With increasing regularity our elite moonbeams are coming out with over-the-top proposals to save the planet. In their zeal to rescue mother earth, these green fanatics are quite happy to wipe out much of the human population to achieve their goals.
I have noted many recent examples of this on this site. And today we have yet another case in point. Here is how the media is reporting the latest case of green madness. The story is given this title: “One-child policy for Australia or we’re doomed, say group”. The short news item is as follows:
“Australia should consider having a one-child policy to protect the planet, an environmental lobby group said. Sustainable Population Australia said slashing population was the only way to avoid ‘environmental suicide’. National president Sandra Kanck wants Australia’s population of almost 22 million reduced to seven million to tackle climate change. And restricting each couple to one baby, as China does, was ‘one way of assisting to reduce the population’. ‘It’s something we need to throw into the mix,’ the former Democrats parliamentarian said.”
And this woman was a former Parliamentarian? Just what are these people thinking? No wonder the Democrats are now defunct.
As is always the case with such loopy proposals, one must ask a few hard questions. Will Ms Kanck lead the way by personal example? How in fact will she bump herself off? Will it be a suicide pill? The hangman’s noose? Or perhaps just a gun? No, the greenies want to ban all guns.
Or does she have in mind people other than herself? That in fact is the case. She has no intention of leading by example here, but she fully expects other Australians to take her advice. So she wants a full two-thirds of Australians culled, but she must remain to ensure that the job is done properly. So very kind of her.
And then she wants us to emulate China of all places. Never mind that its coercive one-child policy – along with forced sterilisations and abortions – is producing tremendous social problems in China. If a family is forced to have just one child, they will usually opt for boys.
Thus China has a huge problem with gender imbalance at the moment, and parents are worried sick that there are not enough females around to marry their sons. Prostitution is doing very well in such a climate.
One also has to ask just how many children Ms Kanck has. One suspects she doesn’t have any. People are always so good at telling parents how they should behave with their children when they themselves do not have any children.
This is just another case of a politician who is light-years away from reality and common sense. She is living in her green la-la land, without a clue as to what real life is all about. She is instead enslaved to her green ideology, which is often quite prepared to inaugurate full-scale genocide, if only this can save the planet.
Of course if people like her get their way, soon there won’t be any people around to enjoy the planet. But she probably thinks that is a good thing anyway. Humanity never gets a good rap by these green loonies.
It is bad enough when current politicians come up with this sort of nonsense. It is worse when ex-pollies get into the act, telling us what is best for us, even if that ‘best’ means knocking off the majority of mankind.
With friends of the planet like this, I would hate to see its enemies.
39 Replies to “More Population Madness, More Human Culls”
Dear Bill, Please ask Ms Kanck how the parents in China felt when the earthequake came and took their only one child away from them? What then?
Please ask her what the parents go through to keep their next child secret from the Chinese Government? Is this what she wants for Australia, to go back to a mindset that is void of compassion and love? To forget that a child is a gift a precious one, that every child is there to teach us adults our shortcomings at every stage of their life because they are so special and insightful? Why do these people get news time? WHY?
Siti Khatijah
Looking at Sandra Kanck’s profile, she is the oldest of seven children. Maybe that put her off the idea of having a large family and anyone else for that matter. She also plays the ukelele…
Anthony McGregor
Hi Bill,
I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention that we already cull our population in Australia through abortion. Because of this and our addiction to a hedonistic lifestyle, Australia’s fertility rate has for a long time been below replacement level (1.81 as of 2006). Coupled with the aging of the population, population growth by organic means is already in negative territory.
What causes Australia’s population to increase is immigration; and so it is disingenuous for Mrs Kanck to suggest that reducing our birth rate is the best way to reduce our population. It’s funny how immigration isn’t top of her list if she were serious about achieving her aims. To suggest that would obviously be racist, however, and so is off limits.
Mansel Rogerson
So Sandra Kanck plays the ukelele. Yeah I thought she spoke as someone who had a few strings missing. Let’s hope that the Silent Majority do the opposite and confound these unrepresentative elite, and have more than one child. Perhaps she should do us a favour and lead the way by taking a one way trip on the next space shuttle launch.
Wayne Pelling
Thanks guys
And bear in mind that Kanck has long been a human-hating humanitarian. When she was the leader of the Democrats in South Australia, she was actively pushing for euthanasia in the State Parliament. She even detailed suicide methods in a speech in 2006. She seems to love the planet but hate people. I have written about this pro-death Democrat elsewhere: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/05/euthanasia-myths/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And where exactly in that article is there any discussion about actually culling humans?
