A perfectly silly argument, that runs basically thus: if you really, really care about climate change -- please, have no more children. People cause climate change, so stop making more people. Get zero carbon footprint instead of little baby footprints. (h/t Andrew Sullivan)
The author proudly asserts that she won't have children, because she's not so selfish as to rape Planet Earth that way. (There are indeed other reasons that she is satisfied with her childless life, but the emphasis is on the green.)
She asks, "Why does it feel almost audacious to articulate all of this?" Answer: probably because it's silly. I can think of another way to reduce your carbon footprint all the way to zero: suicide!
And maybe, just maybe, the intrinsic value of a human being, or the other goods such a being might bring about, could (possibly, perchance) outweigh even something so heinous as 9,441 metric tons of CO2. Or (conceivably, peradventure) the average carbon footprint per person may be reduced in years to come. One little tyke might one day even invent a form of cleaner energy!
Posts
The Church Entertainment
-
The Days of Real Sport
The post The Church Entertainment appeared first on Ordinary Times.
15 hours ago
I think the "protect Mother Gaia by not having children" idea is fantastic! If we could only persuade every unthinking follower of the anti-science, anti-technology crowd to not have children, the world would be a much better (and smarter) place in just a few generations. Evolution didn't stop when humans began making conscious choices.
ReplyDeleteelizabeth, yes that is idiotic, but nothing wrong with people choosing to limit family sizes to 2 or 3 kids. Sure it is theoretically possible that child 15 might be an Einstein, but just because it is possible doesn't mean it is a good idea.
ReplyDeletegadfly john, that is faulty reasoning in that it assumes Children think the same as parents. Many young Republicans have Liberal parents, and many Liberals have very Conservative parents. In my own family I have 2 rock ribbed Republican brothers and a very Liberal sister.
And evolution has nothing to do with ideas. My brothers and sister and I all had the same basic DNA and IQ's and grew up in the same environment but we all have very different political views. Evolution concerns itself with adaptation to the physical environment.
charo
by the way gj, that was a good posting from you, amusing (yes I know you were tongue in cheek), succinct, not needlessly provocative.
ReplyDeletecharo
i got a chance to read the article, to be fair she is not saying people should have no children, she is saying as a person who has no desire to have children (which is the critical factor, do you really want people to have children because others expect them to?) can add that to the list of the reasons not to have them.
ReplyDeleteShe specifically states her post is not for people who want to have children: So this post isn't for you. It's for the childfree and childfree-curious, who don't get a lot of encouragement in our society.
I know a married couple in their 40's-early 50's who never had children, she never had any desire for kids and he fell in line with that- not happy but not really unhappy, except for the many years of pressure from their families, even today people say: "it is not too late, you can adopt..." so I can understand how childless by choice people can use any encouragement they can come across.
charo
I thought being single in my late twenties was tough, but it is nothing compared to being in a childless couple in my mid-thirties. And the worst part is knowing my wife has it much worse than I do.
ReplyDeleteIf a person has no desire to have children, then don't have children. No justification necessary. That's the way it has worked for hundreds of thousands of years. But please, spare us the false piety of Saving Mother Gaia.
ReplyDeleteAnon, what kind of crowd do you hang out with that would presume to give you grief about very personal life choices? Tell them to go pound sand, sweetly of course. They'll get the message.