The Biden Administration’s nominee for the Bureau of Land Management has stirred controversy. The nominee, Tracy Stone-Manning, has not participated in eco-terrorism, but she also wrote in her doctoral thesis in 1992 that babies are an “environmental hazard” and argued against supposed overpopulation. Stone-Manning’s anti-Life fearmongering appears ironic now as the world teeters on the brink of a demographic winter.
For her thesis in the University of Montana environmental studies program, Stone-Manning argued for advertising to raise awareness about environmental tactics. Her approach was decidedly anti-Life; Stone-Manning sees human Life as the problem and argued that people should have fewer children, a trope that anti-Life environmentalist continue to this day.
As part of the thesis, Stone-Manning produced eight advertisements on environmental topics. The Daily Caller reports that the first advertisement featured a shirtless baby with the heading, “Can you find the environmental hazard in this photo?” Underneath the photo, the text reads, “That’s right, it’s the cute baby.” Stone-Manning’s advertisement text continues, “Americans believe that overpopulation is only a problem somewhere else in the world. But it’s a problem here too.”
She added, “The earth is only so big, and we can tap into it only so often. In America, we tap in often and hard. When we overpopulate, the earth notices it more. Stop at two. It could be the best thing you do for the planet.”
Elsewhere in her thesis, Stone-Manning stated, “The origin of our [environmental]abuses is us. If there were fewer of us, we would have less impact.” Not beating around the anti-Life bush, Stone-Manning wrote, “We must consume less, and more importantly, we must breed fewer consuming humans.”
Recognizing the fringe nature of her radical environmentalism, Stone-Manning stated that her movement “desperately needs to use advertising’s ubiquitous power if it is to capture mainstream America.” She saw the purpose of her proposed anti-Life advertisements as “tug[ging]at the root of many of our environmental horrors, overpopulation.”
“The point is a simple one,” she wrote. “Harshly, the ads say that the earth can’t afford Americans. More softly, they ask people to think about how their family planning choices affect the planet.”
Stone-Manning, and the radical anti-Life environmentalists who have followed her, have been proven resoundingly incorrect on the threat of overpopulation. Scientists now predict a “jaw-dropping” decline in global population with many countries seeing their population cut in half by 2100. Instead of a future of exploding, uncontrolled population growth, the future is likely to be one of dramatic decrease in a population that is aging.
The environmental nightmare imagined by anti-Life progressives has not happened and will not happen. Instead, the world faces a social crisis prompted by an aging population and shrinking communities. Instead of suffering from overpopulation, people will face the cold loneliness of the culture of death.
What Stone-Manning does not seem to address explicitly in her thesis is that family planning, according to anti-Lifers, includes abortion. If people are as evil as Stone-Manning seems to think they are, then killing a child in the womb would seem justified. As we have seen with China, when there is a policy of limiting births, forced abortions become the mechanism for enforcing that regime.
There is no surprise that the Biden Administration, which is strongly anti-Life and in the pocket of the abortion industry, would have no qualms about nominating an alleged eco-terrorist who called children an environmental hazard. Although Stone-Manning has largely been given a pass on her anti-Life record, her involvement in tree spiking in 1989 appears likely to derail her confirmation.
Politicians are rightly concerned with her apparent involvement in a dangerous and illegal terrorist activity. They should also be concerned with her avowed misanthropy and anti-Life radicalism that threatens future generations.