Global warming alarmist types are in a dither, according to a study in The Scientific American entitled “Will Birth Control Solve Climate Change?”
The Chicken Littles are desperate to stop babies from being born but aren’t sure of the best way to do it. They’re wary of seeing people raised out of poverty because the spread of wealth usually means more carbon emissions - which they don’t like. But increased wealth also typically leads to highly educated women which usually leads to a lower birth rate -which they like very much. So carbon crazies don’t know whether to root for poverty stricken dumb people or wealthy ones who don’t reproduce and retire early. One thing they all agree on however is that the less people the better. It’s just how to get there that’s being debated.
The piece assumes that people are the problem and references via link a piece by population huckster Paul Ehrlich that says: “Education and employment—for women especially—along with access to contraception and safe abortions are the most important components.”
Scientific American writes:
“If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution.”
Overall, curbing population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reducing peak population to roughly 8 billion, for example, could save 29 percent of expected greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth seems like one way to accomplish that, considering that rising wealth has historically slowed birth rates. But O’Neill and his colleagues warn that, if fewer but richer people consume more—as current consumption patterns in places like the U.S. suggest—those greenhouse gas savings become increased emissions.
What a quandary. If we educate women they might have less babies but they might become so self focused that they produce enough carbon for two or three all on their own.
What to do? The only thing they always do. Urge more contraception and abortion.
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. 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 women to just 2.6 today—a baby bust replacing the baby boom.
But obviously halving the birth rate worldwide isn’t enough. They must stop babies from being born in order to save the planet. But who are they saving it for?
Exit question: Anyone else a little uncomfortable when science gets in the business of social engineering and population control?
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Wow. Just wow. Without having met either of us (unless you have met the Pope…I haven’t had the honor), you’ve managed to reach a conclusion about our relative intelligences (which is different from education…the Pope is much more educated than I am) and delivered it in a way that is insulting to me. I could defend myself, but why bother?
On that note, I’ll bid you adieu. God bless.
Mia, just a reminder. The Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals, not politics or science or anything else. Yes, he’s extremely smart, and has wonderful advisors, and has good reasons for what he says (which is why I pay attention to what he says).
Don’t attribute greater abilities to him than he himself claims. He reminds us to be good stewards of what God has given us, but he doesn’t say “this is the only way to be a good steward”. He leads by example, but doesn’t require us to live exactly as he does.
As far as Newsweek goes, I gave up on that magazine years ago. It’s either fluff or alarmism (depending on the article or issue), but very light on facts (unless they’ve greatly improved, which I doubt).
We can’t be paralyzed by fear, nor should we be spurred into action through fear. We can’t stop everything because we’re afraid of what might happen (e.g., drilling for oil). We can’t dump unlimited resources into pie-in-the-sky “solutions”, foisting them on everyone, hoping they will fill a gap created by an artificial timetable to turn off the old way of doing things. There has to be a reasonable transition.
I do listen to what the Holy Father says. I also know that he is not a scientist, nor is he a mechanical engineer. We are to be good stewards of what God has given us, and one way to accomplish that is to move away from fossil fuels. However, the Holy Father is not telling us to abandon fossil fuels tomorrow and hope that replacements are found in time to prevent the collapse of the world economy (which would cause more pollution and a great amount of death). The Vatican, for all that it’s done going “green”, still makes use of petroleum products. And the change over has been implemented over time.
God gave us brains for a reason, and we are to use them. He gave us shepherds, and we are to listen to them. The two are not incompatible, and neither requires us to panic and react out of extreme fear of what might happen. We can walk a reasonable path, one that reduces and eventually (hopefully) eliminates our current negative impact on the environment. A turn-key instant replacement hope-it-works “fix” will be worse than continuing as we are now.
Where is our water supply going? Are the desalination and water purification plants breaking? Or are we merely being bad stewards, polluting the water and making it harder to find/make potable water? If it’s the latter, then we should fix things moving forward, and work to repair the damage done thus far. But I, in Michigan, can’t change what China is doing, what their environmental protection standards are. Fear-mongering isn’t the solution…if my toilet uses 2 gallons per flush instead of 1.6 (it doesn’t), it’s not going to change the amount of drinking water available to a family in India.
Instead of regulating everything, we should be teaching others to be good stewards. It’s one thing I’m working on with my children.
Mia,
Yes, God’s plan includes science (since science merely explains the physical nature God created). There’s nothing wrong with science in and of itself. But when science is perverted from explaining what is observed to something used to push a social agenda, then there’s a problem.
If scientists make a claim, I want to see the proof. Their claim is no longer sufficient for me and many others. So when I’m told that our carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of global climate change (or whatever they’re calling it today), I want to see the evidence. And when the evidence is hidden, distorted, and destroyed, I have serious questions as to the validity of their claim.
Speaking of…could you cite the whole Iditarod hay thing? I did a quick Google search and didn’t pick up anything about them throwing hay along the 1049 mile route (give or take, depending on if they use the northern or southern route).
My personal opinion is that we have had an impact on climate, and should be better stewards of what God has given to us….not out of fear of destroying the climate (I really don’t think we can, not without launching some nukes), but out of obedience to God, and for his glory.
In Genesis, we learn that God created the world for man. He created Man in his own image and likeness He blessed them and said to them increase and multiply, Fill the earth and subdue it. ... The Global warming alarmist have lost site of God’s plan and are trying to take matter into their own hands.
We all need to (re-)read George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four” and remember it was published in 1949. His prescience is astounding and certainly predicted this kind of “population control” controlled by a socialist government. ( I always thought it so sad that he did not live to see 1984 although he would only have been in his eithties.)
Right on, Rachel!! Very well put.
The Pop Control people always start with the second step: condoms and pills will prevent babies. The first step is simpler: stop copulating.
It is a wonder to me that copulation is promoted as an unavoidable necessity, an irrepressible drive. It sounds like advertising for brothels.
The model included in the study doesn’t appear to account for ‘greed’. I guess it’s easier to control the population that it is one’s vices.
As you state, they assume that more people are the problem, instead of the solution. The real problem comes from a selfish, individualistic, materialistic mentality—leading to greater regard for things and a diminishing regard for people. And it’s the manufacturing, acquisition, use, and disposal of *things* that contributes to things like pollution. The pop-control crowd is so consumed with lowering the birth rate that they fail to see the environmental impact of using contraceptives. Imagine how much waste is involved in the production and packaging of a pack of birth control pills: 12 packs per year for 10-20 years per person. Not to mention (as someone else already has) the impact of that much synthetic estrogen (and progesterone) in the environment. —As most parents out there know, the best antidote to a selfish and consuming lifestyle is having children. Perhaps this is the true reason behind the push for population control: so that one doesn’t have to sacrifice one’s own wants for the sake of another.
Global warming is a red herring. Not because it’s not happening, or that it’s not caused by human use of fossibl fuels, but because those fossil fuels are running out, fast. Soon they will be too rare (and thus costly) to use at the rate we are currently using them, and then their use will go down, and so will carbon emissions. What we refuse to do volunarily (reduce our consumption) will be forced upon us. At that point, all hands on deck will probably be needed to grow the food locally, without as much energy dependent machines as we use now, and without the luxury of importing our apples from half-way around the world. Of course the scientists know all this. The planet will survive no matter what we do to it, but will we?
I didn’t know that scientists invented fortune telling…
Seriously, they need to get out of the prediction business and stick to measuring actual physical realities.unproven ideas are called hypothesies, not theories for a reason.
As to how uncomfortable am I that science and also extreme environmentalists elites are meddling with population control and family plannin? Bill Gates did a seminar on Carbon Emission reduction last year in which he detailed the use of vaccines as a method of pop. control. At the same time there are reports coming out of southern Mexico and other Central American locales that somehow a standard tetnus shot was making women miscarry. As it turns out the tetnus shots were laced with HcG. The combination resulted in a surge of antibodies attacking thevfetus everytime a woman found herself with child and the effects last 10+ years. Long enough to delay a woman’s most fertile years. Nice.
Exit answer: yes.
These people need to shut up and sweep in front of their own door first. I would like to see them reduce their own carbon emissions to the poverty level before they tell others how many kids to have.
Why aren’t environuts worried about the proliferation of females of fish species caused by residual estrogen from the pill in water? Is the goal to address “global warming” then the extinction of whole species because the water has been poisoned with estrogen?
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.