Chris Mayer
Thanks Chris
How exactly do you think we are going to get from 22 million to 7 million people Chris? And it doesn’t matter a bit whether she uses the word “cull” or not, for that is exactly where she is headed in all this. And as I have documented elsewhere on this site, some radical greens are far more honest about their agenda, and culling is very much a part of their plan. Why do you keep defending the indefensible?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Excuse me Bill? I defended nothing, I asked a question about where the person spoke of culling. Please refrain from ascribing me to positions I do not hold.
Negative population growth does not require people to be ‘culled’, doesn’t take rocket science to work it out Bill.
I feel it amazing that I have to state this, but I will again, this comment has *nothing* to do with support of the position in the article, just a simple quest for honest discussion of topics, about the only reason I come here, but it is a pretty lost cause.
Chris Mayer
Thanks Chris
And I ask you again, How exactly do you think we are going to get from 22 million to 7 million people? Please explain to us all how you think this can be achieved without coercion. And why do you act as if people like Paul Ehrlich never said we should put sterilisation agents in the water supply?
Why do you act as if Kanck has not clearly held up China as a model here? As everyone knows China is involved in a massive forced one-child policy. It is one of the most brutal birth control campaigns in history. And yes it clearly involves human culling. She is holding this up as an ideal Chris, and all you can do is quibble about being misrepresented. So it still seems that you are doing nothing other than seeking to defend the indefensible.
And of course no one is forcing you to come to this site, if you feel it is such a lost cause. Given that I have printed just about everything you have sent in, you can’t complain about your point of view not getting a good run here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have no idea how many times I have to say this, but I will try once more. I was not defending anything or anyone.
I did not understand how you read they she was supporting culling, as in killing living humans, so I asked the question.
That is all!
I also don’t believe I have ever said you haven’t given me a fair run Bill.
Chris Mayer
Hi Bill,
I think Chris has a valid point. I had the same question when reading your post. The article doesn’t explicitly mention culling. But I agree with you that one of the sure effects, so clearly seen in China, of one-child coercion will be an increase in the culling we call abortion.
Mansel Rogerson
Further to Anthony McGregor’s comment…
As Sandra Kanck is the oldest of seven children, does that mean she regrets the birth of her own siblings?! I guess it must be easy for her to have this opinion as she came first!
Here we have another poor, misguided lady who needs our prayers.
Sincerely
Amanda Varley
Thanks Chris
OK, let me try to do likewise, and say this as clearly and as plainly as I can. Ms Kanck has upheld China’s one-child policy as a model for Australia to emulate. This policy involves forced sterilisation and forced abortion. An abortion may seem to her simply to be “negative population growth” as you put it, but it is in fact the killing of an already existing human being. It is human culling, in other words Chris. Ms Kanck apparently finds nothing wrong with this. Thus she is endorsing human culling.
And given her longstanding endorsement of euthanasia, which is also a form of human culling, one finds it very hard to understand how one can fail to see that what we have here is someone in favour of reducing human numbers, all in the interests of “tackling climate change”. I am afraid I cannot make it any more plain than that Chris. It all looks like human culling to me.
I don’t think you are an advocate of human culling Chris. I haven’t said you were. But given how the left is always happy to “read between the lines” when attacking those on the right, it seems odd that when Ms Kanck’s remarks seem plain as day, you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and overlook the obvious implications of what she is advocating. That is what has troubled me Chris. Comprendo? But thanks for interacting.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I read it Bill that wacky Kancky was looking at zero population growth plus (minus) deaths in our ageing population which would equal 7 million in her mind.
However I have noticed lately a subtle “surge” into Christian web sites of people expressing views that present a challenge under the guise of “being tolerant”. One blog owner has changed the rules after a new contributor became rude and blasphemous. Not saying that Chris would fall into that category.
Wayne Pelling
If we want to get linguistic about this argument, let’s look at the definition of cull.
It is as follows:
–verb (used with object) 1. to choose; select; pick.
2. to gather the choice things or parts from.
3. to collect; gather; pluck.
–noun 4. act of culling.
5. something culled, esp. something picked out and put aside as inferior
If you choose to abort children, you are imposing your rights over the rights of the unborn (therefore treating the unborn as inferior)
If you choose to euthanase, you are imposing your rights over the elderly/sick (therefore treating them as inferior)
If you choose to tell people they can only have one child, you are imposing your rights over them (therefore treating them as inferior)
All of these measures would be used to lower the population, unless Chris, you can suggest other means as Bill has invited you to do so.
