»

Overpopulationists Are Stupider

My topic today rests on the rather alarming fact that certain people are quite stupid. (Not that there is no hope for redemption; I pray often for the destupidification of all mankind)   But in a better way, it rests on the irony that the proponents of population control seem to be the least likely to volunteer and die for the good of mankind. This is a thing to be lamented, not because their deaths would – in any great way – affect global populations, but because the death of all the proponents of population control would have a wonderfully lasting and positive effect on the population control movement. They would leave us like a bright and educated flash of concern, and humanity would be left to breathe easy, not having to justify their own existence to indignant, old women. But it is not to be; these fascinating people seem intent on the demise of everyone else’s potential family; heaven forbid they take part in easing the burden they invented in the seventies themselves.

The key then, for those opposed to population control, is to procreate like mad-men. Or very, very sane men, for that matter. Go have sex (after marriage, calm down you in the back). For if the supporter’s of the Great Population Reduction Movement will not follow their own precepts and die, their self-sterilization will do the trick in a generation or two. They will have no darling, indoctrinated offspring to argue their case. Darwinism favors the morons who don’t like Darwin, it would appear. So to the culture that seems miserably bent on making sex an awful experience (Right gentlemen, we’ll have her drugged against children and excitement, throw some rubber between them, tell them the whole thing is a biological act, like vomiting, kill anything good that comes out of the affair, and voila, shout “freedom” like you’re William Wallace!) I repeat, go have some fantastic sex.

After all, there aren’t going to be any converts to The Movement what with current demographic trends. One can only speculate where our impressionable brothers and sisters pick up the idea of curtailing the human race in the first place. A severe case of claustrophobia? A lack of a passport to travel to Europe and count the natives there? A bitter grumpiness from the public animosity towards the eugenics movement? Or perhaps a faint disdain for the “colored” races, whom they have seemed the most eager to sterilize. Whatever the reason, it’s nothing reasonable. Recent population increase has not been caused by higher fertility rates – which have plummeted – but by greater life expectancy,which has sky-rocketed over the last 100 years. Thank you, modern medicine.

It only follows then, that, if the population-controllers truly wish to achieve their goals, they’d find better luck, not in lowering fertility rates, but the life expectancy. Make the world more dangerous. End freeways suddenly, with large ramps. Dig tiger-traps in front of nursing homes. Set various opposing ethnic and cultural groups in apartment complexes with each other, Israelis and Pakistanis, Irish Catholics and Protestants, Northern homosexuals and Southern Baptists; then ban air-conditioning. Arm students, disarm the police, replace stairs with slides, breathing with smoking, church with gladiator matches, democracy with the feudal system, and then we may see some progress in population size, or – more accurately – a lack of progress. It seems much more efficient and exciting than living life without the ability to have a child.

Luckily for the majority of the planet, the wealthy bunch of population-controllers will have died out long before they have an idea as fresh and invigorating as mine. Isn’t it fantastic to have a Church that doesn’t buy into modern, fashionable baloney?

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/PuhtZ7VylJOqXrVXX1PfPhdnYCao4s4q Robert

    One problem with the argument. Overpopulationists have a solution to this problem….China's "one child per couple policy with infanticide, sterilization, and abortion for any violations". This policy ensures that the overpopulationists aren't outnumbers. Scary thing is, more than a few media and UN elite look at China's policy as the silver bullet.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10775592484866509189 Karyn

    I actually do struggle with this issue (hope that doesn't make me terribly stupid). We have four children and that was before I converted, so chances are, our family will grow. And I worry that my children and grandchildren won't have enough resources. No, I don't mean the resources to live like a typical American, but the resources of healthy food, water, and air – without war between the haves and have-nots. I don't believe population control is the answer – I think the rising mortality rate and the production and distribution of goods are the larger factors. However, I don't think any government is really going to get a handle on producing food in a sustainable way nor do I see modern medicine giving up the Herculean ways in which it keeps people alive (which is a good and bad thing). I just keep praying and following the Church's teaching.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15540363106412961699 Cassie

    You're awesome.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14029633206827879877 Charlie M.

    i know, right…

  • http://lectorpoemarum.livejournal.com/ lectorpoemarum

    @Karyn: This severely troubled me for a long time before I realized three things.-The people of the Middle Ages would consider our current population totally impossible; and they'd be right *within their technological limitations*. The number of people Earth can support is mostly limited by technology; in the age of biotech, what reason is there to think farm production won't increase ever faster? (And in fact, the per capita world food production has risen fairly steadily over the last 50 years. That's *per capita*, not total.)-Against this it can be argued that our current agricultural methods are unsustainable. This is true; but converting them to sustainable ones (farm machinery powered by electricity generated from nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/whatever, rather than by fossil fuels; sane use of fertilizer rather than "slop more on, it's cheap"; less use of pesticides and shifting to narrower spectrum pesticides and biological controls) would not or not significantly impede their production.-And if we're all still here in 2510 AD, and by then our population of 50 billion is straining what we can produce with even 26th century biotech and ecological engineering? Well, what's to say we're limited to Earth? A Dyson swarm ought to support at least 10^19 people, exceptionally conservatively. That should last us a while. (OK, that's an extreme case. The point is, there is no reason to project the end of technological advancement in this area.)

  • Manda
  • Manda

    lol I watched your video after I posted the site. oops.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16142046402791826147 Mr.Unknown

    Very well written! This blog is great!As with all issues of a fundamental nature, there are two ways to proceed; Unity or disparity.The culture-of-life answer is to encourage population growth so that we can both increase prosperity and longevity.The culture-of-death answer is the polar opposite. Discourage childbirth and institute euthanasia by limiting access to healthcare for the elderly. I believe this is one of the main motivators behind the push for national health care.

  • seekup25

    well said. praying for’destupification’ as well as the ‘reversal of deceptive minds’ coming from stupidity. People who support such ridiculous false ideas as “overpopulation”, are truly deceived individuals who need the lights turned on as bright as day (in their eyes), and the music of truth blasted in their ears. It is due to their obscure obsession with ignoring the truth, that has brought them to live out “the” pure deceptive mindset, as well as to live out deceiving all others on such false ideas.
    seriously. I pray for the end of deceptive stupidity above most things.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X