This weekend I read one of the scariest things I have heard coming out of the Global Warming crowd. [That link has disappeared, so here it is on Internet Archive] That is saying something. I have documented elsewhere on this blog some other things they’ve said, like comparing denying man-made Global Warming to denying the holocaust. This is so disgusting I almost sat down and wrote a book exposing the various principles at work in it but stopped when I thought of at least one that is already written: C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man.
In summary, the London Times article references a certain Jonathon Porritt, a Global Warming bureaucrat who reportedly says,
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.
‘Environmental footprint’? The whole ‘over population’ argument has been around for a long time. We’ve heard that we don’t have enough food or water or resources in general to feed the world’s population, or, if the population is unchecked, we won’t in ‘X’ amount of years. And ‘X’ amount of years is always being pushed back as we discover that, in fact, we can accommodate ‘Y’ number of people after all. But as scary as these arguments go, they at least have an air of plausibility. I mean, if you can only feed half the world’s population that obviously signals a legitimate problem. Or, if there are so many people that humans occupy every 10 yards of the earth’s surface area, that seems legitimate, and perhaps a reasonable ‘environmental’ basis for action.
But what does Porritt mean?
The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland – an area the size of Trafalgar Square.
Oh no. Dear God, not 2 1/2 acres. 2 acres maybe, but not 2 and one half! Something must be done! Porritt says what must be done:
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.
He should get together with Obama. The two obviously have the same idea of abortion: “safe, legal, and rare*” (*where rare is defined by a hundred times more than we are currently aborting).
Who would have thought that Liberalism’s current crusade of the day would lead us back to the issue of abortion? Global Warming solved by… reduced factory emissions, fuel efficient cars, solar power, and… abortion. Right. And if you don’t abort your third child you are being ‘irresponsible.’ Porritt thinks that the government itself is being irresponsible to let people get away with such irresponsibility. Hmmmm. What does he propose to do with these irresponsible parents? Hmmmmmm…
Essentially, you sit around all day watching Liberalism at work thinking no real harm will come of it, at least you aren’t living in a society as repressive as, say China, where if you don’t follow the one child policy the police will come in and administer a forced abortion. Of course, the Chinese were being pragmatic enough- they are only trying to save their country.
Porritt is being pragmatic enough: he only wants to save the world.
We are probably never as far from being ‘like those other countries’ as we’d like to think.
This is a perfect case in point where you have a person who is seemingly a pleasant fellow but if you gave him the reigns of power for even a brief moment, he will, with utmost sincerity and good intentions, enslave you and terrorize you. In a word, the things he believes will lead to the same kind of oppressive tyranny we bemoan elsewhere and naively believe could never happen ‘here.’
Friends, Porritt works for the British government. He is not fringe. Nor is it only in Britain where such ‘true believers’ are in positions of power and influence. It is only a matter of time before someone with these views is officially in charge in America. And by some estimates, that time has come.
There are moments in history when one understands why the second amendment was written. The next ‘sign’ will not be the withdrawal of the amendment, but rather the massive re-interpretation of it so that, if it remains at all, it will amount to nothing more than “the right to hunt.” But the only ones who will be hunted will be the ones who have the gall to engage in any activity that the well meaning powers that be deems a threat to the earth.
And why not? The man is backed by Science, is he not?