London School of Economics: Fewer Kids, More Abortions, Better Environment

Life News ^ | 9/9/09 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A new analysis from the London School of Economics is targeting people who have children as being responsible for destroying the environment. With a population control agenda in mind, its analysis draws the conclusion that fewer children and more abortions means a better environment.

Although the report, entitled Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, focuses on "family planning" and contraception, the idea is that fewer children born means the environment will be better off.

Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, is one of the school officials behind the report.

His research indicates contraception is five times cheaper than conventional green technologies in reducing global CO2 emissions. LSE estimates that, for every $4 (UK) spent on contraception and family planning resulting in a reduction of emissions by one ton equals the same reduction as $19 (UK) spent on green technologies.

Martin says 34 gigatons (billion tons) of CO2 would be saved if nations did more to push population control by promoting contraception and abortion.

“It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can't shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up," Martin complained in comments to the London Telegraph.

He points to UN data suggesting that aggressive population control could reduce unintended births by 72 percent.

However, other research shows nations are experiencing a birth dearth that is causing a host of social and economic problems.

"Worldwide, birthrates have declined by 50% in the past half-century," the film Demographic Winter notes. "There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world's population, with below replacement birthrates."

A birthrate of 2.1 is needed to replace current population, but the European Union has a birthrate of just 1.3. By 2030, Europe is expected to have a shortfall of 20 million workers.

Barry McLerran, the producer of the film, previously told LifeNews.com that it "shows what happens when countries comprising 80% of the world's economy have plummeting numbers of workers, consumers and innovators - leading to falling consumer spending, and too few workers to support the elderly."

Meanwhile, in Russia, where abortion has been used for decades as a method of birth control, the nation is expected to lose one- third of its current population by 2050.

Related web sites:
Demographic Winter - http://www.demographicwinter.org

[wagglebee]

Next thing you know they will suggest killing the elderly, sick and disabled to control the population . . . oh yeah, they're already doing that.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Bob017]

They should spread the message to Africa. The average birth rate there is over 5 & their population is set to double to 1.5 billion by 2050. That will be an absolute disaster in terms of child poverty.

[Tax-chick]

One “environmental activist” (Al Gore, for example) does more damage to the “environment” than my whole family. It takes a lot of ordinary middle-class living to equal one fear-mongering Al Gore tour stop.

[Bob017]

“Although the report, entitled Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, focuses on “family planning” and contraception, the idea is that fewer children born means the environment will be better off.”

The other thing these guys haven’t mentioned is that populations differ in productivity partly due to innate differences in intelligence. So it is obviously important that the more productive people maintain replacement rate birthrates.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

[American Quilter]

A new analysis from the London School of Economics is targeting people who have children as being responsible for destroying the environment. With a population control agenda in mind, its analysis draws the conclusion that fewer children and more abortions means a better environment.

Oh, good. I think they should take their study to the nearest mosque and suggest to the Muslims that they should abort their unborn children to create a better environment. I'd like to film that meeting.

[timetostand]

How to breed yourself out of existence!

[timetostand]

How to breed yourself out of existence!

[wagglebee]

Your post #4:

They should spread the message to Africa. The average birth rate there is over 5 & their population is set to double to 1.5 billion by 2050. That will be an absolute disaster in terms of child poverty.

Post #6:

The other thing these guys haven’t mentioned is that populations differ in productivity partly due to innate differences in intelligence. So it is obviously important that the more productive people maintain replacement rate birthrates.

I take it from your posts that you SUPPORT population control especially in places like Africa and among people you perceive to be less intelligent or productive. In other words, you support eugenics. Would this be correct?

[hoosier hick]

So will they get more aggressive with their Muslim population?

hh

[Salvation]

More abortions make things better? I don't think so. Consider this:

1:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2271  (618 bytes )  preview document matches 1 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

97%

2:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2272  (580 bytes )  preview document matches 2 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2272.htm

96%

3:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2322  (290 bytes )  preview document matches 2 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2322.htm

96%

4:	CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2274  (554 bytes )  preview document matches gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2274.htm

[hoosier hick]

Not to mention ending the socialist state permanently....

hh

[Tax-chick]

You nailed it: “Just enough of me, way too much of you.” The usual thing, don’t do anything about poverty, like eliminate the dictators who benefit from it. Just get rid of the poor people, who aren’t as intelligent as us, anyway.

Makes me want to have ten more children ...

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

[ex-snook]

So who made environment God? Not mine.

[wagglebee]

Makes me want to have ten more children ...

But you are productive, intelligent and (if you read the troll's other posts you will see that he probably considers this the most important) white, so you can have all the kids you want.

[rbg81]

This warning only applies to white people. Anyone else, especially Muslims, are free to procreate to their hearts content.

[Tax-chick]

We are white, it’s true (desperately white, in my case ... Undead ;-). However, we’re also insanely religious and Spanish-speaking, so we’re certainly bad for the environment.

[wagglebee]

The poster in question doesn’t really care about the environment.

[Gene Eric]

For these deranged individuals, the environment provides an array of convenient excuses supporting the eradication of human life. They aspire to the agency of hell not unlike the type practiced by the Nazis.

It would be interesting to see these haters of humanity unarmed in an overpopulated nudist camp.

[tanuki]

Fabian socialism strikes again. Intellectual BS like this is why I steer clear of both Financial Times and The Economist (both are heavily stocked by graduates of the LS of E).

[Tax-chick]

Then we have something in common!

[redgolum]

On a hunting website I frequent, there is a nice guy from England. He was talking one night about how the government is toying with a one child policy, and maybe even a “license” for having a baby.

He is also planing on leaving the UK, but has no idea of where to flee to.

Of course this will not apply to any muslims.

[Morgana]

I was just thinking that.....muslim women have on average...3 to 5 kids...

[trisham]

Radical environmentalism.

[trisham]

If anyone can, it’s you. :)

[Bob017]

“The other thing these guys haven’t mentioned is that populations differ in productivity partly due to innate differences in intelligence. So it is obviously important that the more productive people maintain replacement rate birthrates.

I take it from your posts that you SUPPORT population control especially in places like Africa and among people you perceive to be less intelligent or productive. In other words, you support eugenics. Would this be correct?”

Do you support the opposite - dysgenics? I’m wouldn’t support sterilizations if that what you’re suggesting. Note that the general trend in most western countries is that more educated a person becomes the fewer children they tend to have. As intelligence is considered to be between 40-80% hereditary that means over time the population may be becoming less intelligent.

I think productivity is a more important measure though. In this respect I think La Bruzzo’s proposal that long term welfare recipients use contraception was extremely sensible. The alternative is a growing underclass, child poverty, higher taxes & increased crime in the future. From an article about his suggestion:

“We’re on a train headed to the future and there’s a bridge out, “ LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. “And nobody wants to talk about it.”

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government. He said he is gathering statistics now.

“What I’m really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare, “ he said.