14 December, 2009

Population control and answer to climate change?

The U.N. Climate summit in Copenhagen has been debating and discussing how nations should address the issue of climate change (formerly known as 'global warming'. One of the more disturbing suggestions to deal with the issue is for a global policy which would facilitate a reduction in the number of humans on the planet. Diane Francis of the National Post joins her voice to this suggestion when she called for the world wide implementation of China's 'one child' policy.

This is just another example where science appears to spit up inane suggestions to deal with a supposed crisis. Not only would this be a GROSS infringement of human rights, but the suggestion is racist and reeks of the type of science that can best be exemplified by the Nazi fascist regime of the 1930's and 40's.

I use the terms racist and fascist very deliberately for when one explores the models and examples these scientist propose, it is inevitable that the sacrifice of life is usually to be found in the third world.

As explained by John Vidal, the paper's environment editor, this allows rich consumers to offset their jet-set lifestyle by paying for contraception in poorer countries.
According to Vidal, the trust's calculations show that the 10 metric tons of carbon emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney could be offset by preventing the birth of one child in a country such as Kenya.

'Kenya'? Why not a British or Australian citizen? After all they would seem to be the countries that would benefit in this example. Given that the 'carbon footprint' (the new yardstick by which life is being measured) of someone in the developed world is far in excess of those in Africa, one is left to wonder how many Kenyans could take flights across the planet if say a Canadian or European were to forgo their life? The very fact that the authors of this report would choose an African to be denied life and not one of their own chills the blood of anyone who believes in the sanctity of life.

If one examines the situation from a demographic perspective, one can also see that most of the citizens of the developed world (Europe, North America) have already put this policy into practice as the birthrate their is already falling below replacement level, with the growth in their population coming primarily from immigration. So perhaps the motive for this suggestion is rooted, at least partially in an attempt to be able to maintain a privileged life for the developed minority.

One might think this to be an exaggeration, but seen in the light of the Swiss referendum banning minarets, and the rising tide of xenophobia throughout Europe as country after country struggle to deal with the issue of blending immigrants from Africa and Turkey (immigrants who don't seem inclined to adopt the values and practices of their host countries) it is not too far a stretch to question the motives of those calling for such draconian measures.

Science usually promotes itself as a value free exercise; proposing theories that are supported only by 'evidence'. This claim is certainly suspect when the theory calls for the implementation of policies that are tainted with such evil intent.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics