Posted on 05/08/2007 3:11:43 AM PDT by jsh3180
The Misanthropes
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, May 07, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Eco-Radicals: They've long been with us, those who would rid Earth of humans. But now, thanks to some media currency, we can see where the environmental movement is headed.
Encouraging families to have fewer children seems innocuous, perhaps thoughtful. It's easy to dismiss those who support such measures as harmless busybodies, not ill-willed environmentalists.
Beware, however, of apparent banality.
Groups such as England's Optimum Population Trust have to be subtle. While a planet with few people — or perhaps no people — is their ideal, they know they can't say that. They have to contemplatively submit that, in the words of John Guillebaud, OPT co-chairman and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, "The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
Guillebaud used the term "child" in that reference. But where a rational person sees a kid, he sees an additional "carbon footprint" whose CO2 output hastens global warming. He favors a "general guideline," reports the Times of London, in which each couple produces no more than two carbon footprints.
Others who think like Guillebaud aren't so delicate with their words.
Paul Watson, founder and president of the benignly named Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, openly likens humans to a virus and has refused to apologize for describing people as being the "AIDS of the Earth."
"We are killing our host the planet Earth," he wrote in a commentary last week in the Sea Shepherd Web site.
As for having children, Watson would restrict reproduction to only "those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility," meaning only those who worship at the green altar of radical environmentalism. Sounds frighteningly like Nazi eugenics.
Watson doesn't claim to know, as far as we can tell, the right number of people for this planet of 6.6 billion. He does profess to know how many is too many.
"We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than 1 billion," he wrote, without providing details on how we eliminate 5.6 billion or more human lives and who decides who lives.
But maybe his plan for thinning the population is right there in his screed:
"We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water and solar power. All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish, the fish should be caught individually by hand. Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted."
There you have it: a recipe for mass starvation and economic ruin that will result in shorter, sicker lives.
Californians for Population Stabilization are a bit more generous than Watson. As we noted here last month, the group believes that "if we had half as many people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem."
Not even Al Gore, father of four carbon footprints and godfather of the global warming theory — please remember, it's just a theory — goes as far as these anti-human groups. He merely wants to use public policy to alter the way we live so that our behavior meets his criteria of sustainability.
But isn't it interesting how Gore's goals — the cessation of burning fossil fuels and the wide usage of alternative energy, for two examples — dovetail so closely with those of Watson.
ping for later.
Charlie Brown had it about right, if you think there are to many people on Earth, LEAVE.
“Watson doesn’t claim to know...the right number of people for this planet.”
Maybe, but you can bet your last dollar that however small that “right number” might be, Watson expects that he and his friends will be included in it.
These idiots need to read Mark Steyn’s latest book: “America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It”, which describes the demographic birth-rate implosion which is killing Western civilization.
Ping for list
First someone would have to come up with a non polluting means of dispatching and disposing thousands...like a disintegration cabinet. We wouldn’t want mother earth despoiled by nasty corpses. Once that is perfected, a call for volunteers to off themselves, followed by disposing of the most polluting people...people who live in big houses, fly on private jets, etc. (that would take care of Gore, Edwards, Kerry, RFK jr and the British royals). Then it would be a lottery. The machine would have to have a self timer so the last human could dispatch themselves followed by a self destruct mechanism so as not to leave any mess on the pristine planet.
Another Leftist Death Cult wanna-be Kodos.
“The revolution is successful. But survival depends on drastic measures. Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony. Therefore I have no alternative but to sentence you to death. Your execution is so ordered,
signed Kodos, Governor of Tarsus IV.”
No, it's not even a theory in the scientific sense. It is merely a hypothesis.
Sounds like this Guillebaud idiot is just a green Hitler - instead of wanting only blue-eyed Arians in the world, the idiot wants only smelly, tree-hugging, granola-eating, Prius-driving, baby-aborting, earth-worshipping, ecofascists in the world.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
All socialism, green or red, is a program for mass death...
..of others, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.