Science Museum chief’s answer to ‘global warming’ problem: Stop having so many babies!

Via the Observer/Guardian:

The new head of the Science Museum has an uncompromising view about how global warming should be dealt with: get rid of a few billion people. Chris Rapley, who takes up his post on September 1, is not afraid of offending. ‘I am not advocating genocide,’ said Rapley. ‘What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate – by improving contraception, education and healthcare – we will stop the world’s population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.

‘That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity. The crucial point is that to achieve this goal you would only have to spend a fraction of the money that will be needed to bring about technological fixes, new nuclear power plants or renewable energy plants. However, everyone has decided, quietly, to ignore the issue.’
Such arguments give an indication of the priorities of the new Science Museum chief, an office that has been vacant since 2005 when Lindsay Sharp abruptly left the Â£150,000 post following rows about financial waste, cronyism and the ‘Disneyfication’ of exhibitions.

Now Rapley, currently head of the British Antarctic Survey and a passionate believer in man’s influence on climate, is set to take charge of the museum, one of Britain’s most challenging institutions, where strict academic requirements must be met while competing with Legoland and Disneyland to attract visitors. Only by tackling the issues of the day can he succeed, Rapley said.

Hence his urging that we deal with overpopulation, a call of wide public interest and one that reflects the contents of the recent report by the Optimum Population Trust, which called for each couple in Britain to be limited to having two children each. ‘A voluntary stop-at-two guideline should be adopted for couples in the UK who want to adopt greener lifestyles,’ it stated.

I was particularly interested in Rapley’s comment about ‘improving healthcare’ to stem the apparent population tidal wave. Sounds like he’s advocating women have abortions in order to save the planet, doesn’t it?

Prior/Related:

8 Responses to "Science Museum chief’s answer to ‘global warming’ problem: Stop having so many babies!"

Terrye says:

July 22, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Health care could also mean contraception and education. To be truthful, I don’t think that half starved women having a dozen kids by their time they are 30 is good for their health. In the late 19th century the average life span of an American woman was about 38 years of age. Death to due childbirth was the number one cause. Women also aged a lot faster because of the numerous pregnancies. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating abortion and I think the whole global warming scare is way over the top…but there is more to women’s health care than abortion.
Jimmie says:

July 22, 2007 at 11:53 pm

And who does Mr. Rapley suggest will do all the work to pay the taxes that the socialized public welfare systems in the UK will demand as the population gets older?

Two children per couple skates very close to the 1.4 (as I recall) child “replenishment rate” under which a county begins to depopulate itself into extinction. Most of Europe is already there. England is too, as I remember my Mark Steyn reading.

Rapley’s suggestion, if taken to its logical end, will mean the forced depopulation of Africa and the Middle East – the two places where the birth rate is well above the replenishment rate. I don’t imagine that the various Islamic nations will take too kindly when an an infidel suggest that they start aborting babies and sterilizing themselves.
camojack says:

July 23, 2007 at 4:01 am

Well…more people exhale more CO2. QED…
Leslie says:

July 23, 2007 at 11:34 am

we will stop the world’s population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.

And we know this how . . . ?
Steve Skubinna says:

July 23, 2007 at 10:56 pm

The developed nations, you know, the ones that actually make and buy and sell stuff, are already facing declining populations. The nations with still-expanding populations are the ones without all that icky technology and education and rights stuff.

So the problem is solved. Unless of course if Mr. Rapley means by “not advocating genocide” he means, er, to kill off useless (to him) population. Bet you five bucks that no editorial staff member of, say, The Gaurdian would be on the list to be culled.
Steve Skubinna says:

July 23, 2007 at 10:59 pm

And incidentally, does anyone find it telling the words used to describe the no doubt talented Mr. Rapley?

“A passionate believer in man’s influence on climate.”

Golly. How overwhelmingly scientific. Well, thank Science he doesn’t believe in something silly.
G Monster says:

July 24, 2007 at 12:20 am

hmmm…interesting topic…i think i’ll leave it alone. naw.

at some point the world might have too many people, so yes, we might have to look into having limits on how many babies people should have.

i think china taxes you if you go over the limit. the tax is so high, noone goes over the limit. apparently this applies in the cities, not so much in the country, as the children are needed to help work the farm. it’s the first country that comes to my mind that has already had to deal with overpopulation.

i believe germany and japan have zero or negative population growth. i would guess they do this by having strict immigration rules and not having enough children.

if the usa were to completely cutoff migration to this country, my understanding is that we would have zero population growth. that is without rules regarding births, as there are plenty of people that opt not to have children, therefore leaving the door open for those that do, to have as many as they wish.

just food for thought to enhance the debate…
Steve Skubinna says:

July 24, 2007 at 1:37 am

G Monster, China not only fines you if you go over the limit, they force you to abort the second child – er, fetus. And the “one child” policy also means that parents are aborting female chi- uh, fetuses since males are an economic plus while females are a loss (speaking in terms of long range family economics, where often your “retirement” is having a child old enough and prosperous enough to support you). So their birth rate is not only below replacement, but there are more boys than girls being born which ought to lead to some… interesting social tensions down the road. As Mark Steyn has remarked, China might be set to become the world’s first gay superpower since Sparta.

As for Europe, I believe Spain has the lowest birthrate right now, and is pretty much free falling. But all of the western social welfare states are reaching crunch time, where there are not enough working members of the population to support the huge welfare programs everybody has as a birthright.

Comments are closed.