Advocates for more environmental laws and regulations also call for a reduction in world-wide population. According to environmentalists all environmental calamities are theoretically caused by mankind. Ozone layer depletion, global warming, sea level rises, melting ice caps, species extinction, and a myriad of other environmental issues are a consequence of man.
Terms or slogans like sustainable development are used to promote ideas such as green living conditions, poverty eradication, reduction and elimination of fossil fuels, etc. Sustainable development also encompasses population control. Programs around fertility and reproductive policies are developed with the intention of reducing the overall world-wide population. These policies include birth control, abortion, and even sterilization and forced abortions.
These policies are turned into politically divisive issues around themes such as reproductive rights, women’s rights, and poverty eradication. In linking poverty to over-population, environmentalists also link so-called reproductive rights and environmental calamities to over-population. Consequently, the agenda to reduce world-wide population is inextricably tied to other causes then advanced by making them politically divisive. All of this is wrapped into a tidy term called sustainable development. While this may look pretty from afar, it is far from pretty.
For purposes of this discussion let’s assume the environmentalists are right about man being the cause of global warming and other environmental calamities. Naturally, a reduction in world-wide population is justified because science has determined environmental problems are caused by mankind. Advocates for sustainable development developed plans such as Agenda 21 which encompasses:
- Agricultural and rural resource land use
- Transportation and land use systems
- Water, sewer, schools and other public facilities
- Water and natural resources protection
- Lands subject to climate change impacts
- Economic development
- Community design
- Social equity, safety, and education
- Housing and neighborhood revitalization
- Sustainability of energy, food, and water
This is as invasive as it gets. But Agenda 21 primarily addresses what can be done to regulate and control activities of the living. Population control is the opposite, yet complimentary, approach as its goal is to reduce the number of living people on the Earth. Ultimately, these two go hand in glove with one another. The origins of Agenda 21 can been found in the 400 page report titled “Our Common Future” which can be read here. This is one excerpt from the report:
Present rates of population growth cannot continue. They already compromise many governments’ abilities to provide education, health care, and food security for people, much less their abilities to raise living standards. This gap between numbers and resources is all the more compelling because so much of the population growth is concentrated in low-income countries, ecologically disadvantaged regions, and poor households.
This one statement intends to link population growth to poverty, therefore, if you eradicate poverty you can lower population. In other words, programs such as sterilization, access to free abortions, and birth control are promulgated throughout the world, but especially in third world countries. Politically, this is sold as a reproductive rights issue or as a humanitarian effort to eradicate poverty. Ultimately, these are population control programs.
Environmentalists and population control advocates also support increased government social programs. Those include programs such as government provided free education, health care services, and social security programs. Those with alternative solutions are demonized as wanting to push granny over the cliff or trying to interfere with a woman’s right to kill her unborn child.
Programs such as Medicare and Social Security programs are vigorously defended by those supporting big government. The intersection of interests is dynamic. Those in support of Social Security and Medicare programs are the very same people supporting a woman’s right to choose and more stringent environmental regulations.
Medicare and Social Security are premised upon a Ponzi scheme requiring more people at the bottom to support those at the top. In other words, more young workers are needed to pay into systems such as Medicare and Social Security to support those receiving benefits from those programs.
Paradoxically, those calling for sustainable development pursue an agenda to reduce the overall world-wide population out of one side of their mouth also call for the retention and expansion of social security and Medicare out of the other side of their mouth. These two stalwarts of the leftist, progressive agenda are at odds with one another. Ironically, one side wants to reduce the population while the other side requires the population to increase to ensure the survival of social security and Medicare. Demonstrably, both social security and Medicare are unsustainable as there are nearly $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities. If the leftist progressive agenda truly believes in sustainability then use their Alinsky-like tactics and apply the sustainability mantra to Social Security and Medicare.
The triangulation among environmental advocates, social program advocates, and government is a self-created intractable problem. Two agendas, both centered on population, have diametrically opposing requirements and both agendas are dependent upon government for enforcement and compliance.