The ecological solution to climate change: having fewer children

The solution to climate change is the extinction of the human race. At least, that is the natural conclusion of radical environmental theories that call on citizens to have fewer children. These ideas are permeating public opinion, especially among voters with more progressive tendencies. A Pew Research Center poll published in September indicates that 55% of Democratic supporters believe that reducing the number of babies born is good for the planet. The defenders of these arguments also back of abortion as a form of population control.

'The only acceptable way' to correct climate change

In reality, this is not a new theory, but it has expanded due to the radicalization of climate sensationalists. For example, David Attenborough has been preaching for decades that the only solution to climate change is for couples to have fewer children.

Having fewer children empowers and liberates women

Furthermore, this theory argues that education and women's liberation lead to a lower birth rate. That is, these environmentalists defend not having children as a way of showing women's independence and empowerment, in addition to being the solution to the planet's ills. Attenborough himself pointed it out this way in an interview with The Independent in 2015:

Climate change is 'a consequence of overpopulation'

According to climate scientists, the "crisis" or "climate emergency," as they now call it, is one of the most pronounced symptoms of overpopulation. Last August, population ecologist William Rees published a study in which he asserted that humanity may be on the verge of "civilizational collapse." The document, titled "The human ecology of overshoot: Why a major demographic correction is inevitable," argues that, historically, nature counteracted the possibility of humanity growing uncontrolled. However, "the scientific revolution and the use of fossil fuels reduced many forms of negative feedback, enabling us to realize our full potential for exponential growth."

The result is that disproportionate growth has led humanity to "consume all available resources," something that continues to worsen day by day. "The population increase from one to eight billion, and >100-fold expansion of real GWP [global-warming potential] in just two centuries on a finite planet, has thus propelled modern techno-industrial society into a state of advanced overshoot."

Jane Goodall says that the earth would need to reduce the human population by 90%.

Ethologist Jane Goodall goes so far as to put a figure on the number of people who would have to disappear for the planet's health to improve: More than 90% of humans would have to cease to exist (or, as she says, return to the population levels of 500 years ago). In another video, however, the veteran activist points out that she would do so "without causing any pain or suffering".

The U.N.'s paradox: promoting abortion while warning of the depopulation of the West

One of the consequences of these theories is the promotion of eugenic means to reduce the world population. With the help of the U.N., abortion and euthanasia have become fundamental rights; to "choose over one's own body" for women and the right to "a dignified death." In the countries where they have been legalized, the spiral of assumptions has led them to multiply at a dazzling speed. For example, several states and cities already allow or are trying to approve abortion until the end of pregnancy. In the case of euthanasia, in Canada, a measure has already been approved for the euthanasia of children without parental consent.

Ironically, this is the same U.N. that published a report warning of the risk that depopulation and an aging population poses for the West. The report goes so far as to suggest that southern countries will be able to negotiate quotas for their inhabitants who move north to work and be able to maintain the pensions of Western states.