Dumb quote of the day.
“Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.”
Climate change is now apparently severe enough that we should take illogical and dramatic actions to “protect” babies who don’t exist. According to an academic brainwashing class at the world-renowned Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins, one professor says that having babies is immoral. (What is most interesting to me is how his ethical proclamation closely mirrors the whole Agenda 21 plan.)
Travis Rieder, a philosopher, has pin-pointed 2036 as the year that we will face the tipping point where average global temperatures will have risen by at least 2 degrees Celsius. He points out that by that time more than a billion extra people will have been added to the world population and each of them will have a carbon footprint thus increasing the amount of emissions going into the atmosphere. He feels that the current fertility rate is too high and that is should be trimmed down to a mere half-child per woman across the globe. He’s even written a book about the “morality of procreation.”
It’s our responsibility to only have half-babies because we have to be fair to third world countries.
“Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.
There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.”
Academic brainwashing works to promote agendas.
Concerned college students have formed groups based on Rieder’s theory that “the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.” Conceivablefuture.org is a non-profit organization that sounds like the cheering squad for Agenda 21, with a homepage loaded with heart-rending testimonials about why they won’t have babies and why you shouldn’t either. Although with elementary schools teaching kids as young as kindergarten age about how there’s no such thing as boys and girls anymore, we may not need to worry about the birthrate.
There has been an alarming increase in the number of academics voicing their concerns about climate change. If you recall, it used to be called global warming but suddenly, they quickly rebranded to “climate change” almost overnight.
Huh. Could it be that the establishment became concerned for their pet theory when warming slowed right down and then stopped? Could it be that a growing number of scientists were starting to say that the warming and cooling were a natural cycle?
How this could get ugly.
It doesn’t occur to these students using words like “terrifying” and “apocalyptic” that what is truly terrifying is the possibility of a global implementation of the one-child policy that was, until recently, a way of life in China. For decades women suffered forced abortions and less preferred girl children were left to die so that parents could have another child in the hope that a boy would be forthcoming next time.
And that’s not all. Other studies are showing that the US fertility levels have reached dangerous lows – that’s right – dangerous lows. And demographers say that is the real pending disaster.
“The rapid slowdown is worrisome in large part due to the growing gap between the working-age population and the elderly. The working-age fund the social programs that the elderly rely on, so if the rate continues to drop, those programs will no longer be available to the 78 million Baby Boomers who will eventually retire.
The rates of births and retirees are headed off in vastly different directions: while the retirees continue to grow, babies are not born as frequently. Demographer Dowell Myers, director of the Population Dynamics Research Group at the University of Southern California says, “We will be increasingly dependent economically and socially on a smaller number of children.”
And though having a child for the sole purpose of funding our social and economical programs is not a viable option for many, what else is there to do to aid the issue?
Myers predicts that, “If fertility rates continue at their current pace,” we can look forward to,”a dropoff in taxpayers, more people selling homes, fewer people buying homes.”
So what will happen when the Baby Boomers retire? “At the end of the decade, when Baby Boomer retirement hits us really hard, at that point we’ll be begging for workers,” Myers warns. He also adds that, “one of the most important strategies is invest in the younger generation, the human capital.”
Japan has a low birth rate. Nothing to do with enforcement but the government are encouraging people to have larger families as a way of keeping the country afloat. The population in Japan is aging, their reproduction rate is low enough that it will affect factory output and care of elderly citizens. The population needs to grow to keep the economy running. Falling birth rates are not always a good thing.
The real issue here is manipulation.
The fact that our education system is being used to push an agenda that only benefits the wealthy and powerful while making the self-sacrificing students feel like they are acting for the good of the entire planet, is more than disturbing. The “climate change” philosophies are being crammed down our throats so hard that skepticism about it has been deemed a mental illness. Even a well-written argument about the history of the planet’s cyclical climate changes is deemed as “an idiot’s guide – and I do mean idiot” by those who are so entrenched in the philosophy that they refuse to even consider arguments to the contrary.
According to Psychology Today, “you might not be recognizing the gravity” of your own mental illness.
It is easy to scoff at climate change “deniers”—people who refuse to believe the scientific consensus that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming and its catastrophic consequences, including intensified drought, flooding and severe weather. We might feel smug knowing we respect science, unlike those ridiculous deniers.
Not so fast. Is it possible to acknowledge that climate change is real while still being in denial about the gravity of the situation?
The article goes on to ask three questions:
1) You think climate change is bad, but not that bad.
2) You don’t have an emotional reaction to climate change.
3) You aren’t getting political.
So, even if you drive a hybrid and recycle your cans, if you aren’t sobbing, staying up at night, and marching in protest in front of your friendly neighborhood coal mines, you, too, are in Climate Change Denial. According to amateur psychologist and Hollywood star, Alec Baldwin, you’re straight out nuts. As he told the United Nations this past spring:
“And so much of what’s coming on now is something that we have to treat as some kind of mental illness. I believe the climate change denial is a form of mental illness.”