In the End, Climate Change is Still About Control
Inevitably, the battle for progressive utopia comes down to controlling the population.
LONDON (Reuters) – Contraception advice is crucial to poor countries’ battle with climate change, and policy makers are failing their people if they continue to shy away from the issue, a leading family planning expert said on Friday.
Leo Bryant, a lead researcher on a World Health Organisation study on population growth and climate change, said the stigma attached to birth control in both developing and developed countries was hindering vital progress.
“We are certainly not advocating that governments should start telling people how many children they can have,” said Bryant, an advocacy manager at the family planning group Marie Stopes International, who wrote a commentary in the Lancet medical journal on Friday.
“The ability to choose your family size…is a fundamental human right. But lack of access to family planning means millions of people in developing countries don’t have that right,” he told Reuters.
Actually, advocating that governments tell people how many children they can have is exactly what Bryant is doing. In order for the climate change cult to get what they want, poor people, especially poor people in agrarian societies, have to stop having babies. That’s the only way their plans work.
Family planning is a fairly new thing, which grew out of the euthanasia-love held by the left in the early 1900s. Planned Parenthood’s founders were avowed fans of weeding out the undesirables and of making sure that poor people and others they considered defective didn’t breed. That belief has morphed into a more palatable set of aims, but at their root remains the belief that the elite must control how the rest of us propagate. However, the lack of family planning certainly didn’t hurt the United States for well over a hundred years as both our population and our prosperity boomed. The reason they both increased is due to our definition of rights, which is radically different than Bryant’s definition.
Look at what Bryant is really saying here. He ties the “fundamental human right” of family size to a government program of population control that begins with birth control distribution. His logic is straightforward: without the controlling hand of government, the people don’t have the right. But that’s not at all the type of right we have in America and it’s not the sort of right we should be foisting on other people. We in the United States have a type of rights called negative rights. That means that we have a vast array of rights which belong to us and our laws are designed to enjoin our government (and our fellow Americans) from abridging those rights without an extremely compelling reason. Most of the rest of the world have positive rights, which are the sort of rights our forefathers fled when they left England. Positive rights are those given to you by a ruler or a well-meaning progressive climate change cultist who believes he knows better than you do how you should manage your affairs and if afraid that if he gives you the choice, you’ll reject his dogma.
The truth is, even though Bryant invokes the apparent plight of women who want birth control and can’t get it, that’s not his real concern. He’s only worried that those women will continue to breed and their whelps will selfishly demand food and water and they’ll eventually kill Mother Gaia under the weight of their sheer numbers.
Other Posts of Interest:
- If You Deny Climate Change, You’re No Better than a Daughter-Raping Kidnapper
- Physicists Open Climate Change Debate. Will Al Gore Denounce them as “Deniers”?
- It’s Not Climate Change that’s Killing Africa. It’s the UN.
Category: Oh the Climate, It is A-Changin'
[...] Then again, progressives have never had a good handle on the notion that the Constitution is a document full of negative rights with not a single government-granted right to be found.And speaking of progressives who don’t [...]