"Man-Made", So Abolish Man

Gerald Warner writes:

Sometimes the answer to an alarming problem is right under your nose, but you do not see it until some select group of geniuses points it out. That is the case with the brain-wave report that has just come out of the London School of Economics on the subject of contraception and global warming (these are a few of your favourite things, if you are a New Labour, Guardian-reading progressive with serious ecological concerns and an enduring trust in the BBC).

The title says it all: Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, arguing that fewer births will mean fewer planet polluters. I understand the term “emissions” refers to the generation of CO2, though the context might make it sound a trifle ambiguous. The bottom line, in accountancy terms, is that every £4 spent on family planning would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technology to reach the same result.

The UN claims that 40 per cent of all pregnancies globally are unplanned. Eliminating those would prevent 34 billion tonnes of CO2 being generated. All well and good; but will that impress those who are totally dedicated to ending “man-made” climate change? Why not save 80 billion tonnes by ending pregnancy completely? There is one sure way to prevent man-made global warming and that is to abolish man. It must be a very tempting option for those at the UN and its parasite agencies who would prefer to see the planet reserved exclusively for the natterjack toad, the smallpox virus and other engaging creatures.

Having generated highly profitable mass hysteria and sidelined honest scientists who point out that the Arctic ice-cap is growing, not shrinking; that the polar bear population is increasing, not dwindling; and that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule, making adjustments in its size irrelevant, the warming fanatics are learning the joys of coercion. Already the population is damaging its eyesight with “green” electric light bulbs and at least one American fanatic is proposing Nuremberg-style trials for “climate change deniers”. Why not a Chinese-style One Child Policy for the world?

That would prepare the way eventually for a Zero Child Policy which, within a century, would render harmless all our concerns about global warming. Its greatest virtue would be that, by the time the global warming Grande Peur was finally exposed for the rubbish it is, there would be nobody on earth to reproach its fabricators. You know it makes sense.

Everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone, should read my friend Ann Farmer’s Prophets and Priests: The Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (London: The Saint Austin Press, 2002; ISBN 1 901157 62 8)
.
In addition to its unyielding racism, the war against fertility is, and has always been, the war against the working class, the war against the poor at home and abroad, the war against the electoral base of the Left, the war against the social provisions for which the Left exists, and, above all, the war against women.

Furthermore (this bit is Lindsay, not Farmer - but I’m sure that she would agree with it), the idea of fertility as a medicable condition, requiring powerful drugs or even surgical interventions to prevent a woman’s body from doing exactly what it does naturally, is basically and ultimately the idea that femaleness itself is such a condition, a sort of XX Syndrome.

I can think of nothing that is actually more misogynistic than that, although some things are equally so, notably the view that the preborn child is simultaneously insentient and a part of the woman’s body. Is it the whole of a woman’s body that is insentient, or only the parts most directly connected with reproduction?