Dec 23, 2008

Is Having An 18th Child An Eco-Crime Against Humanity?

For those of you who may have missed it, the Duggar family of Arkansas just had their 18th child. In a world of dwindling resources, this story has once again sparked a debate about whether humanity should be free to multiply as they wish or whether strict population controls are needed for the good of mankind.

For most of human history, the thought of the government or anyone else restricting how many children one could have was absolutely unthinkable.

However, today there are many, particularly in the Western world, who are more than willing to restrict their own reproductive capabilities.

One 27 year old woman named Toni Vernelli told the Daily Mail why she decided to get permanately sterilized: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

Some activists have even gone to the extreme by forming "The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which seeks to reduce the presence of humanity on earth as much as possible.

Their motto is: “May we live long and die out”.

So is the ballooning population of planet earth a huge threat to the environment? Do we need to implement strict population controls for the good of mankind?

The reality is that the world has more people than it ever has in all of recorded history. Some countries have implemented population laws that are quite strict (such as China's one child policy), while other nations do not have any population regulations. Lately, however, we have started to see some population control measures begin to pop up in the Western world.....

*Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers will be sentenced to take contraception for a period of two years, according to a new bill before the Dutch parliament.

*In the U.K., one influential think tank says that it is an "eco-crime" to have too many children and that we really need to examine the impact our large population is having on the earth.

*In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax dollars to do this.

The desire by the global elite to limit the population of the earth has been around for a long, long time. Between 1798-1826, English economist Thomas Malthus published six editions of his work entitled "Essay on the Principle of Population", which argued that population growth inevitably outstrips food production.

The primary argument advanced by Malthus was that the English working class was poor not because they were exploited, but rather because there were too many of them. Malthus opposed welfare and higher wages because he believed they would allow the poor to survive and breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem and leading to more poverty. Of course Malthus was terribly wrong about all of this, but nonetheless his theories gained wide acceptance among the English elite of his day.

Many years later, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, vigorously promoted this type of thinking in the United States. The following is one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes:

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Unfortunately, the theories of Malthus, Sanger and other population control advocates did not die out. Rather, they seemed to gain steam as the population of the world absolutely exploded in the 20th century.

U.S. environmentalist Paul Erlich, in his 1968 book entitled "The Population Bomb", argued for very strict population control measures, especially in the poorer areas of the world. He warned that if we did not implement such measures we would be facing catastrophic problems very quickly.

Dr. Arne Schiotz, World Wildlife Fund Director of Conservation, said this in 1984:

"Malthus has been vindicated, reality is finally catching up with Malthus. The Third World is overpopulated, it’s an economic mess, and there’s no way they could get out of it with this fast-growing population. Our philosophy is: back to the village."

Unfortunately, the philosophies of Erlich, Schiotz and others have garnered a following even among powerful members of the United States government:

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…."

“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…."

“The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….”

–Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs

The quotes above are typical of the mindset of the global elite. The call for radical population control has grown louder than ever before. College professors are given standing ovations by their students when they call for a 90 percent reduction in the human population of the planet. Ted Turner said, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal," and the global elite applauded him for it. The Georgia Guidestones which call for us to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature" are increasingly cited by our leaders as an important, and perhaps even necessary, goal.

What is happening to our world?

It seems as though for the global elite, every major crisis these days is an opportunity to further one of the key pillars of their agenda:

Population reduction.

Problem #1: Gas costs too much and we are faced with "global warming".

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and we will use less gas and we will produce less "greenhouse gases".

Problem #2: Medical costs are soaring out of control.

Answer: Get rid of a whole bunch of people and kill off the elderly and we will have fewer medical costs.

Now Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has the perfect solution for the "food crisis":

Get rid of a whole bunch of people......

The following is one of Prince Philip's most famous quotes about world population:

"You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species."

Prince Philip, the "Eco-Warrior", also once said that he would like to come back to earth as a disease after he died to help reduce the human population.

But he is far from alone on this issue. The call for human depopulation is coming from a myriad of other sources:

John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London has said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet."

He has also made this shocking statement: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

Now there are influential think tanks in the United Kingdom that are even advocating that the U.K. adopt a "2 child" policy to help fight "global warming".

The Club of Rome certainly is clear about who they think the enemy is.....

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

Mikhail Gorbachev made the following stunning statement about the population of the earth: "We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

The reality is that we are getting increasingly closer to the kind of world where the "useless eaters" that Henry Kissinger talked about will be "eliminated". Is this the kind of future that we want for us and our children?

The truth is that the world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While the earth's population is growing, the rate of growth is definitely slowing. The population of the world grew by 140% between 1950 and 2000. However, authorities predict a rise of only 50% between 2000 and 2050, and a rise of just 11% in the 50 years after that.

The truly frightening thing is that many of you who are reading this article actually agree with this radical depopulation agenda.

For those of you who do believe in such insanity, we would love to hear your rationale. Feel free to post a comment to this article below.


  1. If they are not on welfare, so what. This resource depletion and overpopulation is a Marxist religion.

  2. the Lord said to be fruitful and multiply, so that is what we should do!

  3. It's true that the rate of population growth is slowing; however, if you don't follow that thought through you are using misleading facts. 140% growth of the base 1950 population of 2.5 billion equals roughly 3.5 billion people. 50% growth on our 2000 population of 6 billion equals (can you guess?) ANOTHER THREE BILLION PEOPLE. You make it sound in your article as if the people you quote wanted to use mass genocide to lower the population of the Earth, when what they are/were proposing is for everyone to recognize we do have an impact on this planet and that we should act like thinking humans with a choice (do we want to destroy the planet we live on, or do we want to foster and care for it?) rather than a mindless breeding swarm of locusts.

