They Love Death

Michael Snyder, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Have you ever known someone that loves death?

When someone truly is in love with death, it can take that person to a very dark place.  Unfortunately, there are a growing number of scientists, politicians and global opinion makers that believe that we must reduce the size of the human population for the good of the planet.  They are convinced that humanity is causing global warming, killing off other species and making this planet unlivable.

In their quest to save the future of the planet, they are becoming bolder and bolder with their calls for population control.  They love death because they believe that it will help save the earth.  They figure that with less humans around, there will be less carbon emissions, less pollution and more room for other species.  So how will this be achieved?

Well, as you will read about in the rest of this article, “after-birth abortions”, “mobile euthanasia teams”, “sperm-destroying ultrasound technology” and putting contraceptives in the tap water are just some of the ways that are being proposed to reduce current human numbers.  This hatred of life and love of death is being taught in colleges and universities all over the western world, and this population control philosophy is becoming increasingly dominant with each passing year.

I realize that the idea of “mobile euthanasia teams” may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but the truth is that this is not just a “pie in the sky” concept.

In fact, in the Netherlands six mobile euthanasia teams are now going door-to-door to help elderly patients end their lives in the comfort of their own homes.

The following description of this program comes from a recent article in The Independent:

The project, which has provoked sharp criticism from doctors, is the brainchild of the Dutch largely donor-funded Right to Die NL. It follows the government’s 2002 decision to legalise euthanasia, making the Netherlands the first country in the world to do so. Walburg de Jong, a spokeswoman for the organisation said that since the ruling some 3,100 assisted suicides had been carried out annually. The mobile euthanasia teams, she said, operated free of charge and were designed to make it easier for patients enduring interminable suffering to end their lives.

Can you imagine your grandparents getting a visit someday from a mobile euthanasia team?
But it is not just the elderly that are being targeted for death.

Two scientists recently made headlines all over the world when they released a paper calling for the legalization of ”after-birth abortion”.

Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne co-authored an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?“

In their paper, they argue that a baby is just a “potential person” and that “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Giubilini and Minerva argue that just because a baby is human does not mean that it has any rights.  The follow quote is from their paper:

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva also believe that the “burden” placed on the family and on society by a new baby must be given precedence when it comes to matters of live and death.  The following is another quote from their paper:

To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole…On these grounds, the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.

Giubilini and Minerva insist that “after-birth abortions” would have a lot of advantages. For example, approximately a third of all babies with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb.

After-birth abortions would take care of that “problem” by allowing mothers to “terminate” those children after they have been born.

Other scientists aren’t just concerned about giving the elderly and new mothers more “choices”.  Many are now advocating the implementation of strict global measures to reduce the human population for the sake of the environment.

For example, Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro recently released a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”.  In that paper, Cafaro declared that humans are committing “interspecies genocide” and that therefore it is imperative to reduce our numbers:

Scientists now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering in a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earth can only be described as interspecies genocide.

For Cafaro, simply stopping the growth of the human population on earth is not enough.  He says that in order to prevent “catastrophic global climate change” we are going to have to “significantly” reduce the size of the global population:

Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.

Unfortunately, a love of death is now widespread at U.S. colleges and universities.  For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka once wrote the following:

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Population control is something that Bill Gates has been putting a lot of funding into as well.  The following example comes from a recent Natural News article:

Mass vaccination is apparently not the only depopulation strategy being employed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as new research funded by the organization has developed a way to deliberately destroy sperm using ultrasound technology. BBC News reports that the Gates Foundation awarded a grant to researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) to develop this new method of contraception.

For their study, the UNC team tested ultrasound on lab rats and found that two 15-minute doses “significantly reduced” both sperm counts and sperm integrity. When administered two days apart through warm salt water, ultrasound caused the rats’ sperm counts to drop below ten million sperm per milliliter, which is five million less than the “sub-fertile” range, and stay that way for up to six months.

Sadly, it is not just a few scientists and opinion makers that are obsessed with death and population control.

As I have written about previously, the United Nations continues to push Agenda 21 on the entire globe.  The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

The United Nations publishes report after report calling for more “global governance” over the environment.  The following comes from a recent Fox News article:

The report, ’21 Issues for the 21st Century,’ from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June.

The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions.

But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world’s food and water are created and distributed — something the report says is ‘urgently needed’ for the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely.

But it isn’t just food and water that the United Nations wants control over.

The truth is that the United Nations is absolutely obsessed with the number of people living on the planet.

In a recent report entitled, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing” the UN warned about our “unsustainable lifestyles” and of the disastrous impact of population growth:

But what, then, is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

We are constantly being told these days that the problem is that there are “too many people” and that if there are less people things will be better.

Members of the U.S. government are even preaching this philosophy.

Just the other day, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was publicly proclaiming that the new requirement that all health insurance plans cover sterilizations and contraceptives will be good for employers and health insurance companies because it will mean less births.  She argued that the savings from less people being born will more than make up for the expense of the sterilizations and the contraceptives.

Sebelius told Congress the following on Thursday….

The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.

Other members of the Obama administration are preaching the population control gospel as well.  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even stated that population control will be a “centerpiece” of U.S. foreign policy from now on.

We even find a love of death in the White House.  Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following:

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.

That quote should send a chill up your bones.

In America today, life is considered to be cheap, and that is especially true if you are “disabled” or “defective” in any way.

At one U.S. hospital, a 3-year-old girl named Amelia was recently denied a kidney transplant because she is considered to be “mentally retarded”.

How would you feel if that was your child?

Unfortunately, society continues to move away from the idea that life is inherently valuable and deserves to be preserved.

In fact, many top global opinion makers are openly calling for a dramatic reduction in human numbers.

CNN Founder Ted Turner once said the following:

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

For many more shocking quotes about population control from scientists, politicians and top global opinion makers, just check out this article which I published previously.

The world is becoming a very heartless place.

Those at the top look down on the rest of us as if we were vermin that need to be exterminated.

Increasingly, this sick population control agenda is being preached at us in the mainstream media.  For example, just check out what the editorial page editor of The Detroit News says should be done in Michigan:

Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.

We’ve got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don’t have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can’t afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.

Michigan’s social problems and the huge costs attached to them won’t recede until we embrace reproductive responsibility.

He is seriously proposing to put contraceptives into our drinking water?

How can people be so twisted?

Sadly, as I mentioned earlier, this philosophy is being endlessly preached at thousands of colleges and universities all over the world.

The sick adherents of this philosophy love death and are obsessed with controlling the population of the earth.

They are just going to keep pushing their agenda further and further and further.

They truly believe that they must reduce our numbers in order to save the planet.

But in their zeal to “save the earth” they may take all of us to a very, very dark place.

So what is your opinion about all of this?  Please feel free to post a comment below….

This article first appeared here at the American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.