And There You Have It
For a long time, I believed the core principle of the environmental movement was population control. Don’t get me wrong, I am about as conservationist as it comes. I love the outdoors, and I believe in good stewardship (i.e., we can still both protect certain areas of the forest, while at the same time allowing responsible logging).
But this …
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
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 says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
First, the science supporting global warming is suspect. Politics and science have never made good allies if we want to get to the heart of the science. More and more officials and studies are finally coming out questioning the science of global warming.
I digress. Here, in all its unabashed glory, is a person spouting the central theme of the environmental movement. Contraception and abortion?!? Heart of the fight?!?
Another post will have to get into detail about the faulty assumptions here. Suffice to say, depopulation is a much graver problem than global warming or environmentalism. Our economies, our lifestyles, and modern day society is dependent upon population growth. With 6 billion plus people, has anybody starved because we can’t produce enough? No. The world produces plenty of food, and always has. So what exactly is the "unbearable burden?"