The Left thinks there are too many people on the planet, and they openly cheer anything that pushes those numbers down.
Not only does the left openly speculate about not having kids themselves because Mother Gaia says so, but they are actively pushing other parts of the world to radically change their attitudes toward large families.
In particular, they are pressuring the developing world to embrace small families, birth control and abortion. Said differently, the better-than-you secular left elites have decided that the world needs to hear (and obey!) their Gospel of Gaia.
Nor are they above using bribery or compulsion to MAKE them adopt the left’s religious zeal toward their moral imperatives.
We see this attitude with AOC preaching about not having kids herself to ‘save the environment’, with Bernie proclaiming that he’s going to promote population control in poor countries and people like Bill Gates openly promoting population control for years. In fact, they’re upset that they are falling behind their current population control goals.
At the same time, the very same people on the left are promoting open borders as a moral imperative.
Because they would claim that we don’t have enough people here to fill all the jobs we have that need filling here in America. We need them because some bad things happen in countries that have more people at the high end of the age spectrum than thriving young families.
Essentially, it’s their way of acquiring another generation of kids without producing another generation of kids. It’s a tactic to replace the children we have not been having ourselves. We need them, we are told, to fill all manner of vacant jobs.
As always, the Left has ignored the principle of secondary effects.
When activists were actively recruiting people from Guatemala to make the trip to ‘the promised land’ here in America, what happened there?
As Sara A Carter discovered on a visit, it produced ghost towns.
“I can say roughly 60 percent of this town is gone,” said Jose Manuel, who had spent his day sitting along side the curb in front of furniture repair shop.
“It seems everyone has left for the United States,” Manuel added. “This is a quiet, calm town but there is no economy, no work and the coyotes are telling people that there is work for them in America. They tell the people what they need to do to leave but it comes with a price.”
…“The business owners all left,” said Fidel, pointing at the small orange and green buildings. “The family that owned the green buildings on this street left me in charge of their repair shop and their home is empty.”
…“They say there is work in America for those who can make the journey, they say to the people that once you get to the border you can find a job and the Americans will let you in,” said Manuel. “That’s what’s happening, isn’t it? Once they leave, most of them never come back.”
In places like Africa where there is little wealth and, in many cases, no government welfare programs to provide for those too old or frail to work, comfort and security is found in large families.
If people abandon the village in search of other countries, they leave gaps behind. Why NOT have a larger family, so that there are more people to shoulder the responsibilities, especially of a difficult agrarian life, especially in a part of the world where some children could be taken from them through war, disease or simple mishap?
Maybe some of these activists on the left haven’t noticed the pattern that birth rates have a tendency to naturally tend to decline in societies where we see wealth and security. There is disagreement about what this signifies, but one possible explanation is that when life itself is fragile and living is hard, larger families can become a way of insuring against the worst that chance can throw at you.
If they were actually committed to bringing greater wealth and security to impoverished regions, they might inadvertently accomplish their goal of limiting family growth.
There is that other ‘small’ matter of those cultures who do NOT share a view of small families as an ultimate good overwhelming their ecologically-minded counterparts by sheer force of numbers within a very few generations.
At that point, any grand ideas or opinions they may have would be meaningless, because they will have no real seat at the table to bring their vision to bear. In that case, their only accomplishment would be achieving the ultimate suicide of whatever cultures adopt their beliefs.
It’s kind of an ugly Catch-22 they’re facing, isn’t it? They’re damned either way.