Gloria Steinem Backs Abortion Because: ‘Forced Childbirth is the Single Biggest Cause of Global Warming’

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/05/11/gloria-steinem-backs-abortion-because-forced-childbirth-is-the-single-biggest-cause-of-global-warming/

SARAH STITES   MAY 11, 2017   |   6:21PM    WASHINGTON, DC


 

 

 


 

According to radical feminist Gloria Steinem, women will never be “fully equal” to men unless they have abortion rights. Oh, and the patriarchy’s to blame for climate change too.

In an interview with Refinery29 writer Lindsey Stanberry, Steinem shared thoughts on feminism, and unsurprisingly, everything came back to female reproductive rights.

When the writer commented that some considered climate change to be a feminist issue, Steinem avidly agreed, opining that forced childbirth was the cause of many of the earth’s problems.

“Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population,” the 83-year-old icon exclaimed. “If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have.”

In 2015, Steinem articulated the same perspective to Cosmo’s Prachi Gupta, declaring that the Pope and all “other patriarchal religions” were responsible for global warming, because of dictating women’s reproductive rights.…

Science-Denier Bill Nye: Is It Time To ‘Penalize People For Having Extra Kids?’

BY: JOHN NOLTE
In the 13th and final episode of Bill Nye The-Not-A-Scientist-Guy’s new Netflix series, the hardcore, human-hating Leftist who chases trendy science like Bill Clinton chases tail, moved things in a rather dark  and some might say Nazi-ish direction while discussing the issue of population control.
According to Nye’s guest Travis Rieder, who holds the creepy title of a Bioethics Ethicist, you and I and our precious children are what Rieder calls “individual emitters,” meaning we are inconvenient to the Greater Good because our individual emissions of carbon contribute to global warming (which is a hoax).

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?

Couple points…

1) HITLER!

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.

Life expectancy in Niger is 61 years (the same age as Tom Hanks!). Life expectancy in America is 79 years. America’s poor live like kings compared …

Vatican Resurrects Pro-Abort Paul Ehrlich – Invites ‘huckster of overpopulation’ fears to Vatican

Vatican Resurrects Pro-Abort Paul Ehrlich

Written by 

Nutty pro-abort (and Vatican expert) Paul Ehrlich
Nutty pro-abort (and Vatican expert) Paul Ehrlich

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

Salon: Childless Climate Faithful Upset By Celebrity Hypocrisy

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/30/salon-climate-faithful-upset-other-people-are-having-children

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…

Vatican Invites ‘Population Bomb’ Hoaxer Paul Ehrlich to Address Biodiversity Conference

The Vatican has invited the most notorious population alarmist in recent history to speak at an upcoming Vatican-run conference titled ‘Biological Extinction.”

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

The polar bear problem no one will talk about – the downside to large populations

http://polarbearscience.com/2016/09/28/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 …

Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies, Bioethicist Travis Rieder Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/want-to-slow-climate-change-stop-having-babies-bioethicist-travis-rieder-says

Carbon dioxide doesn’t kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.

That’s a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.

When economists write about climate change, they’ll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:

  • How carbon-heavy fuels are
  • How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP
  • GDP per capita
  • Population

After years of policymakers’ yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.

Think of Rieder’s as the argument waiting in the wings should the 195-nation Paris Agreement, which came within a shade of enactment this week, fail to address the problem.

An edited interview transcript of an interview with him follows.

Q: So. What seems to be the problem?

A: There are 19 million adoptable orphans, and there’s catastrophic climate change on the horizon. Contributing a child to the world both makes climate change worse and, if we don’t get our act together, it might actually not be all that great for the child either.

You have two tracks. You could say climate change is a big structural problem, so it requires a structural solution; that’s a policy question. Or you could say a problem like climate change requires that we change our culture of individual obligation, and everybody needs to think about having small families.

Q: That seems like a pretty heavy ask. People don’t even want to think about having small bags of movie popcorn.

A: Well, the argument goes like this: Okay, humans have shown me that they’re just not willing to give up their toys. And so we need another option on the table. You want to continue to live in your 10,000-square-foot house? You know, fly private jets around, and that kind of thing? Well, that would mean a lot fewer people on the Earth.…

Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children

Bioethicist: The climate crisis calls for fewer children

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3468351/posts

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 doesn’t make them less real to the vulnerable citizens of, say, Bangladesh, Kiribati or the Maldives. In fact, it…

— gReader Pro…

‘Have More Kids. It’s Good For the Planet’

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.…