by Giulio Meotti
It was 1969 when the leader of the British Labor parliamentary group, Douglas Houghton, called for state intervention to discourage births by reducing assistance and subsidies for large families, while Lord Sorensen declared: “We must encourage sterilizations”.Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and author of “The population bomb”, predicted poverty and famine for England at a symposium at the London Institute of Biology: “If I were a player, I would bet that England will no longer exist in the year 2000 and ten to one that the standard of living of the average Englishman will be below the current one”.Fifty years past 1969, life expectancy in England has increased by ten years and the standard of living has undergone a radical upward transformation. Yet, the idea that population decreasing action is needed to reduce environmental impact is still at the root of all the green anthropophobic cries, including the eco-fascism of the two bombers in Christchurch, New Zealand and in El Paso, Texas.
Now billboards are appearing in many North American cities, from Vancouver to Minneapolis, at bus stops as well as along highways. A smiling child watches the commuters. And below, the announcement says: “The greatest loving gift you can give to your first child is not having another one”. It is part of a series of advertisements (another says that “conservation begins at conception”) financed by the World Population Balance, an ecological organization in the United States. Dave Gardner, the director, says he supports an “ethical, humanitarian and voluntary” solution to overpopulation. And it is propaganda that works.
A Morning Consult poll for the New York Times shows that one-third of men and women between the ages of 20 and 45 cite climate change as a factor in their decision to have children or not. The Morning Consult data also finds that 11 percent of childless adults say climate change is the “main reason” they didn’t want it.
“Congestion begins at conception” announces another manifesto for an eco-sustainable one-child. Traffic and fire images are used. The message is clear: have children and you will increase the queues on the streets and the risk of natural disasters. The “child free” section, on the other hand, is seductive: young couples without children, hugging, kissing, enjoying outings.
The proponents say they are in favor of a “drastic and voluntary reduction in births”. And if that doesn’t work, biologist Ehrlich always has the next step ready. Taxing baby products (“cribs, diapers, games, baby food”), flooding schools with sex education, making access to abortion even easier and Chinese-style sterilization campaigns with implants, mandatory there for Ughur women, that prevent births.
Current environmentalism, which is based on an anti-Biblical and post-humanist vision, is pure civilizational suicide. Birth rates are already falling all over the West, Canada, Europe, America. The West is not overpopulated at all. But environmentalists are fine with that. They are pro mass immigration from Africa, where birth rates are surging and which is coming to Europe.
They don’t dream of an empty planet, but of a post-Western one. Where the Statue of Liberty is submerged on the beach.