Fathers rights activists like Stephen Baskerville, PhD., have advocated for years that to have children is suicidal and recommended to young men — to be able to survive and to avoid being criminalized as fathers:
Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children
Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.
And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily the divorce court leads to a jail cell, mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children….(Full Story)
Stephen Baskerville merely points out the circumstance of fathers expunged from their families — collateral damage resulting from current global population policies. A far less personal issue that universally affects global population trends is the circumstance that populations in all developed nations, and increasingly in ever-increasing numbers of developing nations, are shrinking.
The plan is to reduce the global population to a population level between 300 million to a billion people. You think that is an alarmist view of demographic trends? Well, think again.
Planting the seeds of a demographic winter
Robert Knight – Guest Columnist – 5/14/2008 2:10:00 PM
Did you know that planting a tree wont save the earth? Youve got to plant 483 trees just to offset your households carbon footprint. And thats just for two people.
We know this because the Washington Post Home section on May 8 featured a cover story encouraging folks to plant trees while sternly warning them that this wont help much because people are a cancer on the planet.
Okay, they didnt quite put it that way, but it would be hard to miss the message. A graphic with 483 little green trees illustrates this stat from the EPA: A two-person household is responsible for releasing 41,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To offset that, each household would have to plant 483 trees and let them grow for 10 years.
If a two-person household is that bad, what does that make families with children? Environmental criminals, at the least, and maybe earth wreckers .(Full Story)
How to Take the Chill Out of Demographic Winter
A speech by Don Feder to the New Generation Church, Riga, Latvia, November Nov. 15, 2007
.In half-a-century or less, Europe will be populated by strangers who will wander by the continents cathedrals, museums, statues and battlefield monuments wondering what it all meant.
This catastrophe in the making can be most clearly seen in Russia. What Lenin, Stalin and Hitler failed to accomplish, the Russian people are doing to themselves. You might call it auto-genocide.
In Russia, the fertility rate is 1.17 (down from 2.4 in 1990, a decline of over 50%). Russia is losing three-quarters of a million people a year. Its current population of 145 million is expected to be reduced by a third by 2050. In Russia today, almost as many children are aborted as are born alive (1.5 million to 1.6 million) .
In terms of population replacement, Europe is going out of business. Of the 10 nations with the lowest fertility rates worldwide, 9 are in Europe. No European nation has anything approaching a replacement-level birthrate….(Full Story)
By now you must wonder how we got from the 1960s UN objective of Zero-Population Growth to the present calamity of accelerating population reduction. It was easy. It required a motivator that the social engineers in charge and control of global population growth could make palatable and have the masses swallow: Save the Planet — Reduce the Human Population.
Here is how that is made to work:
Your “Carbon Legacy”
Volume 12, Number 11: 18 March 2009
Politicians who bow to the demands of the world’s climate alarmists have long sought various means of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To date, the measures they have proposed have been rather mundane, focusing primarily on reducing emissions associated with one’s household activities and transportation habits. For example, we have been encouraged to replace our incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient ones. We’ve also been asked to participate in municipal recycling programs, to drive less, to car pool or to utilize public transportation. But the “rules of the road” will soon be become much more stringent, and you and I may be asked – if not mandated by law – to make an unprecedented lifestyle change that could dramatically curtail one of our most cherished personal freedoms, all in the name of “saving the planet.”
Writing for the scientific journal Global Environmental Change, two academics at Oregon State University – Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax – identify this lifestyle change in a paper entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.” In this treatise they attempt to quantify, in their words, “the carbon legacy of an individual,” and to examine “how it is affected by the individual’s reproductive choices,” based on the premise that “a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him.” So what did they find?
The two researchers calculated that a woman in the United States would reduce her lifetime CO2 emissions by about 486 tons if she implemented the green-approved household and transportation activities mentioned previously. But they estimate that if she were to have just one child, that child, over its lifetime, would eventually release nearly 20 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than the reductions achieved by its mother via her more mundane green activities.
In light of these calculations, Murtaugh and Schlax conclude that “the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” adding that “enormous [our italics] future benefits can be gained by immediate changes [our italics] in reproductive behavior,” and, therefore, that “an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage.”
We can only hope, in this regard, that everyone’s future reproductive behavior will continue to be a matter of choice. But in light of the supposedly “enormous” CO2-related “benefits” of curtailing child-bearing – especially in the United States – no one can assume that such will continue to be the case, especially in light of the claims of climate alarmists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who consider CO2-induced global warming to be the greatest threat to the survival of civilization ever to be encountered. Faced with such a unique and unparalleled threat, we could well awake one morning and find ourselves with no choice in the matter, mandated by law to only procreate to the extent deemed ecologically appropriate by those enlightened few who somehow simply “know” what is best for the biosphere.
It may seem unthinkable today that our government – of the people, by the people and for the people – would ever assume the power to tell us how many children we can and cannot have. But much has happened in the past few months that truly was unthinkable, and only a single year ago. And if it’s happened before, it can happen again; for in times of crisis – either real, as in the current economic crisis, or imagined, as in Al Gore’s climate crisis – normally-rational people can do some wildly-irrational things. We must, therefore, maintain the eternal vigilance that is needed to preserve our God-given rights that no one has the authority to rescind. Stand up with us and demand that your elected officials carefully scrutinize both sides of the CO2-climate debate and think for themselves. We need thoughtful men and women of integrity to guide our nation, not mindless lemmings.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
Murtaugh, P.A. and Schlax, M.G. 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007.
That editorial by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso is also accessible as a video (4.5 minutes) at YouTube.