By Chris Morrison.
First, they came for your light bulbs, then for your cars – now they are after your future children.
Population control is once again forcing its way up the green agenda with the call for ‘birth strikes’ gathering virtuous attention. However, this silly fad hides the more menacing ideas that always surround the green tyranny concerning population control and one-child enforcement policies.
Last week’s Radio 4 Analysis had an “End of the World is Nigh” theme with numerous political scientists running all the usual stuff dating back to the Old Testament. These days Armageddon fantasies, led of course by climate change, are turned into a pseudoscience. Back in more enlightened times, such commentaries would have been called ‘prophecies’, but then the ancients were not knee deep in state-sponsored academics, seemingly with little useful work to do.
One contributor Karin Kuhlemann from University College London noted that she would not give birth again because she would find it hard to explain to a child why she had brought it into the world!
In her academic writing, however, Ms Kuhlemann goes much further than commenting on her own fecundity. She states that a one-child family prioritises
‘ .. the long term stability of human societies and the survival of the world’s wildlife over the immediate preferences and desires of prospective parents’.
In her view, this policy makes sense, and is ‘how it should be’.
Human society has always been under threat. One day homo sapiens may become extinct, along with 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on the planet. Glass half fullers tend to think that we have some way to go before doomsday, whether ordained by Man or the Almighty, particularly if the climate continues its recent natural gentle warming: the glass half-emptiers think we are all going to perish tomorrow or with a bit of luck the day after.
Climate change is just the latest stick to beat us into a collectivist hell where the preoccupations of the few over-ride the wishes of the rest.
According to Ms Kuhlemann, democracy is not good at dealing with long term problems. Therefore we need to move away from capitalism to ‘some sort of adjusted democracy’. In her view, we need insulated technical bureaucracies where ‘big deal’ decisions are made and decisions taken ‘primarily on scientific advice’.
In her considered opinion, ‘well-meaning people can just make the wrong call’, although this criticism presumably does not extend to insulated technical bureaucrats.
People, for instance, who you might find in the higher echelons of the United Nations, the Europeans Union and of course our numerous seats of unlearning.
Last year the economics editor of the Guardian Larry Elliott said it should be acknowledged that…
‘the Chinese model of managed and directed capitalism might be more appropriate than the Anglo Saxon model’.
One detects a pattern emerging here: an appeal to a higher authority, although presumably, the communist dictators need to be the right sort of communist dictators and the scientists – the right type of scientists.
The old American political folklore saying – ‘the people have spoken – the bastards’ – can now be safely confined to history, along with Brexit and Trump.
One simply wonders how all these people sitting in their fair trade coffee shops imagine they will survive in their brave new world when the population starts to age and there is nobody left to cater to their increasingly picky diets and unlimited demands for health and social care.
Billions of people live in cities and are entirely dependant on a vast rural infrastructure to stay alive. Yet ‘green new deals’ will ban most efficient energy within a decade – a fundamentally unserious policy that would wipe out most food production and transportation and inevitably lead to mass starvation.
This new cultural revolution is supposedly based on the theory that minute amounts of atmospheric C02 over the last 70 years are controlling our entire climatic system. Despite clear evidence that C02 levels in the atmosphere have regularly been much higher in the past, the theory is deemed beyond scientific challenge. Such is the infantile nature of much of the discourse that actual infants are corralled to repeat the false political narrative.
But it could all be far worse – at least there are still infants around to promote the adult propaganda.
At the far end of the anti-humanist green agenda lurk people like Todd May, a philosophy professor at Clemson University.
Mr May suggests we are devastating the earth and asks – ‘would human extinction be a tragedy?’ The end cannot come soon enough it seems for the nutty professor since he also asks if it would be a good thing ‘for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering?’ This policy, he notes, would cause ‘significant suffering’ among those who have much to lose by dying.
Thankfully a more moderate policy was expressed by the late David Brower, the founder of Friends of the Earth and the first executive director of the green activist Sierra Club.
‘Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing’.
Who needs enemies when you have friends like this