Environmental & Pro-Contraception Forces Unite
For some time I've been waiting for this to happen. Here's why: the radical environmentalist movement is fundamentally an anti-humanist movement, because it blames human activity for environmental problems facing the world, and sees the good of the "earth" as trumping the good of human existence and flourishing.
So what's their solution to human-caused problems, especially when they are unavoidable?
Simple: reduce the number of humans.
Once you understand that conclusion, headlines and articles like this UK Telegraph one make perfect (perverted) sense:
'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
... UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 [b]illion.
Did you catch that? 500,000,000 fewer people. And some individuals think this is a good thing! Even though it's well proven that there are plenty of resources to feed such a population.
This is the brave new world envisioned by these radical pro-environmentalist figures: a depopulated world in the future, and a lifestyle of illogical limitation for those already living.
This is an ideology we Christians, as a people of hope and trust in God, must defeat.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
8.64 billion is a depopulated world? Does Mr. Peters not realize that overpopulation results in poverty and disease when resources are not organized to prevent them? One possible long term solution would of course be to improve economies and governments, though those are difficult propositions. More importantly, even if that is accomplished to some degree, people living better means more consumption which leads to more green house gas production (see China). The then increased global climate change /warming will then end up further harming those who were beginning to have a chance, along with those who are still in bad shape and even those of us in relatively good shape. Reducing the population through contraception seems a much better method than through starvation, war, and climate change induced natural disasters (storms, drought, floods, etc). I suppose Mr. Peters just doesn't want to face reality though. Technology must certainly be a primary component to solving our problems, but we don't know how far technology will be able to take us. Contraception is not harmful and it can be a part of the solution.
By the way, what does preventing the use of contraception accomplish anyway? It seems that Catholics of Mr. Peter's sort have a deep misunderstanding of human nature and morality. That the "good" should be defined by some "higher power" rather than our own relationships as sentient beings is a sad and frightening concept.