Screedblog
Among the many things we get from England, cautionary examples may be their most useful export:
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
Of course he has. WhatÂ’s the line from Scrooge - better they should die, and decrease the surplus population? IÂ’m surprised thatÂ’s not an applause line these days. If Scrooge had forbid Crachet from putting on more coal because it would contribute to global warming, heÂ’d be the hero, and Crachet would have got the three spirits.
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the governmentÂ’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.
It hasn't taken long, but itÂ’s taken hold: children, to some, are not bundles of joys, but bundles of sticks whose inevitable combustion harms the planet. It doesnÂ’t matter whether reducing the population might deprive the world of another Mozart or a scientist who can cure cancer; the latter would just mean people living longer and going more harm, and itÂ’s an act of pure cultural arrogance and classism to suggest we need another Mozart anyway. (Plus, non-political culture we cannot afford in these desperate times. ItÂ’s not that it makes people think the wrong things; it just takes up time that could be spent thinking about the right things.)
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table.”
I think there might be other ghosts jostling to be heard. Smaller ones. . . .
Go read it all. |