Climate Change Solved By ‘Letting The Human Race Become Extinct’

Here are the true colors of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, which I have repeatedly warned is anti-human and anti-civilization. This professor has just laid it out in plain sight. ⁃ TN Editor

A Cambridge academic has proposed a radical new way to solve climate change – letting humanity become extinct.

Patricia MacCormack, a professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University, has just released her new book The Ahuman Manifesto, which will officially be launched in Cambridge today (Wednesday, February 5).

The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction. But rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity, it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth – without mankind.

It also touches on several hot-button topics, from religion and veganism to the concept of identity politics, tying these into how the creation of a hierarchal world among humans has left us blind to the destruction we are causing to our habitat and other forms of life.

Speaking to CambridgeshireLive, Professor MacCormack outlined how she came to this point of view, and how these ideas are not as provocative as they may initially sound.

She said: “I arrived at this idea from a couple of directions. I was introduced to philosophy due to my interest in feminism and queer theory, so reproductive rights have long been an interest to me – this led me to learn more about animal rights, which is when I became vegan.

“The basic premise of the book is that we’re in the age of the Anthropocene, humanity has caused mass problems and one of them is creating this hierarchal world where white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied people are succeeding, and people of different races, genders, sexualities and those with disabilities are struggling to get that.

“This is where the idea of dismantling identity politics comes in – they deserve rights not because of what they are, but because they are.

“The book also argues that we need to dismantle religion, and other overriding powers like the church of capitalism or the cult of self, as it makes people act upon enforced rules rather than respond thoughtfully to the situations in front of them.”

The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world.

Additionally, humanity has to see it isn’t the single living dominant force – but first, it needs to dismantle an established hierarchy amongst itself. This argument has not received as much disagreement as you might expect.

Professor MacCormack continued: “Everyone’s okay with the ideas in the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it. There is a lot of agreement that these changes might work for the world, but when it imposes on people, it becomes proactive.

Read full story here…

About The Ahuman Manifesto

We are in the midst of a growing ecological crisis. Developing technologies and cultural interventions are throwing the status of “human” into question.

It is against this context that Patricia McCormack delivers her expert justification for the “ahuman”. An alternative to “posthuman” thought, the term paves the way for thinking that doesn’t dissolve into nihilism and despair, but actively embraces issues like human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies, a refusal of identity politics, deep ecology, and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning.

In order to suggest vitalistic, perhaps even optimistic, ways to negotiate some of the difficulties in thinking and acting in the world, this book explores five key contemporary themes:

  • Identity
  • Spirituality
  • Art
  • Death
  • The apocalypse

Collapsing activism, artistic practice and affirmative ethics, while introducing some radical contemporary ideas and addressing specifically modern phenomena like death cults, intersectional identity politics and capitalist enslavement of human and nonhuman organisms to the point of ‘zombiedom’, The Ahuman Manifesto navigates the ways in which we must compose the human differently, specifically beyond nihilism and post- and trans-humanism and outside human privilege. This is so that we can actively think and live viscerally, with connectivity (actual not virtual), and with passion and grace, toward a new world.




One Child Policy in China

China’s Doom: Birthrate Lowest Since Founded In 1949

China’s Technocrats have sealed the nation’s ultimate destruction by killing its citizens’ desire to reproduce. Half of all Chinese families are now refusing to have more than one child, even if allowed to do so. South Korea and Japan are in the same situation. ⁃ TN Editor

Hong Kong (CNN)China’s birthrate in 2019 hit its lowest level since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949, according to official statistics released by Beijing Friday.

Chinese mothers gave birth to 14.65 million children last year, a birth rate of 10.48 babies per 1,000 people, according to figures from the National Bureau of Statistics.

China’s demographic issues could pose serious issues for the world’s second-largest economy when the current working-age population reaches retirement. Experts worry if the trend continues, or the population begins shrinking, China may get old before it gets rich.

Demographers have long pointed to China’s “one-child policy” as the culprit of the country’s current population problems. For decades, couples in China were limited to only having a single child, unless they were willing to break the law or had the money to work around the system.

Experts say the policy had dire effects on age demographics and sex ratio, as many poor, rural families who prized boys due to traditional cultural values went to extreme measures to ensure their child’s sex.

More than 250 million Chinese were over 60 years old last year, the statistics released Friday reveal. They make up more than 18% of the population.

The figure is forecast to rise to a third of the population by 2050 — or 480 million people. A study published by a leading state-sponsored Chinese think tank last year found that the country will face an “unstoppable” population decline over the coming decades, with fewer and fewer workers struggling to support an increasingly aging society.

The ruling Communist Party has attempted to combat demographic issues by encouraging families to have more babies, but many middle class families are wary to do so because of financial considerations.

Read full story here…




Birth Rate

U.S. Birth Rate Continues Dropping In 42 States

Any national agenda to increase American births would have to include nullifying the abortion lobby and the practice of abortion. In the meantime, the U.S. is below replacement rate, guaranteeing economic decline and ultimately, deflation.

The anti-human agenda of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, has population reduction as one of its main objectives. UN “experts” believe that the earth can only support around 1 billion humans. ⁃ TN Editor

Forty-two states in the nation, and Washington, DC, continue to see their birth rates decline with no plans among lawmakers to financially incentivize Americans to have more children.

The latest United States Census Bureau data reveals that births in forty-two states, as well as Washington, DC, have kept dropping between 2018 and 2019. Only eight states — Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, Utah, and Vermont — saw their birth rates increase between 2018 and 2019.

“With fewer births in recent years and the number of deaths increasing, natural increase (or births minus deaths) has declined steadily over the past decade,” the Census Bureau notes in its findings.

As Breitbart News has chronicled, the U.S. birth rate, overall, has dropped for the fourth consecutive year. In 2018, less than 3.8 million babies were born in the U.S. — a drop of two percent, or almost 64,000 births, since 2017.

The total fertility rate, which stands at 1,729.5 births per 1,000 women, remains below replacement level — the number of births needed to at least replace a generation of Americans. Every year, there must be at least 2,100 births per 1,000 women to be considered at or above replacement level.

Since 1971, the birth rate has been below replacement level, according to the CDC. Birth rates across all major racial groups — non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and non-Hispanic Asians — were again below replacement level for 2018.

Despite a declining birth rate below replacement level, Republican and Democrat lawmakers have yet to lay out a national agenda to increase American births, fertility, and family rates.

Read full story here…




Professor: Fewer Humans Needed To ‘Strengthen Human Rights’

Delusion results from deception when rational facts that expose the deception are rejected and ignored. Increasing numbers of scientists are hardened in the cult of delusion, and if there is imminent danger to the world, it is they.

Ripple’s report, World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency states,

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and ‘tell it like it is.’ Based on this obligation and the data presented below, we herein proclaim, with more than 10,000 scientist signatories from around the world, a clear and unequivocal declaration that a climate emergency exists on planet Earth.”

⁃ TN Editor

 

Will there be “untold human suffering” if humans do not stop having children in order to avoid a “climate emergency?” More than 11,000 scientists signed a paper authored by an ecology professor at Oregon State University making that case.

OSU’s William Ripple and Christopher Wolf, a postdoctoral research associate at OSU (left and right, below), were the lead authors of the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” published in the journal BioScience.

Their call to “reduce the world population” is among six solutions. “We need to reduce fertility rates through voluntary family planning,” Ripple told The College Fix in an email.

The paper cites “proven and effective policies” that can help reduce the population in order to “strengthen human rights.”

They include access to family planning services for everyone, “full gender equity” and giving everyone “primary and secondary education,” especially women.

“We believe that prospects will be greatest if decision makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency, and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home,” the paper states.

Ripple maintains a website called “Alliance of World Scientists,” where he encourages scientists to read his paper and sign his petition to show “that you generally agree with our article.”

