What is population control? Who came up with it? Why was it made?
Well, it all started with Plato and Aristotle. They were deciding what amount of people would be good for Greek city states. And concluded that they should be small enough for efficient administration and direct citizen involvement in local affairs, but at the same time be large enough to stand up against any enemy attacks.
If the population was too small, Plato and Aristotle saw it fit that immigration should take place. And if it was too big, emigration should take place. Aristotle thought that too much population brings “certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil”. And thought that when necessary (huge population) abortion and exposition was suitable.
Then in the 1960’s and 70’s there was a scare that there were too many people in the world. Families were encouraged to have less children, and abortion was encouraged as well.
And now, all that’s come to pass. Now it’s because we’re hurting the environment.
“The most recent example of anti-birth thinking comes from Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax of Oregon State University. In a study called “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals,” they suggest that if you truly care about the environment, it’s not enough to trade your SUV for a Prius, use the right lightbulbs, or limit your lawn to organic fertilizers. To the contrary, you need to start thinking about something way more important: i.e., having one less child.
The “basic premise,” the study reports, is that “a person is responsible for emissions of his descendents.”
When Mr. Murtaugh runs the numbers, he finds some alarming results. Take an American woman who checks all the green boxes: She recycles, installs energy efficient windows, cuts back how much she drives, and so on. Yet simply by having two children, Prof. Murtaugh reports, she will add nearly 40 times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions she had saved with those lifestyle changes.” The Wall Street Journal August 3rd 2009
This is ridiculous. Now, it’s personal. People are supposedly hurting the environment. There is a place for putting your trash in the trash can, there is a place for energy efficient windows, there is even a place for maybe a Prius here and there. But now they want to stop the existence of humans?
Well Chuck Colson, says that we need more humans right now. He says that the problem is not too many children, it’s “Too few, not too many, children are being born in many countries around the world.” He also says that people are necessary for the global economy. That without more people, we face a “potential demographic crisis.”
He goes on to say that “These societies will soon find themselves unable to sustain the kind of economic growth necessary to care for their population and maintain social peace.”
So what do we do? People are needed, but we should stop having children because we are supposedly killing the planet. But wait, is there really a problem? Do we need to worry about global warming (well, excuse me I mean “climate change”)?
Well, according to Dr. Jay L. Wile (Ph.D in Chemistry and Nuclear Chemistry) he says that the facts of the environmentalists are “rarely checked.” So let’s check them.
Meteorologist Joseph D’Alea (the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast) says that the effect that people have on our environment, climate change, the whole bag, today would be “the equivalent of the linoleum on the first floor” on a hundred story building. So even if you killed everyone on this planet, you wouldn’t make any more difference than removing the linoleum on the first floor of a hundred story building.
Then how has this information been suppressed so long?
“A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.” Fox News, June 29th, 2009
This means, that they are suggesting the killing off of future generations. For a problem that doesn’t exist.
I rest my case,