After all it is the intention of Sustainable Population Australia to slash population to avoid “environmental suicide”.
So cull is an appropriate word I would think.
The comments re the article speak for themselves. You tell us Chris, what likely chance this organization has of telling people how many children they can have.
Buckley’s.
Teresa Binder
Thanks Wayne
The greenies don’t seem to have a clue about all this. Just consider the numbers. In 2007 there were 285,200 births in Australia. (It would have been closer to 385,000 had we not culled 100,000 humans beings – the unborn.) In the same year there were 137,900 deaths. How is the number reduction going to be achieved? Will they oppose all immigration? But the Democrats and Greens always whine about our lack of compassion in not taking in boat people and asylum seekers.
The 2007 fertility rate was 1.93, not all that terribly far from the one child policy being advocated. Not all that long ago it was 1.73. Even though we have been assured that it “doesn’t take rocket science to work it,” we still await word as to how the loss of 15 million Australians will be achieved, barring coercion.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks Teresa
Yes, it all sounds like culling to me. I would have thought that the proverbial Blind Freddie would have had the same understanding.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
To the population controllers,
You should try and tell a Muslim man that he is only allowed to have one child in this country. I reckon you wouldn’t get very far.
For any environmental organization holding, of all countries CHINA, up in high esteem for their one-child policy, indicates absolute bloody madness to me. These people are raving mad!!!!!!!!!
Since these groups aren’t coming up with any suggestions, I have a good one. They could systematically poison everyone in all states except VIC, SA and Perth perhaps (does that equal 7 million??) and that would do the trick.
Hey, that’s what they did in the WWII!! They killed millions didn’t they?
Maybe “genocide” could be thrown into the mix here.
Oh, and how do we know that 20 people don’t leave a smaller carbon footprint on the planet, then say one. My family would certainly leave a substantially small footprint on the planet, when compared with TOMKAT or BRAD and ANGELINA.
Sounds more like people are “imposing their rights over others (therefore treating them as inferior)” again.
Teresa Binder
Human-instigated population control is directly contrary to a Biblical worldview.
Instead of being fruitful, multiplying & trusting God for providence, people are getting carried away with the Malthusian delusion of overpopulation.
On the one hand the just will not go begging for bread, and on the other, God has wiped out large amounts of people in the past due to sin. I am confident His second coming will occur before overpopulation ever becomes a problem.
Yarran Johnston
Bill,
“One also has to ask just how many children Ms Kanck has. One suspects she doesn’t have any.”
I think the answer is one child, so to that extent she is (so far) offering to lead by example. However, since God opens and closes wombs, I would not want to bet on the situation staying that way.
Chris Mayer,
Sorry, but you ‘have form’ in this blog, so the best I can say is that your comments are disingenuous.
I heard the lady inteviewed on 3AW Radio this afternoon, and she defended China’s one-child policy – much more vigorously than “it’s in the mix for consideration”.
She also wished to retain and expand the immigration program, but even if that was to go completely (say 300,000 per year) it would still take too long (45 years) to reduce the population to the extent she claims is vital to save the planet.
Thirdly, she claimed that the planet was doomed (shades of Restaurant at The End of the Universe) because of climate change – an assertion which is very much open to question.
And ultimately, as someone else has pointed out, all she is arguing is the discredited Club of Rome/Paul Erlich Population Bomb line of Malthusian doom.
Her approach of ‘carrot and stick’ – removing incentives to have more children (eg. baby bonus, paid maternity leave etc) is supposed to overcome the human rights abuses seen in China.
But there are two main problems I see:
a) the instinct for self-preservation means no-one is prepared to *voluntarily* sacrifice themselves for the sake of the planet – thus coercion will be necessary (Soylent Green?)
b) imagining a population of just 7 million, one wonders who will pay for all the government services for which taxpayers are milked now? There may only be about 1.5 – 2.5 million of them left!
John Angelico
When you look at the sheer short sightedness of humanist social experiments, you really come to appreciate that God’s way is not only the best way, but the only way. That’s why faith in the Author of the Universe is an act of genius.
Anthony McGregor
First, congratulations ofn the work that goes into your website, Bill.
However, as a casual observer of this website/blog and as someone who tries to live out Christian principles, may I encourage supporters of Bill’s articles always to be graceful to opponents. Chris may ‘have form’ on this blog but he still deserves respect. To me, the tone of some proponent responses suggests otherwise.
Thanks Des for the article tip. It is a good read.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Mr. Muehlenberg,
I was just recently introduced to your commentary, and I am hooked–enjoy reading your insight and “foreigner’s” perspective.
I was reminded today of this article as my French professor asked the class what sorts of things we were doing to “save the earth.” One student assured us that he would assist in controlling the population by adopting any future children. My professor heartily agreed, then went on to lament the perceived selfishness of the Duggars (an American family with 18 children). Of course, it made no difference that my professor is 8 months pregnant. The irony was not lost on me that while she extolled the virtues of population control, she was, in fact, going to increase the population in less than three weeks’ time. Seems she and Sandra Kanck would be the best of friends: neither has any “intention of leading by example here.”
Heather Jansen
Oregon, USA
Actually the Duggars are being anything but selfish, given they are prepared to make the sacrifices required to raise 18 children thereby partly making up for all those irresponsible childless (or one child) couples in the West who are the really selfish ones who have chosen comfort and leisure over a duty to raise the next generation of Westerners. (Of course I am not talking about those couples who for biological reasons are not able to have multiple or any children.)
Ewan McDonald.
Ewan, the comfort and leisure option of the childlessness by choice people was labelled by Christian theologian and philosoher Francis Schaeffer as being “Personal peace and affluence and the non-compassionate use of wealth”.
Wayne Pelling
This is an excellent hour long video found at http://www.answersingenesis.org. It mentions the consequences of the extreme human hating environ-mentalists in an overall discussion of global warming. Well worth a watch.
Also this latest development in Obamas’ Kingdom of America is elucidated so well by Lita Cosner at http://www.creation.com. It involves the same source of the culture of death and human hating especially the contempt and hatred of the unborn.
The article does not say “culling.” It does speak of a one-child policy which will inevitably lead to enforced abortions and other wicked abuses of true human rights, as currently happens in China. Anyone can see where Deep Ecology leads.
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
As GK Chesterton noted, the simplest answer to someone who speaks of the “surplus population” is to ask him if he is the “surplus population.”
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
It would be very interesting to find out how Sandra arrives at her optimal population of 7 million for Australia. Couldn’t it just as easily be 700,000, 70,000, 7,000, 700, 70 or 7?
Dunstan Hartley
Thanks Dunstan
Good question. Or what about 1? Indeed, some candid radical greens want mankind off the scene altogether.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I’m interested Bill to understand how one can be a human-hating humanitarian and then want to increase immigration? Isn’t that a contradiction of the work you are trying to do? Forgive me for my ignorance but I thought that humanitarians were supposed to be for the good of humankind not actually hate what they are trying to do. I hope Sandra Kanck stays out of parliament for Australia’s sake. She sounds like a very one-eyed, narriow-viewed person with a passion to enforce her views. Who is allowing her on national radio? Watch her and pray for her.
Francesca Collard
I disagree with the Australians for a Sustainable Population but I have attended a conference run by them and wound up on the mailing list.
I would characterise them as disillusioned humanists. They are generally politicians or biologists and lack any grasp of resource economics or free market environmental solutions.
Each has key species he or she is eager to save but no money or grasp of how to save species by farming them, sponsored ecologies etc. After the meetings I attended it was apparent that:
1. They are genuinely terrified of climate change and all development.
2. They are locked into a socialist mind set for all solutions; Government is the only solution.
3. There are some racist individuals present but the rest keep them ¨silent¨ in public.
4. There are some who activily mused that a benevilent dictatorship could fix things. Again others told them to be silent in public. I was the ¨public¨ in that case.
5. They oppose all immigration in a manor that indicates that first world people are worthy of saving but not those from the third world. The idea that a new immigrant can have a lower Environmental impact in a first world city than a third world slum is not grasped.
6. They are polite to opponents but If I and a few others were not present it may have been a different meeting. When radical things were said some leaders looked my way to see if I was taking notes.
7. They are technophobic rejecting all ¨technofixes¨ but don’t grasp that the pill, abortion and the cheap plastic condom are all classic technofixes. However this point only came to me on the way home. It would have been a powerful argument at the meeting.
I don’t think its worth my while attending another meeting I have other things to do with my money.