The alliance has 15,000 members from 175 different countries, according to the website. While it claims to vet those who seek membership, the alliance specifically seeks “scientists from any scientific discipline, including graduate students in the sciences.” It makes no mention of requiring an institutional affiliation.

Ripple’s attempt to persuade leaders to implement his agenda stands in contrast to the approach recently favored by Ivy League students. They made themselves a nuisance at the Harvard-Yale football game, delaying it for an hour, in order to protest climate change.

This isn’t the first warning Ripple has issued about climate change in a paper. In 2017, he was the lead author of “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice,” which drew more than 15,000 signatures from 175 countries, according to the website.

Ripple’s most recent paper claims that the climate crisis is threatening “the fate of humanity” and everyone has an “urgent need for action.” It cites six areas that need to be addressed: energy, short-lived pollutants, nature, food, economy and population.

“I think we need to transform how society functions and interacts with nature,” Ripple told The Fix in an email. “We need to address social justice issues and honor the diversity of humans around the world. I see this transformation leading to a new carbon-free economy and operating within the limits of the biosphere.”

Read full story here…




Globalists Openly Admitting To Population Control Agenda

Technocrats among the global elite have long called for population control to reduce the consumption of resources and to cleanse the human genome. Once regarded as a conspiracy theory, it is in plain view today. ⁃ TN Editor

Eugenics and population control are long time hobbies of the financial elites. In the early 1900’s, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute were deeply involved in promoting Eugenics laws in the US. These laws led to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 American citizens in states like California and thousands of rejected marriage licenses. The Eugenics programs in the US were only a beta test though, as the Rockefellers then transferred their programs over to Germany under Hitler and the Third Reich in the 1930’s, where a true widespread eugenics-based population control program was introduced.

The targets of population reduction were based on ethnic background, but also “mental intelligence” and economic status. The Carnegie Institute even established a “Eugenics Records Office” called Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory in 1904, which collected genetic data on millions of Americans and their families with the intent of controlling their numbers and erasing certain traits from the US population. The Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory still exists today and presents itself as a kind of philanthropic endeavor to help humanity.

Public knowledge of the globalists and their population control agenda was carefully swept under the rug in the US after the exposure of Nazi programs post-WWII. The word “eugenics” became a very ugly one and all the effort the elites put into promoting it as a legitimate science was ruined. However, they were not going to give up on their precious ideology.

In the late 1960’s into the 1970’s there was a resurgence of population control rhetoric coming out of globalist circles. Under the supervision of the UN and some related scientific groups, the Club Of Rome was formed. A prominent part of the Club of Rome’s agenda was population reduction. In 1972 the group of “scientists” under the UN’s direction published a paper called ‘The Limits Of Growth’, which called for greatly reduced human population in the name of “saving the environment”. This effort was directly linked to another agenda – the institution of a global government that could handle and enforce population controls on a wide scale.

The elites had found a new scientific front for their eugenics obsession: Climate science. In the early 1990’s the Club Of Rome published a book called ‘The First Global Revolution’. In it they state:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator. It also outlines the perfect rationale for population control – Mankind is the enemy, therefore, mankind as a species must be kept under strict supervision and his proliferation must be restricted.

The Club of Rome and the UN agenda have always been intimately connected. In the 1990’s at the same time ‘The First Global Revolution’ was being published, UN assistant secretary general Robert Muller was publishing his manifesto which is now collected on a website called ‘Good Morning World’. Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of “protecting the Earth” and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself.

In a paper titled ‘Proper Earth Government: A Framework And Ways To Create It’ Robert Muller outlines how climate change could be used to convince the masses of the need for global government. Integral to his plan were the introduction of a new “global religion”, and population controls.

It should come as no surprise that the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) and that this panel and it’s offshoots are now at the forefront of the argument for population reduction. As we close in on the end date for the UN’s Agenda 2030, which calls for a radical shift of human production from oil and other large scale energy sources into small scale “renewable energies”, there is only 10 years left for the globalists to achieve their goals if they hope to meet their announced deadline. This would require a violent change in human society and most of all industrialized nations.

