“The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world”.
“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.”
Thomas Malthus, An essay on the principle of population, 1798. (Two different quotes from the same piece)
If the doctrine is true, that the fittest only should live, then it follows as a rational corollary that, in a society of rational men, where the interests of a race capable of indefinite development are blended, that “the fittest only should be born.” […] Why should not the law adopt the sound maxim, that no person has the right to throw upon the charities of the world, his diseased, deformed and insane offspring?
R.Z. Mason, 1878, in a Wisconsin journal.
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
John Holdren (with Paul Ehrlich) in a 1977 textbook. Holdren is presently the chief science officer in the Obama administration.
The biggest cause of climate change is climate changers: human beings. Deciding to stop at two children, or at least to have one child less, is the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.
John Guillebaud in OPT Press release quoted in The Guardian, 12 July, 2006
In extreme situations, where states or regions may be almost uninhabitable through environmental damage, one-child policies may become unavoidable. However, such policies should only be introduced as a last resort and after full and democratic consultation. Generally one-child policies are unnecessary, counter-productive and liable to discount human rights.
YouthQuake: “Population, fertility and environment in the 21st century.” (2009) [produced in Britain by the Optimum Population Trust.]
I selected these quotes, out of hundreds like them I have on file, to allow the reader to see 200 years at a glance evidence for the following claim:
Whether it is the 1800s or just a few years ago or even the present day… whether the problem is ‘war’ and ‘famine’ (Malthus), the ‘interests of the race’ (Mason), the ‘population crisis’ (Holdren), ‘climate change’ (Guillebaud), or ‘environmental damage’ (YouthQuake)… the solution to the problem is always the same: get rid of people, and in particular, children–preferably before they are born.
Isn’t that interesting?
You know, one would almost think that what folks really want is the ability to dominate their fellow man in a very fundamental way, and the only thing that changes over the decades is the pretext for their domineering.
I was thinking about this because next Monday is Earth Day, and my ministry will be hosting an online conference that has Steven Mosher as our keynote. Mosher was present in China when they enacted their one-child policy. An atheist at the time, the barbarism of the policy pushed him towards Christianity and eventually becoming a Catholic, and since then exposing myths about ‘over population.’ He will be speaking on Earth Day on the topic, “Save the Earth; Get Rid of the People? The Inhumanity of Earth Day”
I don’t know what he is going to say, exactly, but it made me think about what I would say, and I think what I would say is… is it asking too much to ask that people top being so darn gullible? I feel this point acutely when I observe that the goal is elimination of people and control of the ones who are left. .. You’d think people would notice!
On the face of it, there is nothing particularly offensive about the idea of protecting the environment. People across the political and ideological spectrum can theoretically find common ground. But let’s consider the list of things you can do to protect the environment… produce less trash, recycle, properly dispose of toxic waste, … compel women to get abortions.
Notice how the people who kick around the idea of making women get abortions are the very same that go on and on and on about a woman’s ‘right to choose.’ How hard is it to recognize the intrinsic contradiction in these sentiments? If seeing such sentiments squeezed together by the same people and sometimes in the same document isn’t enough to create the reasonable suspicion that they are LYING about their real intentions, I wonder what it would take? Do you need to actually be held down while the ‘Constitutionally’ protected public health officials suck the brains out of your unborn baby?*
Holdren and Erhlich would say, “Well, but that’s only ‘if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.’ We are not at that point.”
OPT would say, “Well, that’s the kind of thing we would only entertain ‘as a last resort and after full and democratic consultation.'”
Phew! Boy, I feel better! Don’t you?
And what about Earth Day? Earth Day was founded and promoted by radicals such as Paul Ehrlich who advocated for compulsory sterilizations and putting sterilants in the water supply (among many other things) to ‘reduce the population’ and, oh yea, ‘save the earth.’ (See his The Population Bomb as one example.) Are you so sure it is the environment they are concerned about?
I think one reason why Earth Day has wide appeal because ostensibly it calls attention to issues that people of all ideologies can support without bickering. This also makes it a prime place to do propaganda. It is only a matter of time before people discover that these ways to ‘save the earth’ actually will do little, and that the environmentalists all know that the ‘only’ effective thing to do is reduce the number of people. I guess the hope is that people will decide on their own to limit their family size… so the government doesn’t have to come and do it for you.
But I have this sneaking suspicion that there are people who would very much like the government to have that power, and I don’t think they are motivated one lick by ‘environmental’ concerns.
This Earth Day, don’t be a dupe. Study the history of the day and the persons involved, and find out what they really believed. It begs the obvious question: do they still believe these things? Which begs the next obvious question: are you actually falling in step with their agenda?
* There is sometimes an insistence to refer to the person as a ‘fetus’ at this point, but when the person is wanted, we dispense with that, and refer to the person as a baby. I am taking it for granted that it would be the wanted ones that would be compulsory aborted, not the unwanted ones, which they were going to abort anyway.