Wesley Bruce
I’m very thankful that Ms Kanck is no longer in parliament. With funds in compulsory superannuation plummeting, and the baby boomers reaching retirement age, who is going to support the growing numbers of pensioners with her one-child policy?
My personal opinion is that she is merely blowing some hot air to get people to take notice of her. Perhaps she plans a return to parliament. The only reason the media have reported her comments is because they are controversial.
Over here in the West, anything which gets Ben Cousins off the front page is a relief!
On local radio she claimed to have only one child. Her ideas are wacky. For all its faults, while the baby bonus continues, people will continue to reproduce.
Glenda Morgan
If the population number alarmists won’t start with themselves then their message is bunk. It really is as simple as that.
Mark Rabich
Thanks Mark, and Louise (25/4)
Yes that is the ultimate test. The full Chesterton quote is this: “The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population, or if he is not, how he knows he is not.”
Dear Bill, Please ask Ms Kanck how the parents in China felt when the earthequake came and took their only one child away from them? What then?
Please ask her what the parents go through to keep their next child secret from the Chinese Government? Is this what she wants for Australia, to go back to a mindset that is void of compassion and love? To forget that a child is a gift a precious one, that every child is there to teach us adults our shortcomings at every stage of their life because they are so special and insightful? Why do these people get news time? WHY?
Siti Khatijah
Looking at Sandra Kanck’s profile, she is the oldest of seven children. Maybe that put her off the idea of having a large family and anyone else for that matter. She also plays the ukelele…
Anthony McGregor
Hi Bill,
I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention that we already cull our population in Australia through abortion. Because of this and our addiction to a hedonistic lifestyle, Australia’s fertility rate has for a long time been below replacement level (1.81 as of 2006). Coupled with the aging of the population, population growth by organic means is already in negative territory.
What causes Australia’s population to increase is immigration; and so it is disingenuous for Mrs Kanck to suggest that reducing our birth rate is the best way to reduce our population. It’s funny how immigration isn’t top of her list if she were serious about achieving her aims. To suggest that would obviously be racist, however, and so is off limits.
Mansel Rogerson
So Sandra Kanck plays the ukelele. Yeah I thought she spoke as someone who had a few strings missing. Let’s hope that the Silent Majority do the opposite and confound these unrepresentative elite, and have more than one child. Perhaps she should do us a favour and lead the way by taking a one way trip on the next space shuttle launch.
Wayne Pelling
Thanks guys
And bear in mind that Kanck has long been a human-hating humanitarian. When she was the leader of the Democrats in South Australia, she was actively pushing for euthanasia in the State Parliament. She even detailed suicide methods in a speech in 2006. She seems to love the planet but hate people. I have written about this pro-death Democrat elsewhere: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/05/euthanasia-myths/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And where exactly in that article is there any discussion about actually culling humans?
Chris Mayer
Thanks Chris
How exactly do you think we are going to get from 22 million to 7 million people Chris? And it doesn’t matter a bit whether she uses the word “cull” or not, for that is exactly where she is headed in all this. And as I have documented elsewhere on this site, some radical greens are far more honest about their agenda, and culling is very much a part of their plan. Why do you keep defending the indefensible?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Excuse me Bill? I defended nothing, I asked a question about where the person spoke of culling. Please refrain from ascribing me to positions I do not hold.
Negative population growth does not require people to be ‘culled’, doesn’t take rocket science to work it out Bill.
I feel it amazing that I have to state this, but I will again, this comment has *nothing* to do with support of the position in the article, just a simple quest for honest discussion of topics, about the only reason I come here, but it is a pretty lost cause.
Chris Mayer
Thanks Chris
And I ask you again, How exactly do you think we are going to get from 22 million to 7 million people? Please explain to us all how you think this can be achieved without coercion. And why do you act as if people like Paul Ehrlich never said we should put sterilisation agents in the water supply?
Why do you act as if Kanck has not clearly held up China as a model here? As everyone knows China is involved in a massive forced one-child policy. It is one of the most brutal birth control campaigns in history. And yes it clearly involves human culling. She is holding this up as an ideal Chris, and all you can do is quibble about being misrepresented. So it still seems that you are doing nothing other than seeking to defend the indefensible.
And of course no one is forcing you to come to this site, if you feel it is such a lost cause. Given that I have printed just about everything you have sent in, you can’t complain about your point of view not getting a good run here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have no idea how many times I have to say this, but I will try once more. I was not defending anything or anyone.
I did not understand how you read they she was supporting culling, as in killing living humans, so I asked the question.
That is all!
