Sadly, that long-haired leftist was me.

But, on doing the research for the paper, I found lots of stuff from the ’60s and ’70s with similar proposals. One of the most fruitful sources was an extensive report from some branch of the United Nations. The only thing different was that, then, we were afraid of a new ice age, not global warming, but the proposals were pretty much the same.

Chort forbid that some poor couple under such a tax have natural multiples. Of course, I’m sure they’d be encouraged to selectively reduce the number of babies, right?

The pathetic thing is that the psuedo-religious obsession with CO2 (which is not a pollutant, unless you lock yourself in a garage with a running car) has drawn attention away from real problems.

You can EITHER put all your energy into battling the production of plant food, OR you can put all your energy into battling actual pollutants that actually harm people.

Not that environmentalists were ever particularly good at that, anyway.

I suppose my (American) friends John and Janet who have 12 beautiful children – they planned one dozen exactly – are parents of “spawn” too.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 10:34 PM

12?! Now that’s just showing off–I mean, after about 7 or 8, I’d be like, “Okay, we get it, you’re fertile, you can stop now!” Where did they find the time?

The g/f wants to have “a houseful” between kids and pets, but I’m not sure exactly how many that is–less than 12, I think. It’ll depend on the house, I guess.

It’s the reality-based equivalent of what Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket called “that duality shit, sir” – their boundless love for humanity is exceeded only by their ineffable contempt for people.

due to insanely excessive human population

hahahahahahahahahahaha

*ahem*

Sorry about that.
What can one say to this, except “that view is so 20th century?”

Ecological problems, I will grant you. “Insanely excessive human population?” Not a chance.

Nice description of human fertility in other countries as “spawning,” BTW. I’m sure the “irresponsible” people will appreciate your referring to their valuable children in such terms, and will also appreciate your considerate singling out of which countries have birthrates acceptable to you. I suppose my (American) friends John and Janet who have 12 beautiful children – they planned one dozen exactly – are parents of “spawn” too.

I’m sure you have no idea what an elitist, eugenic snob you sound like.

I’m happy you’re alive, and I’m also happy that the 8th child of some anonynmous Palestinian mother, born today, was born as well. I wouldn’t want to choose between the two of you. But by wanting to keep that baby from the world, while deciding YOU are valuable enough to stay around, you only condemn your own viewpoint as the elitist garbage it is.

I’m making a point of hammering that issue a little harder after last week, when some nimrod accused those of us who are actually aware that Margaret Sanger was a lifelong racist and eugenicist (also Socialist) of “conservative Trutherism”. It’s not as if she ever made a secret of any of it, it was all right out in the open. As usual, liberals just don’t want people to know the truth.

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 4:35 PM

It’s true liberals are trying to hide the truth about Margaret Sanger and others like her (Hilary for instances).

But most of all they are trying to hide the truth of how truly destructive modern-day liberalism is.

My childless friends go on fancy vacations much more often than we do — flying across country to Lake Tahoe, or to Cabo, or Jamaica.

And when we do travel, we probably shed less carbon per person than singles. And wasn’t there a recent news item finding that married couples use less resources?

Perhaps we should impose a carbon tax on divorcees?

Just thinking out loud, here.

And people *still* have no clue what the founder of Planned Parenthood had to say about how much she hated “brown people.” A deacon at my church gave a sermon on that once and the congregation –including a (I assume now ex-) volunteer at Planned Parenthood–literally gasped at the quotes he rattled off and told them, this is what that organization comes from.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM

I’m making a point of hammering that issue a little harder after last week, when some nimrod accused those of us who are actually aware that Margaret Sanger was a lifelong racist and eugenicist (also Socialist) of “conservative Trutherism”. It’s not as if she ever made a secret of any of it, it was all right out in the open. As usual, liberals just don’t want people to know the truth.

I’m just trying not to imagine the smell from all the kitty litter.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM

hahaha

You’ve heard the Anointed Savior of the Planet talk and you need to ask that question?

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:11 PM

I’m just trying not to imagine the smell from all the kitty litter.

So the Earth just becomes one big Crazy-Old-Lady’s house?

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM

You’ve heard the Anointed Savior of the Planet talk and you need to ask that question?

Margaret Sanger’s lifelong goals would finally be achieved.

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM

And people *still* have no clue what the founder of Planned Parenthood had to say about how much she hated “brown people.” A deacon at my church gave a sermon on that once and the congregation –including a (I assume now ex-) volunteer at Planned Parenthood–literally gasped at the quotes he rattled off and told them, this is what that organization comes from.

More cats than people in fact

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM

So the Earth just becomes one big Crazy-Old-Lady’s house?

No, no, no! They want a pristine planet with only a few of the “Right” kind of people. And bunnies. Lots of bunnies.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Nuh UHH! Bunnies fart! and they eat the veggies that do a liberal body good. They want cats, lots of them. More cats than people in fact. Cause cats don’t drive SUVs. Not during the day anyway.