Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Guardian, having children is a moral dilemma, if you are concerned about Climate Change. But does the author really believe that the future is going to be such a bleak and horribly place, or is he simply rationalising a personal decision not to have lots of kids, in terms of his “environmental conscience”?
Does climate change make it immoral to have kids?
Bringing children into a disintegrating environment used to be a theoretical fear. Now it’s a very real one.
…
The awfulness seems to be getting worse, especially now that climate change has sped up – sea level rise that was supposed to take centuries has recently been projected as taking just decades. This complicates the already difficult decision of whether to have a kid.
We’re living through what scientists call the “Sixth Extinction”, an era of precipitous decline in the number of species able to live on the planet. The last mass extinction, the fifth, happened 66 million years ago, when a giant asteroid crashed into Earth and 76% of all the species on the planet perished.
This time, we’re doing it to ourselves.
“Climate scientists agree that humanity is about to cause a sea level rise of 20 or 30ft, but they have tended to assume that such a large increase would take centuries, at least,” the New York Times’s Justin Gillis reported. But a recent study led by retired Nasa climate scientist James E Hansen, published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, indicates that the negative effects are happening a lot faster than we’d thought, perhaps feet of rise within the next 50 years.
“That would mean loss of all coastal cities, most of the world’s large cities and all their history,” Hansen told Gillis, adding, “We’re in danger of handing young people a situation that’s out of their control.”
…
Was I complicit in the damage? I remember every extra paper towel I’ve ever unspooled from the roll, and think about a tree falling in the Amazon, and then think about my son growing up in a gray, dying world – walking towards Kansas on potholed highways. Maybe while trying to protect his own son, like the father in The Road. Will he decide to have a kid? I have foisted upon him a decision even more difficult than my own. It’s all very depressing.
…
People who truly believe that most of their children won’t survive, tend to respond by having lots of children. The fact that this primal urge to procreate appears to be largely missing, in the face of what greens claim is an existential threat, makes me wonder just how much people who say such things truly believe in what they are saying.
There seems to be a growing disconnect, a rising tendency for people to give lip service to green causes, but not to practice what they preach. I know a kid who gets deeply upset about rubbish in the school garden – her teachers have taught her that dropping rubbish on the ground kills all the sweet little animals. But its not the rubbish on the ground which most upsets her – its the fact that the teachers aren’t out there every evening, ensuring all those little animals are safe, by meticulously picking up all the rubbish.
The messages are still flowing, but the sincerity seems to have gone.
Update (EW) – David Hoffer points out that the author ultimately comes down on the side of having kids. … perhaps someone who is not yet born, perhaps not yet conceived, is the one super-genius to figure out the invention that could save the planet? … There’s always maybe. And that’s enough to persevere for.
This is the same (boring) tape loop I’ve been hearing for almost 20 years (for some of you it’s been a lot longer) – massive sea level rise, mass extinctions, pandemics, droughts, floods, all of biblical proportions. They are always just around the corner, ..st around the corner, around the corner, the corner, over and over. I guess if you say something enough times, even though your predictions never come true, some (many?) people will buy it. P.T. Barnum knew the type! Why does anyone continue to pay any attention to the prognostications of James Hansen? He is like the proverbial man in the cartoon (usually depicted with a long beard) standing on the sidewalk with a placard that says: “REPENT, THE END IS NEAR!”. I don’t understand why some people continue to swallow this pap, and if they do I don’t understand why they just don’t go out into their backyards and shoot themselves – what’s the point of carrying on?. Sorry for the rant, but I’m Canadian and I still haven’t got over the election of Trudeau Jr. as our (Liberal) prime minister. His father caused massive damage to Canada financially (740% increase in the federal debt – 1968-1984) and by changing the country from a constitutional democracy into a constitutionally mandated welfare state far too often directed by unelected judges. His son promises to be just as bad, or worse, especially with the Global Warming bug up his a–. Trudeau Jr. has already established a cosy relationship with the U.N. and with president Obama. Our previous (Conservative) PM wasn’t liked very much by the U.N. (or Obama) and payed lip-service to Global Warming.