I also don’t believe I have ever said you haven’t given me a fair run Bill.
Chris Mayer
Hi Bill,
I think Chris has a valid point. I had the same question when reading your post. The article doesn’t explicitly mention culling. But I agree with you that one of the sure effects, so clearly seen in China, of one-child coercion will be an increase in the culling we call abortion.
Mansel Rogerson
Further to Anthony McGregor’s comment…
As Sandra Kanck is the oldest of seven children, does that mean she regrets the birth of her own siblings?! I guess it must be easy for her to have this opinion as she came first!
Here we have another poor, misguided lady who needs our prayers.
Sincerely
Amanda Varley
Thanks Chris
OK, let me try to do likewise, and say this as clearly and as plainly as I can. Ms Kanck has upheld China’s one-child policy as a model for Australia to emulate. This policy involves forced sterilisation and forced abortion. An abortion may seem to her simply to be “negative population growth” as you put it, but it is in fact the killing of an already existing human being. It is human culling, in other words Chris. Ms Kanck apparently finds nothing wrong with this. Thus she is endorsing human culling.
And given her longstanding endorsement of euthanasia, which is also a form of human culling, one finds it very hard to understand how one can fail to see that what we have here is someone in favour of reducing human numbers, all in the interests of “tackling climate change”. I am afraid I cannot make it any more plain than that Chris. It all looks like human culling to me.
I don’t think you are an advocate of human culling Chris. I haven’t said you were. But given how the left is always happy to “read between the lines” when attacking those on the right, it seems odd that when Ms Kanck’s remarks seem plain as day, you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, and overlook the obvious implications of what she is advocating. That is what has troubled me Chris. Comprendo? But thanks for interacting.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I read it Bill that wacky Kancky was looking at zero population growth plus (minus) deaths in our ageing population which would equal 7 million in her mind.
However I have noticed lately a subtle “surge” into Christian web sites of people expressing views that present a challenge under the guise of “being tolerant”. One blog owner has changed the rules after a new contributor became rude and blasphemous. Not saying that Chris would fall into that category.
Wayne Pelling
If we want to get linguistic about this argument, let’s look at the definition of cull.
It is as follows:
–verb (used with object) 1. to choose; select; pick.
2. to gather the choice things or parts from.
3. to collect; gather; pluck.
–noun 4. act of culling.
5. something culled, esp. something picked out and put aside as inferior
If you choose to abort children, you are imposing your rights over the rights of the unborn (therefore treating the unborn as inferior)
If you choose to euthanase, you are imposing your rights over the elderly/sick (therefore treating them as inferior)
If you choose to tell people they can only have one child, you are imposing your rights over them (therefore treating them as inferior)
All of these measures would be used to lower the population, unless Chris, you can suggest other means as Bill has invited you to do so.
After all it is the intention of Sustainable Population Australia to slash population to avoid “environmental suicide”.
So cull is an appropriate word I would think.
The comments re the article speak for themselves. You tell us Chris, what likely chance this organization has of telling people how many children they can have.
Buckley’s.
Teresa Binder
Thanks Wayne
The greenies don’t seem to have a clue about all this. Just consider the numbers. In 2007 there were 285,200 births in Australia. (It would have been closer to 385,000 had we not culled 100,000 humans beings – the unborn.) In the same year there were 137,900 deaths. How is the number reduction going to be achieved? Will they oppose all immigration? But the Democrats and Greens always whine about our lack of compassion in not taking in boat people and asylum seekers.
The 2007 fertility rate was 1.93, not all that terribly far from the one child policy being advocated. Not all that long ago it was 1.73. Even though we have been assured that it “doesn’t take rocket science to work it,” we still await word as to how the loss of 15 million Australians will be achieved, barring coercion.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks Teresa
Yes, it all sounds like culling to me. I would have thought that the proverbial Blind Freddie would have had the same understanding.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
To the population controllers,
You should try and tell a Muslim man that he is only allowed to have one child in this country. I reckon you wouldn’t get very far.
For any environmental organization holding, of all countries CHINA, up in high esteem for their one-child policy, indicates absolute bloody madness to me. These people are raving mad!!!!!!!!!
Since these groups aren’t coming up with any suggestions, I have a good one. They could systematically poison everyone in all states except VIC, SA and Perth perhaps (does that equal 7 million??) and that would do the trick.
Hey, that’s what they did in the WWII!! They killed millions didn’t they?
Maybe “genocide” could be thrown into the mix here.
