Jenny EriksonA global gathering of talking heads and delegates are currently convened in Cancun, Mexico to discuss global warming. Er, climate change. "Warming" is a bit of a misnomer with all the record cold going on.
I am a huge proponent of being good stewards of the Earth, and I think we should use our resources wisely. But some of the ideas being tossed around the Mother Earth fascists range from unsettling to downright disturbing.
One of the realistic goals covered at the conference so far has been setting up a $100 billion-a-year fund from developed countries to help developing nations implement greener technology. I’m sure Cambodia’s evil dictator Hun Sen would never launder that money and use it for his own malicious purposes.
If that’s a realistic goal, then the unrealistic, shoot-for-the-moon goals must be doozies. Have no fear, the environ-wackos rarely fail to disappoint in the area of sheer lunacy.
Media mogul Ted Turner (father of five) has once again urged world leaders to implement a global one-child policy in order to save the planet. A longtime proponent (but obviously not practitioner) of population control, Turner claims, “If we’re going to be here [as a species] 5,000 years from now, we’re not going to do it with seven billion people.” He also believes that people who choose not to reproduce could sell ‘fertility rights’ for profit.
Who says we won’t be here in 5,000 years? I thought liberals were supposed to believe in evolution -- survival of the fittest and all that jazz. It’s ridiculously egocentric to make a blanket statement on the future of the human race, and cockier still to claim to have the solution to save the planet.
The whole concept of population control is illogical. We need to save the Earth from humans by not having more humans, so that humans in the future will have more resources. Why do future humans (assuming they are even born) have more of a right to the planet’s resources than we do?
Even if the concept was sensible, the practicality of implementing population control is dubious at best, evil at worst. China boasts a one-child policy, claiming to have reduced the number of children born by 400 million since 1979. This translates to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 1.8 billion tons per year.
It has also led to countless back alley gender-selective abortions and female infanticide, as boys are much more desirable than girls as offspring in that culture. It has also produced a sort of slave trade, as young girls are kidnapped and raised as child brides for sons of families that can afford to pay. The Chinese authorities do little to solve these cases.
As the science behind man-caused climate change falls apart, I don’t live in much fear that a global government will restrict my reproductive rights. If that ever were to happen, I’d ask for the Ted Turner Exemption.