Yes, I enjoyed that wholesome family sit com Home Improvement. It was one of the few contemporary family sit coms that still acknowledged common sense in everyday living instead of rationalizing ostentatious behavior as normative. But I digress...in one episode the Taylor family goes to open mic poetry night at a local restaurant(?), and the first poem read is by a woman in Goth regalia.
"Die!" she poeticizes into the microphone. Everyone looks around as it is apparent that that is all there is to this poem.
"You first," mutters Randy. And that response is about as common sense as it gets.
Just two states over from where I live, a chilling high school banner reads: "ZERO POPULATION GROWTH; IT'S UP TO YOU - NO MORE THAN TWO." Wow. So few words; so lengthy a message. Apparently, zero is a good thing, and "you" must limit yourself to having two children (that's the unstated indirect object) in your lifetime. Pretty heavy for high school, don't you think?
The one wrong thing to do about this poster is to give credit for any of the words on it. First, zero population growth is not "zero population growth." It is population stagnation, and if that is the goal, it would be similar to sloganing "Zero Economic Growth; It's Up To You - No More Than [insert arbitrary income level here]." What the slogan does not recognize is that there is such a thing as an already declining birth rate, and that there is such a thing as a death rate. As it stands, every major developed country is experiencing non-replacement birth rates. I attended a conference last weekend, and the esteemed speaker, Dr. Craig Mitchell, had related to the audience that Japan in 2012 was the first year that purchases for adult diapers exceeded the purchases of baby diapers. The irony of zero population growth is that it is not a controllable data point. Populations cannot be controlled; they either rise or they fall destructively due to artificial stresses on society. A birth rate equal to that of the death rate is unattainable through effort, because there are too many variables.
But that isn't the real goal, is it? If you've been around the pro-life block several times like I have, you know that zero population growth isn't about balance. It is not even about the environment as often touted. No, environmental concerns are a smokescreen for gaining greater control by the powerful over the less powerful. It is about instituting mass manipulation as fulfillment of a marginalized ideology that would never gain popularity if not for a generous bit of sophistry and fascism. Every tyrant and dictator to have come into power since the 20th century has launched a campaign to reduce their local population to a "manageable" size. The killing fields of Tuol Sleng, the failed agriculture scheme of Mao, the mass executions of Stalin--all done in the effort to stamp out dissent and the distasteful ideas that people should be free to earn and reproduce as they see fit, not as a central planner sees fit.
So "IT'S UP TO YOU," is not a word of encouragement. It's a demand. And given that there is absolutely zero context given to this poster, we can assume that all methods of meeting this goal may be implemented: carcinogenic contraception, abortion, sterilization, gendercide. Of course, these things done voluntarily is preferred, I'm sure. Involuntary methods, however, are just one refusal away.
Sure, we'll get to the point where there are more elderly people to care for than there are caretakers. Oh, but don't worry, the anti-humanitarian laws being introduced today will make executing them easier tomorrow by labeling it a "GOOD DEATH; IT'S UP TO YOU - ONE AND DONE."
Addendum: I find it ironic that those who advocate population reduction and control never include themselves in that population that must be reduced or controlled. Of course, they justify that kind of elitism with implying that no one would spread their message if they would volunteer to leave the land of the living first. But I would remind everyone that the ideology that has spawned their protests has come from people long dead now, and they should fear not for the immortality of their worldview. After all, in the words of Margaret Sanger, "there is nothing they do that hasn't been done before," so to be consistent, these population bombers should lead by example and be the first to improve the state of the earth by throwing themselves into the ovens. With popular support of euthanasia among them, why delay?