The human population would have to be reduced dramatically in order to survive on the meager energy output of renewables alone. A disaster of epic proportions would have to take place soon so that the globalists could then spend the next decade using the resulting fear to convince the surviving population that global governance is needed. Without aggressive crisis and change most people would never go along with the UN’s agenda, out of simple desire for self preservation. Even many leftists, once exposed to the true nature of carbon controls and population reduction, might have second thoughts when they realize they could be affected.

The key to understanding people who cheer for population control or population reduction is that these people always assume that THEY will be the survivors and inheritors of the Earth after the culling. They never assume that they will be the one’s put on the chopping block.

In 2019, the population agenda is being ramped into high gear and the public is being carefully conditioned over time to accept the idea that man-made climate change is real and population is the source of the problem. Recently, a group of scientists partially funded by something called the “Worthy Garden Club” claimed 11,000 signatures on a statement for the need for population reduction in the name of saving the Earth from global warming.

The statement cites all the same long debunked IPCC and UN climate change propaganda as the reasons why the Earth is on the verge of annihilation. The fact of the matter is, climate scientists have been consistently caught red handed manipulating their own data to show the intended outcome of global warming. They have even been caught trying to adjust their own data from 20 years ago in order to match it more closely to the rigged data they publish today.

The Worthy Garden Club is a strangely sterile group and there doesn’t seem to be any list of their patrons and who funds them. However, the mainstream media was quick to pick up on the statement from the “11,000 scientists” and tie it to statements made by the UN’s IPCC.

Population control has also been brought up consistently as an issue in the 2020 Presidential Election race. Bernie Sanders argued for birth control measures in poor countries. Elizabeth Warren promoted abortion by saying it was as safe as “getting your tonsils removed”. She has consistently promoted the carbon control agenda of the UN and was, interestingly, a member of the University Of Texas Population research Center in the 1980s. And, Green New Deal politicians are throwing their support behind the statements from the Worthy Garden Club on population reduction.

This is the first time I have seen the argument for population reduction used so blatantly and widespread in the mainstream media, and it suggests to me that a trend is forming. For years I have warned my readers that they will know when the globalists are about to pull the plug on the current system when they start talking about their criminality openly. When they admit to their agenda in a free way, this means they are close to a global reset and do not care anymore who knows about it. The openness of the plan to cut world population is becoming apparent.

Strangely, there has been little mention of the fact that the world population, in the west most of all, is actually in decline. Far from exploding beyond the Earth’s capacity, people are barely having enough children to keep the current population stable. It would appear that the globalist agenda is already in motion. Through engineered economic disintegration, the population is being slowly reduced. However, this slow decline may not be enough to satisfy the globalists.

How many people would the globalists like to kill off to achieve their utopian aspirations? Well, globalist Ted Turner in a moment of honesty said when confronted by We Are Change that the population should be reduced to 2 billion down from 7 billion.

Read full story here…




Sustainable Fail: The Global Fertility Crash

Contrary to UN and globalist propaganda, global populating is crashing, not exploding. The birthrate in many countries is so low that they will cease to exist as discrete nations. For many, the trend is already irreversible.

Declining population guarantees huge reductions in economic activity, productivity and economic security. Inflation will turn to deflation and wars will be fought over precious resources. ⁃ TN Editor

 

At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation.  In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five live births per woman. By 2017 it had fallen to 2.43, close to that critical threshold.

Population growth is vital for the world economy. It means more workers to build homes and produce goods, more consumers to buy things and spark innovation, and more citizens to pay taxes and attract trade. While the world is expected to add more than 3 billion people by 2100, according to the United Nations, that’ll likely be the high point. Falling fertility rates and aging populations will mean serious challenges that will be felt more acutely in some places than others.

While the global average fertility rate was still above the rate of replacement—technically 2.1 children per woman—in 2017, about half of all countries had already fallen below it, up from 1 in 20 just half a century ago. For places such as the U.S. and parts of Western Europe, which historically are attractive to migrants, loosening immigration policies could make up for low birthrates. In other places, more drastic policy interventions may be called for. Most of the available options place a high burden on women, who’ll be relied upon not only to bear children but also to help fill widening gaps in the workforce.

Each of the following indicators tells a part of the global fertility story: not just how many babies women have on average, but also how well women are integrated into the workforce, what slice of the income pie they receive, and their level of educational attainment. Overall:

Government attempts to manage population growth are nothing new—consider the generous paid maternal leave of the Scandinavian countries or China’s recently rescinded one-child policy, each relatively effective in achieving its stated goal—but a new sense of urgency and even desperation is creeping into the search for ways to reverse the current trends. That said, achieving robust population growth is by no means the only contributor to economic growth—in some countries too-high fertility may actually be a drag on GDP, because of higher costs. But as these indicators suggest, it can be an important tailwind.

To explore these demographic and economic shifts, Bloomberg analyzed fertility data for 200 countries and picked four that were outliers in some respect. Local reporters then interviewed one woman in each place about her economic and cultural forces that shaped her choice to have children—or not.

Read full story here…




Twisted: Sacrifice Fat People For Climate Change And Overpopulation

The radical, anti-human side of climate change fanatics is clearly seen in this BBC host suggesting that fat people should be shunned from health care and left to die in order to fight climate change. ⁃ TN Editor

BBC host Michael Buerk says the state should let fat people die to save the NHS money.

Buerk, who hosts Radio 4’s The Moral Maze, said obesity should not be classed as a disease, which encourages people to seek treatment on the Health Service.

He added: “You’re fat because you eat too much.”

Writing in the Radio Times, the host suggested allowing deaths due to obesity could be a benefit to society.

“The obese will die a decade earlier than the rest of us,” he wrote.

“See it as a selfless sacrifice in the fight against demographic imbalance, overpopulation and climate change.”

The former I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! star queried Public Health England’s claim that overweight and obesity-related ill-health costs the NHS £6.1 billion a year.

He wrote: “Who can calculate how much an obese person would have cost if they were slim?

“How much would he or she cost if, instead of keeling over with a heart attack at 52, they live to a ripe, dementia-ridden old age, requiring decades of expensive care?

“In any case, VAT on takeaways, confectionery and fizzy drinks more than covers it.

“The freedom to make bad choices is what personal autonomy, indeed democracy, is all about . . . who is to say longevity is the ultimate goal in life?

“Give them the facts to make informed decisions; by all means ‘nudge’ all you like, but in the end leave couch potatoes alone. They’re weak, not ill.”

Meanwhile, researchers say getting patients to wear fat suits could reveal medical students’ prejudices against overweight and obese people, researchers say.

Scientists at the University of Tuebingen, south Germany, asked trainee doctors to take an anti-fat attitudes test (AFAT) after taking part in a role play with “patients” wearing fat suits.

A total of 207 medical students took part in the study, where volunteers helped to simulate a meeting between a “family doctor” and a “patient with diabetes”.

The AFAT responses, published in the British Medical Journal, showed that students harboured more negative attitudes towards obesity than either teachers or the patients.

Read full story here…




Population To Fall As U.S. Fertility Rates Hit ‘All-Time Low’

Population reduction has been a key objective in the U.N.’s Sustainable Development implementation as expressed in its Agenda 21/2030 Agenda. Demographers have been warning for years that population collapse was imminent. ⁃ TN Editor

The general fertility rate in the United States continued to decline last year, according to a new report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

“The 2018 general fertility rate fell to another all-time low for the United States,” the researchers wrote in the report, published Wednesday.
The report found that the general fertility rate dropped 2% between 2017 and 2018 among girls and women age 15 to 44 nationwide.

US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population, study says
In 2017, the total fertility rate for the United States continued to dip below what’s needed for the population to replace itself, according to a separate report published by the National Center for Health Statistics in January.

America’s fertility rate and the number of births nationwide have been on the decline in recent years. A report of provisional birth data published by the National Center for Health Statistics in May showed the number of births last year dropping to its lowest level in about three decades.

