Monday, December 10, 2007

Inside The Green House: The Baby Tax

So after hearing about the British girl who got fixed to save the planet this next story was a natural follow up

Having babies is bad for the planet, and parents of more than two children should be charged a birth levy and annual tax to offset the "greenhouse gases" their child will be responsible for over his or her lifetime.

There is a small movement among the far left that wants to control population to a sustainable level, about 400 million. Hmm, I'm starting to wonder if this is a small movement or a hidden movement.

Global Warming is the hammer used to drive the nail of Global Dictatorship upon us all.

Past green house reports:

No Parking

The Law of

Koz says we did it


Gore's 9 lies

Shoulda seen it coming

Ah come on now

A bit imposing

San Fran going dry

We're #2

The debate is over?

Let's go see All

So Inconveniently

Extent of deception

Twofer Cow farts

Global warming update


1 comment:

Misanthropic Scott said...

Thanks for the plug, even if you do disagree. I don't think I count as a movement, however. I think the post of mine to which you link is pretty original and not based on readings in a movement.

As for limiting the population, just be sure to understand these important things about me.

1) I do not support any legislation to actually limit human numbers.
2) I support programs that have the effect of voluntarily limiting numbers, such as educating women and getting them into the workforce.
3) I do not claim to know where the actual limit will be. This is something that, since we will not likely limit our numbers voluntarily, will be limited by planetary resources.

If I am right, and we do not take action to limit our numbers voluntarily, we are in for some very painful times during The Great Human Die-Off, which will be carried out by nature, ruthlessly.

Also, I feel, based on my own admittedly non-scientific observations, that the number of humans left when the population stabilizes will not be as high as 400 million. I think that, by my calculations, 300 million is a number we know to be unsustainable. Perhaps 60 million is sustainable. Perhaps 6 million is sustainable.

Perhaps our large brains will prove to be counter to survival and the species will simply go extinct.

If so, it would be my hope to minimize the damage to other species on the way out. We have already caused a mass extinction greater than the one that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs 65.3 million years ago. Let's hope we can stop ourselves from creating a mass extinction of the proportions of the Permian/Triassic extinction 250 million years ago.

Since we're already in a mass extinction, it makes sense to pay attention to the observed fact that large warm-blooded species fare very poorly in mass extinction events. Humans are a large warm-blooded species.