According to a report by a wacko environmental group out of Britain, British couples shouldn’t have more than two children because even a third child will hurt the environment. In fact, this group considers having three or more kids an “eco-crime,” if you can believe that nonsense. From the Times Online:
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.”
In his latest comments the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.
I don’t know what Mr. Guillebaud is so concerned about. Europeans are already breeding themselves right out of existence. Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, and Italy have higher death rates than birth rates. The UK’s birth rate, which has been in decline since 1975, is currently 10.7 per 1000, making it barely higher than its death rate, which is 10.1 per 1000. I would think that would allay any of his concerns.
However, what Mr. Guillebaud doesn’t realize is that by encouraging British and European couples to not have many children, he’s encouraging a Muslim majority in Europe. Muslims are breeding faster than any other population and are moving to Europe, France especially, in record numbers. The only reason France’s birth is so high is due to Muslim birth rates. Even in 2004, this was seen as a serious issue. Additionally, Mark Steyn took the analysis even further. The European countries that have the highest birth rates also have the highest numbers of Muslims:
Take France and its neighbors and rank them in order of healthiest fertility rates (2005 official Eurostat figures):
1) France
2) Netherlands
3) Belgium
4) Switzerland
5) Austria
6) Germany
7) Italy
8) SpainNow rank them in order of highest proportion of Muslims (no central source, but compiled from national data, European Muslim groups, UN and State Dept figures):
1) France
2) Netherlands
3) Belgium
4) Switzerland
5) Austria
6) Germany
7) Italy
8) Spain
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Guillebaud. You will probably get it.
Update: Environmental ultra-extremist wacko nutcase Paul Watson is going even further and saying that we need to reduce the world’s population to less than 1 billion. Of course, he doesn’t explain just how to do it. But that’s not all. Get a load of this complete craziness:
We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.
In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.
We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.
[…]
All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.
Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted. We need to eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to fulfill the proper roles in nature. We need to restore the prey predator relationship and bring back the wolf and the bear. We need the large predators and ungulates, not as food, but as custodians of the land that absorbs the carbon dioxide and produces the oxygen. We need to live with them in mutual respect.
[…]
Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.
This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot survive the ecological law of finite resources.
