Scientific American Proposes Global Warming Solution: Contraception and Safe Abortion

The Business & Media Institute ^ | October 15, 2010 | Jeff Poor

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

The use of birth control has been an issue debated by ethicists in the United States for over a century. Until now, it’s been a moral issue, and few mainstream voices ever advocated the use of birth control for environmental reasons.

On Scientific American’s website, an Oct. 11 article by David Biello argues that if we were able to lower the growth of the world’s population, the amount of carbon that is expected to be emitted into the atmosphere would significantly diminish. He cited a study from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research that explained demographic ties to the alleged threats of global warming.

“An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050,” Biello wrote. “Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis – the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.”

Biello explained that economic growth was a means of slowing population growth, but feared that the rise of “richer people” could mean more consumption, canceling out the so-called “greenhouse gas savings” from the decreased population growth.

Still, Biello explained that family planning methods could be the solution to curbing the threat of climate change.

“Ultimately, family planning alone – such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services – in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds,” Biello wrote. “It would appear that we're trying, thanks primarily to ongoing efforts to enable women to take control of their own lives through education and other methods. Already, birth rates the world over have halved from an average of five children per woman to just 2.6 today – a baby bust replacing the baby boom.”

However in that paragraph, he linked another Scientific American story from August 12, 2008 he wrote that referenced work by Stanford University scientists Paul Ehrlich and Robert Pringle blaming humans for the extinction of thousands of species. Their suggestion back then: Educate women about “contraception and safe abortions”:

That’s why Ehrlich and Pringle call for educating women, which has slowed or stopped population growth in the developed countries of Europe. "Education and employment – for women especially – along with access to contraception and safe abortions are the most important components," they write. Adds Ehrlich: "The most basic response is to get going on stopping population growth and starting a decline. Second is doing something about consumption. If you don't do anything about those, then you are in trouble in all the others: more people, means more greenhouse gases, which means more rapid climate change."

Although these arguments over the need to promote the use of “birth control” for the environment’s sake raise some ethical questions, there is a belief more radical. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.

[Secret Agent Man]

“Scientific American” is neither “scientific” or “american”.

[ELS]

They have jumped the shark.

[savagesusie]

They want to use the Magnum on 3 billion people....they just are not going to own up to it (yet) until they get total control of the world. Then all hell will break loose and their mask will be removed and you will see the face of Satan.

[Moonman62]

Instead of terminating the lives of the innocent, wouldn’t it be better if all the Warmists did the honorable thing and stopped emitting CO2?

[Doulos1]

Life is a gift of God. They hate God, they hate life, they hate anyone who loves life. I’m living a good life even when we are in the middle of an depression that was caused by these same stupid people.
We, conservatives love God, His Son Jesus Christ, our Constitution, our great country, our families and ourselves. That’s is what really wee-wee’s them off. We will not be shaken nor moved. It is great knowing that we are right. Someday these fools will be held accountable, it will not be pretty. Something about gnashing of teeth...........

[neverdem]

BTTT!

[Mrs. Don-o]

It’s auto-genocide (or geno-suicide.) And those who see and speak the truth are called crazy.

[TASMANIANRED]

Perfect solution for everyone.

Let the liberals drink the koolaid.

The world would be improved by 80% overnight.

[Iron Munro]

If the leftoids really, really cared about reducing mankind's impact on the natural world they would do their part to save the planet.

[Right Wing Assault]

If they are trying to cut the population, then UNSAFE abortions would be even better with both the mother and the child dying. And then probably more husbands would kill themselves and their teenage kids would do the same. Just what they are looking for! Also, take the seatbelts and airbags out of cars and take down all traffic signs, guard rails, bridge railings, and get rid of brakes on cars.

[Josephat]

I believe that Agenda 21 calls for a 90 percent reduction in the world’s population. They have big plans for us.

[Smokin' Joe]

Doesn't this arguably demonstrate the genocidal tendencies of the Left?

Yep. Another reason I haven't bought an issue of Scientific American in decades.

It's so silly, really. Surely we could identify some un-likeable people somewhere on the planet, nuke them out of existence, let the land go back to pristine nature, and the extra particulates in the atmosphere would help bring the tempearture down. Just lather, rinse, and repeat until the desired result is achieved. This would also achieve the leftist goal of eliminating nuclear weapons (well, some of them, anyway.)

What's not to like?

(/mega sarcasm)

Actually, the Left prefers killing the helpless one baby at a time, impoverishing the survivors, and tormenting the living for the 'crime' of existing. It serves their master better.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Dear Scientific American,

[thulldud]

Just lather, rinse, and repeat until the desired result is achieved.

They wouldn't go for that solution, because it would only give some extra work to the "militarists" while doing nothing to enhance their own revenue stream. Abortion, OTOH, is a gold mine for them.

They will not be in favor of any "solution" that leaves them with less power or privilege, and that is the bottom line.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Conservative Coulter Fan for the topic, and thanks neverdem for the link.

"An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050," Biello wrote. "Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis -- the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year."

Let's start saving -- Biello and the editors and publisher of so-called "Scientific American" can give up their livelihoods and ways of life and be sent to an island for the rest of their lives, as Napoleon was.

[SunkenCiv]

whoops.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

[Reeses]

but feared that the rise of “richer people” could mean more consumption

The left hates rich people. They think if they could eliminate 90% of the world's population, their envy level would be brought down to a manageable level. The city dwellers could also lower their envy by moving out of their anthill to the country where humans are used to living, where their nearest neighbor with a shiny new car is a mile away.

Human life is Earth's greatest achievement. Leftists always ignore how new technology solves problems. Because of humans no plant or animal alive today will ever go extinct again, and many that have gone extinct will be brought back to life.

[BenLurkin]

Evil. No other word for that guy but evil.

Just my opinion of course.

[Question_Assumptions]

I stopped buying Scientific American when, between it’s environmentalist articles and it’s anti-religious articles, it became clear that left-wing politics trumped science there.