Now the center’s latest report presents selected highlights from that 2018 birth data.

For the report, researchers examined birth certificate data from the National Vital Statistics System’s Natality Data File, taking a close look at births among white, black and Hispanic women in 2018.

When examined by race, the data showed that fertility rates declined 2% for white and black women, and 3% for Hispanic women, between 2017 and 2018.

The data also showed that the teen birth rate, for ages 15 to 19, fell 7% from 2017 to 2018. When examined by race, the data showed that teen births declined by 4% for black teenagers, and 8% for white and Hispanic teens.

Also among all births, the percentage delivered at less than full term, or 39 weeks, increased — with preterm births climbing from 9.93% of births in 2017 to 10.02% in 2018, and early-term births rising from 26% in 2017 to 26.53% in 2018.

The percentages of births delivered at full-, late- and post-term declined, according to the data. Full-term births were down from 57.49% of births in 2017 to 57.24% in 2018, the data showed, and post-term births declined from 6.58% to 6.2%.

Read full story here…




Emptiness: The City’s Future Is Childless

If climate hysteria isn’t curtailing bearing children, economic pressures of the city are. Young, high-powered workers can’t afford kids, don’t want to get married and many don’t even want to have sex. The lemmings are headed to the edge of the cliff. ⁃ TN Editor

Cities have effectively traded away their children, swapping capital for kids. College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell. It’s a coast-to-coast trend: In Washington, D.C., the overall population has grown more than 20 percent this century, but the number of children under the age of 18 has declined. Meanwhile, San Francisco has the lowest share of children of any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.

The modern American city is not a microcosm of life but a microslice of it. It’s becoming an Epcot theme park for childless affluence, where the rich can act like kids without having to actually see any.

Okay, you might be thinking, but so what? Happy singles are no tragedy. Childlessness is no sin. There is no ethical duty to marry and mate until one’s fertility has exceeded the replacement rate. What’s the matter with a childless city?

Let’s start with equity. It’s incoherent for Americans to talk about equality of opportunity in an economy where high-paying work is concentrated in places, such as San Francisco and Manhattan, where the median home value is at least six times the national average. Widespread economic growth will become ever more difficult in an age of winner-take-all cities.

But the economic consequences of the childless city go deeper. For example, the high cost of urban living may be discouraging some couples from having as many children as they’d prefer. That would mean American cities aren’t just expelling school-age children; they’re actively discouraging them from being born in the first place. In 2018, the U.S. fertility rate fell to its all-time low. Without sustained immigration, the U.S. could shrink for the first time since World World I. Underpopulation would be a profound economic problem—it’s associated with less dynamism and less productivity—and a fiscal catastrophe. The erosion of the working population would threaten one great reward of liberal societies, which is a tax-funded welfare and eldercare state to protect individuals from illness, age, and bad luck.

This threat sounds hypothetical, but low fertility rates are already roiling Western politics. In a 2017 essay, I explained how low fertility in the U.S. and Europe might be feeding into right-wing populism. The theory went like this: Low natural population growth encourages liberal countries to accept more immigrants. As growth stalls, native-born low- and middle-class workers become frightened of the incipience of foreign workers. To protect themselves, the white petit bourgeoisie turns to retrograde strongmen who promise to wall out foreigners.

Finally, childless cities exacerbate the rural-urban conundrum that has come to define American politics. With its rich blue cities and red rural plains, the U.S. has an economy biased toward high-density areas but an electoral system biased toward low-density areas. The discrepancy has the trappings of a constitutional crisis.  The richest cities have become magnets for redundant masses of young rich liberals, making them electorally impotent. Hillary Clinton won Brooklyn by 461,000 votes, about seven times the margin by which she lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin combined. Meanwhile, rural voters draw indignant power from their perceived economic weakness. Trump won with majority support in areas that produce just one-third of GDP by showering hate and vitriol on cities that attract immigration and capital.

Is there a solution to the childless city?

