There is certainly a long list of contradictions I could write off the top of my head in our current year, regarding activists fervently pushing for certain rights which collide with others – some of the latter, already established.

However, a certain type of advocacy continues to puzzle me – that of an outlier of the left, terrified of “the population bomb”, now vocally advocating population control, in the same breath as pushing abortion as “the right to choose”, as well as sterilisation or remaining childless as “a choice”. And when we look into the opinions of mainstream “liberals”, it seems to be much less of an outlier.

To begin with, demographers are now invalidating said scaremongering and the data shows that even in regions deemed to have unsustainable population growth, the tendencies of the last decades have resulted in the exact opposite. The media, for the most part, wouldn’t touch that research with a ten foot pole. But here it is.

I have detailed in other posts why abortion is, more often than not, not a woman’s free choice, but instead determined by her circumstances at the time – namely a lack of choice – or a result of coercion from other people (usually, the partner, but also the parents, if she is still a minor). These realities remain unacknowledged by the left entirely, at least at a level of discourse.

Leaving all that aside, I am perplexed by how anyone can argue in favour of population control and still consider themselves a humanist – implicitly, arguing for human rights, such as self-determination, at the same time.

Let’s take Bill Nye “the science guy” (not a real scientist by the way), provided he still holds the views he did when arguing in favour of forcibly curving population growth. The guy recently appeared on television detailing the rosy spectrum of genders. That would render him progressive, at least in said respect, wouldn’t you think? So, how does a mind simultaneously cope with advocating unrestricted freedom of expressing one’s gender, and at the same time argue people’s natural feelings towards their prospective offspring should be quashed by the state for the benefit of all mankind?

Here are a few quotes from very well known people on the issue (I advise equipping yourself with a bucket before reading). A belated thank you to the person or people who compiled this list and provided links.

I never intended to paste that many; however, these are truly shocking, coming from the self-professed left of the day.

CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.”

Julia Whitty, a columnist for Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.” –

Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.”

Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Perhaps the next time we read or listen to the “oh so liberal” material they put out there, especially regarding “reproductive freedom”, we know what they’re actually on about. They push it in the same way Bernays pushed cigarettes as part of “women’s liberation” (with no concern for said women, but for the commercial agenda he was promoting). The populace, in the minds of these types, is just a herd to seduce with slogans and manipulate in certain directions.

They actually smile at the thought of women terminating their pregnancies, regardless of the circumstances or need for it, as there will be one less mouth at a time to exhale CO2 on this planet. People are numbers.

Need I mention most of the… individuals quoted above are millionaires and will never have to deal with scarcity, no matter what happens to the rest of us? Probably not. They are simply control freaks and “benevolent dictators” playing a game of Monopoly when discussing the fate of the human species.

Not to sound like Alex Jones or Dave Cullen here, but in some regards, Christians, for all their misconceptions, are the only ones refusing to stop sounding the alarm at the moment.

Of course the same monumental hipocrisy applies to the political right, at least in the US, using the right to life in political campaigns while bombing left right and centre, and seeking to take healthcare away from people who can’t afford to pay through the nose, including pregnant women in difficult situations and their children.

If there are any actual humanists in positions of power, they are surely few and far between. Though given the mentality of the ruling class, they probably wouldn’t get there in the first place.

Additionally, have a look at this BBC article from 8 years ago, questioning whether population control has been a tool of the rich against the poor. A long time, I know. The article itself keeps a neutral tone and includes the horrors of population control methods in the past, including the very recent past, such as in China. The devil, however, is in the details. Take the title, author and comments listed as “editor’s picks”. Enough said. I hope someday the TV licence goon turns up at my door, after the pile of threatening letters I dutifully recycled. I’d have a few nice words to reply with. I wouldn’t watch the BBC if they paid me to; I’d end up putting a shoe through the TV set, and that costs money to replace.

The BBC, a propaganda tool of the Tory and closeted Tory establishment, is now accused by some of having a leftist bias, which is nothing short of a joke. The same goes for corporate shills in the US such as CNN, MSNBC etc.

The “humanist” facade they put on consists of promoting the very latest offence olympics, as if they mattered or the outcome made an actual difference to people’s lives.

I don’t actually have a bucket at hand so can anyone lend me one? I promise I’ll clean it before returning it.