Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Environment-friendly suicide

Environmental fanatics have found themselves a new enemy - the children. A group that calls itself "optimum population trust" suggests that having one less child will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York. They call on couples in the developed countries to "think of the environmental consequences" when they are "planning" their family.

The environmental fanatics don't care that the Western world is dying; that if families bother to listen to them, we'll end up with as little as 5 or 6 children for every 20 adults of parental age. The group co-chairman John Guillebaud (who also happens to be the "professor of family planning" at University College London) claims that children in the rich countries have higher carbon dioxide output per capita and therefore he believes it's the Western world that must commit a demographic suicide for environment's sake.

As any other utopian scheme, Guillebaud's utopia requires getting rid of millions of undesirables. In this case the undesirables are the prosperous citizens of the Western world that in the eyes of the misanthropic "professor" consume too much goods and produce too much greenhouse gases. Instead of resorting to firing squads and gas chambers, Guillebaud and his gang want the undesirable society to abort and contracept itself out of existence.

There's no doubt these ideas will become very popular among various anti-life organizations from poor-choicers to the euthanasia supporters. So don't be surprised if our leftard politicians use our tax money to fund a series of brochures or school textbooks in which killing the unborn or denying care to the elderly is presented as fight against "climate change".

Our response should be the culture of life as an alternative to the environmental suicide. The Gospel of Life and the Faith in God should replace the paranoya of worshiping the earth. And yes - we should lead by example and have more children. Because being environment-friendly doesn't mean being childless.

1 comment:

genslub3 said...

Well I have 3 less, I wanted 6 and my wife stopped at 3.

I'm 3 times as friendly to the environment.

Now if we use rain barrels etc vs Al Gores 30,000 electrical bill and private jet, does that matter?