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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is a truly dreadful situation that reading and writing for the Guardian is so damaging to people’s mental welfare.
I think this article is “micro-aggression” against children, parents and society as a whole. Maybe we need “speech codes” at the Guardian so that people aren’t “assaulted” by their “hurtful” publications. As a parent, and a person with an IQ above that of a garden slug, this article hurt my feelings, so I demand the Guardian take it down. Boo Hoo Hoo. Turn around is fair play.
The war on ‘microaggressions:’ Has it created a ‘victimhood culture’ on campuses?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/28/the-war-over-words-literally-on-some-american-campuses-where-asking-where-are-you-from-is-a-microaggression/
The Coddling of the American Mind
In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
” 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, would the Precautionary Principle apply here and we should all be making babies like crazy, you know, to be sure?
Eric Worral, is it usual that you don’t read the articles you post bits of, completely? Do you also always make attributions like “according to the Guardian”, or do you usually do the correct attribution, something like – ‘an opion writer in the Guardian”?
The author does not only speak of climate change as part of his thinking even though it does sound like it’s close to a last straw. I don’t think he is right to think along the lines of having children, but I think the issues raised are important for our future.
“Issues”? Like what, pray tell?
Deforestation, garbage creation, rapid species extinction, even climate change, (true skeptics of the mainstream science would consider the possibility that they are wrong) Not an extensive list, but it is just a filler opinion piece.
Geoffrey Preece
Deforestation is EXTENDED and PROMOTED by the elite greenie-enviro’s who are selling and trading carbon schemes to corrupt third world dictators for money and “bio-fuels”. It is the Russian, (ex-Soviet block), Cuban, Chinese, North Korean communists who have promoted their five-year and ten-year economic and geological devestation plans in THEIR planned economies who have now 100 years of destruction. Don’t look at “capitalism” for damage: Today’s western companies and farmers and managers plant as many trees and acres of crops as they harvest: And EVERY green thing on earth is growing 12% to 27% faster, taller, more fruitful BECAUSE OF today’s higher carbon dioxide levels.
If we were allowed to use and generate energy, EVERY molecule and EVERY chemical ever found on earth can be recycled when economically profitable to do so. (Minus a few pounds of metal sent out with satellites towards other gravity fields.
It is only the New York and New Jersey “intellectual elites” who barged “their” trash out to sea and dumped it in the near-unrecoverable deep seas every year that condemned THEIR trash to more expensive places that make THEIR trash difficult to efficiently recycle.
Honestly, you enviro-cooks worry about the strangest, stupidest things, none of which have any bearing either on reality or on the author’s stated “moral dilemma” about whether or not to have kids.
Well……..if children must be the scapegoats ….. I suppose they should have goat eyes !
(re picture) Baaaaad kids ! /grin
For those who are morally against having kids, no worries, my immorally created kids will take care of you in your old age.
I remember being hammered over and over in grade school in the late 60s and 70s about the impacts of over-population and environmental degradation. Being a brainwashed, good little soldier I took it all to heart. How could I contribute to the destruction of the Earth by bringing more souls into the world, straining limited resources any further. I never had kids. And, I woke up from the delusions of my childhood too late. It was then that I noticed all the people who had been imploring me to save the world by not having kids had their own kids… and grandkids and great-grandkids. So, here I am at 57 facing the future alone and with no support system. Jokes on me.
It’s true of me also – I’m 58.
Idealist must understand that the conditions for stating a family will NEVER be ideal. All children are born into a world of immense problems. It is commonly referred to as REALITY. Get to know it better, for everybody’s sake. GK
If there was a problem with the climate the population would be decreasing. The world’s population is increasing 100,000+ a day, fed from agricultural land that has been decreasing since 1997 and large swathes are now used for bio- fuels. With an average world food index price at a 7 year low i would say the words climate is doing rather well.
Every western country has a fertility rate below replacement. Some are below zero, negative fertility. It’s the Middle Eastern countries with the highest fertility rates. Doesnt bode well for freedom and democracy.
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/856909564454306/
I hope these eco-fascist nut cases dont procreate. End their gene mutations.
No. Humans are simply animals that can reason and have complex language. Just like any other animal it would be immoral for us not to have children. Which probably means I’m immoral since I don’t have any. I’ll give 1.25 kid to someone who wants more than their family’s share of 2.5 kids. So there I stay nice and moral. 😉
For a modest fee to cover shipping and handling?
.
.
.
Whoa, Lamont! Genius! You just came up with an equivalent of selling carbon credits! You buy the rights from anyone who has never had children and has had a tubal ligation or vasectomy and sell the rights (at a modest markup, of course) to those couples who want to have children. All that’s needed is a law requiring those who intend to have s*e*x without said sterilization to buy offspring offsets, thus creating an unfathomable revenue stream.
(I’m assuming here that our friendly neighborhood federal government is not monitoring this comment thread and will not steal the idea to raise government revenues.)
Good idea, everybody stop having kids. The Al Gores of this planet need young blood to tend the gardens and their pools. That will get them!
Ok, now for me to put in my two cents (and don’t start with some snide comment that that’s all it’s gonna’ be worth).
