we de-aggregate the people who are reproducing.

    As cows produce more pollutants than humans, anyone concerned about global warming should just go vegetarian. I don’t see many limosuine liberals, however, giving up their prime rib in favour of sprouts.

    The taxpayer-dollars thing is a direct result of the jurisprudence of the 1960s, where “right to counsel” means “right to have the State pay for your lawyer.” This is now part of the “right to health care,” which really is nothing more than government control of our most basic health decisions. Liberals do not understand that whoever pays the piper, calls the tune – and a different payer may request a song that they dislike.

    Great job. Happy Mardi Gras! 🙂

  2. PS.
    Only a liberal could blame a completely predictable biological process (sex –> pregnancy) on the ideological beliefs of a government official.
    Some of the gals at Feministing told me that sex does not cause pregnancy. It does not happen all the time, and it can be reduced (via birth control and ABORTION), so the causal connection is broken. Therefore, since sex does not cause pregnancy, women should be able to have sex without having the “patriarchy” say that pregnancy is a consequence of sex. (The abortion part killed me. It’s like saying that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer because you can get a lung transplant if you get lung cancer.)

  3. Good grief. What DOES cause it then? Are we back to believing in the stork, or little dwarves inside our bodies?
    Here are some other novel versions of reality based on their “logic”:
    –Since not every day is boiling hot, the sun is not the cause of heat on Earth.
    –Since humans are able to fly in the air via planes or hot-air balloons, falling down is not caused by gravity.
    –Since dumb feminists clearly do not use their brains, the human brain is not where thought comes from.

  4. Well, modern feminists are poster children for repealing the Nineteenth Amendment. 😉 Obviously, if sex does not cause pregnancy, then pregnancy must have some other cause. Not sure what it is… maybe they think that conservatives run around with turkey basters and impregnate women who “dare to express their sexuality.”

  5. I love your attitude and rhetoric!

  6. Thanks! 🙂

  7. Check out Ann Coulter’s column today ( No, I swear that I don’t stay up late on Wednesday night just so I can read it when it comes out in the morning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: