We are increasingly seeing stories like this one discussing how having children is contributing to global warming and intimating that we should limit the number of children that we produce. Then there are the increasingly common views of people like Paul Watson,:
"Humans are presently acting upon this body [the "biosphere"] in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological
A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet's life support system. We are killing our host the planet Earth.
I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the "AIDS of the Earth." I make no apologies for that statement. Our viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and ourselves. We are both the pathogen and the vector. . . .
Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach."
This is a continuation of the Paul Ehrlich Population Bomb nonsense. The population since Ehrlich wrote his book has tripled yet there has been no widespread famines. In fact, the standard of living of the world has increased, especially the third world. Anybody that has travelled to China can verify this with their own eyes. My wife stood in line as a little girl waiting for her weekly ration of meat but left China as an upper middle class citizen.
So ,despite the constant apocryphal predictions of the environmentalists, the planet has gotten cleaner (our air and water quality are all greatly improved since the sixties), richer and safer as the population has increased.
No, humans are not a virus that has to be wiped out, but the hope for the future. It used to be the religious fanatics that stood on the street corner with "The End is Near" signs, now it is the environmentalists - the new religious nuts.