Oh, and how do we know that 20 people don’t leave a smaller carbon footprint on the planet, then say one. My family would certainly leave a substantially small footprint on the planet, when compared with TOMKAT or BRAD and ANGELINA.
Sounds more like people are “imposing their rights over others (therefore treating them as inferior)” again.
Teresa Binder
Human-instigated population control is directly contrary to a Biblical worldview.
Instead of being fruitful, multiplying & trusting God for providence, people are getting carried away with the Malthusian delusion of overpopulation.
On the one hand the just will not go begging for bread, and on the other, God has wiped out large amounts of people in the past due to sin. I am confident His second coming will occur before overpopulation ever becomes a problem.
Yarran Johnston
Bill,
“One also has to ask just how many children Ms Kanck has. One suspects she doesn’t have any.”
I think the answer is one child, so to that extent she is (so far) offering to lead by example. However, since God opens and closes wombs, I would not want to bet on the situation staying that way.
Chris Mayer,
Sorry, but you ‘have form’ in this blog, so the best I can say is that your comments are disingenuous.
I heard the lady inteviewed on 3AW Radio this afternoon, and she defended China’s one-child policy – much more vigorously than “it’s in the mix for consideration”.
She also wished to retain and expand the immigration program, but even if that was to go completely (say 300,000 per year) it would still take too long (45 years) to reduce the population to the extent she claims is vital to save the planet.
Thirdly, she claimed that the planet was doomed (shades of Restaurant at The End of the Universe) because of climate change – an assertion which is very much open to question.
And ultimately, as someone else has pointed out, all she is arguing is the discredited Club of Rome/Paul Erlich Population Bomb line of Malthusian doom.
Her approach of ‘carrot and stick’ – removing incentives to have more children (eg. baby bonus, paid maternity leave etc) is supposed to overcome the human rights abuses seen in China.
But there are two main problems I see:
a) the instinct for self-preservation means no-one is prepared to *voluntarily* sacrifice themselves for the sake of the planet – thus coercion will be necessary (Soylent Green?)
b) imagining a population of just 7 million, one wonders who will pay for all the government services for which taxpayers are milked now? There may only be about 1.5 – 2.5 million of them left!
John Angelico
When you look at the sheer short sightedness of humanist social experiments, you really come to appreciate that God’s way is not only the best way, but the only way. That’s why faith in the Author of the Universe is an act of genius.
Anthony McGregor
First, congratulations ofn the work that goes into your website, Bill.
However, as a casual observer of this website/blog and as someone who tries to live out Christian principles, may I encourage supporters of Bill’s articles always to be graceful to opponents. Chris may ‘have form’ on this blog but he still deserves respect. To me, the tone of some proponent responses suggests otherwise.
Anyway, the following link may contribute to thinking on the population issue – not that there aren’t many others around: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTZkZmFmMGU4MzAzYThjOTBhMjNmZmQyNGMxZTM4Zjc=
Des Carroll
Thanks John
Yes our real problem is that much of the world is undergoing a birth dearth. See this trailer to an important DVD on our demographic winter: http://www.cfourstrategies.com/demowinterlifesitenews.html
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Des,
Thank you for the caution.
John Angelico
Thanks Des for the article tip. It is a good read.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Mr. Muehlenberg,
I was just recently introduced to your commentary, and I am hooked–enjoy reading your insight and “foreigner’s” perspective.
I was reminded today of this article as my French professor asked the class what sorts of things we were doing to “save the earth.” One student assured us that he would assist in controlling the population by adopting any future children. My professor heartily agreed, then went on to lament the perceived selfishness of the Duggars (an American family with 18 children). Of course, it made no difference that my professor is 8 months pregnant. The irony was not lost on me that while she extolled the virtues of population control, she was, in fact, going to increase the population in less than three weeks’ time. Seems she and Sandra Kanck would be the best of friends: neither has any “intention of leading by example here.”
Heather Jansen
Oregon, USA
Actually the Duggars are being anything but selfish, given they are prepared to make the sacrifices required to raise 18 children thereby partly making up for all those irresponsible childless (or one child) couples in the West who are the really selfish ones who have chosen comfort and leisure over a duty to raise the next generation of Westerners. (Of course I am not talking about those couples who for biological reasons are not able to have multiple or any children.)
Ewan McDonald.
Ewan, the comfort and leisure option of the childlessness by choice people was labelled by Christian theologian and philosoher Francis Schaeffer as being “Personal peace and affluence and the non-compassionate use of wealth”.
