“Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.
He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a ‘small-family ethic’ — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to ‘give them grandchildren.’”
The groupthink gets better and better doesn’t it?
“Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.
For years, people have lamented how bad things might get ‘for our grandchildren,’ but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore.
He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.
‘Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,’ he says. ‘Very, very soon.’”
So if we don’t have children, we’ll be able to stop climate change. I thought that according to Al Gore we were already past the tipping point? No matter, the catastrophe will go on as long as the Party deems necessary.
“Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.
Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.”
Oh, I forgot to mention: it’s only evil for “rich” nations to have children. European birthrates are already pathetic , so that mission is somewhat accomplished. As I’ve mentioned before though, nations like India and China are not going to keep their people in the 18th century to satiate the inane desires of environmentalists.
“There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.
‘Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,’ Rieder says.
His arguments sound pretty persuasive in the classroom. At home, it was a different matter.”
A “moral duty” to protect children by not having them? Is this a Planned Parenthood ad?
“‘I have been one of those women who actually craved to have a baby,’ says Sadiye Rieder, smiling as she sits next to her husband in the sunroom of their Maryland home. ‘To go through pregnancy and everything, that mattered to me a lot.’
Sadiye also wanted a big family. She grew up among extended relatives in the Turkish part of Cyprus and says she enjoyed having people around all the time.”
It looks like his wife disagreed with him. If only this loser had stuck with his guns and not reproduced. I think that a lot of progressives simply don’t want children because it reduces the amount of disposable income that they’ll have. The article goes on for a while about the catastrophe that awaits (and continues to await us as long as the Party deems necessary):
“Back in the classroom, Rieder puts this in less technical terms: 4 degrees of warming would be “largely uninhabitable for humans.”
‘It’s gonna be post-apocalyptic movie time,’ he says.
The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad. One says he appreciated the talk but found it terrifying, and hadn’t planned on being so shaken before heading off to start the weekend.”
Perhaps Mr. Rieder should give up all petrochemicals and electricity. I mean, he’s killing the Earth right?
“Conceivable Future targets climate activists immersed in scary data. There’s already a term for how some feel: climate trauma.
But Kallman and Ferorelli say the focus on numbers fails to capture the emotion that drives many to work on the issue in the first place. For activists of childbearing age, Ferorelli says, climate change isn’t just an intellectual problem but ‘a heart problem.’
Ferorelli, 33, and Kallman, 32, are both in committed relationships, and in the throes of this problem. Ferorelli recently helped her widowed mother pack up her house, saving cherished items with the unspoken assumption that they are for a next generation.
And yet, when she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can’t help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term ‘global warming’ in elementary school.”
I agree with the impluses that the people have, in that they shouldn’t have children at least. I wholeheartedly support their decision and “climate trauma.” This article just goes on and on over how climate change is truth even though it notes that previous scientific
fiction predictions proved false. As always though, there isn’t a problem that can’t be solved with some taxes:
“For the sticks part of the plan, Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child.
Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids. He knows that sounds crazy.
‘But children, in a kind of cold way of looking at it, are an externality,’ he says. ‘We as parents, we as family members, we get the good. And the world, the community, pays the cost.’”
Kids are an externality on Mother Earth, and we must protect her. Forward!