Reduce Overpopulation By Involuntary Sterilization Of Affluent Countries, Says Aussie Neuroscientist

Environmentalists can cut the global emissions of "climate" altering greenhouse gases by destroying the world's economy or reducing the human population (h/t Moonbattery). Fred Singer, the coauthor of Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 Years, argues that those two options, the only real options for any true "climate change" advocate, are entirely unnecessary (and outrageous) because manmade emissions don't account for the cyclical climate changes that the Earth endures naturally.

Not all scientists think that the only solution is doing nothing, and one of them is Melbourne neuroscientist Dr John Reid who believes that while science can't rescue humanity from its impact on the world's climate directly, it can control the human population through involuntary sterilization (h/t Tim Blair):

Most people seem to have a 'business-as-usual' approach to the future of life on Earth. They assume Planet Earth will keep revolving and generation will succeed generation. And each generation will be more affluent than the preceding generation. As one bank advertisement put is, 'Every generation should live better than the last!'

Science, people believe, will find solutions to the problems that seem to preoccupy Greenies and other doomsayers. Well, I am a scientist, and I have to say I am more than somewhat sceptical about the ability of science to rescue humanity from its own folly.

The fact is, Planet Earth cannot support the present human population.
. . .
Many people would say the character that most distinguishes human beings from all other animals is language. I suggest the only attribute that really distinguishes our species from all others is our ability to delude ourselves.
. . .
But the problem of climate change is solveable by means we can discuss. We can talk about alternative sources of energy, carbon trading, energy-efficient buildings and a host of other technological fixes, including esoteric notions such as a sunshade-in-the-sky, as discussed recently on The Science Show.

By engaging in this discussion, we can feel at least we are addressing the problem. And as long as we feel we are doing something about climate change, we can relegate to the back-burner having to think about the much more confronting, unmentionable problem of how to reduce the human population.

I believe the problem of overconsumption/overpopulation will not be solved by civil means, as the United Nations Millennium Ecosystems Assessment optimistically suggests. By the time there is consensus that drastic action must be taken to reduce over-consumption, it will be too late.
. . .
Perhaps water meters that turn off automatically after a household's daily ration of water has been consumed will be fitted to every house.

Meat will be rationed to no more than, say, 200 grams per person per week.

Municipal authorities will provide allotments so that people can grow their own fruit and vegetables. We could turn some iconic sports arenas into vegie gardens.

And private property rights will be severely curtailed to prevent landowners from engaging in environmentally-damaging behaviours. And many, many more such infringements on what we now regard as our rights will have to be accepted.

Reid next moves on to the messy business of "population control" and mercifully excludes war, pestilence, and famine (how thoughtful) while advocating water-borne viruses that eliminate fertility:

The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen. The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.

One small, but appropriate, token gesture would be to ban immediately all forms of assisted conception, including the use of donated sperm or ova. The fact that relatively affluent couples, or single women who cannot achieve pregnancy by good old-fashioned copulation, or even choose not to do so, can demand the use of expensive medical technology to satisfy their 'need' for parenthood is unacceptable in a hugely overpopulated world.

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.

And who would be the first targets from this "population control" measures? Overpopulated developing countries with stratospheric birthrates. No, no. The affluent, rich, and baby-less developed countries will be first to face the firing squad:

The world's most affluent populations should be targeted first. According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.

Older people will also be on the hook, left to die on their own:

A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths. Not every problem is solveable.

And please for the love of God all things scientific, lose the human-centered, speciesist religions, will ya!:

My plea is that we should face reality and begin to discuss the unspeakable. Humanity must undergo a mind-shift. If you must have a God, at least recognise he/she/it did not give humanity licence to trash the planet, whatever the Bible may tell you.

Indeed, humanity has been all too compliant with the Biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.

Remember, this authoritative voice on world population, "climate change", biospheres and humanity's horrendous ecological impact is a neuroscientist. Again, advocacy of bizarre theories under the guise of scientific authority and scientific discovery represents the pinnacle of dereliction of scientific responsibility, and gives credence to moonbat theories spouted by leftist anti-humanists and "climate change" fearmongers.

Moonbattery also covers Reid's "proposals".

technorati: Al Gore climate change global warming environment overpopulation