“Update (EW) – David Hoffer points out that the author ultimately comes down on the side of having kids. … perhaps someone who is not yet born, perhaps not yet conceived, is the one super-genius to figure out the invention that could save the planet? … There’s always maybe. And that’s enough to persevere for. ”
So you shouldn’t have kids, there are already too many people in the world. But I should have kids, because a child with MY genes would probably be a super-genius who saves the world. I can relate to that. 😉
“Was I complicit in the damage? I remember every extra paper towel I’ve ever unspooled from the roll, and think about a tree falling in the Amazon …”.
=====================================
I suggest he uses BOTH sides of the toilet paper (if he doesn’t already do so).
I don’t know why these miserablists don’t make the ultimate sacrifice for the planet, Lawrence Oates-style, it’s the only decent thing to do.
I think it’s a very good thing that these people are considering not having children!
@ur momisugly Charles. April 2 , 11:29 pm. Sorry, but they will have their babies but their children will be “better” educated ( indoctrinated) and therefore be the inheritants of a “better” planet. ( as sick as this is).
As far as Canada is concerned It is amazing how our country has changed in just 6 months. From a balanced budget to 100 billion dollar budgets deficits projected over the next 4 years (There are only 37 million people) it is sure as heck starting to look like California.
While Ontario’s population is about one third of California’s, its debt load is more than double that of the biggest U.S. state.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-20/ontario-more-indebted-than-california-ignores-s-p-in-borrowing
I wonder if they feel (privately) whether only certain populations shouldn’t have children?
The answer to your question could be no, as in that case only irresponsible people would have children and the world’s fate would then be in their descendants’ hands only.
Holthaus was going to get his organ chopped. Sadly he never did. Still tweets his climate cr@p
How very “Terminator”! Save Sarah Connor’s as yet unborn child! Just about the level of analysis one would expect from The Guardian and how very convenient for all the Greenies to have your cake and eat it!
…David Hoffer points out that the author ultimately comes down on the side of having kids….
The author is married. His wife has just had a kid. He can pontificate all he likes, but SHE will tell him what his final decision will be… 🙂
It is probably a good idea for people who believe in Climate Change / Global Warming / CAGW not to have children as the problem could be inherited. It might be useful for science to investigate any evidence of transmission of Climate Change / Global Warming / CAGW derangement between generations.
No problem, like with Germany in the 1930s, they will use schools to ideologically brainwash children.
[snip]
??????
!!!!
…LOL
For those who failed to notice so far, global population explosion was over two decades ago. Since then population under the age of 15 is stable, somewhat below two billion. War zones and countries under insane, extremely corrupt or dysfunctional governments, especially some regions of the Middle East and Africa may be exceptions to this rule.
Unfortunately some of those wars were initiated by the U.S. of A., so reconsideration of policies is advised, otherwise a migrant crisis, much worse than what’s seen so far, is inevitable. But insanity in some regions is inbred, so a form of intervention is surely needed. The big question, wide open to public debate, is exactly how it should be implemented and by whom.
The basic reason population control works so well in general is twofold, and both related to females not being such fools as men. For to this end only two factors are needed, independent of cultural background according to experience, nothing more.
1. Decrease infant and child mortality as much as possible.
2. Educate girls and empower women.
In all places where these policies were implemented, population explosion ended in a single generation. Increasing educational level of males alone has no such effect whatsoever and denying equal rights to women is also a show stopper.
Anyway, the lesson learned is that no harsh policies are needed, only two worthy goals has to be attained.
However, none of these are achievable under bad or missing governments and starting wars is one of the worst options in this respect.
We need a relentless push for reasonable governmental structures wherever they are missing instead and funds spent on military intervention have to be redirected to promoting healthcare, education and women’s rights. Restricting migration may contribute a lot in the long run to improve situation in hot spots if it is accompanied by proper incentives directed to local institutions.
