Just when the news becomes so weird, so bizarre, that you’re sure it can’t get any crazier, it does. If you’re skeptical about this, check the latest issue of The Economist, a well-known and respected financial magazine. An article they just ran urges readers to change their diet in order to save the planet. Their recommendation: People should eat bugs.
The article, titled “Why Eating Bugs Is So Popular In The Congo,” is not meant to be a Purim shpiel. It’s serious and actually presents reasons why eating caterpillars, crickets, grasshoppers, and the like is good for both you and the environment.
The author, Sam Watson, didn’t say whether he has switched to this diet. However, he points out so many advantages of eating bugs that making this decision should be elementary. Watson believes that it’s time countries around the world catch up with the Congo.
For one, “bugs are richer in protein than beef or fish.” But there are many additional benefits of going on a bug-full diet. “Bug farming takes up less land, requires less food, and does less damage to the environment than meat or fish farming.” It also requires less water. Moreover, “Hunting insects is easy,” he says. “Anyone can wander into the forest, or indeed, into the airport, and gather an assortment of creepy, crawly things.”
However, he acknowledges that choosing bugs needs to be done carefully since some are poisonous.
Up To You
Not mentioned in the article is that the Congo is a war-torn country, that its government is corrupt and unstable, its economy in deep trouble, that hundreds of thousands of its citizens have left for better and safer areas, and that millions who stayed are suffering from or at risk of malnutrition and starvation. A paradise it’s not.
And what makes this all the more insane is that the readership of The Economist certainly includes very wealthy, privileged, and probably even some elite – people who most likely will not ever, even for an instant, even consider eating bugs.
Nevertheless, in the last few months, this idea has gained traction in both the print and electronic media. Why is this happening?
According to Zero Hedge, “people are being readied to accept drastically lower standards of living under disastrous global ‘Green New Deal’ programs.”
There are other reasons, too. Earlier this year, exceptionally rainy weather in the Midwest caused billions in crop losses, and more recently, severe storms and snow have turned the harvest season into a fiasco.
Also, African swine fever has killed more than one quarter of the pigs all over the world, raising concerns that there could be a global shortage of protein in the coming months. This epidemic began in China last year but has spread to North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and the Philippines. And this crisis is certainly not limited to Asia.
According to the Washington Post there have also been outbreaks “in Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine.” Overall, African swine fever has turned up in nearly 50 countries, and the pork industry in the US is extremely concerned that it could break out here, too.
But if you think this is strange you ain’t heard nothing yet. A study published in the journal BioScience endorsed the idea of global population control as a solution to the “climate emergency” that the world is facing. In fact, a petition calling for the reduction in the number of people in the world was recently signed by 11,258 scientists from 153 different countries.
This scientific “consensus” is calling for a variety of policies that will protect the environment, convert the economy to one that is carbon free, and stabilize population growth.
It’s this last objective that is of great concern. Here’s how one writer explained why: “If humans are the primary driver of climate change, and if we only have about 12 years before we reach the point of no return, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested, will a ‘gradual’ reduction of the human population really be enough to satisfy the climate change zealots? ... There would be no faster way of turning this crisis around than to radically reduce the population of the planet... And as the population grows, more drastic action will be necessary because the climate-change crisis is getting worse.”
The idea of reducing the population may seem far-fetched, but it has been put into the public arena and has taken hold. Dozens of the best-known and most influential people in politics, business, science, and the arts are openly endorsing and urging that there be fewer people living on this world.
Here are just a few of the people on that list: Bernie Sanders, Bill Gates, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, CNN founder Ted Turner, Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, David Rockefeller, Richard Branson, Cameron Diaz, Al Gore, Gloria Steinem, Prince Phillip, Mikhail Gorbachev.... There are many more, but you get the idea.
If you think this point is being exaggerated, consider the following:
CNN founder Ted Turner said, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
David Brower, the first executive director of the Sierra Club, said: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
Jacques Costeau said, “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
How far we’ve come from “live and let live,” and “it’s my life and I’ll do as I want.”
If the thinking of these elitists prevails, chas v’shalom, people who want to have large families for religious reasons, or for family reasons, or to replace those who perished in the Holocaust, stand to be vilified as enemies of society. They may be shunned by others or even be treated as criminals. There are still more alarming scenarios one can imagine.
In 1939, overpopulation was not considered a problem. Back then the number of Jews in the world was estimated at 18 million; today there are only 12 or 13 million Jews in the world.
It seems to me that if there is a problem of overpopulation in the world, everyone else should worry about it. Why do I worry the world will focus mainly upon how many children Jews are having?