John on December 14, 2006 at 1:45 am
A wise man once said:
The opposite of theocracy, call it atheocracy, is just as deadly if not more so.
Okay, that was me that said it. But still, I think it has some merit. Case in point, the recent proclamations by an Australian neuroscientist John Reid on how to save the planet [Note: I've moved paragraphs, but all the statements are genuine, i.e. this is not a joke]:
The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.
The sanctity of human life is pretty basic to monotheism. When you say it should be abandoned, what do you have in mind?
When we consider ways to reduce the human population there is a natural dichotomy between ways that kill a very large number of people and ways that control the growth of the population, that is, ways that prevent people from breeding.
War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, can bring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scale of tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem of over-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill.
Brutal and insufficient. So is there another option for more humane human genocide?
The most humane way to achieve a reduction in the human population would be for people to voluntarily stop breeding, but this would never happen.
Not in my house.
The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.
We’re literally screwing the planet.
One small, but appropriate, token gesture would be to ban immediately all forms of assisted conception, including the use of donated sperm or ova. The fact that relatively affluent couples, or single women who cannot achieve pregnancy by good old-fashioned copulation, or even choose not to do so, can demand the use of expensive medical technology to satisfy their ‘need’ for parenthood is unacceptable in a hugely overpopulated world.
As is the case with kitten baseball, that’s plenty mean but it’s not going to lower the population significantly. What else ya got?
The next most humane way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water…
Genetically engineered gators?
A virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.
As long as they don’t put it in Barq’s Root Beer, I’ll be okay. But I guess you’d want to target poor, undeveloped countries with the virus-water since that’s where all the population growth and starvation occur.
The world’s most affluent populations should be targeted first.
I don’t get it. Most European countries are already failing to replace their population.
According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.
I see, but wouldn’t that have a serious affect on the supply of crude oil, badly designed automobiles, slapstick comedians and Foster’s Lager?
Maybe you should reconsider the gators…
Okay, fine, but I see a problem. Won’t a drastic reduction in population in these countries also make it difficult to support the aging populace?
Societies will not be able to provide the healthcare services needed to keep large numbers of unhealthy old people alive. A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths.
In other words, the Canadian health care system will go worldwide.
Not every problem is solveable.
There must be an alternative. Something less drastic that we could do besides killing the elderly and sterilizing people who drink tap water. Is there a plan B to save the world?
Perhaps water meters that turn off automatically after a household’s daily ration of water has been consumed will be fitted to every house.
Meat will be rationed to no more than, say, 200 grams per person per week.
Municipal authorities will provide allotments so that people can grow their own fruit and vegetables. We could turn some iconic sports arenas into veggie gardens.
And private property rights will be severely curtailed to prevent landowners from engaging in environmentally-damaging behaviours.
So let’s see…if we all become spindly, smelly, socialists whose idea of self-sufficiency is a municipal government telling us where to grow tomatoes…
French metrosexuals save the world!
And many, many more such infringements on what we now regard as our rights will have to be accepted.
The French are always happy to surrender at the first sign of infringement.
[HT: Hot Air]
Category: Atheism |