Posted on 01/31/2019 3:08:49 PM PST by Rummyfan
This week, viewers will get another chance to submerge themselves in the dystopian future created by Margaret Atwood. The Handmaid's Tale, based on the novel about the government forcing women to bear children to counter a declining population, resonated with audiences across the world.
However, the reverse Handmaid's Tale — the idea of coercing people to have fewer children — ought to generate just as much outrage. Particularly when that coercion is justified by baseless fears.
Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich plays on those fears. His apocalyptic warnings, which started almost 50 years ago, persist despite decades of evidence proving them wrong. Just recently, Ehrlich said the collapse of civilization is a "near certainty" within decades.
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” he warned in 1969.
Then he said, “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. And by ‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
Unfortunately, many people still believe him.
His 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb incited global panic with claims that out-of-control population growth would deplete resources, bringing about widespread starvation. Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh and India — as well as China’s draconian “one child” policy. In 1975, officials sterilized 8 million men and women in India alone. The sheer scale of this authoritarian nightmare is difficult to imagine.
To put that in perspective, Hitler’s Germany forcibly sterilized 300,000 to 400,000 people. In other words, Ehrlich’s unfounded fears have motivated far more forced sterilizations than even the Nazi ideology did.
Such abuses aren’t confined to past decades: In 2012, India’s Supreme Court found that "unrealistic targets have been set for sterilization procedures with the result that non-consensual and forced sterilizations are taking place." And even today, China limits couples to having no more than two children.
Back at home, many prominent American environmentalists — from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Travis Rieder to entertainer Bill Nye “The Science Guy" — support tax penalties or other state-imposed punishments for having “too many” children.
Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book in 2016 through the Oxford University Press advocating a “one-child” policy, claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.
Their views are chilling.
Coercing people to have fewer children amounts to pointless suffering. While China’s fertility rate fell under the “one-child” policy, fertility rates fell just as swiftly in neighboring countries without despotic anti-child laws. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer, and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families — a phenomenon called the fertility transition.
It is almost unheard of for a country to maintain a high fertility rate after it passes about $5,000 in per-person annual income.
Many people, like tycoon Elon Musk, now worry that the world will produce too few, rather than too many, children — echoing the situation in the dystopian Gilead. Demographers, indeed, estimate the population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070.
The evidence isn’t on the overpopulation alarmists’ side. The doomsayers don’t take into account the fertility transition. More important, they fail to understand that more people can mean more prosperity.
As economist Julian Simon noted, “Whatever the rate of population growth is, historically it has been that the food supply increases at least as fast, if not faster.”
Since Ehrlich began preaching about overpopulation-induced Armageddon, the number of people on the planet has more than doubled. Yet yearly, famine deaths have declined by millions.
Recent famines are caused by war, not exhaustion of natural resources. As production increased, prices fell, and calorie consumption rose. Hunger is in retreat. Human ingenuity proved to be the “ultimate resource,” as Simon put it.
Tyrannical population-control measures are not only repugnant but also senseless. So while you’re watching season 2, keep in mind that the reverse of The Handmaid’s Tale is just as horrifying — and it has supporters trying to make it a reality.
Remember idiots dressed as the lowest class women from the Handmaid’s Tale, protested at the Kavanaugh hearings? The liberals sure are obsessed with belief that this is in our future.
So Kavanaugh is on the court. When does America morph into that nightmare world??
Or were they full.of it, and Kavanaugh on the court is not going to create that world????
Anyone who doesn’t think there are too many people is delusional.
Anyone who doesn’t think there are too few white people in the world is also delusional.
The existential issue for all mankind is the dearth of white babies. And the abundance of people of color.
Some would call that racist.
I call it factual assessment.
The reality is with the ever growing greedy hand of Government taking more and more of the pie people have less for families so the birth rate actually has been dropping in the civilized world.
You are correct. The real explosion will come when there are too few tax payers (mostly white) to support too many tax consumers (mostly black and Latino)
And it will come soon. Like in five to ten years, unless we drastically change the welfare system.
BTT
Is there a hand in the tail ???
I guess these outraged people didn’t read the book or see the movie the series is supposedly based on-I did both-and it was very clearly stated that any baby born that was not perfect/free of disability was known as a “shredder” and taken away and killed-kind of like what NY just voted for-except in the novel, the mother was not consulted...
And the main issue was not only women being forced to have kids, but that the kids they had were taken away and given to the supposed father and his wife to raise...
I wonder if the claims of the 1968 “The Population Bomb” affected the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade in 1973?
As long as technology keeps advancing there isn’t a practical limit on the number of people.
However from an ascetics perspective, a lot less people would be nice.
It’s spot on
The world will be chaotic without us
We win the GD World Wars . . . let’s see them “all get along” otherwise
“As long as technology keeps advancing there isn’t a practical limit on the number of people.”
Empirical nonsense.
“Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book in 2016 through the Oxford University Press advocating a “one-child” policy, claiming it is ‘morally permissible’ for the government to limit family sizes through force.”
From what part of the anatomy do people like this extract such arbitrary moral decrees? Food goes in one end; morality comes out of the other.
It did not.
Only a few whacked out men haters glommed onto it and treated it like gospel.
Just like China’s one child policy.
This is why one does not move to Maine.
I agree. It’s a feminist fever dream.
I didn’t read the article, but let me guess: they don’t address the higher birth rate of the socially dependent poor, and lower birth rate of the socially supporting solvent; they don’t acknowledge that if current trends continue, there will be fewer and fewer producers sustaining more and more consumers.
This collapse of civilization has been predicted for at least two hundred years.
Maine is already facing a demographic winter. We have had more deaths then births in each of the last six years. (I don’t have 2018 numbers yet.) We have had a small growth due to inmigration both foreign and domestic. That in migration is not sustainable. It is also all focused on the southern two counties of Cumberland and York.
There is a demographic Somali bump in Lewiston too.
See our state board here at fr.
And don't forget the quality and variety. I just had some artisan cheddar on sesame blue corn chips and smoked, potted Idaho trout on ciabatta based bruschetta. Paired it with a dram or two (it was two) of The Balvenie. 15yo. Something my ancestors would be incapable of conceiving.
35 years ago we were eating fish sticks and canned peas with Fresca and the adults had Schlitz in a can.
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.