The UN Dislikes People: Here’s Their Plan For Fewer Of Them

Eliminating people is not sustainable

Ashley Judd and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin spoke at a press briefing regarding Ms. Judd's appointment as a Goodwill Ambassador for UNFPA. The UNFPA addresses “reproductive health and population issues.” (March 15, 2016 in New York City)

By William M Briggs Published on December 15, 2016

In an entry for Most Obnoxious Euphemism, United Nations category, we have reproductive health. The words sound serious and caring, with a slight evocation of adults concerned about the “rights” of women.

Yet the term means the exact opposite of its plain English sense. Reproductive health is literally non-reproduction, non-health. The euphemism is always put in service of contraception, to the prevention of human life, to discouraging reproduction, to killing human life via abortion.

It’s no wonder, then, that reproductive health is a key feature of the United Nations so-called sustainable development goals, as admitted by Guy J. Abel and three others in the peer-reviewed paper “Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals leads to lower world population growth” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Sustainable development itself is a kind of euphemism, or code phrase that is calculated to simultaneously frighten and hold forth what appears to be a solution to the fright.

Sustainable development itself is a kind of euphemism, or code phrase that is calculated to simultaneously frighten and hold forth what appears to be a solution to the fright. That which is unsustainable is, of course, alarming. And development sounds cheering, even though it must be government-guided.

But a trick is being played. There is no accepted definition of sustainable: it means whatever the political forces in power want it to mean. Because there is no rigorous definition, it is always be possible for our leaders to claim that whatever programs in place for taxation, regulation, and control to make development “sustainable”, they have been newly discovered to be “unsustainable”, and thus need to be strengthened.

We can glean one clear thing from the use of the term. People are not sustainable. People are not wanted. People are up to no good. As Abel says:

In the context of sustainable development, world population growth is sometimes called ‘the elephant in the room.’ Many view it as one of the most important factors in causing environmental degradation and in making adaptation to already unavoidable environmental change more difficult.

It is worth asking what the “environment” is. Is it something in itself, a thing apart from people, perhaps even something worthy of veneration? Something to keep “unspoiled” by the presence of people? Or is it just the world in which people live? It clearly must be the latter. There is nothing separate which is the environment, and this which is human. Humans-in-the-world is the environment.

It must be that the world is for people to use for their benefit. Not to despoil, but to use for human thriving, as a means to “be fruitful and multiply.” Yet it is obvious that this is not the view of the “environmentalists” at the UN, who suppose the environment would be better if there were fewer people.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) point the way towards fewer people. Abel says “implementing the SDGs will help speed up the process of demographic transition that otherwise would occur more slowly.” Demographic transition is another euphemism to define a world with many fewer people.

One way to accomplish the goal of “demographic transition,” as acknowledged by Abel, is education.

Consistently, more-educated women experience lower fertility. … There is increasing evidence that education, particularly in countries in demographic transition, has a direct causal effect on lowering desired family size and empowering women to realize these lower fertility goals.

This is clear evidence that “education” is not a value-free word. It does not mean just knowing more, but knowing and acting on secular principles as specified by the UN. People have to be taught to act in ways that are unnatural. Reproduction and the desire for children are natural; the pursuit of sexual activities so that children are prevented is unnatural. Just think: No culture ever needed “sex education” to learn how to propagate. “Education” was only necessary to encourage or force non-propagation.

Education would only go so far in eliminating people. This is why Abel insists on “meeting the unmet need for contraception.” They say “if the unmet contraceptive need were eliminated, the total fertility rate (TFR) would be 20% lower.” To these must be added “access to sexual and reproductive health-care services,” which is to say abortion.

The UN is not shy in its motives. Target 3.7 of the SDGs boldly states, “By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.”

Governments, especially in central and south Africa where birth rates are still healthy, will be encouraged to make it official policy to decrease their citizenry. This is why it unnerving to read Abel’s concluding words that “the entire UN system have committed themselves to do whatever is required, possibly including unconventional measures, to reach the specified targets” of fewer people.

The more people realize they are being asked to act against their own interest, the greater will be the need of “unconventional measures.”

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.
  • Michael Gore

    Funny how in many of these countries that imbibed the progressive decree of fewer children 20 years ago are now realizing that their populations are about to undergo a collapse due to lack of people being born. This is one of the main reasons that Angela Merkle was so keen on bringing in un-vetted middle eastern refugees by the ton, because they desperately need workers. And we see what a disaster that has been for everyone.

    China too, has of late lifted many restrictions on their family size policies because they too are forecasting a shortage of working age people in the future.

    A society that does not produce and value children is a society without future or hope.

    • Wayne Cook

      The UN, NWO, Socialists, Communists are all about one thing. Power. Including reproductive.

  • Charles Burge

    I can’t help but wonder if there’s a subtle bigotry going on here. Most European countries are already depopulating themselves, but Africa and southern and central Asia are experiencing rapid growth. The inevitable result of that will be a shift in economic and political power toward those areas. Does this frighten the European elites, and motivate them to arrest this shift?

    • Wayne Cook

      Interesting…half the population is Sharia…the other half Christian. Since 2015, 18000 Christians have been murdered across Africa. I can’t help but wonder….The contraceptives of choice have been AK47’s, fire, and explosives.

  • Gary

    Those who want to see fewer people on earth are free to help make that happen with their own lives. They should not be free to force their beliefs on others.

  • Kevin Quillen

    U.S. out of UN, and UN out of U.S.

  • mhjhnsn

    As a general principle, when someone says something is or is not “sustainable” but doesn’t define “sustainable” pretty tightly, assume they are lying or BS-ing. Doubly so when that “someone” is a large organization with many people, all pulling in various directions.

    You will never go wrong.

  • Howzabout these UN factotums volunteer their Destiny’s to what they Preach and Believe in ?

    AH, CAN’T DO THAT, can we ?

  • Allen

    No body ever accused the Un of having any truth in them from which to gain logic. John 14:6 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. KJV

  • Robert Spoon

    This is the same NEW AGE policy that has been advancing through the world, the issue behind Climate change is at it’s heart population control. It’s funny though because the muslim community see’s no threat to the climate by reproducing and if they succeed they will outnumber the so called enlightened ones one day and then the NEW AGE movement will be officially DEAD! or converted whichever comes first. Do these people even listen to themselves?

Inspiration
Learning Persevering Prayer
Deacon Keith Fournier
More from The Stream
Connect with Us