Suicide Solution

I wrote this up several years ago when Earth Day was becoming a social media phenomenon. Still relevant and timely.


A group calling itself the Optimum Population Trust claims humanity is having way too many babies.

All the extra children are badly ruining the carbon offset of our planet and hence having an impact upon global warming.

The math is simple: More babies = higher CO2 levels = higher global temperatures = more displaced polar bears floating around on itty-bitty icebergs.

The solution to this problem offered by the OPT is for people to stop having babies. If you must have a baby, maybe one is okay; possibly two, but certainly not three.

My family, by the way, has already broken the quota.

The fine folks of the Sea Shepherd Society also believe humanity has become a disease of sorts upon mother earth. Like a raging flesh eating staph infection or an Ebola outbreak, the presence of all these people is causing the earth to break out into a fever.

I must say I believe this is a disturbing ideology, but I see such suicidal tendencies as a logical conclusion to radical, secular humanism. When a worldview places the material world in higher value over human life so that one is willing to deprive him or herself of the blessing of children, and their own existence, nihilistic atheism has reached its end game. The final step is to ask for volunteers to sacrifice themselves for the earth by committing mass euthanasia. If none are prepared to come forward, and this environmental death cult were to have governmental power, they could always extinguish any extra children by force.

I didn’t know environmentalists were so down on kids.

Soylent Green is People!

In truth, an environmentally friendly, child-free world is becoming a reality. This suicidal humanism has already taken firm root in the hearts and minds of Europeans and is slowly doing the job suggested by the Optimum Population Trust. In a society totally abandoned to cradle-to-grave welfare, living carefree lives, working no more than 28 hours a week, attending nude beaches during that paid, month long, mandatory vacation, having children around can really cramp your style.

Couples are having no more than one child as it is. If the trend continues, Western Europe will have bred itself out within 40 to 50 years. That mindset is growing here in the good old U.S. of A. as well, particularly in the finger waging from our university elite. So, Americans are slowly coming up from behind and closing in our European kin.

I believe the environmental global warming scare is the secular atheists pagan religion.

The physical earth is the god worshiped. It is a god that can be proven, because it is a tangible object men can physically witness and test.

Evolution is the religion used to explain this god, how it birthed life and takes care of its creatures. Occasionally, the god acts displeased and displays its fury against the sinful creatures by means of storms, floods, and famine.

However, specific, often self-appointed holy men or prophets, say for example Al Gore, claim to have special knowledge about how the god has been sinned against. The only thing that will appease the god is a sacrifice of some sort. In this case, the appeasement is a radical change in our standard and way of living, including the sacrifice of a the third child if necessary.

But this god is capricious and fickle and certainly unpredictable when it comes to issues of morality. Why should I even obey it in the manner the Optimum evangelists preach? If suicide is the only viable solution to appease this god, I think I will enjoy the love and laughter of my extra kids and take my chances.


12 thoughts on “Suicide Solution

  1. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

  2. Fred…

    I didn’t know environmentalists were so down on kids.

    Certainly, some environmentalists can go too far in their concern for over population and anyone who uses “disease” terminology to talk about people is using inappropriate analogies. However, just as certainly, to suggest that “environmentalists are down on kids” is equally ridiculous. Of course we are not down on children.

    The point most environmentalists and humanitarians would make is that this IS a finite world, as a point of fact. We DO have finite resources. Now, 200 years ago when the population was under 1 billion, that was not such a concern. 100 years ago, when the population had jumped to just under 2 billion, perhaps it wasn’t such a concern. But now, we are rapidly approaching an 8 billion population, with projections reaching 10 billion perhaps mid-century, we are legitimately concerned about reaching sustainable limits.

    But it is exactly because we are concerned for/love our children and our grandchildren that we reasonably ask what can we do to slow this growth.

    Do you agree that the world is a finite place with finite resources and that there is some number of humans that are too many?

    Do you recognize the serious problems for humanity and the serious pain that will come when we hit that point when we can no longer support our population? The earth will correct itself. If we eventually reach 10 billion, say, and that’s 1 billion more than we have food, water or resources for, people WILL die off. In the hundreds of millions.

    Do you not agree that this is something of a legitimate concern?

    Happy Earth Day, brother,


  3. Do you not agree that this is something of a legitimate concern?

    Nope. I do not agree. I think it is a religious philosophy pushed by fanatical hysterics promoting junk, conspiracy science. The serious problem for humanity is leftists governments enforcing a limitations on technology when it comes to the environment. Their policies are what manufacture those problems, not the fact that the world is allegedly “finite.”

    The world is finite, in that it is part of creation, but the phony notion that it’s resources can be used up, is just that: phony. God created the world to sustain life, for that life to flourish, and hence He created it to be used and consumed over numerous years. None of the Malthusian predictions about sustaining populations have panned out, and anyone who says otherwise is essentially a false-eco prophet.