Surely, downtown areas can be made more family-friendly. Mayors can be more aggressive about overcoming the forces of NIMBYism by building affordable housing near downtown areas. The federal government can help. The trouble is that some of the causes are too big for any metro to solve.

If global demographics had a television show, it’d be called “No Sex in the City.” Across the developed world, couples aren’t just having fewer children. They’re having less sex, as Kate Julian has reported—and my podcast Crazy/Genius has explored. The possible culprits of this “sex recession” include “hookup culture, crushing economic pressures, surging anxiety rates, psychological frailty, widespread antidepressant use, streaming television, environmental estrogens leaked by plastics, dropping testosterone levels, digital porn, the vibrator’s golden age, dating apps, option paralysis, helicopter parents, careerism, smartphones, the news cycle, information overload generally, sleep deprivation, [and] obesity.” The trend extends far beyond the U.S. According to the Japan Family Planning Association, 45 percent of women ages 15–24 “were not interested in or despised sexual contact,” and more than a quarter of men said they felt the same way.

Read full story here…





women

BirthStrikers: Women Fear Climate Change, Refuse To Have Children

The procreation of the human race is faltering. Climate paranoia is crushing the dreams of young women who are either afraid to bring children into the world or believe it is immoral to do so. ⁃ TN Editor

As soon as Blythe Pepino got together with her partner Joshua two years ago, she felt “this overwhelming urge to create a family with him”, she says. “I think it was the fifth day after having met him, I said: ‘I’ve got to meet your parents.’ He was like: ‘You’re mad.’”

Then, late last year, she attended a lecture held by the direct action group Extinction Rebellion, which set out starkly the catastrophic reality of the changing climate. That galvanised Pepino, an activist and musician (she is the former singer of Vaults, now Mesadorm), to do research of her own and, eventually, to have a series of sad conversations with Joshua.

“I realised that even though I wanted to have a family at that point, I couldn’t really bring myself to do it,” she says. “I had to say to him: ‘I don’t know if I can do this, considering what we know – if there isn’t a political will to fix this, we really don’t stand much of a chance.’”

Pepino, who turns 33 today, found that other women – especially those in climate-conscious circles – were struggling with the same question, but were “too afraid to talk about it” for fear of judgment or ridicule. The US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave voice to their concerns last month, pointing to the increasingly dire scientific consensus and widespread government inaction: “It does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it OK still to have children?”

And so Pepino decided to publicly announce her decision – strategically making the personal political – by setting up BirthStrike, a voluntary organisation for women and men who have decided not to have children in response to the coming “climate breakdown and civilisation collapse”. In doing so, she hopes to channel the grief she feels about her decision “into something more active and regenerative and hopeful”. In just two weeks, 140 people, mostly women in the UK, have declared their “decision not to bear children due to the severity of the ecological crisis”, says Pepino. “But we have also had people get in touch to say: ‘Thank you for speaking out about something that I didn’t feel I could even talk to my family about,’” she adds. Many of these BirthStrikers are involved with Extinction Rebellion, which on Saturday threw buckets of red paint outside Downing Street to symbolise “the death of our children” from climate change.

Pepino says that BirthStrike is distinct from the antinatalist movement (which says that having children is morally wrong because sentient life is so awful), and its aim is not to discourage people from having children, or to condemn those who have them already, but to communicate the urgency of the crisis. It is a “radical acknowledgment” of how the looming existential threat is already “altering the way we imagine our future”. “We’re not trying to solve it through BirthStrike,” she says. “We’re trying to get the information out there.”

In fact, she says, population reduction has been shown to be an ineffective strategy. A 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA explored various scenarios for global human population change by adjusting fertility and mortality rates. It found that even imposing one-child policies worldwide and “catastrophic mortality events” would not significantly reduce the global population by 2100. It proposes instead that “more immediate results for sustainability would emerge from policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources”.

“Even with drastic, draconian, eugenic policies of population reduction – which are completely immoral,” says Pepino, “we wouldn’t save ourselves. We have to change the way we live.”

Read full story here…