Forget the Kids, We’re Gonna Save the Planet

We are often told that in order to save the planet, we must have fewer kids. Warnings about overpopulation and resources scarcity are being coupled with exhortations to go childless, or to have as few kids as possible. All sorts of people are making these claims – some more qualified than others.

Childless actress Cameron Diaz recently said that for environmental reasons we should ease up on having children: “We don’t need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet.” Population alarmist Paul Ehrlich recently made it quite clear about how immoral it is to have large families: “Ethically, having five children is the same as robbing a bank”.

In a recent issue of the journal Global Environmental Change, a team of statisticians from Oregon State University said that every time we have a child we contribute significantly to the carbon footprint and climate change.

One of the team members, Paul Murtaugh, explained things this way: “In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime. Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”

He continued, “China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living. Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth. Future growth amplifies the consequences of people’s reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance.”

While he did not call for compulsory or coercive measures to see population numbers greatly reduced to save the planet, others have. Over the years various national governments have utilised policies which have involved compulsory sterilisation, abortions and other eugenics measures to weed out unwanted numbers. The US and the UN have poured billions of dollars into getting developing nations to cut their population sizes.

Many people have stirred the pot with strong no-children rhetoric. For example, in France several years ago Corinne Maier, a French psychotherapist, wrote a controversial book which is now being released in the English-speaking world. No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not to Have Children was a strident call for adults to shun the idea of having or needing children. I have written her and her book up elsewhere: billmuehlenberg.com/2007/09/01/714/

Some of the authors are arguing for childlessness for purely selfish reasons: let’s have fun, and not be weighed down with pesky kids. But many play the environmental card, arguing that we must radically and urgently cut back population growth. But the problem is, these assumptions are simply unfounded.

Two recent videos are well worth watching in this regard. They demonstrate with loads of evidence that planet earth is not facing a population explosion, but a population implosion. They capably show how the population alarmists have been wrong big time, and our pressing problem now is a birth dearth.

In Demographic Winter (2008) and The Demographic Bomb (2009) a number of experts team up to try to set the record straight on current demographic trends. All around the world people are having fewer children. Some places, like Europe, are moving in very dangerous directions indeed.

The Replacement Fertility Rate is 2.13 children per woman over a lifetime. Any fewer children and population decline takes place. It can be offset by immigration, but that is far from a panacea. Consider the numbers. Women in Hong Kong are having just 0.9 children. In the Ukraine it is 1.1. Bulgaria’s rate is 1.2. Many nations are on 1.3, such as Russia, Greece, Italy, and Japan.

Singapore, Austria and Switzerland have 1.4, Portugal has 1.5, Belgium 1.65, the Netherland 1.66, Denmark 1.74. About the only Western nation holding steady is the US with 2.1. And that is mainly due to immigration, as is the case with the European nations.

Muslim immigrants have been the biggest group to move into Europe. In not many decades hence, numerous European cities will have Muslim majorities. In Amsterdam at the moment, the most common boy’s name is Muhammad.

Contrary to the population alarmists, from Malthus to Ehrlich, food production has not been a problem with our increased populations. Indeed, people are eating better today than ever before. Famine is not the big killer as predicted by some, but increasingly obesity is. According to WHO, the percentage of obese people in a population is the big worry: nearly 50 per cent in China; 55 per cent in Brazil; and over 70 per cent in Great Britain.

Countries seeking to deal with the birth dearth by immigration are fooling themselves. Population levels are declining in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Africa is the only continent to not yet witness rapid population decline.

These two videos document how radical population control measures of the West and the UN have been in large measure responsible for dwindling population rates. And the measures have not all been pretty, nor free of compulsion, be it China, with its one-child policy, or forced sterilisation programs in India.

The truth is, there is a population crisis. But it is not over-population that we should be worried about, but under-population. Yet the alarmists continue to spin their tunes, urging us to reduce the number of children we have, if not remain childless altogether.

Sometimes they simply recommend such directions. Sometimes coercion and government force are used to back this up. But either way, they need to think again. The birth dearth problem will only continue to worsen. It is time we stopped listening to the Chicken Littles of the world, and started listening to more sober voices. The two videos discussed here would be a good place to start.

www.livescience.com/environment/090803-children-carbon-footprint.html#comments www.ncregister.com/daily/is_having_children_criminal/
www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/
www.demographicwinter.com/index.html

[969 words]

8 Replies to “Forget the Kids, We’re Gonna Save the Planet”

  1. Thanks Bill.
    There are two factors to this “save the planet” mantra in connection with the alleged population explosion:
    One is global warming. Because humans breathe in ordinary air, comprising something less than 0.04% CO2, and breathe out a mix comprising 4% CO2, a 10,000% increase no less, then quite simply for the radical ‘greenie’ this is unsustainable and must be stopped – the sooner the better. Hence they advocate radical population reduction. Of course, after this programme has been carried out it is the greenies – naturally – who will inherit the earth!

