Eliminating Billions of People to Salve Qualms of Pseudo-Science

Canadian Diane Frances and China's Zhao Baige are agreed that over 3 billion humans must be eliminated from planet Earth, to save the planet.

This is a common thread among leftist environmentalists and green enthusiasts: eliminate up to 90% of the human population (or more) in order to make the planet more "sustainable." At this time, CO2 hysteria is a convenient justification for these calls to quasi-genocide. But any cause would do.

No one knows what a sustainable population for this planet might be. 50 years ago in the time of the Club of Rome's ambitious proclamations, it was expected that the Earth would have been destroyed long before now. Billions dead from starvation, disease, scarcity.... It was expected to have happened in the 80s and 90s. By now, we were supposed to be living in a post-oil, post-industrial, post-commercial devastation.

It is all laid out at Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, dieoff.org and similar websites. The hopeful denizens of doom dwell daily upon their decades-obsolete predictions of devastation Earth. They pore over every news report in search of confirmation for their '60s and '70s era prognostications of doom. And of course, they cannot help but find such confirmation -- even if they have to change the definition of what "confirmation" is.

To see such absurd bottom dwelling of doom publishing at Canada's Financial Post does constitute a bit of a surprise. It is as if instead of living in "The Matrix", we are living in "The Consensus", an idiocratic mob mentality that no one is allowed to question. How do such things happen?

If one sets out to dumb down a population, and is willing to take the many years and decades required to do it right, one can eventually create an idiocracy "from the top down." It does require a dedicated, large-scale movement, but if the organisation and financing is there, it is not as difficult as most people might think. Particularly if the population is not especially bright to begin with.

Have you ever imagined a world such as is being recommended by Canada's Financial Post and China's China Daily? A world where every household produces only one child? A world without uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, and cousins? How does one go about convincing all parents to have only one child?

It might be easy in countries such as China or Canada. In fact, Canada's fertility rate -- even without a one-child policy -- is dipping dangerously close to 1 birth per mother. The same is true for Japan, Italy, Russia, Spain, and Greece. In third world countries -- where virtually all of the population growth is occurring these days -- fuggidabowdet!

In other words, developed countries already have fertility rates below 2 -- sometimes very close to 1 -- without encouragement from the anti-natalist gestapo. Affluence and hedonistic lifestyles are generally enough to encourage most women of advanced nations to put a lid on child-bearing. Without affluence and hedonism, the third world is likely to never reduce its fertility rates to these levels.

But you can always send in the blue hatted peacekeepers to enforce your anti-natalist policies in Africa, Muslim Asia, and elsewhere in the third world. What would you accomplish? Fomenting revolution, insurrection, mayhem, starvation, disease, and widespread death. Well, wasn't that what you wanted all along? No doubt.

Excuse the rest of us if we disagree with both your objectives and your underlying rationale.

Postscript: It is the welfare-based nations with the lowest birthrates who will experience the severe effects of shrinking population the soonest. Pension and health care entitlements are ballooning under welfare-state policies. But huge welfare and pension entitlements require a lot of young taxpayers to fund them. If no babies are being born to keep those young taxpayers coming, entitlement debt will completely capsize these welfare economies.