  4. the phony notion that it’s resources can be used up, is just that: phony.

    ? I don’t know what you mean. There is X amount of water in the world. That number is not going up, it’s constant. There is X amount of arable land. That number can increase some, but not infinitely. There is X amount of fossil fuels in the ground. That is a basically a finite number.

    Of course, resources can be used up. If not at 10 billion people, then at 20 billion and if not at 20 billion, then at 100 billion. You can not mathematically feed an ever-increasing number of people given a finite amount of resources.

    No offense, but do you understand how this sounds delusional? You admit that it’s a finite world but deny we can’t use up resources, this is inherently irrational/self-contradictory.

    You tell me: In a finite world, the person who insists on consuming as much as they want and having as many children as they want because of the joy it brings – to hell with the consequences… is that not the very definition of hedonism?

    You need to rethink this, Fred.



  5. No offense, but you have been misled. That is understandable because many people have been fooled by the propaganda of leftist totalitarians. Others are content to remain one-sided and misinformed on this subject, because it is more comfortable to believe the mainstream opinion. However, I would recommend expanding your reading and study on this subject beyond the fever swamps of the Guardian newspaper in UK.

  6. No offense, but your own testimony undermines your claim. You agree with reality in noting that this IS a finite world. Any finite resource(s) CAN be over-consumed, this is what finite means.

    Are you familiar with the term, “magical thinking…”? It’s when people believe, contrary to all data, that somehow magically things will be all right. They may think this “because I’ll pray” or “because God won’t let it happen…” but they do so in defiance of actual data.

    Social workers see this sometimes when a paycheck-to-paycheck client believes they’ll just quit their job “because it’s not working out” and “pray God will lead me to a better job…” People working for just policies see this sometimes when a politician will sincerely say – and mean – “oh, I hate this homelessness problem we’re having. I am entirely dedicated to finding a solution!” but when a solution is offered, they’ll respond, “Oh, not THAT solution! But (after years of no solution), I DO want to keep looking for a solution and I’m dedicated to that!”

    They may be entirely sincere, but a hope without a plan is just a wish. It’s magical thinking.

    You may WISH or PRAY or REALLY believe that God won’t prevent us from over-consuming too much, to the point of harm, but data doesn’t support such magical thinking. If someone jumps off a roof to give God a chance to miraculously save them and bring glory to God’s name, do you know what’s going to happen? They’ll fall to the ground. Your magical thinking about resources is exactly like that.

    I of course believe in God, but I also recognize that God does not generally go around stopping us from harming ourselves. God loves us, but if we want to act like fools, God won’t prevent us from doing that.

    You claim…

    God created the world to sustain life, for that life to flourish, and hence He created it to be used and consumed over numerous years.

    Fact: God has never promised us that we can’t foolishly hyper-consume ourselves to death. Not one time. Ever. There are ZERO biblical passages to support that claim and, as a point of fact, God has not told you this. Do you agree with these facts?

    The Bible does remind us, “thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God…” Those who act foolishly or advocate foolish plans because “God will magically make it right…” are tempting God. Thou shalt not do that.

    Be reasonable.

    As to my source, how many sources do you need to believe reality? If I cite the US military’s studies about water shortages, would that help you agree with reality? If I cite NASA or NOAA or other scientific studies, will that help?

    As to this…

    That is understandable because many people have been fooled by the propaganda of leftist totalitarians.

    Are you really going to wave off science because “most” “mainstream” scientists are part of a leftist totalitarian plot to push off fake data as propaganda?

    I came to your pages because someone cited you as a reasonable conservative Christian who could provide reasonable, data-supported discussions. Brother Fred, I believe you are sincere, but you have to know that you’re sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist.

    Again, I appeal to just your own reason: This IS a finite world. Finite resources CAN be consumed to the point of scarcity, that is the definition of finite. Now, we can disagree about numbers… maybe the earth CAN support 10 billion people, but 100 billion? Really? 500 billion? Can you at least agree that there is SOME number that is too many? Just use your own reason and understanding of the word “finite.”

    Oh, I will also add that God, in Revelation 11 that God will “destroy those who destroy the earth,” so a biblical literalist would have to at least admit the possibility is there for us to destroy the earth (noting that I’m not a biblical literalist in that sense, but you appear to be).

    And to my initial point: Just because some of us are concerned for humanity – especially and including the poor, the elderly and children – does not mean that we are “down on children…” Just the opposite. So, regardless of what you think about the realities of a finite world, hopefully you would retract the claims that those who are concerned about population are down on children, since it’s the exact opposite that is the case.

    Again, a serious commenter will avoid ad hom fallacies/attacks, as it just undermines their positions.



