Solving ‘Overpopulation’ with ‘Birth Credits’

July 1st, 2013

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

obama-too-many

In an interview with Vice, the urban designer, former Florida gubernatorial candidate and futurist proposed the concept of “birth credits” to help curb what he terms a “slow-moving, global disaster like overpopulation”…
~ Aaron Dykes – Melissa Melton – Video

China, and the rest of the world, would be better served by a choice-based marketable birth license plan, or ‘birth credits,’
that could stop or reverse population growth on a dime…

Each person
would be issued half of a birth credit, which he or she can combine with
a partner to have one child, or a person can sell his or her (half)
credit at the going market rate.

Each additional child costs one more
credit. Noncompliance would bring a fine greater than the cost of the
credit, and there would be sanctions for non-compliant countries (such
as migration restrictions).

The Wikipedia entry for birth
credits (which I’m just guessing was actually written or edited by Arth
due to the tone which seems to suggest what a brilliant idea birth
credits are) explains the scheme in more detail:

Birth credits would allow
any woman to have as many children as she wants, as long as she buys a
license for any children beyond an average allotment that would result
in zero population growth.

If that allotment was determined to be one
child, for example, then the first child would be free, and the market
would determine the cost of the license for each additional child.

The
incentive to society is the prevention of an overpopulation-related
tragedy of the commons, including an immediate reduction in unwanted
children… As with traffic laws, enforcement of birth credits could be
through fines, tax levies, or loss of privileges.

The Arth
plan — which Wikipedia says would “serve more as a wake-up call to women
who might otherwise produce children without seriously considering the
long term consequences to themselves or society” — also assumes that
rich people won’t buy extra birth credits because they already limit
their families by choice.

(Tell that to billionaire Ted Turner who
has five children but advocates a one-child policy for the rest of the
world to reduce the population down to two billion people.)

Sounds like those with more money will be able to afford to procreate or
at least have an option to procreate the most and the poor people
won’t. Sound familiar?

The austerity measures used to achieve the solution do not improve the
lives of the many, but instead, deliberately deprive them.

With carbon
credits, people’s access to energy is cut off if they cannot afford to
pay a premium for it; in the case of birth licenses or credits, the
right to reproduce is determined by a cruel sliding scale of eugenics
mathematics.

Fellow overpopulation eugenicists John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich (known for The Population Bomb) were beating a similar drum back in 1977′s Ecoscience,
presenting views that eerily parallel Arth’s draconian blueprints for
population control.

This textbook revealed in a section titled
“Involuntary fertility control” how such a reaching birth licensing
scheme could be rolled out, and at what price to liberty:

The development of a long-term sterilizing
capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when
pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive
fertility control.

The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might
be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of
births.

No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet
been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility.
(Pg. 786-7) [emphasis added]

Key phrase here: “with
official permission”. In Holdren and Ehrlich’s book, such permission
would be granted by a ‘planetary regime’ that also has control over all
international trade and all food on the international market — a one
world government.

Who do you think will ultimately control the birth credits in Arth’s plan?

In continuing with Vice, Arth also asserted China’s one-child policy was inadequate and stated:

Now, thanks to the one-child policy – to which
there are many exceptions, by the way – China’s ageing population will
probably not grow much more from now on, as long as they don’t remove
the restrictions.

Exceptions? Arth fails to mention the fact
that A) China already has a below-replacement fertility rate and B)
because of the nation’s barbaric one-child policy combined with the
preference for male children in China, female infanticide has
skyrocketed, leaving the country’s ratio of boys-to-girls severely
skewed.

As a result, “Bride kidnapping” has
resurfaced throughout the country, a practice that occurred regularly
throughout China until the 1940s. Stories of little girls getting
kidnapped so sons can have wives come out of China on a regular basis
these days.

In addition, the horrific practice of forced abortion
is a daily occurrence in China; that means government officials break
into a pregnant woman’s home, drag her out against her will and take her
to a hospital where she is forced to undergo an abortion which could be
performed at any stage in her pregnancy.

Arth also goes on to say that zero population growth is a good goal, but really we need to do more:

Zero population growth is the minimum we
should aim for, but negative population growth would help prepare for
the time in the near future when people will live indefinitely long.

Interesting,
considering the actual data shows that the majority of developing
countries are already sitting at zero or negative population growth as
it is.

The only countries that are not in that category are developing
African nations that happen to have some of the shortest life
expectancies on the planet. Whereas people in developed nations live an
average of 80 years, people in many of these African nations have an
average lifespan that doesn’t even reach 50 years.

But Arth asserts that in the near future, people will live indefinitely,
so we have to plan accordingly and start depopulating faster now. He
does not seem to realize that the technocratic elite do not plan for
such technology to ever be available to everybody. The plebs aren’t
invited to that party.

Think about it. If these people are this worried about overpopulation now, why in the world would they want to make everyone live forever?

Schemes like birth plans are nothing more than eugenics, plain and simple, and overpopulation is nothing more than a myth propagated for one bad agenda.

VideoLink

At one point in his interview, Arth actually said, “If we had addressed
these issues in 1985, two billion people in the world now living on less
than two dollars a day would never have been born.”

Arth’s zeal for eugenics depopulation schemes could hardly be more
evident than if he advertised it on a giant billboard hovering in E.
Arth’s orbit.

Aaron Dykes – Melissa Melton – June 24, 2013 – posted at ActivistPost