Gloria Steinem Backs Abortion Because: ‘Forced Childbirth is the Single Biggest Cause of Global Warming’
But we are not all guilty of doing “a lot of emitting.”
Even though they have one of the highest fertility rates in the world, the good people of Niger, according to Rieder, are totally awesome because they “are doing almost no emitting.” Yes, these amazing people emit only “0.1 metric tons of carbon annually,” while we American pigs emit “160 times” that amount.
Oddly enough, though, what Nye and Rieder fail to tell us is that Niger is a hellhole of humanity that ranked as the country with the world’s worst standard of living in 2009, a standard that has only gotten worse since. The “absolute poverty rate” in Niger was 61% and climbing in 2012.
But when his guest mentioned Niger, Nye said approvingly, “They burn some charcoal [only] now and then.”
Well, when all you own is a wooden bowl, an old blanket, and herd of bed bugs…
Anyway, things then got super-creepy….
Billy Nye: So, should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?
Travis Rieder: I do think that we should at least consider it.
Bill Nye: Well, “at least consider it” is like “Do it.”
Travis Rieder: One of the things that we could do that’s kind of least policy-ish is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change, right?
2) Niger has an infant mortality rate of 71.2 deaths per 1000 live births — one of the highest in the world. America’s infant mortality rate, which the left-wing Washington Post called an “embarrassment,” is only 6.1 per 1000.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall For a climate activist, having babies is apparently a troubling ethical dilemma, a distressing personal contribution to the global anthropogenic carbon footprint. But somehow they keep popping them out.
Vatican Resurrects Pro-Abort Paul Ehrlich
Written by Elizabeth Yore
The Globalist Creed of Population Control over the inhabitants of the earth and its panhandlers are being resurrected from the ash heap of their false prophesies. Their emergence from the death of oblivion is cagily orchestrated by the Pope of the New World Order as he honors Paul Ehrlich, the modern huckster of overpopulation.
I remember the fear and trepidation instilled in the hearts and minds of Americans when Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb was released in 1968. His predictions that hundreds of millions would die in the 1970s from starvation because of overpopulation rocked the globe. His terrifying forecasts went largely unchallenged by the media as the world shuddered over the impending end of the world. Ehrlich’s first chapter set the stage for his apocalyptic predictions: “too many people, too little food, a dying planet.”
Readers were cautioned with this alarming cryptic warning on the book’s front cover, “While you are reading these words four people will have died from starvation. Most of them children.” Imagine the ominous opening notes of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony which aptly capture Ehrlich’s apocalyptic vision. Every page filled with a dire warning which prepares the reader for a calamity filled, panic pushing, alarmist driven, terror inducing, messianic demonic drivel inspired to shock the world into aborting babies. Mission Accomplished, Dr. Death.
Frankly, I thought Paul Ehrlich had left this over populated and doomed world to meet his creator. Ah, but Pope Francis, in his infinite eco-spiritualism and globalist wisdom resurrected the old Carmac, the Magnificent Stanford biologist to share his wisdom and knowledge at the Vatican. The chilling admonition of the latest papal population control expert should send Catholics storming St. Peter’s Square. In the Prologue of his bestseller, Herr Ehrlich warns: “We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”
Sounds a lot like China’s compulsory One Child Policy.
Ehrlich must be thrilled to be invited to the Vatican to teach the prelates about biological extinction. After all, in the Population Bomb, he had some choice words for Catholics and focused his anger at the Catholic Church which hearkens back to a time, sadly, long gone:
“Catholic politicians at home and abroad operate in many ways to obstruct population control. They often effectively block
Salon: Childless Climate Faithful Upset By Celebrity Hypocrisy
Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to Salon, women who have taken a personal decision to help save the planet, by not having children, are angry that celebrity hypocrites appear to be ignoring the climate issues which they claim to take so seriously. Baby Doomers: As climate change threatens to strain resources, women are increasingly […]
— gReader Pro…
The conference, sponsored jointly by the Pontifical Academy of Science and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, will address issues of biodiversity, “great extinctions” of history, population and demographics.
Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich—who has defended mass sterilization, sex-selective abortion and infanticide—will speak on “Causes and Pathways of Biodiversity Losses: Consumption Preferences, Population Numbers, Technology, Ecosystem Productivity.”
