The Lies Continue...


One Small Snip for Man, One Giant Snip for Mankind

by Anne Roback Morse

For most of the world, today is Friday, a happy day that leads into the weekend. For Paul Ehrlich and Dr. Doug Stein, however, today is World Vasectomy Day!

Their video on the website does not pretend that vasectomies are for men’s health or for healthy relationships. Instead, with cheery colors, the video highlights “population” as the problem behind “global warming, war, and poverty,” and prescribes vasectomies as the cure.

“It all comes down to human beings,” they claim, “For too long, people have stopped talking about the population of the planet!...Are you willing to put your balls on the line for Mother Earth?”

As a woman, that appeal really doesn’t work for me. Besides, the earth isn’t overpopulated.

But there are points of convergence between the vasectomists and Population Research Institute. We agree that “we need to take better care of the people already on the planet,” for example. We just disagree on how that should be accomplished.

While the vasectomists advocate eliminating people to get rid of poor people, we at PRI think this approach is analogous to, well … throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

We believe we can adequately take care of our existing population and our future generations by exercising our ingenuity and responsibly drawing upon the cornucopia of natural resources with which the world is blessed.

The anti-people ideology of World Vasectomy Day is not a joking matter; it causes real harm.

Such programs distract from real aid. Last year, USAID requested $1,350 million for maternal and infant health, family planning and reproductive health while requesting only $670 million for malaria and $95 million for nutrition. features an extreme case: a man who had 26 children before he got a vasectomy. How many people do you know who have had 26 children? Vasectomies provide band-aid solutions to real problems.

Not only do such ideologies distract from real problems, like poverty and war, they also fuel the dangerous ideology of overpopulation that has been at the root of every sterilization camp and forced abortion in this century. As PRI’s President, Steven Mosher, wrote of China’s attempt to reduce their population growth: “The history of the People’s Republic of China has been marred by a long series of violent political campaigns, but none has been more violent, none has claimed more victims, and none lasted a fraction as long as the one-child policy.”

World Vasectomy Day is actively promoting the ideology that leads to such abuses. World Vasectomy Day is hosting Paul Ehrlich to lecture today. Paul Ehrlich authored the 1968 book, The Population Bomb, which predicted that the world would see massive famines as a result of overpopulation. They never happened. As Yale historian Paul Sabin writes of Ehrlich, “His instinct to blame sheer numbers of people, rather than their state of culture or government, represented a shift in emphasis underway in Western thinking.”[1] Yes, Ehrlich marks a change in our culture away from food aid and towards forced sterilizations. Ehrlich’s lecture today is entitled, “Is it naïve to think we can cap the population?”

At its best, the ideology of World Vasectomy Day sells fake solutions for real problems. At worst, it fuels coercive sterilization campaigns such as those which regularly take place in India and China.

On the first World Vasectomy Day, let’s not forget that one-fifth of the world suffers under China’s draconian one-child policy, undertaken in the name of curbing a mythical “overpopulation.”

[1] Paul Sabin is an associate professor at Yale University and author of the recent book The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon,and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future.

Population Control Extremists: Get Rid of People Causing Global Warming

by Nathan Oppman | Washington, DC | | 10/20/13 3:07 PM

The tired old argument has returned. People are going to end the planet. The oceans will rise, the land will burn, and aliens will invade. Ok, there are no predictions of an alien invasion … yet.

Last, however, if we can’t control consumption, we can control the number of consumers. This is technology we already have, and it’s cheap. Every woman, everywhere, could have contraception.

Most of us would find coercive government limits on child bearing abhorrent. But giving women access to contraception and to education makes draconian edicts unnecessary. An educated woman has an interesting and useful contribution to make to her family and her society. Since she can’t easily do that with seven children hanging on her skirts, most women who get through secondary school want two children or fewer. Providing access to contraception and educating women may be the fastest path to giving our planet a break.

Population management can’t do it all; we need a full-court press on all fronts. But if we want a secure future, we need to start with the fastest, most affordable way we know to limit carbon emissions: by bringing fewer emitters into the world.

So what is the solution to these problems? Get rid of those pesky people. After all if there were no people, then they would not be destroying earth by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, limiting the population of earth through encouraging women to have fewer kids would be devastating to economic growth and development. People have been making predictions about the end of the world for a long time. There is one factor common to all of them— they have failed to happen.

 Instead of encouraging anti-human, anti-family policies, we should encourage healthy families where God is honored and lifelong marriage is the norm. While we are unlikely to be affected by global warming, we are already being affected by family breakdown. On almost every social measure the breakdown of committed marriages has devastating consequences. We should be focused on the real man-made problem of family destruction. If we don’t fix the family the future will indeed be bleak.

And one more thing, I did a quick internet search while writing this article; an alien invasion could be a result of global warming according to some!

LifeNews Note: Nathan Oppman writes for the Family Research Council.

Save the Planet Kill Yourself! Environmentalists Want Humans to Live Shorter Lives

by Wesley J. Smith | Washington, DC | | 10/12/13 3:04 AM

Humans are the enemy! A new study published in Ecology and Society claims that longer life expectancy for us is bad news for the planet. From the study by Aaron Lotz and Craig R. Allen:

We found a positive relationship between life expectancy and the percentage of endangered and invasive species in a country…The overall trend in high-income countries with improvements to the Human Development Index, which includes human life expectancy as one of its variables, is toward a disproportionately larger negative impact on a country’s ecological footprint. However, some lower-income countries have a high level of development without a high impact on ecosystem services (Moran et al. 2008).

Increased life expectancy means that people live longer and affect the planet longer; each year is another year of carbon footprint, ecological footprint, use of natural resources, etc. The magnitude of this impact is increased as more people live longer.

Bad humans!  Bad, bad humans.

The answer is supposedly–it’s becoming a cliché–that we see ourselves as just part of nature:

Fischer et al. (2012) propose a “transformation strategy” that assumes that direct links between people and nature are better than indirect links. This paradigm shift would recouple the social-ecological system.

Wrong. We are the exceptional species. The environment benefits most when we see that it is our duty to manage the environment responsibly because we are human. If we redefine ourselves as just another animal in the forest, that’s just how we will act.

The authors don’t say whether we should try and live shorter lives. But that certainly seems an implication. Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.