For decades the environmental lobby has been holding a particular nuclear bombshell close to its vest – its agenda to eliminate humanity.
They rarely come out and say it. Instead they sing and dance around platitudes like:
– Humans are causing global warming.
– Humans need to cut back on consumption.
– Humans need to drive cars with better gas mileage.
But anyone with an ounce of experience in didactic reasoning knows that arguments presented by anti-human environmentalists lead to only one conclusion:
The Earth is being destroyed by consumption.
Humans consume the most.
Therefore, humans must be destroyed to save Earth.
Environmentalists, whether consciously or unconsciously, all prescribe to this theory. They have to. Otherwise their “movement,” has no meaning.
Occasionally they let the true cat out of bag, but nothing as blatant as the chair of Britain’s Sustainability Commission did in an article in a Times’ article saying that two children should be the maximum for all families to avoid more environmental harm on Earth.
In the article, Jonathon Porritt “says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.”
Wow, really. So killing babies must be at the heart of any policy to protect the earth?
There are those who have fallen for the population control argument and it seems logical. Too many people. Not enough resources. Bad for every one.
However, there’s just one flaw to that argument. It’s the definition of what you mean by resources. There is enough food, land and air for every living being on this planet. There may be a challenge of water but there doesn’t have to be with desalination technology.
I reject the premise that resources are scarce. They aren’t scarce. God supplies more than enough. Resources just aren’t equally distributed. And I believe in the power of innovation and technology to help even the resources playing field.
I worked with a Christian businessman who engineered a way to extract enough moisture from the atmosphere to provide clean water to communities drowning in drought. He didn’t subscribe to the fallacy that the resources do not exist. Just that we hadn’t discovered them yet.
To subscribe to the philosophy that resources are limited and therefore people should be limited as well, is to limit man’s potential, his very essence of being. To eliminate him from the equation. And by doing so eliminate his Creator – God.
Do I think we have a resources problem on Earth? Yes. Do I think personal responsibility plays a role in solving this problem? Yes. But do I think doling out death is the way to solve it? No.
What do you think? Read the article here: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece