Tax Babies to Save the Planet
December 11th, 2007Carbon credits for voluntary sterilization? Why not hand out $100 WalMart gift certificates to those who volunteer to sterilize themselves? It could be like those gun exchanges in U.S. ghettos. The baby daddies show up, wait in line, step inside the Homeland’s sterilization van, * snip snip * and then it’s off to get a couple of PlayStation games and hopefully have enough change left for a Slurpee.
Via: New Zealand Herald:
You’d think having children would be taxing and expensive enough.
Not so, says an Australian medical expert who is calling for couples to be charged A$5000 a head for any “extra” children they have – that’s every child after their second.
Professor Barry Walters even thinks parents should incur an annual tax of up to A$800 every year – for life.
But wait, there’s a silver lining in that nappy.
Coughing up under the controversial plan could help to save the planet, he writes in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.
The lifelong tax would simply offset the extra offspring’s carbon-dioxide emissions, he explains.
What’s more, couples who get sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits.
Research Credit: RB
Anything that encourages *voluntary* sterilization is a good thing.
Bonuses:
– higher standards of living.
– The grief surviving family members will be spared when population inevitably corrects itself to sustainable levels.
– fewer drones to feed the industrial machine.
And yes, for able-bodied dependents under 55 or so there should be tax surcharges, not credits.
:o)
Jack-Booted EULA
From “their” point of view: what an elegant way to begin the culling process.
whether a good idea or not (i’m thinking not, just because of the precedent it sets), this or similar schemes won’t fly politically, or at least in the US. taxes on births or incentives for sterilization inherently target the poor, and the poor are disproportionately ethnic minorities.
“The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.” — Shelley
By extension, if you consider the above Shelley quote holistically, the balancing statement opposing “moral good” (“moral evil”) offers what I suspect is a driving force behind the elite machinations.
That so many folks statesidestill cling so furiously to the tattered threads of hope (we will reform the system!) is demonstrative of both human nature and the degre to which it has been affected by the last several decades of reprogramming via the co-opted education system.
That such statements are still met with blatant denial in the face of mountains of evidence and quotes such as the ones below — freely available in the public domain — is also demonstrative, but I’m not so sure I want to offer my opinion as to how and why:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the light of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
— David Rockefeller
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
— David Rockefeller, on p.405 of his 2002 book Memoirs.
As far as sterilization policies and programs; though I understand and acknowledge the seriousness of the issues in play, the concept remains repellent to me nonetheless.
First, because you won’t find anyone named Rothschild or Rockefeller among the case files, and second, because the history of the eugenics movement is one dark corner after another filled with well-funded apparatchiks of one tax-exempt foundation or another spouting yet another version of the standard Malthusian doomsday scenario — by way of papering over the addendums that clarify how much “white” is enough and what will constitute “thought crime” in the years to come.
I also find sense in the idea that re-localization/regionalization of food production will not produce the same “carrying capacity” numbers as those inferred via industrialized aggro-culture. While statistics have a strong allure to the “rational” mind, in the end they remain not much more than targeted speculations rendered legit by virtue of their proximity to impressive mathematical formulae.
“The misuse of language induces evil in the soul.” — Socrates
If the Tavistock set are doing their jobs well, and one expects they excel at it, most of what we take in via the mainstream press is of the “half-truth” category. To the business end of their metaphysical pike they tie all manner of attractive ribbons, carefully chosen to distract and mislead the eye from their true target. Your mind — and your purse.
Distract. Divide. Conquer. Rinse. Repeat.
Major cyclic change appears to be upon us as a planet, perhaps even as a solar system. This much is fairly certain according to the massive pile-up of possible physical evidence, from plasma universe theory and Mayan calendars to meteorological measurements and planetary meltwater projections.
The biggest joke in the piece Kev has highlighted here is the principle that a state-levied child tax collected in the here and now will somehow be available later to offset said child’s future carbon “footprint”. They plan to invest it in gold, perhaps?
Smaller moments of humor can also be found hovering in near-orbit. For starters, the concept that small-scale sterilization will make any significant difference in the west, which is already seeing declining — in some cases even negative — birth rates due to ever-declining nutritional health levels throughout our great industrial civilizations. Of course, such efforts are primarily aimed at the immigrant populations, but that’s a different can of worms.
De-population is surely about “saving the planet”, but not about saving the planet for everyone. How ironic that many rural folk throughout the world actually eat better — nutritionally speaking — than almost everyone in the west, despite consuming much less by total volume. Just another fine example of the “myth or progress” in action.
All of our modern hoo-ha over “resources” is driven by our unthinking acceptance of the ideas of Malthus that undergird our operating systems, that is the hard wiring and softer “principles” used to program the western mind from cradle to grave. Problem is, his assertions projected the rapacious behavior of colonial empire onto the entire planet.
Bzzzt. Sorry Tom, please collect your consolation prize backstage before you leave the studio.
Spectres of Malthus
http://www.counterpunch.org/boal09112007.html
“In order to understand “scarcity” as a sacred cow, we have to go back to the Reverend Thomas Malthus. Because, no question, we are living in a Malthusian world. By that I mean that Malthus’ way of framing the issue of human welfare has triumphed. And I think it’s especially important for the Left to understand this. Particularly those who got drawn into politics through concern about the environment, who count themselves as “green”. Scratch an environmentalist and probably you’ll find a Malthusian. What do I mean by that? What is it to be Malthusian? Well, it’s to subscribe to the view that the fundamental problems humanity faces have their roots in the scarcity of the resources that sustain life, because the world is finite and we are exhausting those resources and also perhaps because we are polluting them. Notice how this mirrors the basic assumption of modern economics – choice under scarcity. In his notorious essay published in 1798, Malthus argued, or rather asserted, that population growth, especially of poor bastards, would inevitably outrun food supply, unless the propertyless were restrained from breeding. He advocated that poor people be crowded together in unhealthy housing, as a way of checking the growth of population. Remember, this is the world’s very first economist we’re talking about here.”