While Orwell’s ’1984′ & Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ tend to corner the market when it comes to predicted dystopian societies, Anthony Burgess offered his own dystopian masterpiece in the form of 1962′s ‘The Wanting Seed’. It foresaw a culture that dealt with overpopulation by enforcing contraception, encouraging Self-sterilization and homosexuality .
Overpopulation concerns from the left, have been floating around since the publication of Paul R. Ehrlich‘s ‘The Population Bomb‘ in 1968. The book was famous in exaggerating the future ramifications of excessive famine due to ‘overpopulation’. Most particularly, Ehrlich claimed, “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death” 1. ‘The Population Bomb’ brought-forth the Zero Population Growth Movements and for a brief while, ZPG was the Global Warming of it’s day.
While the ZPG Movements & Ehrlich’s theory have dwindled, some of the sentiments have renewed themselves into the Global Warming Movement. One of Ehrlich’s theory’s was ‘I PAT’ a formula that described the impact of human activity on the environment. Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of population (P), affluence (A: consumption per capita) and technology 2. ‘I PAT’ was the perfect blueprint for the Carbon Footprint fanatics.
The late music critic Lester Bangs once made the claim, “Nothing ever quite dies, it just comes back in a different form” 3, he might have been speaking about the ZPG movement. Now it seems, these lunatics are recycling other ZPG growth tactics in reducing the world’s Carbon Footprint, reduce the future population.
Recently, two studies have turned ‘Breeders’ into ‘Baddies’, pointing the finger at woman having children, the cause for sending your carbon footprint sky-high.
A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs. 4
Not to be outdone by their American cousins, The London School of Economics released ‘Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost’
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. 5.
Much like the agenda of the UNFPA, (The United Nations Population Fund) you can expect to encounter more Women’s Empowerment’ and ‘Reproductive Health’ concerns aimed at reducing carbon footprints. This ‘New Eugenics’, can now hide behind ‘Green Justification’. Well done Mr. Burgess, ‘The Wanting Seed’ has now graduated to the school of ’1984′.
Solid Principles Co-Founder
1: Paul R. Ehrlich’s ‘The Population Bomb’ 1968 Ballantine Books
3: Sue Mathews interview with Lester Bangs 13th of May 1980, www.cousincreep.com/lester.htm
4: Media Release: Family planning: A major environmental emphasis 07-31-2009 http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis
5: ‘Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html by Richard Pindar 9/9/2009