    The other is, as you mention above the old canard about food supply. Even here in Australia we have the resources to feed much of the world – if we would only exploit it. For years some have envisaged a network of dams across the ‘top end’, and pipelines to convey that excess of water to where it is needed, and thus drought-proof the country, as well as open up much more land for cultivation. As it stands, Lake Argyle south of Kununurra, holds ten times the volume of Sydney Harbour, yet much of its water goes to waste. Only now are people realising that this area holds much potential for agriculture. If only some enterprising people would do the same elsewhere in the North. But of course, the greenies and their government lackeys would obstruct it every inch of the way. Those people are profoundly anti-human (except for themselves), and want ot take us all back to the caves.

    One other thing about green propaganda: their dogma that the environment is “fragile” and once “damaged” it will never recover. You hear this line relentlessly, and it is so contrary to fact. To take but one example: Krakatoa, which exploded in 1883 and left both Southern Sumatra and Western Java a moonscape, has now rejuvenated to such an extent, with the jungle so thick, that it is all but impenetrable. Likewise with Australia’s Snowy Mountains Scheme: today such a project would never have been undertaken for “environmental reasons” – but the alpine forests have rejuvenated very nicely indeed!

    Murray Adamthwaite

  2. Cameron Diaz will pollute the world ten times over than five, four-children families in my community.
    Jane Petridge

  3. For those who may not have seen it, the video Muslim Demographics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU, puts the over population issue onto another scale.

    Also digressing slightly but touching on the issue of greening the globe as mentioned by Murray, it’s interesting, if not concerning to note that post Black Saturday’s firestorms in Victoria, and following a global trend, there was little if any mention in the official reports of the impact of ‘green tape’ contributing to the devastation. This despite the fact that at the time, reports surfaced of multiple households that were destroyed because of Council regulations that prohibited clearing of foliage. This was highlighted by the instance of one such homeowner who refused to comply with Council regulations and cleared trees on his own property anyway.While he incurred heavy Council fines for this sacrilegious act, his was the only property in that area that was not destroyed in the fires. I believe he is now suing the Council to recover these fines. Will similar action be taken towards those governing bodies whose green doctrine policy demands led to the excessive eucalyptus oil build up which was a major factor in fueling the fire storms? I guess it comes down to how green in my council and how supportive is the general community of their pantheistic mantras?

    Either way both these ‘issues’ of overpopulation and green globing come together in the secular humanist world view that ironically removes God from His creation, sets man at the center of the formula only to discover man has become toxic and so they are now obliged to set about removing him in order to save the planet…. This will of course necessitate them having to expend themselves, Greenies being major hot air contributors….!!! Romans 1:22 says it best – “Claiming themselves to be wise, they became utter fools instead…”

    Michelle Shave

  4. Thanks Bill,

    The practical outcome of this is being anti-life, which is a rejection of the Author of Life. We could say “God Haters”.

    One inconsistency I would like to point out is the green push for bio-fuels only worsening any food shortage. The greenies would rather we use corn to fuel their cars than feed our kids.

    Jeremy Peet

  5. Children are the future for humanity and any other way of ensuring this has no future. Without any council from those who oppose this, some countries have populations in drcline. And are obliged to import people to maintain their numbers. Australia is technically a developing country and we too need to have a migrant intake of about 150,000 new citizens each year. Our economy is based on consumers and workers. The reality is that this has been the situation for ever – and it works. Only social destruction would happen should we have no children and no mmigration? . And second, our society rests on families and their social product; nurtered in love, security and unity. Our continuing responsibility is to protect the family not destroy it!
    Peter Rice

  6. And who will save Cameron Diaz when she is old and in need of care? I bet she will elect to be euthanased. Both zero population growth and the push for euthanasia show the outcome of Green antihuman policies.
    Wayne Pelling

  7. Have I read somewhere that scientists have researched that when the ultimate population of animals in a particular environment is reached the fertility rate becomes zero? And is this a possibility for humans?

    I have read somewhere else that we are devolving and the human genome loses genetic information every generation and eventually will be unable to reproduce.

    Both these views while encouraging on themselves do not take into account that our Creator God will send his Son back to earth to wind things up.

    Greg Brien

  8. Some women want to or have to stay in the work force, as the husband may not make a lot of money, yet a steady job with good benefits. Parenting is a calling, and not all are called. Some people shunning parenthood may have come from a broken home or other bad things in their past. Cynicism on marriage with high divorce rates is one reason people stay single, more so today, and if married don’t raise kids. As a retiree, I always worked and now see the failures of my generation in parenting…few measure up, as homes are dysfunctional even among Christians, to include divorce and unruly kids.
    Laura Mcdonough

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: