Question: When you enter a moral universe where your scruples are blunted enough to pursue some dubious end by any number of questionable means, what prevents you, as a Keynesian economist or politician, from seeing people killed to boost your economy? Answer: Not much. As a sidenote, if you head over to Paul Krugman’s blog, you will find talk of “growth” being needed, as if it is the only goal that matters to our country on this earth. What will we do to get there? The link between Keynesianism and eugenics is well-documented, and for a system of institutionalized cronyism, what else would we expect?
Simultaneously, we have the new environmentalists ecstatic at the way Ghengis Khan scrubbed the atmosphere of 700 million tons of carbon…by killing 40 million people. “There will come a time when Christianity becomes an enemy of humanity’s future…” my priest said at one point. Where the future is decreasing the population to 2 billion people (an idea recently gaining traction among the Greenies in media circles), or continuing long-failed genocidal cleansing “for the future of humanity,” you can be sure that Christianity will be the only sanity left. This is going on every day, mind you.
It was one thing for gullible college students in the late 1960s to present themselves for voluntary sterilization as a result of their buying into Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb myth. In keeping with the premise of the annual Darwin Awards, it might be just as well that those so prone to falling for groundless doomsday myths remove themselves from the gene pool.
But in a match made in hell, neo-Malthusians have teamed up with global warming proponents to extend China’s practices of forced abortions and sterilizations to India, funded by the incubator for global warming hysteria, Great Britain.
Since 2005, Britain has provided India nearly $260 million to fund forced sterilizations of poor Indian women:
With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.
Special “sterilization camps” are set up to conduct assembly-line operations—as many as 80 in 3 hours—with little to no post-operative care or follow-up, with the result that many have died.
Rationale for the program was provided in a working paper published by the Britain’s Department for International Development, citing the need to fight climate change:
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.
Clearly, unresolved human rights and ethical issues pose no problem to global warming crusaders bent on imposing their warped vision on the world. Nor do facts: Paul Ehrlich’s hypothesis was famously disproven (see this account of the famous Ehrlich-Simon wager), and developed countries have birth rates lower than replacement, yet “overpopulation” remains a widely held mainstream view, leading to cheery proposals ranging from forced sterilizations, to wars and pandemics as good for culling out large numbers of people. With 30 years of actual global temperatures having now widely diverged lower from those projected by global warming theorists, and the past ten years showing no rise in global temperatures, “global warming” has subsequently been rebranded, first as “climate change,” and more recently as “climate volatility.”
Yet public policy, urban planning, vast government subsidies for “green energy,” and on and on, continue to be made as if these theories were established fact.
Until and unless we are willing to let facts rather than emotion rule, such unacceptably high costs will continue to be imposed on those unable to defend themselves: peasants in China and India, and the poor everywhere today; the rest of us soon behind?
I have concluded in the past few months that it is ironically the right that poses the most danger to the economy. The leaders on the conservative side of the aisle preach free markets while increasing government intrusion in the marketplace and proposing no new policy alternatives to the disastrous Keynesianism we have seen in the past few years (if the collapse happens on a “conservative’s” watch, the failure will be blamed on free-market policies thanks to the common rhetoric coming from the mouths of men who would see the government intrude in every nook and cranny of the marketplace); laud small governmentalism while expanding government influence worldwide and ensuring that tyranny is exported overseas for our own devices; and speak a great game about the irresponsibility of debt while voting to increase government spending without the tax base to fund all of the programs foisted on their constituents. The hypocrisy is glaring, immense, and fraudulent.
But if there is an ideology that poses danger to humanity itself, the cognitive dissonance of the American left has no rivals. Here, we find people that believe that war spending helps an economy (will money or human life win, let me guess…); that we must save humanity by killing or controlling the sexual practices of people worldwide (while maintaining that sexual freedom is intact and “the future”); that we must grant “rights” (read: government benefits) to all people at the expense of true rights and essential freedoms; that, similar to the way in which the right speaks out of one side of its mouth concerning the economy and turns around to enshrine completely opposing policies into law, praise of human rights and the value of the individual is trumped by the ability and “moral duty” to kill people with predator drones abroad – people, I might add, who have not been convicted in a court of law and often have little to do with terrorism, making one wonder why those on the left can be so virulently anti- capital punishment while worshiping a man who summarily executes people after relying on information of military agencies known to bungle even the simplest of foreign missions; and finally, that are beginning to think that pro-choice means government-forced sterilization for the sake of the future of humanity.
I could go on for days about both sides, but the point is this: a lesser evil simply will not do here, for those who reflect on morality and wish to transcend evil. Do not be complicit in the system. Your assent to either side renders you dangerously close to hating humanity.