Psychology Today: Ban Children for 5 Years

…we need to lose 4.4 billion people and we need to lose them fast.

That is apparently the sentiment over on the Psychology Today blog.  Author Steven Kotler believes that the world is so overpopulated that we (all Earth inhabitants he means) need to ban having children for a period of 5 years.  He writes: I call it the 5 Year Ban. For the next five years let’s not have any kids. All of us. The whole freaking planet.

He reports that this is what “responsible adults” would and should do.  He advocates that “all of us” should use birth control.   And there of course is the inherent problem with all of population control advocates.  Planned Parenthood, most liberals, and now another psychology representative…. they all do not like life. They claim to like it by saying that we need to limit the amound of lives on the planet for the sake of others’ lives.  But isn’t that how all socialists start?  Pretty soon the elderly will have a responsibility to die.  Even though our resident psychology representative here explicits says that he is NOT calling for euthanasia, this is where all population controlists head.  After all, the whole crux of his argue appears to be that children would be a drain on the world.  Well, what about that grandmother in the nursing home, draining too much of the earth’s precious resources…

The reason why birth “control” is never a viable solution is because it is not a responsible one.  The problem is not the life that is the result of the sex.  The problem is the irresponsible of the soon-to-be parents!  Don’t have sex if you don’t want kids!  Of course, population control advocates always remind us of those white trash deadbeats who stay on wellfare their entire lives.  Do these population control advocates really believe that these welfare recipeints would suddenly contribute to society if they were no  longer having children?  Of course not.  They would find another way to be a drain on society.

America scientist Paul Ehrlich was ringing the armageddon bell back in the late sixties: “In the 1970s and 1980s…hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now”. And why is Ehrlich important here? It is the same thinking as Kotler.  Over and over this sort of thinking is proven wrong.  Where were all of those “hundreds of millions of people” who were to starve to death?  It didn’t happen. 

Any quick search will show that western civilizations are hardly even replacing themselves in population.  Some European nations aren’t even having enough children to do that!  One has to wonder when Kotler would be happy. Maybe if we were more like dogs.  Kotler writes:

So do I think that a dog’s life is worth more than a humans? I think that no dog has ever, intentionally, for reasons of selfish greed, destroyed their home like we have ours. I think that yes, there are way too many people on the planet, … I think before we start saying humans are worth more than dogs, we need to examine exactly what we have contributed to the quality of life for all species on this planet, not just our own.”

Kotler is questioning whether humans contribute more than dogs.  Who is worth more, humans or dogs?  I wonder what Kotler beleives he has contributed?

-RC