Political Ombudsman: Don't Boss Me

Sometimes, people try to tell you what to do.

In this article, a guy named Jonathon Porritt tells people that they shouldn't have more than two kids because any more would overly burden the environment. I have a few angles.

First, the act of telling people, unprovoked, what's best for them is something that should be more widely frowned upon. How much respect, overall, would you say society has for people like Dr. Phil, Ricki Lake and Montell Williams? Probably not much. But these people are giving advice to people asking for it. Porritt is just some guy, uninvited, shouting on the street at whoever will listen and calling families around dinner time. If this were the 19th century, he would be selling elixirs out of a wagon.

Second, Porritt, a man who undoubtedly wore a scarf throughout his interview, can't back up his assertion. Porritt claims that two children should be the maximum allowed because he knows how much carbon people use (a dubious, unchallenged averment). Even if we were to assume that was true - we are still missing steps... like what is the effect of that carbon increase on temperature, and what is the effect of that temperature change on the world? No one knows with any certainty. Doesn't matter to Porritt, who wants to figuratively (perhaps literally - although this would require further research) lie in bed with husbands and wives and have a say in their decision about having children.

Third, a broader point: Throughout history, certain people have used whatever "reasons" are available to them to control the masses. The typical left-right, liberal-conservative lense is not particularly helpful when viewing these attempts at garnering power and control.

Example: Liberal Lucy might read the above article and say "My, this seems a bit extreme but I constantly worry (cry?) about living my life the right way." However, she might view an evangelical politician saying that abortion will send you to hell and think "My choice!" or "Dismantle Patriarchy!" or "Just Dance!" or whatever it is that girls say now. Functionally - what is the difference between the two? Porritt favors forced abortion and the latter favors forced not-having-an-abortion. Either way, someone is dictating what you do with your body, which should leave a bad taste in your mouth. (TWO digression - speaking of bad taste, don't buy Tropicana Light & Healthy Orange Juice Beverage, it's disgusting).

Instead of viewing things as left vs right, the question should be - is this restriction something that seems like it would ordinarily only happen in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany? If intuitively the answer is yes, then the presumption (rebuttable only in situations where the emergency is so immediate and dire that a weighing of the costs and benefits clearly favors such a restriction) should be that the advocate is an idiot, albeit a dangerous one, interested in control above all else. Unless the presumption is rebutted, does it matter if the excuse given is the good of the proletariat, the protection of nationalist interests, getting into heaven or saving the planet?

To be clear, TWO is an environmentalist. I support being smart about the environment, cutting emissions and protecting wildlife. However when the British government begins seriously talking about limiting children and rationing travel, the topic is no longer environmentalism, its control of the masses.

In conclusion, I constantly worry (cry?) about living my life the right way........and celebrate Mandy Moore's entire catalog.