His proposal ain’t Swift

A writer in the UK’s Guardian newspaper proposes that children, especially those in the First World are an unconscionable burden on the rest of us.

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess…

In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis…

He then proposes that in addition to voluntary birth control and voluntary abortion, we should start adopting limits on the number of children people can have, which would result in, presumably, involuntary birth control and involuntary abortion.

In 1729 Jonathan Swift was using satire when he suggested that the Irish sell their children as food for the rich. But these people aren’t joking any more.

Have you ever noticed, however, that the authors of such pieces, even as they tell as that we should “cull” First World children, they never once consider how much they could benefit the planet by offing themselves? How much would they reduce the carbon footpring if they were no longer destroying trees and wasting ink on their offensive and predictable left-wing columns in newspapers, not to mention the rest of their conspicuous consumption?