Peter Singer Wants to Teach the World His Song of Death

And Make It Mandatory

By William M Briggs Published on June 21, 2018

It’s always amazing to me when I see Peter Singer’s name crop up on an article. I keep guessing he’d have been tarred and feathered and purged from polite society by now.

But no. He’s tolerated, because tolerating lunatic despicable blood-and-death-loving savages like Singer is what we do. We on the right are nice people. We are nice to Singer.

Singer is not nice to us. He joins two others, who I bet have never ever said “I wish my mother aborted me,” in writing yet another article claiming there are too many people. I also bet Singer and his co-authors feel they are not part of the surplus population.

Cracked Crystal Balls

They begin with Paul “Population Bomb” Ehrlich, whose overpopulation predictions were so monumentally wrong that even climatologists blush when reading them.

But error, even gross malfeasant preposterous error, is no bar from being venerated as a prophet when your heart is in the right place. And Ehrlich’s heart is just as black as Singer’s.

Ehrlich, a biologist, argued that if voluntary family planning didn’t reduce population sufficiently to avoid famine and other natural disasters, then coercion and the withdrawal of food aid to some countries would be necessary and justifiable.

Wait. Did he say remove food to avoid famine? I don’t get it, but then I am not a tenured biologist.

Anyway, starvation is a scientifically proven way to kill off undesirables. Just ask the Ukrainians who lived through an application of Ehrlich’s far-left policy. No one but God knows the total, but guesses say from three to eight million were Ehrliched in the Holodomor.

That sounds like a lot, but it’s not even one percent of the world’s population. We’re going to have to do better.

First Person to Say ‘Feminist’ Loses

Feminists, Singer and pals tell us, were the first to object to China’s original one-child policy. But feminists have now seen the dark.

Both feminists and population stabilization advocates now agree that providing reproductive health services to women is first and foremost a right in itself, as well as the best and most ethical way to slow population growth.

Reproductive health services is the super fun euphemism invented by the left which means cutting enwombed babies into small parts and selling them to raise shopping money. Incidentally, if feminists have the “right” to kill, why don’t we have the “right” to, as writer Kevin Williamson may or may not have meant seriously, string abortionists up by the neck until dead? Just asking.

Diaper Sales

The trio of population stabilization advocates tell us there’s soon going to be a lot more black Africans around. Some Nigerian women have as many as five children! Which is nothing. Queen Victoria had nine. And she lived on a water-drenched gray island whose benighted inhabitants have lost all knowledge of how to comb hair.

Using what is doubtless sophisticated population-stabilization math, our trio conclude that “rapid population growth means many dependent children for each adult.” People who have more kids have more kids to care for. That’s the kind of Science™ folks like Singer are justifiably famous for.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Don’t applaud yet. Because they also infer this gem: “If fertility were reduced, there would be fewer children and more adults able to work.”

That there would be fewer adults to work in a few years time seems to have escaped their notice. But Science™ is, we are told, self-correcting. They’ll get it right next time.

We’re All Victims Now

What’s odd is the authors’ whiny, we’re-victims-too tone. They go on and on about how talking about population control is “taboo,” and how sad it is the UN did not dare “to suggest that it might be desirable to slow the increase in human population.” They make the risible claim that “Researchers say they are discouraged from writing about the links between population and climate change or the survival of marine environments.” Don’t tell that to Google scholar.

If talk of population control by global academic elites was taboo, how is it they are talking about it? In the Washington Post. And on every college campus and venue infected by their presence. Talking about it as Ehrlich has done for decades. All to great and sustained applause from the left.

Yet these brave heroes will not be dissuaded by the “religious beliefs held by some.” No, sir. They’ll be guided instead by their own religious views. Which, because they are their own religious views and not those “held by some,” are proper and true.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    Like Alfred Kinsey, Singer is a sociopath, and that either of them were able to attain positions in academia tells you all you need to know about modern academia.

  • Helen Weir

    Peter Singer and Nigel Biggar are “birds of a feather.” What is Biggar doing on Pope Francis’ revamped Pontifical Academy for Life?

  • Sapient

    People need to understand the implications of voting for a Democrat—any Democrat.

  • Rabbi High Comma

    Mr. Briggs is too smart to not have noticed the shared genetic provenance of Erlich, Singer, et al. He is also too polite to say it out loud. However, the cat is out of the bag, and abiding by your self-imposed master’s demands to not name them merely justifies the their claimed right to rule you. (((They))) view us as cattle to me managed, and culled in a manner which benefits them most. Whites are the Texas Longhorns – good for surviving on the range, but too likely to cause problems in the “Logan’s Run” urban rabbit warrens 90% of the population will be forced into under global governance. They no longer countersignal talk of the NWO as a conspiracy theory – now they gloat about its promised glories.

    The sooner everyone’s cards are face up on the table, the sooner it’s resolved. I vote for forcing that to happen asap.

  • Irene Neuner

    The truth is that there is abundance of land and potential for (organic and gentle) plant and animal growth on our planet. There is, in rural America especially, a need for hard working people. Lots of them. The scarcity is people it’s just that they don’t want to work hard away from the urban resources.

    The scarcity is Love.

  • Stephen D

    Singer’s position on ethics is very close to that of the German government in the 1930s. Human intellectual arrogance (personified by Singer and his friends) likes to construct simplistic ethical systems like utilitarianism. However the Bible tells us that all human systems are subject to the Fall i.e. they are naturally infused with evil.
    From a biblical perspective we can ask “Where is the philosopher of this age?” (1 Cor 1:2). Surely God has made Singer’s wisdom look very foolish. A man who places so much moral weight on a simplistic ethical system like utilitarianism must be both foolish and dangerous, because he does not realise that evil is at work in his soul.

  • > We pray to God that you’ll do more wrong and stop playing with a woman’s
    > life.

If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do?
David Kyle Foster
More from The Stream
Connect with Us