Yes, you heard me right. According to the 2009 report from the U.N. Population Fund, the world would be better off if less people lived on the planet. In order to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the purported culprit of global warming, people need to make a conscious effort not to have children. The fund argues,
Of course, if less people are on the planet, not as many would be using natural resources. However, this argument leads to a slippery slope that the U.N. does not want to touch. What sorts of actions would be permissible under this thinking? Abortion? Genocide? Eugenics? Sterilization? Euthanasia? In fact, the Fund changed “population control” to “population dynamics” to sound less like a eugenics supporter. But this change of phrase does not alter the fundamental concept of their argument. You may recall that the Fund is the same group who gave an award to China’s family planning program (the one child policy which forces abortions and sterilizations) for effective population control.
It is clear that the priorities of the U.N. Population Fund are severely out of line and their argument is flawed. To believe the world would be a better place without 1 billion new babies is simply not giving the human race the credit we deserve. Who knows what those 1 billion babies would have grown up to be? Life ought to be respected and this report shows the consequences when this respect is not given.
What do you think? Should the world care more about 1 billion babies or two million one-megawatt wind turbines?