Kill Your Kids

[Paul's Here 0]

If you have more than 2 children, you (or they) are destroying the planet. Your children will be put to death, or perhaps, you will be put to death to equalize the additional child. This may be too strong for what is being put forth, but it is coming to America. "Contraception and abortion" are the two alternatives offered at this point in time. That will change. This story starts in Britain, but we know the effects of population control in China. It won't be long before such ideas spread here.

More Than 2 Kids Will Destroy Planet

Couples who have more than two children are being "irresponsible" by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the British government's green adviser warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.

He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," Porritt said.

[PhilO 0]

This story starts in Britain, [...]

I don't think that the viros will hold greater sway over British policy than the Muslims, and the Muslims have every political reason to want to have large families (more Muslims.)

[Paul's Here 0]

This story starts in Britain, [...]

I don't think that the viros will hold greater sway over British policy than the Muslims, and the Muslims have every political reason to want to have large families (more Muslims.)

Yes, but the Muslims are not known for their support of industrial society. Many would much prefer to live back in the Middle Ages.

[PhilO 0]

Yes, but the Muslims are not known for their support of industrial society. Many would much prefer to live back in the Middle Ages.

I have considered in the past that the viros and the Muslims have a lot in common, but it is not a total overlap. I think most of the Muslims in Britain would like to retain the goodies of industrialization as long as they have a society where they're free to beat their wives up. The viros want to kill everyone.

[Stussy88 0]

If you have more than 2 children, you (or they) are destroying the planet. Your children will be put to death, or perhaps, you will be put to death to equalize the additional child. This may be too strong for what is being put forth, but it is coming to America. "Contraception and abortion" are the two alternatives offered at this point in time. That will change. This story starts in Britain, but we know the effects of population control in China. It won't be long before such ideas spread here.

More Than 2 Kids Will Destroy Planet

Couples who have more than two children are being "irresponsible" by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the British government's green adviser warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.

He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," Porritt said.

I will spare you my opinion of the loathesome Porritt. Some other gems...

"Why put a price on the priceless importance of carbon-free homes?" Er, to see how much it would cost and assess the viability?

"the ignorant, belligerent denial about climate change, nor the astonishing assumption that everybody has a god-given right to fly anywhere in the world at the lowest possible price regardless of the impact on anyone else" Presumably we need to ask his permission?

Well I could go on, but blood pressure and all...

[PhilO 0]

Assuming that the ratio of men to women does not significantly change, when the replacement rate falls below 1 child/person on worldwide average, that is the decline and ultimate extinguishment of humanity. In practical terms, given that not every woman has children and not every man fathers them, then even 2 children per couple is not a true replacement rate, the average will be less than 1 child/person. Of course, the environmentalists know this. On the flip side, religions have always known this as well: make sure people pushing your religion have lots of children and make sure those children promote the religion in turn.

(Too bad the most rational individuals aren't having huge families, in this context - if anything, in my informal observation, they have fewer children than average.)

[David T. McKee 0]

I have the solution. When you have more than two children, you must find and kill an enviro-wacko, I mean, based on their opinions they should be lining up at the extermination station.

Every time I hear this kind of pablum I have to go out and start my gas guzzling Harley Davidson, pull the enriching knob allll the way out, and let the black smoke waft through the neighborhood.

Then I feel better.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

(Too bad the most rational individuals aren't having huge families, in this context - if anything, in my informal observation, they have fewer children than average.)

Fortunately, philosophy is not propagated genetically. Look at all the people Ayn Rand has influenced!

If you want a generation of Objectivists, contribute to ARI's Free Books for Teachers project.

[PhilO 0]

Fortunately, philosophy is not propagated genetically.

I agree, but, e.g., Catholics do not have large families of children who mostly become Catholic because the ideas are transmitted genetically. It's the local environment. In the case of a couple with highly-above-average intelligence, there is also an enabling genetic component but that is not the primary in this context.

Look at all the people Ayn Rand has influenced!

All 0.001% of the population in about 50 years? (To be pretty generous)

If you want a generation of Objectivists, contribute to ARI's Free Books for Teachers project.

That's a worthy project as such projects go, but it will not result in a generation of Objectivists, not by many orders of magnitude.

[AdamM 0]

Look at all the people Ayn Rand has influenced!

All 0.001% of the population in about 50 years? (To be pretty generous)

Where did you get this number?? Millions have read her books, and those indirectly influenced through her proponents like those at ARI have influenced countless more. For instance, Yaron Brook has been on plenty of shows that get millions of viewers per night! I'd estimate she's influenced over 100 million people. Not only that, but what does it matter? Driven, intelligent people make a bigger footprint than do the slugs that oppose them! Cheer up!

[PhilO 0]

Look at all the people Ayn Rand has influenced!

All 0.001% of the population in about 50 years? (To be pretty generous)

Where did you get this number?? Millions have read her books, and those indirectly influenced through her proponents like those at ARI have influenced countless more. For instance, Yaron Brook has been on plenty of shows that get millions of viewers per night! I'd estimate she's influenced over 100 million people.

My estimate is orders of magnitude more accurate than your estimate, in the context I meant: people who understand and act consistently on the ideas. If "influenced" is supposed to mean "Oh yeah, I read Ayn Rand once, interesting book but not very practical" or "Oh yeah, I read Ayn Rand once, I hated it", then yes, perhaps it is closer to 100 million. It is up to you whether you find that a cheery thought.

Not only that, but what does it matter? Driven, intelligent people make a bigger footprint than do the slugs that oppose them! Cheer up!

I'll be sure to keep that in mind as the U.S. dollar inflates to zero over the next decade amidst rampant socialization of the country - because all of those Objectivists are so successful in combating the pervasive mysticism and altruism that drives it in a country of hundreds of millions and a world of billions.

I do not require a patronizing suggestion to cheer up. Any lack of cheer I have lately is not due to this issue. I take the decline of the world in stride at this point, and rotsa ruck to those who believe in an Objectivist America. As far as I am concerned there are far better possibilities, though I am not interested in any detailed discussion of them on this board.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Fortunately, philosophy is not propagated genetically.

I agree, but, e.g., Catholics do not have large families of children who mostly become Catholic because the ideas are transmitted genetically. It's the local environment.

Ayn Rand can be part of that local environment too.

In the case of a couple with highly-above-average intelligence, there is also an enabling genetic component but that is not the primary in this context.

Except that Ayn Rand is especially appealing to the most intelligent youngsters from all backgrounds.

Look at all the people Ayn Rand has influenced!

All 0.001% of the population in about 50 years? (To be pretty generous)

That's 3000 people! How many women give birth to that many children?

If you want a generation of Objectivists, contribute to ARI's Free Books for Teachers project.

That's a worthy project as such projects go, but it will not result in a generation of Objectivists, not by many orders of magnitude.

Fortunately, a few good minds setting the direction of the culture will do.