Posted on 01/11/2017 5:40:31 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Concerned about the impact of rising population numbers, a British environmentalist group is urging United Kingdom residents to have fewer children.
Breitbart reports a new report from Population Matters argues that the predicted population growth in the UK in the next 15 years will put a heavy strain on the economy. According to the environmental group, the expected 5.5 million-person surge could cost the UK billions of dollars for roads, infrastructure and more.
One of the group’s proposed solutions is to promote abortions.
Here’s more from Breitbart:
They claim drivers will waste an extra 12 hours a year on average in traffic delays by 2030, costing the average household £600 [ about $730] a year in lost working time, additional fuel, and the higher cost of delivering goods.
The group is lobbying the government to pour more public money into “family planning” to curb the population boom, including easy access to contraception and abortion. …
Reacting to the report, Chris Packham, the broadcaster and a patron of Population Matters, wrote in The Times:
“In the UK we already have the choice of how many children we have. If we want them to enjoy the natural world — to have a thriving, supportive natural world they will need to survive — we have to recognise that the more of them we have, the more difficult it will be for them to do that.
“We all need breathing room: animals, plants, human beings. We shouldn’t have to compete for it, and we don’t have to.”
Overpopulation fears have been around for hundreds years, coupled with dire predictions about huge populations depleting the world’s resources. These predictions largely have been proved untrue, but they still are being used as excuses to push abortions. In 2015, the New York Times even published an article admitting that overpopulation fears were unfounded.
Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute wrote at the time:
The article included a video interview with Paul Ehrlich, the author of “The Population Bomb.” He was the butterfly scientist from Stanford who scared tens of millions with the specter of overpopulation—and the population apocalypse that would supposedly result. He predicted that by the 1970’s the “population bomb” would explode—and hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in India and elsewhere. (India is still there, and doing quite well, thank you.)
But America’s “newspaper of record,” as it styles itself, failed to record the horrors themselves. It was woefully incomplete. There was no mention of the human costs when governments made population control a priority. No mention of the savage forced abortions and forced sterilizations that followed. No mention of the killing of baby girls through female infanticide and sex-selective abortion. No mention of the wasted money, the age and gender imbalances that continue to unfold and will take effect for years to come. No mention of how the overpopulation panic helped to fuel the rise of birth control use and abortion.
These horrors include coerced and forced abortions and sterilizations in China, India and other countries across the world.
Even if overpopulation was a problem, killing innocent human beings should never be the answer. The United States and the UK do not allow born children to be killed because of environmental or economic concerns, and they should not let children in the womb be killed either.
No. Deliberate mutilation is morally wrong.
Have no children and import millions of Muslims.
Self imposed genocide.
This is stupid.
Hard genocide=murder
Soft genocide=population control
I do think any sort of genocide, by anybody, against anybody, is hate crime.
The Richelieu/David Goldman solution, “feeding into the meat-grinder a quarter to a third of the enemy’s available manpower” as a premeditated intentional thing, is murder in itself.
But what does it profit one to gain the whole world. and lose his soul?
The population control argument has been used for decades.
What these fools (the true believers) don’t realize is that people are themselves resources.
The population of the United States has doubled in my father's lifetime and redoubled in my lifetime. This is not an arithmetic but an exponential rate of growth which cannot be sustained for very many more generations, this business about every living soul standing on a square meter of unproductive sand in Texas to the contrary notwithstanding.
My concern about exploding population is not offered out of Hobbesian theories of want but out of real fears concerning liberty. Even assuming we are theoretically capable of feeding billions more people, are we actually able to do so as a free people operating in a free market in a free society? Or are the leftists right when they say that the problem is too much freedom and not enough organization? Are we populating ourselves into a statist dystopia?
Nathan Bedford's Maxim: the more population density, the less liberty.
Look about you and consider how the left has compressed our liberties in the last three quarters of a century. Think of the strictures placed upon you for the environment. For example, it is no longer legal to burn a wood stove in parts of California. It is now the federal government that tells you as a rancher in Wyoming whether you could have a pond out back for geese and ducks. Your ability to charge rent in your New York City apartments has been controlled for decades by the government because of overcrowding. Your right to shoot a deer has been severely restricted and regulated and taxed. Your right to shoot a deer or a bear may have been entirely eliminated and there are no resemblance to the America of my forefathers who actually went hunting with Daniel Boone. The size of the toilet you flush and the bulb with which you illuminate the darkness is no longer a matter of choice.
The list is endless, indeed there is virtually no area of your life that is not currently regulated by the federal government or the state government and much of that is justified by the need to protect your neighbor from you. You also want the government to protect you from your neighbor, that is why we have zoning ordinances for example. All of these things come with density of population. A density of population which we might be able to feed but can we endure? Can we endure as free men? Can we feed them as free men?
Against this we have the inherent liberty to have children. Because one regards overpopulation as a threat to liberty does imply he also condones curtailing the liberty to have a family. Conversely, nor does it imply in any way that we should condone abortion. Perhaps we ought not to subsidize more children, but if you think we should, even as we do, perhaps, if we wish to be consistent, we should subsidize an unlimited inflow of immigrants?
The hordes rushing into Europe ought to give us pause before we blandly dismiss the downside of overpopulation.
This is crazy. The Brits are not even close to having enough children to maintain their population and economy as it is. The entirety of their population growth is from immigration, mostly from the Third World, where larger families are still standard. Why don’t these crazy leftists ever mention that? One would think their real problem is only with foreigners, because the Brits are already hardly having any children—except for the fact this is all just propaganda waged against Western Civ (as you noted) and doesn’t really have anything to do with general population control or the environment.
It’s the Muslim invaders who are popping out kids as fast as they can. It’s not the native UK citizens.
The Muslims are doing this everywhere they have been taken in as “refugees” and will eventually outnumber the native populations and rule the governments.
Very good posting.
"It's okay when we do it [to the 'right' people]," seems to be the slogan of today's "conservative."
Or one might say, "The Death Eaters are in the house."
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.