Wayne Pelling
This is an excellent hour long video found at http://www.answersingenesis.org. It mentions the consequences of the extreme human hating environ-mentalists in an overall discussion of global warming. Well worth a watch.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/22/go-truly-green-by-starting-with-genesis
Also this latest development in Obamas’ Kingdom of America is elucidated so well by Lita Cosner at http://www.creation.com. It involves the same source of the culture of death and human hating especially the contempt and hatred of the unborn.
http://creation.com/president-obama-okays-funding-embryonic-stem-cell-research-but-removes-adult-stem-cell-funding
Jennifer Parfenovics
The article does not say “culling.” It does speak of a one-child policy which will inevitably lead to enforced abortions and other wicked abuses of true human rights, as currently happens in China. Anyone can see where Deep Ecology leads.
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
As GK Chesterton noted, the simplest answer to someone who speaks of the “surplus population” is to ask him if he is the “surplus population.”
Louise Le Mottee, Hobart
It would be very interesting to find out how Sandra arrives at her optimal population of 7 million for Australia. Couldn’t it just as easily be 700,000, 70,000, 7,000, 700, 70 or 7?
Dunstan Hartley
Thanks Dunstan
Good question. Or what about 1? Indeed, some candid radical greens want mankind off the scene altogether.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I’m interested Bill to understand how one can be a human-hating humanitarian and then want to increase immigration? Isn’t that a contradiction of the work you are trying to do? Forgive me for my ignorance but I thought that humanitarians were supposed to be for the good of humankind not actually hate what they are trying to do. I hope Sandra Kanck stays out of parliament for Australia’s sake. She sounds like a very one-eyed, narriow-viewed person with a passion to enforce her views. Who is allowing her on national radio? Watch her and pray for her.
Francesca Collard
Thanks Francesca
Yes it is hard to figure out how and why they want to radically cut our population, yet at the same time want to increase immigration. It sounds like a good way to take over a country. As to hating humans, I have written elsewhere about those who most go on and on about humanity tend to be the ones who are most likely to bump off humans:
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2007/12/19/human-hating-humanitarians/
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/02/05/population-control-pharaoh-and-herod-are-alive-and-well/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I disagree with the Australians for a Sustainable Population but I have attended a conference run by them and wound up on the mailing list.
I would characterise them as disillusioned humanists. They are generally politicians or biologists and lack any grasp of resource economics or free market environmental solutions.
Each has key species he or she is eager to save but no money or grasp of how to save species by farming them, sponsored ecologies etc. After the meetings I attended it was apparent that:
1. They are genuinely terrified of climate change and all development.
2. They are locked into a socialist mind set for all solutions; Government is the only solution.
3. There are some racist individuals present but the rest keep them ¨silent¨ in public.
4. There are some who activily mused that a benevilent dictatorship could fix things. Again others told them to be silent in public. I was the ¨public¨ in that case.
5. They oppose all immigration in a manor that indicates that first world people are worthy of saving but not those from the third world. The idea that a new immigrant can have a lower Environmental impact in a first world city than a third world slum is not grasped.
6. They are polite to opponents but If I and a few others were not present it may have been a different meeting. When radical things were said some leaders looked my way to see if I was taking notes.
7. They are technophobic rejecting all ¨technofixes¨ but don’t grasp that the pill, abortion and the cheap plastic condom are all classic technofixes. However this point only came to me on the way home. It would have been a powerful argument at the meeting.
I don’t think its worth my while attending another meeting I have other things to do with my money.
Wesley Bruce
I’m very thankful that Ms Kanck is no longer in parliament. With funds in compulsory superannuation plummeting, and the baby boomers reaching retirement age, who is going to support the growing numbers of pensioners with her one-child policy?
My personal opinion is that she is merely blowing some hot air to get people to take notice of her. Perhaps she plans a return to parliament. The only reason the media have reported her comments is because they are controversial.
Over here in the West, anything which gets Ben Cousins off the front page is a relief!
On local radio she claimed to have only one child. Her ideas are wacky. For all its faults, while the baby bonus continues, people will continue to reproduce.
Glenda Morgan
If the population number alarmists won’t start with themselves then their message is bunk. It really is as simple as that.
Mark Rabich
Thanks Mark, and Louise (25/4)
Yes that is the ultimate test. The full Chesterton quote is this: “The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population, or if he is not, how he knows he is not.”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch