Scientific American Proposes Global Warming Solution: Contraception and Safe Abortion

The Business & Media Institute ^ | October 15, 2010 | Jeff Poor

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

The use of birth control has been an issue debated by ethicists in the United States for over a century. Until now, it’s been a moral issue, and few mainstream voices ever advocated the use of birth control for environmental reasons.

On Scientific American’s website, an Oct. 11 article by David Biello argues that if we were able to lower the growth of the world’s population, the amount of carbon that is expected to be emitted into the atmosphere would significantly diminish. He cited a study from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research that explained demographic ties to the alleged threats of global warming.

“An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050,” Biello wrote. “Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis – the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.”

Biello explained that economic growth was a means of slowing population growth, but feared that the rise of “richer people” could mean more consumption, canceling out the so-called “greenhouse gas savings” from the decreased population growth.

Still, Biello explained that family planning methods could be the solution to curbing the threat of climate change.

“Ultimately, family planning alone – such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services – in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds,” Biello wrote. “It would appear that we're trying, thanks primarily to ongoing efforts to enable women to take control of their own lives through education and other methods. Already, birth rates the world over have halved from an average of five children per woman to just 2.6 today – a baby bust replacing the baby boom.”

However in that paragraph, he linked another Scientific American story from August 12, 2008 he wrote that referenced work by Stanford University scientists Paul Ehrlich and Robert Pringle blaming humans for the extinction of thousands of species. Their suggestion back then: Educate women about “contraception and safe abortions”:

That’s why Ehrlich and Pringle call for educating women, which has slowed or stopped population growth in the developed countries of Europe. "Education and employment – for women especially – along with access to contraception and safe abortions are the most important components," they write. Adds Ehrlich: "The most basic response is to get going on stopping population growth and starting a decline. Second is doing something about consumption. If you don't do anything about those, then you are in trouble in all the others: more people, means more greenhouse gases, which means more rapid climate change."

Although these arguments over the need to promote the use of “birth control” for the environment’s sake raise some ethical questions, there is a belief more radical. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Doesn't this arguably demonstrate the genocidal tendencies of the Left? Why don't the radical environemntalists and other types just have a mass gathering and drink their poisoned kool aid...oh no, they'll just assume power and eliminate everyone else.

[steelyourfaith]

The various "solution" to AGW myth are always consistent with the leftwing agenda.

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[beethovenfan]

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...”

[Mrs. Don-o]

This should surprise no one. Fifty million dead American babies isn’t enough.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

Why don’t the editors of Scientific American show the way by purchasing a .357 Magnum, placing the barrel into their mouths one by one and then squeezing the trigger. The last editor could diall 911 just before his turn.

[Leo Farnsworth]

I agree with ‘Safe Abortion!’

Let's add:

‘Safe Murder’

‘Safe Gang Killings’

‘Safe Gas Chambers’

After all, it's for the children...

Sarc\>

[darkwing104]

Dear Scientific American,

If you wish to reduce the earth population of Humans I suggest you start killing yourselves first...

[ronnie raygun]

How about offing yourself and your believers. This will solve the problem

[mkmensinger]

The next argument will be: “If reducing the birth rate can slow global warming, then eliminating some people can roll it back.”

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

My position has always been 1) Abortion is mass murder that has resulted in the destruction of over 50 million unborn babies (over one million a year) wrought by homicidal mothers and carried out by evil practitioners operating with legal sanction given by the Federal Government (Supreme Court, Legislators, etc.) and is poised to become the greatest Holocaust in human history. 2) Abortion unequivocally destroys the sanctity of human life through death clinics operated coast to coast in the United States that operate a billion dollar industry soliciting murder often among the most disadvantaged people in the poorest communities.

Someone called be a "militia nut" for expressing such a position on a debate forum.

[ZRicochet]

So it’s now “Kill your baby, save a tree”?

[Clintonfatigued]

A very effective way to help the environment would be to build a wall on the Mexican border. Illegal aliens are terrible litter-bugs.

[Clintonfatigued]

How’s this for a slogan- “save the environment, kill a baby”? These people are nuts!

[GeronL]

and if the masses do not comply, they will FORCE them.

[Adder]

Absolutely!!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

So, some scientists are back to worshiping Moloch, huh?

http://www.moloch.us/

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Does this “advice” apply to cultures that don’t permit women to be...educated?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

5.7 billion people would have to go away

You first, Soylent American!

[LibLieSlayer]

Instead of killing innocent babies... let's kill all of the leftists... works for me! (only a little /s)

LLS

[dsrtsage]

I have traveled for a living for over 18 years now.
It used to be that I looked forward to the new issues of sci-am, and discover for reading material on the endless planes.

I started getting really annoyed with both magazines around 2000. I finally had had it during the election of 2004, when an article went on and on and on about how horrible bush was for the environment and how awesome kerry was...throughout the article, every time president bush was referred to, it was simply “Bush”, whereas every time Kerry was refered to, it was always “Senator Kerry”.

At the time, pretty much every article in each magazine, no matter what it was about always had to reference the impact of global warming. Kind of like the wonderful shows on the discovery channel that are on today, where it is very interesting, but you absolutely must turn the show off 10 minutes before it ends, because the last 10 minutes are always a diatribe about how the incredible nature things you have just seen are super-endangered from global warming.

Makes me sick