Peter Singer Wants to Teach the World His Song Of Death

Peter Singer Wants to Teach the World His Song Of Death

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 rrror, 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.

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.


  1. trigger warning

    Most philosophers can cope with the obscurity that comes with the profession. Singer is a publicity hound.

  2. acricketchirps

    I AM a kind of farthing dip,
    Unfriendly to the nose and eyes;
    A blue-behinded ape, I skip
    Upon the trees of Paradise.

    At mankind’s feast, I take my place
    In solemn, sanctimonious state,
    And have the air of saying grace
    While I defile the dinner plate.

    I am the “smiler with the knife,”
    The battener upon garbage, I—
    Dear Heaven, with such a rancid life,
    Were it not better far to die?

    Yet still, about the human pale,
    I love to scamper, love to race,
    To swing by my irreverent tail
    All over the most holy place;

    And when at length, some golden day,
    The unfailing sportsman, aiming at,
    Shall bag, me—all the world shall say:
    Thank God, and there’s an end of that!

  3. acricketchirps

    Not sure why your bringing up Singer made me think of Stevenson’s poem this morning.

  4. Gary

    Cricket, I thought of this:

    Too many people going underground
    Too many reaching for a piece of cake
    Too many people pulled and pushed around
    Too many waiting for that lucky break

    That was your first mistake
    You took your lucky break and broke it in two
    Now what can be done for you?
    You broke it in two

    Too many people sharing party lines
    Too many people never sleeping late
    Too many people paying parking fines
    Too many hungry people losing weight

    That was your first mistake
    You took your lucky break and broke it in two
    Now what can be done for you?
    You broke it in two

    Too many people preaching practices
    Don’t let them tell you what you want to be
    Too many people holding back
    This is crazy and, baby, it’s not like me

    That was your last mistake
    I find my love awake and waiting to be
    Now what can be done for you?
    She’s waiting for me

    – Paul McCartney, Ram (1971)

  5. acricketchirps

    Best post Beatles McCartney album, but I don’t quite see the connection there either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *