| Vote: The total snowfall in Bismarck - Mandan last November was ____". |

British Think Tank: We Should Save The Planet By Killing Ourselves

Disclaimer: This article is a blog post and does not represent the views or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by the user who posted this content.

email to a friend

printable version

discuss in the forums

upload new photos for this story

(1) comments on this article (add yours ->)

May 7 2007 12:00AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php

Well, that’s not exactly what they’re saying, but they are saying that fewer humans means less global warming. So we should stop having such large families

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family�s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: �The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet

�The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.�

You know where this is heading, right? The same place all of this global warming nonsense is heading. Government controls on all aspects of your up to and including what type of light bulbs you can use and how often you can procreate during your lifetime

Sound far-fetched? Unlikely? Trust me, it’s where we’re going. All for the sake of an issue that we don’t even know is being caused by humans or even know if we can stop

It’s madness, and the sad thing is that I’m not sure how much of it is being driven by actual environmental concerns or simply a desire to expand government control over the world’s citizens

save this article / add to your favorites list

Share This Article on Facebook

View the Original Blog Post at http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php

VOTE! - Job Approval Rating: Senator Kent Conrad

Related Content

Related KXNet.com Topics

Global Warming

Comments Posted by KXNet.com Users

Posted by Martin P Desvaux, Ph.D. on May 8 2007 4:27AM - Professor John Guillebaud is right though, isn't he?
It is overpopulation that is causing all the man-made environmental destruction: deforestation, soil erosion, acidification of the oceans, desertification, [the great American dust bowl], disappearance of the North Atlantic and now the North sea fish stocks, extinctions .... need I go on?
The current 6.7 billion world population is now unsustainable. This is more than adequately demonstrated by the Global Footprinting Network's statistics. We are in ecological debt because of the use of fossil fuels which enabled us to increase the food supply and establish our large population over the last 200 years! Unless we bring that population into balance with the world's resources there will, quite simply, be a natural 'die-off' of humanity the like of which we have never experienced before. Only, it will happen to our children and granchildren (depending on how old you are).
It is quite irrelevant whether global warming is caused by humans or not. The fact is that it is happening. That means that as sea levels rise (by up to 5 meters this century if Greenland keeps on melting - and the speed of that is now accelerating alarmingly according to recent reports) and desertification spreads there will be less land to feed a population which is currently projected to rise to around 9.2 billion in 43 years time (US Census Bureau stats). (That's equivalent to another 9 USA's, by the way).
So let be realistic about it, the Optimum Population Trust has got a serious point. Too many people on the planet means not enough to go around. Three billion people are underfed right now- but they are not in America. That number is on course rise to six billion underfed people by 2050 - only there may have been a population crash before then.
It makes eminent sense not to have more than one child these days! How else do you stack up wanting the best for your children with placing so many of them on the planet such that they will die of hunger?

Dr Martin Desvaux

LOGIN / REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT!

All post and comments are subject to review and filtering by the KXNet.com Webmaster - Any posts containing offensive language, threats, or any other form of abuse will be DELETED In addition, all posts are logged and tracked in our database system including the IP Address and source computer details of the individual who submitted the post. All users commenting on KXNet.com articles and talk-forums are bound by the rules outlined in our Comment, Blog and Talk Forum Rules and are required to login as a registered member. Click here for the KXNet.com Commenting Rules