Prince William, Whose Wife is Pregnant, is Telling People to Stop Having Children

Prince William recently was labeled a hypocrite for urging families to stop having children while his own wife is pregnant with their third.

The British prince touted population control measures during a November speech for the conservation charity Tusk Trust. The Daily Mail reports the British royal family has advocated for population control throughout the past decade, claiming the world will face “monumental” problems if the human population continues to grow.

“In my lifetime, we have seen global wildlife populations decline by over half,” Prince William told the gala attendees. “We are going to have to work much harder and think much deeper, if we are to ensure that human beings and the other species of animal with which we share this planet can continue to co-exist.

“Africa’s rapidly growing human population is predicted to more than double by 2050, a staggering increase of three and a half million people per month.

“There is no question that this increase puts wildlife and habitat under enormous pressure. Urbanisation, infrastructure development, cultivation—all good things in themselves, but they will have a terrible impact unless we begin to plan and to take measures now.”

Prince William’s comments did not win him many friends. The Mirror reports people on social medial quickly labeled the prince a hypocrite because he and his wife are expecting their third child in April. The British royal families typically have had only two children in the recent past.

Royal expert Phil Dampier tweeted: “If Prince William thinks there are too many people in the world shouldn’t he and Kate have stuck to two children themselves?”

Claudia posted: “Not sure what William and aides are thinking with these statements. Isn’t it a bit, “do as I say, not as I do”?”

Another user posted: “Prince William warns that there are too many people in the world…

Interestingly, Prince William and his wife, Kate, also faced criticism from population control groups for having three children.

Overpopulation is a myth that largely is spread by the world’s elite. They have been predicting a depletion of natural resources and destruction of the environment for more than a century, but their predictions have not come true yet. At the same time, resulting population control measures have led to horrendous abuses, including forced sterilizations and forced abortions. Some of the worst abuses come out of China, where, under its one child policy, women were forcibly sterilized and forced to abort their unborn babies through all nine months of pregnancy.

In America, both Hillary and Bernie's Socialist agenda "outs" an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard, unbending stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

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.