  4. Baker, get real. God only said that to ADAM AND EVE. The Duggars are almost self-congratulatory in their breeding swarm. I love large families, but this kind of show-boating is just silly and obnoxious. There are many accomplishments people can be proud of; popping out children like humping rabbits is not one of them.

  5. Anyone who's raised even a single child knows how much time and attention each child needs. Spawning 18 of them, with the older children relegated to childraising duties, ought to qualify as child neglect, if not outright child abuse. When this woman with the salad-shooter uterus brags about spending 15 minutes with each child, one can only shudder. And yes, it's a crime to overpopulate, or should be. Especially when it's people with big families who complain endlessly about rising prices (the greater the demand the higher the price, idiots), the crowds, the traffic jams, the loss of clean drinking water and unpolluted lands and wide-open spaces.

  6. If the author got rid of himself, the world would definitely save a few gallons of gas a week. LOL.

  7. When the elite say we need to cull - who are we to cull? Not them surely.

    Does the so-called carrying-capacity figure of 500,000,000 people on planet earth have its calculation based on everyone having a private jet, a mansion for 3 or 4 people to live in, lights on 24 hours a day for "security" and other luxeries or is it based on something more modest?

    The idea that big families are bad for children may be a construct of the people with a population agenda. Looking after younger brothers and sisters or simply helping around the house is in no way detrimental to any child's development. In fact, it may make them more open to co-operation and tolerance and give them a sense of purpose in the family.

    I would not want 18 children but I do not see it as an environmental sin either. A family this size is very rare these days so there is no fear of a new trend to massive families.

    The 1972 report on population authored by Rockefeller states that in his opinion there was no longer any "economic benefit" to be derived from further population growth in the US. This is the elite's viewpoint of OUR population growth. The elite had more than enough workers and shoppers to keep their factories going and to fill their pockets. Technological advances, in fact, were decreasing the need for workers.

    Rockefeller, at this time, had six children of his own and each has gone on to have children. The Rockefeller family is proudly huge (and boasts 125 at the annual family reunion) and enjoys a tremendous quality of life that few of us can either imagine or possibly hope to achieve.

    I saw a neat quote the other day:

    "When the people who keep shouting about the gobal warming crisis actually start to behave as though there is a crisis, I will believe there is a crisis. "

    The elite are messing with all of us. They want planet earth to be a nice place for them and still have all the luxeries their sense of entitlement dictates. They want the lion's share of the resources for comfort and for investigating methods to extend longevity and performance and to allow them to travel through space (who wouldn't want all that?) They manipulate us (the masses) to fight over stupidities, insult each other, judge each other and render ourselves sterile "for the cause" and all the time they are laughing themselves silly at us.

    They do this to keep us divided, to stop us from organizing ourselves against these unreasonable demands for population control and to stop us from questioning the veracity of the population agenda.

    The planet is just fine with 7 billion or 10 billion or even more if everyone simply lived modestly and shared resources.

    I have 4 children and we live in a 2 bedroom duplex. We are firm believers in hand-me downs and second-hand items. We re-use everything we can. We eat low on the pyramid (some meat but mostly legumes and eggs.) We walk everywhere or use public transportation. We are repectful of and grateful for the natural world that surrounds us. My children love and look after each other and are proud of their contribution to keeping the house going. My kids are creative, independent thinkers.

    I am proud of the life I am giving them and the values they are internalizing.

    Our neighbours have the more "ecologically sound" two children. They own two houses - one for weekends and summer. They buy two new cars every three years. They own a sailboat, a motorboat and windsurfs. Their children do not wear had-me downs. They spend huge amounts of money on DVD's, gadgets and toys.

    These are normal, good people, but I would suggest that their impact on the earth far outstrips our own. But on the street, they are "acceptable" whereas, we are not.

    Moreover, to the elite, my family is not acceptable because we do not buy enough stuff to keep their pockets full.

    It's clear what the elite families want - few people who like to buy stuff. That way, we do not get in their way and provide them with workers and income.

  8. Africa, India and China: all three of you should be worried. Very worried. You can't defend yourselves against us and you are using up "our" resources.

    Our leaders want blood...

  9. Wow... Hmmmm... I am going to just shoot from the hip here, I havent given this alot of thought, however..... First and Foremost.... We are ALL BORN with the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not a status bestowed by mankind, but rather "God" and or Natural Law. That being said, consider, We have been killing babies at an alarming rate while protecting the lives of violent criminals. Stupidity in action. We have supported on the backs of those who whould and do work, those who refuse to contribute to society. (I am not talking about those who simply cannot.) Again, if not stupid, at least ill advised and nearsighted. We have been destroying the very mechanism that would preserve a good thriving society, ALLOW People to WEED THEMSELVES OUT! The result would be, a lower population to varied degrees, and a lower production rate by those very undesired people who perpetuate negative impacts on the productive and "good" portions of society. If you "decide" of "freewill" to do evil things to others, or to do "nothing" with your life, perhaps you should "REAP what you SOW". Seems a simple solution to population and growth to me. Let people do what they will, and if by their choices weed themselves out, they have no one to blame but themselves and the world will be a better place overall.