Global Warming Alarmists Propose Limiting Population ... to the Point of Extinction
In a statistical study entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” published in Global Environmental Change by Murtaugh and Shlax of Oregon State University, and again published here , the authors propose that the potential savings from reduced reproduction rates among humans are some 20 times more effective than the savings wrought by life style changes.
It is clear that the authors follow the Liberal mantra of the ends justify the means. If we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of children, then we should do it, they gloat. It appears that carbon reductions trump even “life” itself. They summarize:
The following very compelling video analysis explains the study in some detail:
By the authors’ desires, if we would limit every couple to having only one child, we would solve the Global Warming problem for every one. Again, humanity itself is the cause of all the woe, and the best thing for us to do is just stop procreating -- or just drop dead. Living human beings are bad for the planet.
Indeed, the authors purposely fail to mention that their proposal puts humanity on a fast-tack extinction curve, as reproduction rates fall below population replacement rates. Surely, as statisticians they know this well. Within a few generations, there wouldn’t be any one around to measure, least wise care, about carbon emissions. We would all be dead.
But golly, we would save the planet! Just goes to show you, Liberals are all about death and destruction. They absolutely live for it!
I’ve got a thought, why not have liberals first show us how it’s done…. Go ahead liberals -- take the lead in this thing. Limit your own population first, and the rest of us might, “maybe,” consider what you have to say.