I don’t know. Maybe this is a way to get people to understand the totalitarianism behind the notion of Global Warming.
The alliance between feminists and population controllers has always been uneasy. While feminists have supported a global right to abortion as a matter of human rights, population controllers support such a right as a means to reduce numbers, sometimes coercively.
This division has been papered over since the International Conference on Population and Development, which took place in Cairo twenty years ago. With the UN now planning something called the Sustainable Development Goals, a global planning document to replace the sun-setting Millennium Development Goals, the divisions are once more emerging.
The new issue is global warming, and the solution to many is the continued reduction of fertility rates, even though fertility rates all over the world have fallen below replacement level. This focus on reducing the fertility of women in the Global South rather than in reducing consumption patterns in the Global North has set these groups at odds once more.
Rebecca Oas reports in C-Fam’s Friday Fax, “During the inaugural meeting of a new U.N. endeavor on the environment, one group took to social media to refute the ‘dubious linking’ between population and climate change, arguing that population control strategies inevitably lead to abuses, coercion, and the violation of women’s fundamental rights. The Malaysia-based group ARROW advocates for feminist policies at the U.N., including access to abortion. They are skeptical of wealthy Northern countries’ efforts to reduce the fertility of women in poor countries in the name of stopping climate change.”
Oas reports, “At last year’s Women Deliver conference in Kuala Lumpur, controversial ethics professor Peter Singer posited that women’s desire to have children could be forcibly overridden to address environmental problems.” She also points out that Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, “the architect of the MDGs and a key contributor to the SDG process… proposed the U.N. aim for ‘rapid voluntary reduction of fertility’ to achieve sustainable development.” ….
Again, warmists are Malthusian. Warmists are Marxists. Warmists are misanthropists. I don’t know how much clearer things can be. Warmists hate humanity!!!!
They hate humanity, so, they hate the people who can produce more humanity.
Well, sure, women are good for sex, so we can’t just go around killing them, and whatnot. So, if we just forcibly control their reproduction process, then they’re okay, right? That is to say, if we can just take away one of the most meaningful things, unique to women, from women, then they’d be okay.
You know one great by-products of women having children is? It forces real boys to grow up to be real men. It is true, some boys never do grow up to be men. But, the real men it does help create outweigh the loser children who refuse to be men.
And, this is something, those of us who have been through this know. When you have real women, and real men, making children, then, the world is better off, not worse off, from our prodigy. While it does make my life fuller, happier, and better to have had my children, my children have made other people’s lives fuller, happier, and better.
I can’t imagine anyone advocating forced sterilization, unless they were miserable humans who raised miserable children. In other words, they were inadequate parents, who raised inadequate children.
It’s okay to be inadequate if you don’t reproduce inadequate people. But, more, because of the human condition, I’ve seen inadequate parents raise very adequate children. The children know things aren’t suppose to be like they grew up, and determine to make it better in their time.
For people who may wonder, I’m all for birth control. I’m not Catholic. But, I’m for children. Each child is an opportunity for the rest of humanity. Each child is unique. Each child is precious.