There is seldom room for compromise when it comes to the left. Here’s an example of their latest having-it-all: the limitation of carbon emissions by the unfortunate-but-necessary eradication of brown and black babies.
How nice…
Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change – by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.
The scheme – set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock – argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
So in other words, the fewer people who exhale C02, the fewer people who consume, the fewer people who drive, the better for all the elites in the industrialized world.
I wonder how many kids collectively Sir David Attenborough, Sir Crispin Tickell, Jonathon Porritt, and James Lovelock have had and how they would have justified their exemption from the “cost-benefit analysis” suggestions?
h/t Fozzy
Shaitana, you need to be careful.
For instance, are you talking about the limousine liberals who are completely out of touch with society – who ought to live within their own mandates?
Be more explicit, or else you’ll be accused of being a racist, as most blacks tend to vote Democrat for no other reason than they’ve never challenged the lies fed to them by a paternalistic and devious racist party.
Science czar’s guru called for more carbon
CO2 promoted as greenhouse gas needed to fight global starvation
Their goal, or strategy, must have changed since that time (1950s).
Remember that the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century was also the genesis of the abortion rights movement and Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood, which concentrated on abortion for Blacks, and made it seem all peachy by gift-wrapping it as license to have all the sex you want (A common Liberal theme).
I just lost all respect I had for Mr. Attenborough. Alas my lost youth… BTW can’t we convince more Liberals to stop having kids? I mean so many are off to a fine start, but then there are the dumb ones who keep on reproducing anyways! Come On Dems! Do something about this travesty!
BTW I am all for multi-decade retro-active abortion in this country… hehehhe…
Actually, Ortzinator, that would be a return to our past. The first forced-sterlization law was drafted (and vetoed) in the 1890s, but the eugenics movement really took off in the early 1900s. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that the mandatory sterilization of the mentally handicapped don’t violate the Constitution. Of course, the woman in that case was “mentally handicapped” only in that she didn’t have a good education.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
Rewrite it a bit, and it works for our current pseudo-scientific fad:
“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting for disease and starvation to eliminate the surplus population, society can prevent those who manifestly unfit (due to being born outside recognized civilization or outside a progressively secular worldview) from continuing their kind.”
Just a few decades before they start sterilizing people.
Brent Bozell asked me to write an op-ed on this for the Media Research Center, so that’s my project for the evening.
Go ahead and finish up the rest of the argument, Bob.
Much of the “concern” over climate and over-population is really just liberal racism escaping, and covered with a thin veneer of patrician nobility.
Go read Ehrlich’s works, and see how he describes the nightmare that is Bangladesh. It’s not that there are too many people, there are too many dark people! (You can see the same sentiments in Mathus’ books, too…)
Well, since you asked:
David Attenborough: 2 kids
Crispin Tickell: 3 kids
Jonathon Porritt: 2 kids
James Lovelock: No idea, but he does support nuclear power and refers to carbon offsets as a joke.