"Water conservation programs destroy the environment." Most people who think of themselves as environmentalists cannot understand the truth of the previous statement, even tho it should be obvious to any genuine environmentalist. (Maybe by the time you reach the end of this essay, you will understand.)
At least 3 children die each day from abuse or neglect in the United States. You may have seen one of those mothers in the supermarket, slapping her child because it reached out for a brightly colored object on the shelf. Or those fathers who are screwing their 12-year old daughters. Clearly some people should never be allowed to have children.
But the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe verses Wade prohibits society from intervening directly in reproduction. Many of you applaud Roe v Wade because it legalized abortion. Try visualizing Roe v Wade as a coin which you can flip: One side of the coin legalizes abortion, but the other side guarantees that any two creeps can form a pregnancy, thus guaranteeing overpopulation can never be really stopped. You may reply that Roe v Wade advances the rights of women. But that is really a disguise for Parents' Rights, as we shall see.
The doctrine of "Reproductive Choice" obscures the real dynamics behind the political economy of sex. "Reproductive Choice" says that in a world which is already overpopulated, only parents are to decide population levels.
All you Catholics and all you Protestants and all you Muslims and all you Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and even you atheists and you bean-fart environmentalists all believe the same thing. You believe you have the weenie from Heaven and that I (as a non-parent) should pay for your weenie. This is the doctrine of the God-ordained hard-on.
The real problem is "An Inconvenient Truth" is hanging between Al Gore's legs. We have a world ecological crisis presided over by politicians who believe their pricks have been sanctified by Him (or by Her).
You and the wife have your hands in my pocket, feeling up my wallet and squeezing it to see if it's firm enough for your liking, in order to pay for your boner. Sure, there's a kind of logic to it. If you and the old lady are laying around in bed all day hoping and praying for another Big One, and if you do finally get it up again, you probably conclude your erection is an act of God. Therefore any pregnancies you cause must also be acts of God. And from there it is a small step to conclude it must be God's will that someone else should pay for your God-ordained hard-on. This is like taxing bicycle riders to pay for cars.
If we non-parents are to pay the bills for you parents, then we and/or society should have some say about which of you abusive jerks are to be licensed for parenthood. In effect, society pays you to have children (via favorable tax treatment), so society should have the right to maintain standards for parenthood. If you say licensing of parents has the potential for abuse, you haven't noticed the present system is already abusive. Or maybe you'd like to give a medal to that father who is screwing his 12-year old daughter, thanks to Roe v Wade and the doctrine of "Choice"--the doctrine that only parents are to decide who shall be parents.
If we had fewer parents per capita, society could spend more money per child. And there would be more adults available per child for supervision and instruction. Overpopulation would stop. Instead, our environment (physical and social) continues to deteriorate.
Parents wish to distract attention away from the real problem: their own unrestricted "reproductive freedom" and their shifting of the burden of taxation onto non-parents. One of the main forces for environmental destruction is the economic and political tyranny which parents weld over non-parents. Parents, by their deceptive use of political language ("reproductive rights") wish to ensure that non-parents do not have a voice deciding population levels.
The organization Zero Population Growth changed its name to "Population Connection" because parents and their lackeys in the organization didn't like the implications of the phrase "zero population growth", which would imply actually stopping population growth. They like the phrase "voluntary reproductive restraint" which is no real restraint on population at all. Population Connection lies about the efficiency of voluntary birth control. In fact, the world population continues to expand, but at a slightly slower rate which makes population expansion (and destruction of the environment) MORE POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE--facilitated by the misleading terminology of organizations like Population Connection and Planned Parenthood.
Voluntary reproductive restraint is exactly how the world became overpopulated. Worse yet, voluntary reproductive restraint genetically selects out (eliminates from the gene pool) those individuals who would be conscientious about overpopulation. Voluntary reproductive restraint acts as a negative eugenic selector which favors the worst and most racist of human kind.
You parents are willing to go to any lengths to disguise the problem because you are the problem. You push programs to hide the ill effects of an expanding population: ride-sharing, trip reduction ordinances, conservation, urban compactness, etc. By 'managing' the symptoms of overpopulation, you make overpopulation less noticeable.
When those darker-skinned people in other countries cut down the rain forest, you call it greedy destruction of the environment. But when you construct another high-rise, you call it sustainable development--a fancy term for your own destruction of the environment.
I am not going to take shorter showers so that you parents can have more kids. I'm not going to drive my car less so that your future teenagers can cruise around in cars they don't really need. I'm not going to install those awful fluorescent light bulbs (which are fatiguing and mentally unhealthy) so that more people can overload the electrical grid. I'm not going to squeeze into smaller parking spaces. You are either stupid enough or dishonest enough to think you can con me about a "shortage" of water or gas or electricity or space. There is no shortage--there is a PEOPLE OVERAGE.
What will it take to stop the lies of you parents? Elbow-to-elbow people? More overcrowding and violence? Global disease epidemics? More traffic congestion? Longer work weeks and higher taxes?--especially for non-parents? Less of everything?
I began this rant with the observation that programs to conserve water actually destroy the environment--as do most programs which are called environmental. I suggested you will probably not understand how water conservation destroys the environment after reading this essay, even tho it should be obvious. This is another reason why society should license parents: the human species is too dumb to understand the dynamics of environmental destruction; the human species instinctively 'defers' to parents. Deferral to parents functioned quite well for the survival of the tribe in ancient times--most people died before age 35. But now deferral to parents is killing us.
Water conservation programs destroy the environment by facilitating acceptance of overpopulation.
The term "environmental" has become just another gimmick for marketing consumer goods. And I am tired of working my ass off for your piece of it.
Jerry Simpson (Earth Day 4-22-09)
Issue 1 - Letters suppressed
by Santa Cruz Comic News
Issue 2 -
Earth Day Fraud
Issue 19 - Paragraph censored
by Metro Santa Cruz
Issue 24 - "Immigration" racism
TOPICAL LINKS:
The Truth In Rented Rooms
poetry by Koon Woon