To allow women to have as many children as they want, Ehrlich has said, is like letting people “throw as much of their garbage into their neighbor’s backyard as they want.”
Ehrlich became famous through the publication of his 1968 doomsday bestseller, The Population Bomb, which generated mass hysteria over the future of the world and the earth’s ability to sustain human life.
In the book, Ehrlich launched a series of frightening predictions that turned out to be spectacularly wrong, creating the myth of unsustainable population growth.
He prophesied that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s (and that 65 million of them would be Americans), that already-overpopulated India was doomed, and that odds were fair that “England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Ehrlich concluded that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come,” meaning “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
Mankind stood on the brink of Armageddon, the book proposed, because there was no way to feed the exponentially increasing world population. The opening line set the tone for the whole work: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.”
Despite Ehrlich’s utter failure to predict humanity’s ability to feed itself, his theories will be dusted off and re-proposed in the Vatican in late February.
In its brochure for the upcoming workshop, the Vatican asserts in Ehrlichian doomspeak that “Earth cannot sustain” our desire for “enhanced consumption.”
Humanity is presently using about 156 percent of “the Earth’s sustainable capacity” every year, the text contends, and it is therefore essential to address “the question whether the Earth system is able to support the demands that humanity has been making on it” and “how global inequality and poverty relate to that.”
The conference will also feature a speaker from an environmental advocacy group called the
The polar bear problem no one will talk about – the downside to large populations
A large polar bear population with lots of adult males – due to bans on hunting – means more survival pressure on young bears, especially young males. To blame more problems with young male bears on lack of sea ice due to global warming ignores the downside to the reality Norway asked for when it banned hunting more than 40 years ago. More hungry young males coming ashore looking for food is one of the potential consequences of living with a large, healthy population of polar bears. Biologist Ian Stirling warned of such problems back in 1974. Svalbard area polar bear numbers have increased 42% since 2004 and more hungry young polar bears almost certainly mean more polar bear problems, as folks in Svalbard (see map and quotes below) have experienced this year. According to a Yahoo News report this morning (28 September 2016, As Norway’s Arctic draws visitors, more polar bears get shot): “Halfway between the northern tip of Europe and the North Pole, the Svalbard archipelago of snow-capped mountains and glaciers is home to 2,654 people and 975 polar bears, according to a 2015 tally by the Norwegian Polar Institute. “Four polar bears have been shot so far this year,” Vidar Arnesen, a chief police inspector for the governor of Svalbard, told Reuters. “In a normal year, one or two would be shot.” “There are more contacts between humans and the animals,” he said aboard the Polarsyssel, the governor’s ship, used for inspections and rescue operations.” Independent young male polar bears (2-5 years) are less experienced hunters and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Older, bigger bears often take their spring kills of young seals away from them (Stirling 1974:1196) – potentially leaving the teenagers without enough fat to see them through until fall. The bear pictured above that was removed from Longyearbyen should not have been onshore in April posing a threat to people. April is the prime feeding season for polar bears and there was lots of sea ice available on the east coast, as the sea ice map below shows: Competition with bigger, stronger bears likely drove the young male ashore looking for food that another bear wouldn’t take from him. Such issues were almost certainly among the problems Ian Stirling had in mind back in 1974 when …
Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children
NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden profiled some of my work in procreative ethics with an article entitled, Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?, which summarized my published views that we ought to consider adopting a small family ethic and even pursuing fertility reduction efforts in response to the threat from climate change. … Perhaps many of us in rich countries (the us who might be reading this) will be largely protected from these early harms; but that doesnt make them less real to the vulnerable citizens of, say, Bangladesh, Kiribati or the Maldives. In fact, it…
— gReader Pro…
What can we do? Well, Rieder says, “Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.”
The idea that we should have fewer children to save the planet hasn’t been provocative in about 50 years. It would take these students five minutes of Googling to understand that doomsayers have been ignoring human nature and ingenuity since the 18th century, at least.
They might read about Paul Ehrlich and our “science czar” John Holdren, who co-authored a 1977 book suggesting mass sterilizations and forced abortions to save the world. (We’re decades past the expiration date.); or about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who not long said that she always assumed Roe v. Wade was “about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Did she mean poor people? Did she mean people who recklessly use air conditioners? It’s still a mystery.…