Television naturalist David Attenborough recently signed-up to front a political cause. He’s not planning on replacing Declan Ganley, though. Instead, by becoming patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), Attenborough has put his sights squarely on the seething mass of humanity. The OPT opposes immigration, seeking a one-in, one-out policy it calls “balanced migration” and says “there is no unlimited right to have children.”
Attenborough is a popular figure, and rightly so: he educated and entertained us as children, sparking a sense of wonder at the natural world. He is not merely a television presenter, he is more like our collective uncle. Why, then, has he thrown his weight behind such an extreme position? The idea of an ‘optimum population’ is one very much supported by the far-right British National Party and when China introduced its one-child policy in 1979 it was widely criticised for its authoritarian nature.
Most of us celebrate the birth of a child as meaning hope for the future but some environmentalists see things rather differently. In 2007, writer Abby O’Reilly wrote a newspaper article that described babies as “screaming shit machines” and commented supportively on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a kind of Optimum Population Trust on steroids. (1) And birth control pills, though presumably not on viagra. You couldn’t get a dimmer view of humanity from a Calvinist preacher.
There is clearly a bad case of hyper-inflation working its way through green demands. Yesterday’s good coin is today’s pram-load of Weimar Republic banknotes – we have to do more and we have to have started yesterday. The One Hundred Months project now says we only have 85 months left to save the world. Even if it’s true – and it’s unlikely – do you realise whose fault it is? Yours. Yes, that’s right you. Of course, if the end really is that nigh, what’s the problem with having a few more kids? Amazingly, the University of West England’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies recently hosted a conference of so-called ‘eco-psychologists’ to explore the concept of climate change ‘denial’ as a pathology. Talk about getting personal? Now disagreement can be dismissed as a form of insanity.
The green movement can be summed-up as the logical conclusion of the old slogan, “the personal is political”. The difference is that when feminists first used that statement in the 1960s they were attacking hypocrisy and exploitation in interpersonal relations. Today it means that our private lives must be judged ‘ethical’ in every detail – including our bowel movements. Writing recently in Britain’s Guardian newspaper Christian Wolmar, who calls himself “Britain’s leading transport commentator” (that’s a commentator on transport issues, not someone who talks loudly on the bus) demanded that toilet paper be done away with. During a trip to India Wolmar had a case of “Delhi belly” – I am not making this up – but managed to save the day with a, “spray attachment that allowed me to clean my anus”. (2) (3) Thanks Christian, we really needed to know that.
Before anyone mentions bidets it’s worth remembering, as Dublin city council told us on its submerged banner in the Liffey, “water is precious.” Precious, perhaps, but not yet scarce enough to stop flooding the council’s pointless propaganda campaigns. Bidets are hygienic devices but they never caught-on in Ireland and they’re not likely to now. After all, we are regularly told already use too much water. Apparently it’s not leaky pipes that are the problem, it’s people drinking and washing.
One environmental writer commenting on bidets wrote: “It’s difficult to understand why environmentalists are so willing to discuss their bathroom habits with perfect strangers.” Actually it’s easy to understand: once on-board, green concerns trump all other matters including freedom, privacy and, apparently manners. (4)
For anyone who does want to try and “green-up” their lives this trend of exaggeration and personalisation can be a disturbing one. In case you think switching to a supposedly “sustainable” electricity supplier and getting a wood pellet boiler puts you in the clear, think again.
According to James Heartfield, a longstanding critic of the environmental movement and author of a recent book, ‘Green Capitalism’, green demands are not actually intended to be met: “All green measures are propagandist in nature,” he told me. “Hypocrisy is written into it, they understand no-one can live up to it.”
Heartfield says that it is inevitable that modern, industrialised society produces a romantic, nostalgic opposition: “They set it out as a practical programme but they don’t live by it. This is because it’s not a political programme, it’s demonstration of ‘goodness’, what Hegel called ‘the beautiful soul’”.