The solution to all these problems has nothing to do with either too many children being conceived or too few. The problem is solely isolated to those children who were conceived in the atmosphere of a six pack of beer.
So, what I propose is very simple: a pre-s•e•x alcohol detection device somewhat akin to a breathalyzer. For males this device could consist of a thin electric wire implanted just under the skin of the male appendage. We all know that electrical resistance in a wire goes down when it’s straight as a board, and goes up when it’s curved. Thusly, when the male appendage is droopy and flaccid the increased resistance of the wire will signal that there’s no danger even if the implantee’s BAC level is high enough for spontaneous human combustion. However, when the male appendage is sticking straight out and longing for the ‘go’ signal the decreased resistance of this wire will send a signal that will send a debilitating electrical shock to that organ if the BAC levels are above a certain threshold.
Now, I don’t possess the female counterpart to this organ (otherwise I’d actually be able to do what a lot of people tell me to do when they get mad at me). And, unfortunately I’ve had far less experience with the female counterpart to my male organ than I like to imagine I’ve had (especially when I was in my teens). So, if there’s any females out there who’d like to assist me in devising a design for a pre-s•e•x alcohol detection device for women I’m ready and waiting. Just don’t all come breaking my door down at once.
Ok, ok, I know if what I’ve just written seems completely frivolous in the presence of just a supposedly serious idea as telling a living organism not to reproduce itself let it be known that stupid ideas are best revealed by stupid responses.
Tom,
The obvious answer is to ban beer. Wait… the US tried that before. It didn’t work out as I recall. Your idea may have some merit, then.
Lucky kids… this time they get off with only a warning… but next time, the Grauniad will find a more willing author… Be afraid kiddies, be very afraid…
I posted a comment on the article at the Guardian website pointing out that previous generations only had little problems like the First and Second World Wars and the possibility of a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War. I also suggested that Dave Bry and the Guardian could be nominated for the Darwin awards.
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/
Strangely my comment no longer exists. There is a note saying that it has been removed by the Guardian moderators because it violates their “community standards.”
Perhaps the problem would be solved within a generation if climate scientists refrained from having kids.
I’m happy if greens and leftists to the right thing and not have kids.
It will make my World a better place.
“…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….”
Highly unlikely from such as the “Gang Greene” writer who would brainwash his kids unmercifully. I have on a number of occasions on threads on education pointed out that parents have to be ‘all-in’ in contributing to and vetting their children’s education to ensure they are equipped with antidotes to the unbelievable political propaganda that they are soaked with. I also taught my children and now grandchildren a higher level of math and science subjects as well as the importance of thinking for themselves. Don’t leave your child with a baby sitter for 12 years. I guess the downside is the Guardian writer also does the same thing by supporting the status quo.
the author of the Guardian article was probably just exploiting this clever framework to heighten the emotional – as opposed to rational – impact of his real agenda – agw alarmism
there are other existential threats that should be confronted by parents-to-be – including that child’s own inevitable death – the potential for a lifelong struggle – birth defects and illness – as well as war – pestilence – and bernie schwatz – the author would just need to change a few words in his article
Right, so the hope that you may spawn the Climate Messiah is the very reason you should have as many sprogs as possible. Or, put otherwise, due vain hope of a better solution you should personally be the greatest culprit of the problem itself.
We had this sort of lunatic response during the cold war and then after the first years of nuclear weapon proliferation, we had even had it in WW2 when the Nazis were gaining ground and there have even been examples of it at many other stressful times too. I suspect that the human race might even benefit by the idea of not bringing children into the world – effectively preventing proliferation of those humans who are apparently predisposed to worry too much about such things. But is this genetic engineering and are we right to let it run its course or should we intervene in that?
How could this be considered genetic engineering using the scientific definition?
I doubt it will be any surprise but the Guardian censured my comment on the piece.
It was perfectly factual, giving some links that showed the IPCC projections had been falsified.
Also, that the growth n global population had slowed and the best solution to slow it further was to eliminate poverty. See http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ (worth seeing)
Apparently it is against their rules to express doubt about AGW.
Many commenting here are gullible dopes to me . . so gullible they actually believe this whole CAGW dealeo is just a happenstance accumulation/result of people way less intelligent than themselves making blunders and being irrational . .
. . One born every minute, as the old saying goes ; )
Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies. (H. L. Mencken)
I think you could change Communism to Climate Alarmism and the quote would summarize the Alarmist movement of today…Green is the new Red anyway…
The Malthusians are ever with us. These days they just seem to have a really microphone. And tenure.
I seem to remember Walker Percy (either in Love in the Ruins or Lost in the Cosmos) saying something like, ‘Man’s greatest fear isn’t that the apocalypse will happen, but that it won’t.”
… a really big microphone, sorry.
Excellent quote! So true. Watch the glee when the greens think they’ve found something in their favor and announce, yet again, that we’re all going to die. They’ve cheered and applauded that. It’s sick!
My fav is that they (lefties) like to call themselves “progressive”, while pining for world-wide policies which would be totally regressive for humankind (both rich and poor sides of it) if allowed to be implemented. As someone quoted here before “left wing ideology really is just arrogant ignorance pretending to be sophisticated enlightenment”…