Dr John Reid, a Melbourne neuroscientist, said on ABC radio yesterday, in a piece entitled ‘Apocalypse Now’, that population growth is a major environmental issue.
He went on to suggest that,
“In the discussion of human impact on the biosphere, two separate but interactive issues are being conflated. These two issues are climate change, due to the emission of greenhouse gases, and the excessive demand for resources, due to overpopulation.”
So far, he’s making a little bit of sense.
But when it came to providing solutions to overpopulation, Dr Reid clearly had no regard for the rights of women in affluent societies.
He suggested that population growth might be controlled by putting,
“Something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile.
“Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.
“The world’s most affluent populations should be targeted first. According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.”
But hang on John Reid! Many women, in many affluent socieites, are choosing to have none, one or just two children.
Dr Reid stated,
“The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.”
But many women like me, choose to only have one child for a variety of reasons, including quality of life, recognising that there are enough people on this planet already.
Perhaps John Reid is conflating “the urge to procreate” with the urge to have s-x.
Modern methods of contraception mean it is possible to have s-x without procreating!
You can read the complete and startling transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1807002.htm#transcript