In her article, ‘Beckhams a ‘bad example’ for families‘, Guardian journalist Tracy McVeigh reported that “according to a growing group of campaigners, the birth of their fourth child make the couple bad role models and environmentally irresponsible.”
Mc.Veigh cited the UK-based Optimum Population Trust, whose chief executive, Simon Ross, linked family size to carbon emissions, saying:
“The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child.”
Forget that Europe is approaching a demographic crisis. Forget that the birth rates in the Western world are dipping below replacement level, while the Muslim populations continue to reproduce at unprecedented rates. For the virulent voices of the population control lobby, there is only one reality worth considering and it is this: less people = less polluters.
At least, that is what I argued in a recent article I wrote for the Charles Colson Center titled ‘Fourth Child Furor.’ In the article I explored some of the proposals that are being put forward for reducing the ‘surplus population’, including the following:
Dr. Barry Walters, a professor of obstetrics at the University of Western Australia, came up with an idea a few years ago. He suggested that those who refuse to use contraception should be levied with a climate-change tax. In a 2007 article in the Medical Journal of Australia,Dr. Walters proposed that such a tax be assessed on all couples having more than two children. He suggested an initial fine of $5,000 for each “extra” child when born, with another $800 assessed every year thereafter. However, parents could redeem themselves by using contraceptives or undergoing sterilization procedures, for which they would receive carbon credits.
Simon Ross, chief executive of the UK-based Optimum Population Trust, floated a similar idea in the furore over the Beckham’s fourth child.
Such ideas are nothing new, as Salvo Magazine has shown in their article ‘Baby Freeze: Is Population Control the New Solution to Global Warming?‘ Moreover, Salvo Magazine warned, what is at stake here is a “new religion of science” that “sees mankind as the curse, and scientists as the prophets pointing out the path of redemption. Like the prophets of old, the modern scientist-prophets know that salvation can never occur without sacrifice. The sacrifice they are calling for is simple: We must become fewer and poorer. Only then will the world will be saved from the environmental Armageddon that is fast approaching as a result of ‘reckless breeding’ (a term employed by Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger).”
The larger issue here is that radical environmentalists will stop at nothing when following through the implications of their most cherished presuppositions. This even includes an attempt to impose guilt on those who, like the Beckhams, decide to have more children than the Western average.