How many is enough?
0 comment Saturday, June 28, 2014 |
This story appeared a few days ago:
UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown�s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt�s call will come at this week�s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.
The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porritt said: "Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.
"Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact."
Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.
However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
"We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder," he said.
Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that "relentless" economic growth is a greater threat.
Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries. ''
So why, if the world would benefit more by reducing the population of the most developed countries, are we being forced to import tens of millions of people into these countries, while we are supposedly already overpopulated?
At least the article acknowledges the fact that overpopulation is a 'politically sensitive' problem, although nobody seems willing to discuss just why it is so, or why it must be so. It's politically sensitive only because the environmentalist left has made multiculturalism and 'diversity' sacred cows. Multiculturalism and diversity as unquestioned values demand mass immigration from Third World countries, the overpopulated countries of the global South, because the 'rich world' as the globalists call us of the Western nations, are apparently too White and too 'sterile' without imported diversity.
So now most Western countries are madly importing millions of 'diverse' people from backward nations in order to attain some unspecified level of 'diversity' and the strength that is said to reside therein. How many immigrants are enough, Mr. Porrit, or Mr. Brown? How much 'diversity' is sufficient?
And why is there no mention of curtailing immigration as the most obvious way of stopping runaway population growth? The stark fact is that almost all population growth in Western countries is due to immigration and/or to American-born 'diversity.' Almost none of it is ascribable to irresponsible reproduction by White citizens of those countries.
So how does the multiculturalist left propose to 'cut the population by 80 percent' without repatriating millions of people who do not belong in the United Kingdom and without stopping the insane policy of importing immigrants at a furious pace?
There are hundreds of reader comments following the article, and very few even mention immigration, much less repatriation or deportation. Does it not make sense to stop digging when you are in a deep hole?
But one commenter makes a valid though unsettling point:
Does anyone else find this to be a rather disturbing statement to come from an officer of a government that controls your health care?''
That's similar to a point that I brought up a few weeks ago in connection with an article about the new health care proposals by the administration which would put our electronic medical records into a government database, and provide for a government bureaucracy which would oversee patient care, and could potentially dictate to doctors the care and treatment they administer to all their patients.
Of course in any nationalized health care system there would be a necessity for rationing care at least to some extent, and does anyone doubt that people with chronic illnesses and especially the elderly would be deemed liabilities to the system? I am convinced that we would eventually see at least passive euthanasia, with older and chronically ill patients being simply warehoused without the treatment they might expect to receive in our present system.
If Porritt and the other leftists in the United Kingdom think that the population must be reduced drastically, and if they have shown that they consider immigration sacred, where else can the population be cut? Western countries already have widespread abortion, but even with the greatly reduced native-born White birth rates, Western countries are becoming overcrowded. Yet immigration must continue. It's because of bizarre and irrational behaviors like this that I occasionally say our elites have gone mad. Their actions make no earthly sense.
And what makes even less sense is how few average citizens even think about the insanity of the situation, and the utter incompetence -- or is it simply malevolence -- of the judases who sit in positions of power.
It has never made sense to me that the environmentalist left refuses to even question or mention the role played by mass immigration by high-birth-rate peoples into Western countries. I've posted pictures before of the mountains of trash left by illegals traipsing across the former borders in the Southwestern states.
There are so many environmental issues that are exacerbated by mass immigration of all varieties, but all these things go unexamined and unmentioned because the left does not want to criticize their protected minority groups. And yes, I have heard of the Sierra Club payoff made by a certain wealthy individual who stipulated that immigration not be opposed -- but the Sierra Club is just one such organization; what is keeping all the others from speaking out against mass immigration and the overpopulation it brings?
Are they all so enamored of immigration and multiculturalism that they are willing to sacrifice the environment they profess to love and protect? Or are they all so indoctrinated to believe that Whitey is the cause of all evil in the world, while minorities are poor lambs who can do no wrong? It would certainly seem so, but again, I can't find a way to understand their way of thinking.
It may be that Mother Nature or divine intervention will have to provide a way out of this dilemma; our so-called leaders obviously have no acceptable and morally sound answers to our problems. Their incompetence or willful malfeasance should, in a just world, see them removed from power, but that will not happen unless the populace comes to their collective senses.

Labels: , , , , , , ,