A Modest Proposal

I know I'm just one of those wild-eyed fundamentalist Jebus-worshippers, but there are few subjects I read about more chilling to me than this sort of thing:

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

Leaving aside the fact that the real way to deal with the various issues of planetary sustainability is (as it has always been) through innovation, the bigger issue I have with this mentality is that when it is determined that one human life does not have value, it is but a short and swift downward slide to determining that no human life has value. (I need hardly remind you that China is the all-time planetary champeen, genocidal heavyweights division.) The mind that can encompass forced abortions needs very little prompting in order to take in the elimination of other "undesireables", including the old, the sick, the politically inconvenient and so on.

Meanwhile, somewhere the devil is rolling on the flaming floor, laughing his satanic ass off.

UPDATE: Steve and the Abbot prompt me to mention another aspect of this business that I failed to include in my original rant, but that also bothers me a great deal. The article quoted is from a Canadian paper. You will never find the words "Canadian" and "population explosion" in the same sentence except in a sentence like, "There never has been nor is there ever likely to be a Canadian population explosion." And these days, the same thing holds true for pretty much all of the industrialized world. Readers of Mark Steyn will know that at the current rate, within the next few generations there will no longer be such a thing as a Native European. Ditto with the Japanese. (The United States is still holding its own in terms of population replacement, but we're hardly squished in.) For whatever reason, the more prosperous a people, the fewer children they seem to produce.

No, what the author is really talking about is the teeming hordes of the Third World, all those Africans, Asians and whatnot. What right do these people have to breed? It's not as if they love their children the way we love ours - after all, they just send 'em out to slave away in the fields or barter them away for cattle. Better for everyone if we just send U.N. peacekeeping forces in on forced-sterilization missions. Or perhaps we could resurrect Marlin Perkins to fly about in a helicopter shooting contraceptive darts.

In other words, this is limousine-liberal racism at its smarmiest and oiliest.

Wasn't it Uncle Joe Stalin who said something to the effect that one death was a tragedy but ten thousand was a statistic? Dress it up the right way and you can say it's a positive virtue.