Monday, February 2, 2009

The Anti-Human Agenda of Population Controllers

Here is the latest moralistic, judgmental, anti-humanist, government expert arguing for the culture of death. It is important to see that this is the sort of advice the Labour Government seeks out as it implements its anti-humanistic policies in bioethics, human rights and so on. He claims that:

"Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment . . . curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming."

You can read it all here:

Poritt is upset that not enough women are "choosing" abortion, depsite its availability:

"He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers."

Notice the implication that "We have got to do something." In other words, abotion is not about choice - it is about the right choice, i. e. the choice to abort. Give them choice and see if that works. But if enough of them don't choose abortion, well then, we need to think of what to do next. At all costs, we must reduce the population! The article notes that the birth rate for women born in Britain is 1.7 (which is well below the replacement level of 2.1). But this is not good enough for our determined crusader. He wants less people and he is determined that Government should make is so.

Clever fellow that he is, he lets on that the crux of his argument is that resources are finite and there is only so much to go around. So the fewer of us there, the bigger each person's share is. This is fallacious reasoning because population growth spurs economic growth by creating demand plus a pool of entrepreneurial talent that can meet the demand. This is precisely why countries with declining populations like Britain are compelled to bring in more and more immigrants, lest living standards fall dangerously. But arguments like this appeal to the selfishness and narcissism of shallow, contemporary hedonists so they can attract votes.

But in the end, it would appear that this fellow's real agenda is that of the hard-core fanatics who believe that the ideal would be human extinction. (See the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement website here: Their motto is "Live long and die out.")
I call this kind of atheism "anti-humanistic" because it starts by rejecting God in the name of man, but ends by rejecting man. The lesson of the Twentieth century is that to reject God is to reject humanism and that Christianity is not the cause of evil, but of all that is good in Western culture insofar as it points us to the Creator who loves us and made us for fellowship with Him.

Stephen Barr shows that the real-life implications of following this man's advice would be catastrophic for human life on this planet in a relatively brief period of time, as far as human history is concerned. Read it here:
Mr. Barr charitably attributes the wrong-headed thinking here to a "matematical error" and I'm sure that most people who buy the population control line are sincere but in error. But the leaders are not ill-informed. Some of them really want human extinction, just as some mentally ill people want to commit murder-suicide.

No comments: