This could be dismissed as anti-human - but the theory the environment can be saved by encouraging the use of birth control is one that has been popular with media some environmentalists.
CNN's Lou Dobbs certainly hasn't shied away from the idea. On his Sept. 21 broadcast, Dobbs revisited an early report that the true path to environmental salvation wasn't by curbing greenhouse gas, but instead by subscribing to a Malthusian theory that slowing the growth of human population was the best path.
"We have more tonight on a story that we first brought to you last month, Dobbs said. "There is new evidence of the negative impact of overpopulation on our environment. The biggest threat to the environment isn't, it turns out, gas-guzzling cars or power plants but rather having too many children all around the world."
CNN correspondent Casey Wian explained the theory. He cited studies that resources are best allocated to the means of slowing population growth and not alternative energy when it comes to saving the environment.
"The cheapest way to stop global climate change is not converting to solar power or buying a hybrid car," Wian said. "It's putting on a condom. That's the conclusion of a London school of economics study showing that money spent on contraception is about five times more efficient than money spent on clean energy technologies. It backs up a recent Oregon State University study that concludes overpopulation is the single biggest threat to the environment."
Ben Zuckerman, a professor at UCLA, even put forth the notion that couples should quit after having two "non-adopted children" and contended the media should be out in front of this conveying that message.
"People should be made aware of both by the environmental organizations and by the media that it's good for a couple to stop at two or fewer non-adopted children and then to outline some of the good environmental things that would accrue," Zuckerman said.
However, as Wian pointed out, the controversial theory isn't one that's been embraced by environmental groups or the United Nations, which is attempting to spearhead a global effort to curb global warming.
"Yet, many environmental groups are reluctant to tackling the issue. So is the United Nations, which is overseeing global change negotiations? One barrier - cultural sensitivities," Wian said. "The Washington Post reports it asked a U.N. official about family planning and the environment and the official replied that "to bring the issue up would be an insult to developing countries."
Dobbs chalked this reluctance to go after this topic - that population-control measures could help the environment - to people adhering to perceived norms based on political and ideological beliefs.
"Yeah, I mean what we're really talking about here is, you can almost hear the shudders of politically correct quarters all over the country as you report on that as we bring that knowledge to the American public - because there's such hide-bound orthodoxies in this country - ideological, partisan, politically correct constraints on lines in this country," Dobbs suggested. "That's the real problem here, isn't it?"
Wian agreed with Dobbs and said these issues were the reasons why environmental groups are reserved when it comes to promoting population control as a tactic.
"Absolutely," Wian agreed. "The scholars we talked to say it's been absolutely ignored by the environmental community."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
global warming and pop control
September 22, 2009 - 08:26 ET by charlietexassend all the Brits up to greenland and have them sit on the ice and have their scrotums stick to the ice so they can't get up. Then they won't be able to have sex with anyone. I love these scientists. They would have worked really well in Mengele's study groups.
Population decline = economic decline
September 22, 2009 - 08:30 ET by R D HelmThese people know this, which is why they promote population control/reduction.
They don't give a damn about the environemnt.
-Dave
I agree with Rush. It's time for Obama to resign.
Well, seems I've seen
September 22, 2009 - 08:34 ET by Indiana JoeWell, seems I've seen reports lately that a lot of Western nations have fallen below the replacement level of reproduction. Some, like the Italians, are destined for extinction in a generation or two if the trend isn't reversed. I think America averaged 2.1 births per (married?) couple.
So, I guess all these new-wave "zero-population-growth" folks should distribute their condoms exclusively in second- and third-world countries, right? I mean, if they're really sincere, that is.
ZPG was a dumb idea in the 60s, and it's a dumb idea today.
This is as stupid as that show on either Discovery or History about how the infrastructure will crumble if (when) humans are gone. Who in Hell would even care about that, let alone hope it happens?
"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell
So is Lou alleging that the
September 22, 2009 - 08:41 ET by winston smithSo is Lou alleging that the world would have been better off without him?
MSNBC - The Place For Lunatics
Wian agreed with Dobbs: promoting population control as a tactic
September 22, 2009 - 08:49 ET by vrwc13Wian agreed with Dobbs... promoting population control as a tactic
"God has created a world big enough for all the lives He wishes to be born." - Mother Teresa
...and if the condom didn't work or wasn't used, step 2: abortion
"I have said often, and I am sure of it, that the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is abortion. If a mother can kill her own child, what is there to stop you and me from killing each other? The only one who has the right to take life is the One who has created it. Nobody else has that right: not conference, no government. - Mother Teresa
v
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. - Mother Teresa
I wonder WHY this is a sensitive issue?
September 22, 2009 - 08:56 ET by moderncommentaries83Let's look at this for a moment.
Birthrates in Western nations (Europe and the US) are on the decline to the point of almost zero population growth in some places. This also affects Japan to the point where they are panicked about it.
Where birthrates are not declining, however, are developing nations. These developing nations are populated by people who, in Western nations (like the US or Europe) would be considered racial minorities.
So when environmentalists suggest going into these nations and preventing the population (again, consisting of people who are distinctively not European or American in appearance or culture) from having children (either via contraception or abortion) one can only make the logical conclusion that they are continuing to carry out the racist, eugenic vision of the foundress of Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger.
I don't know how anyone can see this any differently. If American politicians suggested white people go into neighborhoods where racial minorities live and pass out pills, condoms, and facilitate abortions to help prevent "population growth" in urban areas, people would be outraged. And rightly so. This is exactly what environmentalists are proposing doing.
And why is it such ZPG policies never promote abstinence, but abortion and contraception? Why does a life always have to be destroyed - does it help make some point? Do the statistics look nice? Does a body count give environmentalists satisfaction?
Lastly, if environmentalists are so concerned about mankind's impact on the planet, why don't they set an example and shed themselves and their families of this mortal coil first? Why do the sacrifices always have to be made by others (specifically innocent babies)?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Does a body count give environmentalists satisfaction?
September 22, 2009 - 09:09 ET by vrwc13Does a body count give environmentalists satisfaction?
...the answer is yes, of course, as long as it's not theirs.
v
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. - Mother Teresa
Birthrates in Western
September 22, 2009 - 09:24 ET by motherbeltBirthrates in Western nations (Europe and the US) are on the decline to the point of almost zero population growth in some places. This also affects Japan to the point where they are panicked about it.
I mentioned similar in a comment below. Muslims are making up the numbers, and they are not about to use birth control. So Dobbs is basically saying we should "submit" as the Islamic idea goes... to Muslim dominance.
Many countries are at 1.9 birthrate. (2.1 is replacement). And no culture has ever recovered from a 1.8 birthrate.
Judas Priest, The biggest
September 22, 2009 - 09:03 ET by Scuba DudeJudas Priest,
The biggest producer of carbon dioxide is on tv yet again giving a speech about "climate change". Why doesn't this LOTUS just STFU!!!!! He's effecting the climate everytime he opens his mouth.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Not the whole truth
September 22, 2009 - 09:03 ET by jay_1975While developed nations see a decrease in birth rates, the developing world continue to breed almost explosively. Currently the world has around 6.5 billion people. By 2050 that number will increase to 9 to 11 billion. We can barely feed and sustain the amount of people in the world today (actually many nations cannot) and yet no one here seems to understand that if something is not done, we will literally be starved to death as the population continues to grow. This is not a left/right issue, it is a simple numbers issue.
if something is not done, we will literally be starved to death
September 22, 2009 - 09:12 ET by vrwc13... if something is not done, we will literally be starved to death...
...oh ye of little faith...
"God has created a world big enough for all the lives He wishes to be born. - Mother Teresa
v
In the 1970's Paul
September 22, 2009 - 09:27 ET by motherbeltIn the 1970's Paul Ehrlichmann (sp?) wrote The Population Bomb, which predicted widespread starvation by the year 2000.
He also saw it as a simple numbers issue.
And speaking of numbers, the only thing being accomplished by this extreme population control now (birthrates below replacement rate in much of the western world) is the makeup of the populations.
Here is one example
Here is another
So you are saying that we should non-breed ourselves out of existence while Muslims increase exponentially?
Centuries ago the Muslims
September 22, 2009 - 09:30 ET by vrwc13Centuries ago the Muslims tried to conquer Europe by force. Todays strategy is now out-birth 'em then out vote 'em.
In our country, Ted Kennedy saw that conservatives and European immigrants would out-populate the libs. Thus in 1965 he championed the cause to import voters more likely to desire the 'social' benefits than the 'work to eat' ethics.
v
...an error was made in 2008 and 1965
Hay jay 1*9*7*5*
September 22, 2009 - 09:24 ET by kilrodWell j*, we have to start somewhere, so you get my vote and approval to practice the "Hemloc Manuver", so go ahead, knock yoself out, do your part, "yes we can".!!~~!!
(GRINS) kilrod
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
I agree, Jay.
September 22, 2009 - 15:30 ET by BO STINKSTomorrow let's sterilize all registered Dems and the rest of the communist leadership around the world. That should clean out a huge percentage of the population.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" Sam Adams
Advocacy
September 22, 2009 - 09:09 ET by saw the lightBen Zuckerman, a professor at UCLA, even put forth the notion that couples should quit after having two "non-adopted children" and contended the media should be out in front of this conveying that message.
"People should be made aware of both by the environmental organizations and by the media that it's good for a couple to stop at two or fewer non-adopted children and then to outline some of the good environmental things that would accrue," Zuckerman said.
OK, here is the problem. The media was not designed in this country for advocacy. They are supposed to be impartial, not conveying a point of view that some researcher feels is important.
Next thing you know they will openly say their job is to help the president succeed.
Oh, nevermind.
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama to "Joe the Plumber"
It's the Muslims!
September 22, 2009 - 09:49 ET by slickwillie2001I agree with posters, the problem is not too many people, it's birth rates too low in productive societies and families, and too high in unproductive societies. Muslims are spreading across Europe and Africa and Asia like fire ants, and all they bring is violence and their corrupt religious system of laws and government. Those countries brought it on themselves however, with foolish immigration policies and their socialist welfare state.
September 22, 2009 - 10:42 ET by jessieHDobbs needs to police his own family and leave the rest of the world alone.
I can proudly say
September 22, 2009 - 11:28 ET by Airforce_5_OI am not green. I was when I first got in the Air Force in Myrtle Beach SC but I wasn’t thinking about being green. If I had I would have seen a Doctor!
Liberalism: The haunting feeling that someone, somewhere, can help themselves.
It's not easy being green...
September 22, 2009 - 13:02 ET by vrwc13It's not easy being green...
v
Record Breaking Granny: 1,400 Relatives
September 22, 2009 - 15:01 ET by vrwc13The young couple then set about following the Jewish commandment to be “fruitful and multiply.” And they certainly succeeded.
By the time she passed away last Saturday in Jerusalem aged 99, Rachel had according to her family, no less than 1,400 children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and even great-great-grandchildren. from here
...wonder what Dobbs would have said at her funeral?
v