feature in the current issue of Time Magazine asks a rhetorical question, “What’s an an environmentally conscious parent to do?” Time’s Pamela Paul gives the response most frequently pushed by radical environmentalists, saying the answer is ‘don’t have children’. In a television interview this week, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, concurs, saying the recent increase in global food prices is due to too many children. At the same time, the Italian Prime Minister is seeking ways to turn around his country’s disastrously low birth rate that currently stands at well below replacement level.
“Want to wreck the environment?” the Time feature starts, “Have a baby.”
“Each bundle of joy gobbles up more of the planet’s food, clogs garbage dumps with diapers, churns through plastic toys and winds up a gas-guzzling, resource-consuming grown-up like the rest of us. Still, babies are awfully cute. Given that most people still intend to procreate, what’s an environmentally conscious parent to do?”
The Duke of Edinburgh followed the same environmentalist playlist when he said this week that the only way to save the planet is for people to stop having babies.
Prince Philip told a television interviewer this week that the solution to the burgeoning global food crisis is simply to have fewer mouths to feed. The prince, who has four children, said, “Food prices are going up. Everyone thinks it’s to do with not enough food, but it’s really that demand is too great – too many people.”
In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically around the world and economists are struggling to identify the reason. Most have said it is the result of rising oil prices which have affected the cost fertilizers, food transport, and industrial agriculture.
The prince admitted that implementation of a massive population control movement might be a problem for governments. “Basically, it’s a little embarrassing for everybody. No one quite knows how to handle it. Nobody wants their family life to be interfered with by the government.”
Indeed, the only governments to try a systematic programme of population control are known to be among the world’s most oppressive regimes. The communist government of China has had its One Child policy in place since 1979 when it was put in place ostensibly to alleviate social and environmental problems. The result has been social unrest, arrests of pregnant women and forced abortions and state-sponsored infanticide.
It has also caused a massive and likely incurable imbalance in the population’s sex ratio in favour of boys and resulted in a dramatic aging of the population. The Chinese government, while maintaining the One Child policy, is now struggling to find answers to the problem of millions of elderly with few children grown to adulthood to care for them.
Ironically, Prince Philip’s wish has already come true. Currently the British birth rate stands at approximately 1.66 births per woman, well below the 2.1 level at which a population is sustained naturally.
Meanwhile, the recently elected Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, is casting about for ways to stop the plummeting of the Italian birth rate. He told journalists today that he would try to remove “material reasons” that push women to seek abortions. In his inaugural speech before parliament, Berlusconi promised “new and important expenditures for demographic development”.
Italy is facing a demographic crisis. The country once noted for its fervent Catholicism and dedication to large families, is aging as the birth rate drops. Italy is now the “greyest” country in the European Union, with the highest “ageing index,” according to the Italian National Statistics Institute (Istat).
Istat estimates that the birth rate has climbed slightly from 1995 to 2005, from 1.19 births per woman to 1.32, but the government agency said this was almost entirely the result of immigration.
Government interference with family life has long been a major goal of the environmental movement’s population control goals through enforced abortion, contraception and sterilization. It is axiomatic among environmentalists that the human population would outstrip the world’s food supply.
Last year, Paul Watson, founder and president of the radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, denounced the “human virus” said that a “radical and invasive approach” was required. Watson who has called human beings the “AIDS of the Earth” said, “Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.”
In 2007, the UK’s leading population control lobbyist group, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), issued a warning of environmental disaster if British couples do not restrict themselves to a two-child maximum.
May 14, 2008
