Alex Renton Declares War on the Human Race (to save the planet)

[FrankRep]

Alex Renton Declares War on the Human Race


James Heiser | John Birch Society
28 October 2009


Alex Renton has declared war on mankind, in general, and Western man, in particular.

Why? Well, to save the planet, of course!

In a October 25 column for Guardian.co.uk, Renton throws down the gauntlet:

"The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO² every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government's target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately."

But how do we go about “reversing” population growth “immediately”? Demographic trends are, pretty much by definition, multi-generational trends that are not exactly inclined to casual manipulation. Some pretty brutal tactics have been used by totalitarian regimes (China’s “one child” policy comes to mind) to try to manipulate demographics, and even that ghastly war on the unborn has had results that were less than ‘immediate’ and have had unintended consequences (such as the radical gender disparity among the survivors).

Renton realizes that even the fanaticism of the folks planning for the UN Climate Change Conference in December isn’t enough. It isn’t enough to move money around the world to create an incentive for less developed nations to create ‘greener’ technologies. Renton wants fewer people in the world — and he wants that reduction right now. In an explosion of anti-human sentiment, Renton erupts:

Are condoms not the greenest technology of all?

World population is forecast to peak at 9.2bn by 2050. According to a report by the LSE for the Optimum Population Trust, the lobbying body currently asking parents to "Stop at Two", it would cost $220m to provide the family planning that would reduce the 2050 population by half a billion, preventing the emission of 34 gigatonnes of carbon. Introducing low-carbon technology for the same result would cost more than $1 trillion.

So why does population control hardly feature on the agendas of the UN bodies or of the governments now committed to tackling climate change? And why do the development and environmental groups shy away from it?

Well, at least Renton is more honest than most environmentalists; he admits that the goals of his ideology are best achieved by reducing the human population, and he’s not afraid of chastising his fellow eco-warriors to get out there and join the fight against the spread of humanity.

But apparently even the UN cannot live up to Renton’s aspirations. (Which makes sense: the Internationalists want global environmental regulation as a means to control the global economy — and thus essentially ever aspect of human life; still, as Igor Shafarevich has demonstrated, a death urge attends the Socialist ideology, and fantasies of annihilation have never been far from the minds of philosophes since the time of the French Revolution.)

So what is a budding warrior for Gaia to do? Renton takes it to the next level:

It is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

Presuming that a professional writer such as Alex Renton is not a complete stranger to the use of the English language, I will operate on the assumption that he understands the use of the term “cull” and therefore says what he means, and means what he says. Renton is weighing the relative environmental merits of slaughtering Australians or Americans over slaughtering Bangladeshis — which is presumably a safer strategy for him to advocate than to suggest beginning with his neighbors in Edinburgh in the great march forward to a greener future.

The problem, you see, is that Renton isn’t sure that humanity can sufficiently cut the production of CO² by less radical means:

According to the International Energy Agency, if the whole world moved over to clean electricity, the CO² savings would offset the emissions of up to 2.8bn poor people, easily accounting for the entire extra population forecast for 2050.

But what if we can't reform the way we produce and use energy? The most worrying of climate change's impacts — food and water shortages, forced migration, health epidemics — are exacerbated by population growth. According to two recent polls, nine out of 10 scientists working in climate change don't believe we will achieve the changes in energy use committed to by the G8 and the EU. If they are right, population is going to start to matter a lot. Don't we need a fallback plan?

“Fallback plan” sounds so innocuous, until you remember the man was just weighing culling Australians and Americans. The problem is there are too many rich people. (And, by the way, anyone reading this can be certain that they fit the definition of “rich person” being used in this context, regardless of how they might assess their relative wealth.)

So the richer a country gets, the more pressing the need for it to curb its population. The only nation to have taken steps to do this is China – and the way it went about enforcing the notorious one child policy is one of the reasons the rest of us are so horrified by the notion of state intervention. Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far.

But lowering birth rate need not be so draconian. Experience shows it is most effectively done by ensuring women's equality and improving their education, while providing cheap contraception. Birth rate, gender equality, education and poverty are inextricably linked.

But how do you reduce population in countries where women's rights are already achieved and birth-control methods are freely available? Could children perhaps become part of an adult's personal carbon allowance? Could you offer rewards: have one child only and you may fly to Florida once a year?

How magnanimous of Mr. Renton to concede that the methodology for reducing the number of human beings “need not be so draconian” as implemented by the totalitarian regime in China. He’s still willing to allow some room for the “carrot” before resorting entirely to the “stick.”

Here’s where it’s going: the self-appointed guardians of the Earth are now prepared to dictate “an adult’s personal carbon allowance.” Can you imagine the monitoring necessary to pull that off? Silly sentiments about flying to Florida aside, imagine living in Renton’s world, where having a child is classified as a form of pollution


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/555...the-human-race

[jkr]

sounds great! lets start with him-4th trimester abortion anyone?

[Mini-Me]

Please tell me this guy is a complete nobody. I don't want to look him up because he doesn't deserve the Google search hit, but has anyone else ever heard of this crazy ass?

[James Madison]

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Ecology and environmentalism is a religion, the central tenant being humanity is a disease on the planet and, if left to its on whims, will invariably destroy not just its on future but the future of all other living organisms as well. Now, the low-level minions at your local college or university never get this memo, but those at the top are well aware of their cult's true aim. It's eugenics. Period. Don't believe me? Take fifteen minutes to look up the founding members of the pseudo-science known as eugenics. EVERY individual was an ecologist. To this day, nutcases like Pianka are the norm at large universities. Even at smaller ones eugenics is still rampant. Academia has been obsessed with eugenics for over century, and I don't see any indication of this changing in the near or distant future.

As to Alex Renton: Step up to the plate, buddy. You first.

[Dieseler]

Zombie.
Extreme Prejudice.
Axe handle.
Stump hole.
Lime.
Earth loves Flowers.
Amen.

[virgil47]

He should set a good example by quietly ending his own food consuming, oxygen wasting and whining existence.

[Mini-Me]

Originally Posted by virgil47

He should set a good example by quietly ending his own food consuming, oxygen wasting and whining existence.

Oh no, but that wouldn't be enough! In order to be effective, the ecologists have to think BIG, which means dedicating their lives towards wiping out billions of people. Of course, as their reward for saving Mother Gaia, they get to live.

[virgil47]

Originally Posted by Mini-Me

Oh no, but that wouldn't be enough! In order to be effective, the ecologists have to think BIG, which means dedicating their lives towards wiping out billions of people. Of course, as their reward for saving Mother Gaia, they get to live.

LOL. So true but we can always hope.