Yes, Children, he says it would have been okay for Sarah to kill Trig and sex with animals is okay too (as long as it is not cruel).

But never mind: Being green means never to say you are sorry.

So Peter Singer has been rewarded by being given a major government award by Australia, and on the Queen’s birthday too.

One wonders about the backstory of the award, but I suspect it has something to do with political payback: a Wikipedia report on their 2010 election notes that the election was essentially a tie, but the cooperation of the Green party left the Labor party in charge

Singer helped write one of the Green party’s manifestos, and even ran for Senator in that party. So presumably this is pay back for him and his party, sort of a way to make his policies sound normal so as not to scare the voters.

And indeed it didn’t get a lot of publicity:(9 stories on Google News). However, A few folks did protest

Senator Joyce contrasted Professor Singer’s appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia with the uproar surrounding photos of members of the Olympic swimming team with guns. “Political correctness says that is outrageous,” he said, “but on the same day we’re supposed to laud and praise Professor Peter Singer for . . . such wonderful ideas as a child has no rights and can be killed until they are cognisant of their rights”.


But Greens leader Christine Milne defended him.

“Peter Singer . . . deserves his global reputation for challenging people to reconsider their views on ethical behaviour, animal welfare and the human condition,” she said.

Professor Singer co-wrote the 1996 manifesto for the Greens with former party leader Bob Brown.

The Order of Australia website says anyone can be nominated by anyone, but the winners are chosen by a bunch of politicians in the government. So shame on them.

The Australian newspaper has the cheery spin here.

Singer’s chant for a better, kinder world

PETER Singer is the model of the very modern philosopher, tapping into the zeigeist on a catalogue of issues that resonate with Western angst. And while his theories are not always popular, and at times controversial, the Melbourne-born professor of bioethics is in the business of teaching the world how to lead better lives. Relieving mass poverty one person at a time, animal rights and living ethically are his line of inquiry…

The controversies, when they hit, cause a firestorm among the morally righteous. His aetheist, vegan, utilitarian view of the world occasionally asks uncomfortable questions. Abortion, infanticide, stem cell research, western greed, human supremacy are touchstones that have been pounced upon by everyone from the evangelical right to free marketeers. And often everyone in between.

Yes, those nasty “morally righteous” folk, who aren’t as tolerant as ordinary Australians. Or maybe as tolerant of murder as those in Australian academia: Remember that article in a leading medical journal a couple months ago that said post birth abortions should be made legal? They come from the same Australian University where Singer had his start.

So it’s not just Singer.

What is more troubling is Singer’s links with their green party. As one who is sympathetic with the green agenda, I worry: because too often all those good things we read as their goals are “doublespeak”: they use language in an Orwellian way to hide their agenda.

One can find an example of this doublespeak in the Princeton University press release.

He was appointed Companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia “for eminent service to philosophy and bioethics as a leader of public debate and communicator of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition.”

Ah, what is truth? asked one cynical prosecutor to a local troublemaker who was being framed for political reasons. And things haven’t changed much in two milleneum:

“Renouncing the glamour of Satan in today’s age means rejecting a culture where truth does not matter,” the Pope said.

Which may be why a lot of news stories make the Pope an enemy, twisting what he said and misreporting stories on Catholicism.

The green religion’s problem is that it prefers to overlook facts that are obvious, in favor of the party line. Yet one can oppose corporate greed and pollution while trying to dig up the truth behind the “green success” stories. Alas, for every honest “Mother Jones” report, there are others that hesitate to pull the curtain back to reveal the man behind the mirror:
From Terradaily:

In Approaching a state-shift in Earth’s biosphere, a paper just published in Nature, the authors, whose expertise span a multitude of disciplines, suggest our planet’s ecosystems are careening towards an imminent, irreversible collapse.
Earth’s accelerating loss of biodiversity, its climates’ increasingly extreme fluctuations, its ecosystems’ growing connectedness and its radically changing total energy budget are precursors to reaching a planetary state threshold or tipping point.
Once that happens, which the authors predict could be reached this century, the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye.

True? Maybe. But then we see they suggest a “cure”:

“Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly. More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It’s a very tall order.”

Italics mine.

Uh, how do you plan to “drastically lower our population very quickly? Kill them off with an epidemic, as in the Tom Clancy novel Rainbow Six? Or just initiate forced population control, as in China?

Of course, this could only be done if you allow a One World Order to force people to do these things. Think Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” on a global scale (and Mao’s shennanigans killed 40 million or so folks, but never mind).

and if all this sounds familiar, it’s because Ehrlich’s the Population Bomb said the same thing, in 1968…. 

Early editions of The Population Bomb began with the statement:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…[5]

Okay, kids, who wants to do another Simon-Ehrlich wager?

Ironically, while most elitist progressives believe in the “green” religion of too many poor people and greedy rich people (but not them, of course), the old fashioned socialists still are honest enough to identify with the poor, and take a dim view on this globalist rhetoric that could result in a lot of dead people.

Here is a review of a less dystopian book at their website:

Fred Pearce, Peoplequake: Mass Migration, Ageing Nations and the Coming Population Crash (Eden Project Books, 2010), £12.99 

The idea that a growing population means a greater pressure on natural resources, which eventually exceeds planetary capacity, is a simple common sense one. It is also wrong.

Since Malthus’s time, those who have followed in his footsteps have used such arguments to justify the world’s unequal distribution of wealth and argue against the possibility of social reform. Racism and scapegoating have flowed from the theory and have lead to forced sterilisation programmes, abortion and anti-immigrant legislation.

Or, as comedian PJ O’Rourke once quipped:

Fretting about overpopulation is a perfectly guilt-free — indeed, sanctimonious — way for “progressives” to be racists.

So yes, try to stop global warming, but take all those global warming scenerios with a grain of salt. Ask you local green organizations if it is good for their agenda to support those like Peter Singer and others who would have no problem eliminating the unfit:

… the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants

Opinions such as this should make Singer anathema to any ethical person, including those of us who see caring for others and caring for the earth as part of a “seamless garment” ethic.

So my question is why do so many green sympathizers fail to condemn Singer’s link to their movement?

Are they like Stalin’s “Useful idiots”, who hide the troublesome facts to push a utopian agenda?

Or are they a more sinister bunch, who see that Singer’s idea of weakening the taboo against taking life will enable them to push policies to lower the population faster?

I find all of this troubling, because these ideas may make it impossible for the real problems of pollution and ecology to be confronted:As the socialist book review notes:

The resurgence of these debates in the context of environmental crisis is a distraction from discussions about the political and economic changes required to tackle global warming.


Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines.

Be Sociable, Share!