Even if these policies are implemented everywhere, global population may still increase for a while, but for an entirely different reason and not in an explosive manner. Under the right (worst) conditions an average woman can have many more than one daughter surviving until the age of reproduction, which implies an exponential growth, but no one can produce more than one old fart by failing to die young, but surviving until an advanced age. Therefore increasing life expectancy is an inherently benevolent process.
Needless to say, none of these options are related to climate in any way, so let’s talk about actual issues instead of red herrings in public.
Good points here!
‘We need a relentless push for reasonable governmental structures wherever they are missing’
WE, Kemo Sabe?
In saying all that you might have mentioned the Empires when talking of the state of the Middle East or Africa. Mobutu and Museveni have been to the white house, Mobutu called “friend” by Bush snr. Musiveni used kidnapped children in his campaign to become dictator for life, and partied with the Obamas at the white house.
Europe’s dealings in Africa in the past (and current European British Chinese Russian and US corps are doing the same now. Glencore using militias and police in Sudan to “neutralise” pesky uppity locals, Drummond in South America ditto. The world bank is also doing it’s damage. All while living under a network of remote death from the sky.
Iran elected a true hope for peace in the middle east in the 50s, and well, Mermit Roosevelt had him deposed and replaced with a Nazi arab dictator the Americans freed from prison. That continued until the 70s then Saddam was sold all manner of weapons (including chemical) and Saddam was welcomed to punish those uppity Iranians who dared to depose the American installed killer.
Pinochet? Supported by Britain.
I guess some might not know how much European banks royal families US corps and such invested in Hitler’s Germany and actually made profit from German slave camps.
Middle East, Britain drew new borders, violence ensures, Britain drew new border lines in Africa, more death and destruction, in Ireland, another mess, in Palestine, another mess.
Maybe if European and US governments and corporations stop fn up the middle east and africa, they might just be able to move forward.
cause effect, you missed half the story Lad
Those are questions to be discussed in public, in minute detail instead of diversions like “climate change”. However, some societies are more resilient than others and can come out on top in spite of baleful treatment, others are not so much. The difference should be analyzed thoroughly.
And no, I do not believe it’s all the West’s fault, there are plenty of dead ends locally.
First there was the politics thread last week, then this morality thread and here I am with very little time to respond to either one. Two of my main interests! Oh well, I’ll have to make do with a small comment here at the bottom of this thread.
There is a number (don’t know what it is) of humans that it would be great if we did not exceed on this planet. My guess is that we could easily have double the present population on this planet with little problem if we were a moral people. The two do go together you see.
First we need to recognize that there was no technological progress worldwide for almost 4,000 years and then BOOM, something happened.
https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/economic-history/
We see 3,600 years of no growth and then suddenly the economy was growing at 2% per year. That is a stunning change in the state of affairs. What happened? The “industrial revolution” happened. Every economic historian would recognize this and would point out that the industrial revolution happened around 1800 in the northern part of north Europe. Why there? Why then?
The answer is that classical liberalism happened. Slowly and in out-of-the-way places at first, but the idea that a man could do as he pleased as long as he did not commit aggression towards another who had done him no wrong became more widespread and then became a dominate philosophy.
Wikipedia:
Because socialists started calling themselves “liberals” the real liberals coined the word “libertarian” to distinguish themselves from the fake-liberals. (at least here in the US)
A more thorough explanation of classical liberalism can be seen here: https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism
Those who have studied political history and political philosophy will know that Classical Liberalism was the philosophy of the founders of the US and was seen to be the best way to live. We can be assured that Laissez-faire and non-intervention by government; along with peace is the way to accelerate progress, prosperity, and innovation. We can move toward individual freedom and non-intervention by the STATE, or we can head towards a vision of the future that was foretold by Orwell. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
By the way, an analysis of how we got from 1776 to today in this country does not favor Republicans or Democrats. It does not favor so-called liberals (or progressives), nor so-called neo-conservatives. Both sides have given rise to the all-powerful Surveillance/Police/Warfare/Welfare State that is the US Empire.
Sadly, I don’t see any resolution to the war between “conservatives” and “liberals” in the US in my lifetime. Both demand the state control people’s lives. Both seek power over others. Both sides have had a chance to reduce the size and scope of government but neither has tried to do so in the 1/2 century that I have been old enough to watch with understanding. (both sides have claimed they wanted to do so)
Peace and freedom are the goals of moral men and women. Powerful nation-states will never lead to the goal.
~ Mark
…That’s one heck of a “small” comment !
And we can thank the PROTESTANT REVOLT for this sudden change which didn’t happen in 1800 but earlier: the invention of the printing press which the Catholic Church condemned and all modern processes came out of this one major invention which meant information could be cheaply and widely disseminated and people who had to become church clerks via church schools suddenly were able to go to Protestant schools designed to teach people to be…hold on to your hats here…inventors and scientists!
OT
If you live in high latitudes and experienced electric power failure, power surges or similar, it is sun to blame. Kp6 geomagnetic storm was recorded last night
http://flux.phys.uit.no/Last24/Last24_tro2a.gif
Obviously we agree that it is immoral for anybody stupid enough they believe in global warming to pollute the planet with their children.
China attempted to get carbon credits for their One Child Policy of forced abortions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426458/chinas-children-and-climate-change-left-against-them-both-jeremy-carl
Dave Bry uses bizarre and convoluted “reasoning” to come to his conclusion that yes, it’s OK morally to have kids. But hang on, he’s being disingenuous as well. The true Warmist position vis-a-vis the morality of having kids is far more sinister than simply the concern for those kids’ welfare. That is just a front. No, the true moral position for them is that having children, especially in richer countries adds to the “burden” of CO2 we place on the planet, in addition to all the other environmental (real or imagined) things we evil, nasty humans do to “the planet”. He is both a liar and a hypocrite.
I lived through this in the 1970’s. Soooo familiar.
My bottom line…Yes, it is immoral for climate alarmists to have kids.
This is the wonderful Orwellian Life Environmentalists see for us all. Personally I think we should round up all Environmentalists, put them on an island, and only after they have proven their system works, apply it to the rest of society. If you haven’t already seen Green Inferno or read State of Fear, do so. Here is the Utopia Environmentalists see for all of us.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html
I tolerate a lot of different view points. My in laws are pretty much deep green, although they made considerable money from manufacturing in areas related to automobiles. They also don’t have a problem owning two cars,a boat and living hours away from their children (who had to move from work) even though they’ve had the chance to move.
We just stay off the topic of environmentalism. Largely because my family has a science background (not myself) and is little to unconcerned and in part because of some awkwardness in which a group they were funding made a concentrated effort to have a scientist on my side of the family fired. I think they had the decency to stop contributing to that group.
However, I almost inevitably find that when you get deep green enough that you start moralizing about kids you’ve adopted an evangelical style of environmentalism that goes beyond cute or hypocritical to straight up dangerous. If you don’t try and correct them they may not have kids and the less indoctrinated evangelical environmentalists we have running around the better.
Much of the green posturing and posing from “normal” people is just to deflect potential negative attention and attacks from the more rabid environmentalists. It inculcates a tendency towards hypocrisy in people and is a great tool for manipulating them.
This idea is totally illogical. The whole purpose of Climate Change is to promote greater regulations and control over the people. What good is control if you have no people to control? Anyway, no one is stopping Liberals from not having children. I wish them all well, and hope they succeed.
Fertility rates are much lower in developed countries. Remember this the next time you read about AGW induced global redistribution of wealth…
This is what all this climate change nonsense is truly about…control. Wikileaks exposes how the elites use environmental cause to push for global governance. WUWT should do a series on how climate control is really designed to rob people of their freedoms.
It is shocking how far and to what extent these people will go to harm the public just to forward their cause. Truly pathetic.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-02/wikileaks-reveals-imf-plan-cause-credit-event-greece-and-destabilize-europe
The greenies have created their own mental asylum to live in. Suicidal ideation is the norm in that place of theirs. Mankind is killing itself etc. etc. etc. Where’s Nurse Ratched when you need her?
Eugene WR Gallun
Have kids, don’t have kids. The most important thing is not to have the Guardian. Self-loathing, self-absorption and neurosis are catching.