There are carbon footprints in the bedroom too, it would seem. Sex is an important issue for environmentalists as being in favour of it makes them seem more like ordinary people. As we’ve already seen, though, environmentalists are not exactly enamoured with one of the outcomes of sex: babies. But there’s more.
Nina Shen Rastogi, who writes the Green Lantern column for the acclaimed US news website Slate told readers she, “heartily approves of sex as an eco-friendly activity. Besides the puffs of CO2 emitted by mood-setting candles and the electricity used to play that Sade CD, sex ends up being a pretty low-impact way to kill a few hours. (Plus, it can keep your heating bill down.)” (5)
Still, Rastogi, like any good eco-worrier, is bothered by the downsides of enjoying oneself and says that neither the oral contraceptive pill nor the condom are environmentally sound. She notes that women on the pill pass endocrine disruptors through their urine (again with the toilet) which is ‘linked’ to the feminisation of male fish. Thankfully, Ragosti acknowledges the argument is faulty because all humans excrete hormones whether they are on the pill or not: “[...] Simply cutting out contraceptives won’t solve the problem of intersex fish: What’s really needed is better sewage treatment,” she wrote. (6) Lamb-skin condoms are an option, of course. If you have lost touch with reality.
If natural condoms sound vile, how about a semi-permanent piece of plastic and metal inserted into the uterus? The intrauterine device, otherwise known as the coil, is one contraceptive that proves men and women are not yet equal. It is impossible to imagine any man volunteering for such treatment.
Thinking this much about sex is sure to put anyone off – a win for the OPT.
There’s nothing like poverty to put an end to trendy bandwagons. With a recession in full-swing – something else environmentalists have written approvingly of – how many ‘yummy mummies’ will be paying for those pricey organic treats for little Sorcha and Jonny to nosebag? The little “shit machines” may have to make do with Angel Delight.
Businesses have been profiteering from green guilt for decades, the Body Shop specialises in it, as does union-busting Ben and Jerry’s who make ‘ethical’ ice cream for people who think workers should have no rights. In recent years being good to gaia has become a real money-spinner. As wallets get thinner and purses full of copper coins make a comeback it seems unlikely that people will continue to pay through the nose for products that are no better for the environment, or anything else.
Statistician Bjorn Lomborg has been a thorn in the side of fashionable green causes for several years now. Lomborg who authored ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ and ‘Cool it!’ was excorciated by the environmentalist movement for saying that fiddling with people’s consumption patterns was a waste of time.
“I try to strike a balance,” he told the forth. “I think environmental campaigners are motivated by good intentions. The problem is we are being told we can save the planet by doing a few simple things but in reality it’s more about manufacturing processes and global systems.”
Lomborg doesn’t criticise people who do want to cut down, but says it’s important to not have unrealistic expectations: “Of course we all want to focus on “what can we do?”. I’m saying it’s fine to do these things, but don’t believe this is what is going to fix the problems.”
The thing is, Lomborg is right. No-one will willingly move backwards, especially given that relative wealth and development are new to the vast majority of Irish people. If the environmental movement is really serious and wants to make an impact it needs to stop doom-mongering and hectoring us, instead concentrating on the major industrial issues that dwarf us as individuals. Even collective gestures like the annual mass switch-off of the lights beloved of preachy greens and preachier newspaper columnists has, literally, no effect.
Except to make all of our lives that little bit darker.
Click here to buy Bjorn Lomborg and James Heartfield’s books from forth‘s Amazon store
Jason Walsh is the editor of forth. His personal website is jasonwalsh.ie
(1) No more babies, please, Abby O’Reilly, the Guardian, November 24, 2007
(2) Let’s wipe out toilet paper, Christian Wolmar, the Guardian, March 4, 2009
(3) Top marks for the sub-editor, though, that’s a great headline. Ditto footnote 5 from Slate.
(4) Which Is Greener: Toilet Paper Or A Bidet?, Chris Baskind, Lighter Footstep, undated
(5) Tree-humper, Nina Shen Rastogi, Slate, March 3, 2009
(6) Ibid
Click here to comment on this story or read other readers' views
RSS feed
