... from its related story at Weekly World News:
Al Gore believes that the sterilization should be voluntary – at first – “women who are evolved will volunteer to be sterilized for the greater good for planet.” BUT, if women do not choose to sterilize themselves, Al Gore believes that the government should force women (under 25) to be sterilized.I actually have a better idea, and it doesn't involve messing with the reproductive health of women world wide, although it is just as horrible. It's so simple, that I should patent it...
“We have to take drastic steps to save the planet. There are too many people – we must take aggressive action or we will all be dead,” Gore said in a speech Monday in New York.
“When the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices – then women can have babies again.”
Ready for it?
Euthanize those over 75. In essence, outlaw Great Grandparents.
Now, bear with me here, it's not as horrible as it seems. The essence of everything that's wrong with society comes down to costs. Pensions and health care being paramount. We raise an outcry because we may have to pay a very good pension to bureaucrats for decades after their working life because we don't know how long they will live. We bristle (at least, I bristle) whenever I hear someone advocating the reform of CPP in order to double the payouts to people already on the plan. We constantly have to plan our retirements around the uncertainty of our natural lives. It's generally accepted that the majority of the health care costs for a person come at the end of their life. By implementing this idea, we can avoid all of those costs, all of that uncertainty.
Not only does this serve to reduce costs to the various levels of government, it also serves to help government in another way - there will be a set term for tax deferral vehicles such as RRSPs and RRIFs. You will force people to cash in their tax deferred accounts earlier which will result in windfall tax receipts by the government. These tax receipts can reduce the amount of tax that the average person will pay.
It's generally accepted that someone who passes away in their 70s and beyond have lived a good long life. This is a common refrain, presumably to help the bereaved deal with their loss, but it does ring with some truth. So why don't we lock 'er in as they say? At that age, a person is generally much less productive in society anyways, so why don't we allow them to pass on?
Sadly, this would mean another 12 years of Mr. Gore. I guess there is a downside to everything.
Update: Since one commenter already missed the point, I would like to point out that this was written with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The fact that someone mistook this for me actually believing in euthanasia for the elderly means that I have to work on my "dripping with sarcasm writing style".