Thursday, December 30, 2010

Too Many People

I think I got a subscription to National Geographic for Christmas - or at least a complementary copy. The issue I received was dedicated to the fact that the world's population will climb to 7 billion this year. Rather, I think it was dedicated to lamenting the fact. Then it occurred to me. Obsession with the world's population is actually racism. Let me explain...

The world's birthrate is 2.5. Replacement rate is, as you know, 2.1. The West's is below 2.1. I am thinking it's more like 1.5, but I can't say for sure. So, what you have is an increasing world population - not crazily increasing, but increasing, and the real problem: far too many brown people.

In articles like this you never see pictures of beautiful blond girls in bikinis on the beach as exhibiting too many people on earth. You see pictures of Indians at huge Hindu gatherings. So too National Geographic. For shame.

What's going to alarm the readers of these English-print articles: the sight of too many brown people. I hate to say it but if the reverse were true - that the birthrate of the West was 2.5 or 3 and the rest of the world's was 1.5, would articles like this even be written? No, that would be great! The white West would be winning.

To see how endemic this racism is, go to Google 'Images' and type in 'overpopulation'.


  1. So true, western countries aside from the US have birth rates below 2.1. I believe Spain's is now 1.1 - yet they don't seem to get it.
    So bodies like the UN talk about over-population and, as you point out, it is only the third world that is their target for reducing people.

  2. And now you're riding my favourite hobby horse; or rather that of my family. It seems to me that it's a sort of neo-colonialism. Those worried about population are always rich and white and never want to get rid of themselves. And regarding the 2.1 children: my parents heard Patrick Coffin (Catholic Answers but originally from Dartmouth)speak last night and he said, "Do you really want to go out to battle with 2.1 arrows in your quiver?" Also, the way the West deals with AIDS and population control is decidedly colonial - we export condoms and retro-virals (usually of inferior quality) as bandaid solutions. After all, what black man could possibly control himself sexually - just like those silly teenagers. (And now you know what my sister and I speak about when we aren't discussing petty issues like in-laws.)

  3. Holy smokes! my mom and I posted at the exact same moment. Craziness.

  4. I figured this post would garner some interest. Yes, it's just another form of colonialism: let's keep what we have the way we have it, to heck with everyone else.

  5. Behind that neo-colonial attitude is the rejection of Judaeo-Christian values: the rejection of the family, the unwillingness to have children, the selfishness fed by materialism all make the west unfruitful, while the third world still treasures their young.
    One only has to watch an African family with their children compared to a North-American family.

  6. Just found this. Elena has me confused -- which is fairly easy because I *start* confused. My remarks in that Halifax talk had to do with explaining Humanae Vitae in light of the biblical data (cf Psalm 127).

    (Neo-colonialism? The rich and the white never want to get rid of themselves? And who is West? Christopher or Cornell?)

    I think I may have an irony deficit. Please advise.