Guest essay by Eric Worrall
For a climate activist, having babies is apparently a troubling ethical dilemma, a distressing personal contribution to the global anthropogenic carbon footprint. But somehow they keep popping them out.
I’m worried having a baby will make climate change worse
Sophie Lewis
Part of my motivation for becoming a climate scientist was my grave worries for our future and my desire to make a positive contribution. In today’s world, this isn’t straightforward.
Earlier this year, I wrote publicly of my qualms around desiring children. I have always loved children and always wanted children in my own life. At the same time, among my friends and colleagues, such ordinary desires are increasingly accompanied by long, complex conversations about the ethics of such aspirations.
Children born today face a dramatically different climate future than their parents did. A child born today is a child of a changing – and extreme – global climate. The decision to have a child is a decision to exacerbate such climate extremes.
…
Nonetheless, in recognising the sadness of our near neighbours, I also feel compelled to recognise the beauty and opportunity of my own life. Despite my uncomfortable internal conflicts, the impending arrival of a much-wanted baby is intensely joyful.
Dr Sophie Lewis is a climate scientist and research fellow at the Australian National University.
Sophie isn’t the first anti-population and climate crusader who somehow made an ethical allowance for their personal needs. Last August WUWT wrote about US climate philosopher Travis Rieder. Rieder travels the country trying to convince students not to have kids for the sake of the climate, and wants to tax your children, but somehow he ended up having a daughter of his own.
No doubt a similar process of personal angst and philosophical self flagellation concludes with the purchase of lots of airline tickets to fly to all those climate conferences.
If she doesn’t have children at least tomorrows world will have at least one less lefty in it. Now that has to be a positive.
With that mindset who would be disposed to give her one?
First world problem……….
Sophie need not worry. There are millions of untimely deaths each year from War, terrorism, a woman’s right to choose and the unintended consequences of ill-thought out ecoloon policies. She can fulfill her basic instincts without creating Thermageddon.
My suggestion to this woman is forget about tomorrow. Treasure every moment today with your child and don’t skimp on the nice things trying to be “Green”. And take lots and lots of photos. They grow up fast.
This line is what instantly struck me:
“Part of my motivation for becoming a climate scientist was my grave worries for our future and my desire to make a positive contribution.”
Nothing about objective testing of theories, no mention of discovering new things, just a simple desire for activism. Seems like she found the right branch of “science.”
that’s partly why biology encourages children; the children use their innate biological intelligence to see through the codswollop that previous generations have imposed.
She shouldn’t be allowed to have children .
7.5 billion people and still we have cut the global poverty rate in half in 20 years. Sounds like the ultimate manifestation of Moore’s Law. Is that not the real goal of civilization…to increase the supply of happy, loving, well provided for people on earth? Did not Jesus, Meher Baba, and all the other of God’s prophets teach that love comes first? Imagine replacing angst about carbon with faith in people’s ability to solve the problems created by poverty; to improve literacy; to provide self-fullfilling jobs; to create children full of love. Is not that world so much better than a world full of hand-wringing carbon worshippers?
Me, I prefer to comment where she might actually read it. You can comment on the article linked above, here’s what I wrote:
We’ll see if they have the blanquillos* to actually publish it.
w.
* “Blanquillos”, or “little white ones”, used to be Mexican slang for eggs, which one didn’t want to call “huevos” because that meant … well … what you think it meant.
Not saying Dr. Sophie Lewis is a lesbian, I don’t care if she is, but subscribing to 97% lesbian 3rd wave feminist ideology/religion may do that to your head.
Hand-wringing and virtue signalling at its most obnoxious. Note that she did in fact have her baby. So what she is really saying, aside from the ridiculous posturing, is I am having my baby, and my genes are getting into the next generation, but you should reconsider having yours.
I wonder what she thinks of the morality of her parents’ having had a child. Her solution for that is obvious. Gee some people are f’d up.
I saw this earlier today. My first thought was “great, less idiots in the next generation!”
“A child born today is a child of a changing – and extreme – global climate.”
What is “extreme” about today’s climate? I find the climate where I live to be quite pleasant. I doubt this climate scientist could list any extreme attributes of the global climate that are unique to our day.
Darwinian theory… again proven correct ! 🙂
this woman is a poster child for mental illness
I read her piece.
She said that the very act of living in Australia was, in itself a climate crime.
Once the environmental movements were the immune system of the earth, now they have turned into a cancer spreading their anti-human, anti-progress lies while ruining hope in young generations.
She’s a climate scientist “working” at ANU. We have a good old Australian word for people like that ” Bludger”
She states – “We collectively recycle, switch off lights, install LEDs and chose green energy providers. But such measures are more than negated by a decision to have children; having a child in Australia is an ongoing commitment to a high carbon future.”)
presumably she wants to protect nature; Yet when nature wants to protect it’s self from over population –
(“I also experienced years of infertility, miscarriage followed miscarriage, my partner and I were consumed by tests, injections and surgeries,”) she demands technology built & run on fossil fuels.
She goes on to list the fossil fueled ‘must haves’ for a baby in the first world.
Simple answer Sophie…cut your ‘carbon footprint’, go & live in a 3rd world economy & hope your baby survives long enough to sustain you in your old age.
The real crisis the world faces is not climate change, but de-evolution of mankind.
The stupid tend to have more offspring.
I expect climate alarmists will have lots of children.
“Part of my motivation for becoming a climate scientist was my grave worries for our future…”
This is part of the problem. Emotional preconceived conviction about the alleged catastrophic consequences of carbon dioxide is not the ideal foundation for practising objective science.
The deplorables just go ahead and have babies but climate scientists first feel the anguish of their contribution to climate change and then just go ahead and have babies.
“Faces a very different climate future”? What a bizarre non-rational bit of tripe. That sort of “thinking” is basically from an X Files subplot.
What a life . . . Dr Lewis is paid by Australian taxpayers to sell extreme AGW theories.
https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/lewis-sc
http://www.woroni.com.au/environment/keep-calm-and-dont-carry-on-understanding-climate-extremes-with-dr-sophie-lewis/
She has a big carbon foot-print; however, that’s OK because she’s exempt from the CO2 spewing consequences of attending conferences and undertaking field trips.
“My current fellowship is generous in many ways, but also highly restrictive. I have money available for travel to particular conferences, but I can’t buy a computer, for example. Computers are considered essential, and hence should be provided by a university, not a funding body, regardless of whether they are used glorified typewriters, projectors for cat videos or scientific instruments.”
https://sophieclewis.com/blog/
And she wants more of other people’s money and she’ll get it when her next grant is approved. There are hundreds-of-thousands of Dr Sophie Lewis types duplicating research and spending precious tax dollars while badly needed dollars for infrastructure and health are ignored.
Dr Sophie Lewis is much more than a hypocrite . . .