  7. Data reported by the Wilson Center on water shortage problems in the coming years, from the US National Intelligence Council…

    “Between now and 2040, fresh water availability will not keep up with demand absent more effective management of water resources…”

    Again, from the National Intelligence Council…

    from NASA research…

    The US military is considering the problems as it relates to national security…

    From Aarhus University…

    From The Natural Resources Defense Council…

    I could go on. Are you suggesting that NASA, the Department of Defense, the US National Intelligence Council, universities, the NDRC and other environmental/watchdog groups, the media and others are all in a conspiracy to make up research that points to problems of shortages, given ever-increasing consumption/population? To what end?

    If it sounds too incredible/preposterous to believe, it usually is not to be believed. That’s the problem with conspiracy theories… they always collapse under their own weight of ridiculous-ness.


  8. You do realize that that sort of environmental apocalyptic hysteria has been predicted for the last 50 years and the authorities you cite with such strident confidence have the proven track record of a Pat Robertson. You need to step back, use discernment, and find better, more reliable sources that have a more balanced and rational perspective on this subject.

  9. NASA has the proven track record of Pat Robertson? Are you serious?

    So, if we can’t trust our universities, NASA, the US Gov’t, the National Intelligence Council, the US Dept of Defense… who do we trust?

    You are speaking of scientific anarchy, Fred. Does “more balanced” look like only relying on Right Wing think tanks? You are making no rational sense and, again, are appearing to be a radicalized, indoctrinated conspiracy theorist who rejects all evidence/data except for that which agrees with your rather strange and irrational cultural biases.

    Again, I appeal to your own reasoning: IF the world is finite (and it is), then reasonably speaking, we can not continue to consume endlessly without running low on resources. What is mistaken about that perfectly rational conclusion based on a starting point you agree with?


  10. So, I went to both of the places you had troubles with (Optimum Population Trust and Sea Shepherd) and tried to locate what this “disturbing ideology” you were claiming…

    I must say I believe this is a disturbing ideology, but I see such suicidal tendencies as a logical conclusion to radical, secular humanism…

    I didn’t know environmentalists were so down on kids.

    Soylent Green is People!…

    This suicidal humanism…

    If suicide is the only viable solution to appease this god…

    And have to say that it appears that you are flat out making up lies. I see not one instance of them endorsing suicide, nor of sacrificing children to “molech” or any of the other scurrilous charges you are making.

    So you will have to tell me, Fred, if you accept the reality that this is a finite world but magically believe that we can’t over-consume/over-produce… if you find it acceptable to make up charges against people that are flat out misrepresentations of reality… if you believe in some global conspiracy theory amongst NASA, the federal gov’t and scientists globally… on what basis should I trust your word? You are sounding increasingly delusional.

    Again, I do not say that to be mean-spirited or to call names. I’m describing how your claims are coming across. If you believe these cock-eyed theories of yours have some data-based supportable claim (as opposed to the crazed-sounding ad hom attacks and false charges you present here), then wouldn’t you want to present yourself in a less delusional-sounding sort of way?

    I’m starting to conclude that you are not as serious a student or apologist of your “conservative” position as I was told.

    Do you understand, Fred, that your words are only serving to undermine any credibility you might have?


  11. I agree with you about the worship of the creation rather than the creator, and dubious agendas being behind some of the environmental issues touted today, including global warming. cf Gen 8 : 22 “cold and heat”. The obsession with material things has led many to prize this over having children, meaning family relationships with their very real, but less tangible blessings.

    I was a bit amused at the rather stereotypical Europeans. I’m not sure cradle-to-grave welfare is as available as many in the US think, this varies from country to country. There is a class of idle rich who live carefree lives with an abundance of idleness – and an underclass of professional benefits recipients; average hours worked for full-time employees is more like 40 per week. That is true in Germany. The EU has an annual leave entitlement of a minimum of 20 days per year, and and all countries except the UK add bank holidays to this. I get 32 days! I’m not sure if this represents ‘lazy’ Europeans or a miserly amount of leave granted to employees in the States. Some of the big European countries with more generous holiday entitlements have greater productivity than those who don’t. Live to work, or work to live?

    I would be very careful about identifying biblical Christianity with free-market economics. The ‘whole world lies in the power of the evil one’, including both Big Government and the world of the capitalist markets. The ‘dark, satanic mills’ of Victorian Britain did lasting damage to the witness of the church.

    As for holidays being spent on nudist beaches, that may be true of Denmark, and the Germans have a fairly relaxed attitude to this, but the prudish British avoid this like the plague. Not to give this topic too much exposure, as an observation the most prudish country in Europe namely Britain also has the highest teenage pregnancy rate; apparently the States is even higher. Now in no sense am I advocating Denmark’s example, but Anglo-Saxon prudishness or Victorian attitudes are, to say the least of it, counter-productive. Some people perhaps could do with being a bit more inhibited, and others a bit less.

    Nevertheless, you are right that material comfort in Europe has led to a fall in the birth rates to below replacement level, and the deficiency is being made up with immigration often of those with a very different religious outlook, that doesn’t bode well for the future.

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s