Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart – CBC News author Kristen Pyszczyk thinks its outrageous that some parents choose to burden the planet’s climate by having lots of children, when there are lots of migrants who need a new home.
It shouldn’t be taboo to criticize parents for having too many kids
Celebrities Chip and Joanna Gaines took some heat for announcing they are pregnant with their fifth child.
Kristen Pyszczyk · for CBC News · January 14
Chip and Joanna Gaines, stars of HGTV’s Fixer Upper, were probably surprised at the backlash on social media last week that accompanied their announcement of baby number five. I was surprised too.
Not because I disagree with their critics, who admonished the couple for having too many kids, but rather because it’s a sentiment so seldom heard in a society that generally celebrates procreation with almost militant cheerfulness.
While having a child or five is a very personal choice, it’s also a choice that affects everyone who inhabits our planet. So while many people might find the backlash unwarranted, it’s actually a conversation we need to have in order to challenge our uncritical acceptance of the life-fulfillment-through-procreation story.
.@chipgaines swears he can already tell it’s a boy. Look at the little heartbeat!! 🙌🏽❤️❤️ #5 pic.twitter.com/bUwC3T91Cl
— Joanna Gaines (@joannagaines) January 3, 2018
Population control is a fraught topic, and carries with it associations with eugenics and other nasty historical events. But we still need to talk about it, and people who reacted strongly to the Gaines’ pregnancy announcement know this on some level. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the survival of our species depends on it.
In August of last year, New York Magazine published an article claiming we are living through a mass extinction. The article claimed that the earth will be uninhabitable within 100 years due to various consequences of climate change, food shortages and economic and political instability.
…
Shame is a powerful tool for changing behaviour: it’s how we introduce new and existing social conventions. It’s unfortunate that Chip and Joanna bore the brunt of changing attitudes, but let’s learn from the reaction and examine our own actions.
…
And if the birth rate in Canada declines, so what? As old You-Know-Who cuts off aid to not-for-profits that educate on abortion, restricts immigration and stops sending money to countries that need it, we will have a steady supply of smart and talented immigrants. Their loss, our gain.
Anyway, here’s wishing Chip and Joanna the best!
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/chip-joanna-gains-pregnancy-1.4481165
My heart goes out to Chip and Joanna. What should be one of the happiest moments of their lives is subject to public bullying by eco-lunes who think the announcement of a woman’s pregnancy is a good opportunity to talk about climate change and population control.
I am 100% certain I can survive a 3 degree temperature rise over 50 years (People survive a 20 degree temperature rise over 1 week when moving from New York to Florida), and a 10 mm/yr sea level rise. What I’m not nearly as confident about is surviving nuclear detonations around the world. No one fear mongers against nuclear attacks because there is no multi-million dollar grant fund for studying nuclear terrorism.
Global birth rate is down from 7ish to 2.4 kids per family. That means in 20 years the population will start to decline.
Perhaps a little longer, depending on what happens to life expectancy.
The people who cause me concern are those that marry time after time, dump their divorced wives then bring in new wives from other countries at the same time as having lots of children. The procreation of lots of children is not an issue, but having such a disruptive family structure can be really damaging to young people.
I see US police have raided a house which kept 13 children chained to beds, starved and made to recite long passages from the Christian Bible.
This is not a good example of US family life.
I wonder what some of our posters would say though if the parents had been Muslim, carrying out the same torture and forcing children to memorise long passages from the Koran ?
“Gareth January 17, 2018 at 1:54 am
I wonder what some of our posters would say though if the parents had been Muslim, carrying out the same torture and forcing children to memorise long passages from the Koran ?”
Or forced marriage to minors etc etc. The “Koran” is based on the Hebrew “Torah”, or as we know it the “Old Testament”. Islam arrived ~700 years after Christianity.
A bad example is no reason to doubt that the majority of parents do their best to look after their children in the USA and elsewhere. World population growth is slowing in most parts of the developing world and static or falling elsewhere.
My objection is to the eco-hypocrites who urge others to have no children but happily have four or five children themselves, this including especially the members of the global elite and MSM.
Gareth: I wonder which of “our posters” you are slandering. I have not seen a single poster at this site, not even the welcher tony mcleod, who favors chaining or starving children, have you? Maybe you think some would be ok with making kids recite bible passages but would be opposed if it’s koran passages? I haven’t seen any indication there, either, but you seem to suggest both are equally bad. What would you think of a scientist who made his or her kids recite multiplication tables? One reason I spend so much time at this site is the posters, most of them think before they post. You should try it.
Walk on down any road paved with the philosophies of those who advocate for CAGW.
They all end at the same place, known as “too many human beings exist”.
Their hidden goal is promulgated and fully known by only handful of those who would commit genocide on the rest of us, but their banners are carried by legions of the blind.
“Gareth: I wonder which of “our posters” you are slandering.”
Nobody in particular, just Americans in general, I think you’ll find.
Let’s try a different tack…..
As grown up consenting adults (those over age =45 anyway), doesn’t actual Real Life Experience tell us that when there are that many kids in a family that ‘Something Is Wrong’ in that relationship?
It is not an equal partnership going on in there and it WILL explode at some point.
So, we read Malthus and Ehrlich and, in no small part due to a Hollywood influence, envision the disasters they foretell as streets choked with dying people, a tsunami coming due Broadway, LA disappearing, chunk by chunk, into a smoking hole-in-the-ground. London under an epic grey cloud, blowing a hurricane and raining down hail & lightening?
What is wrong with the picture coming up….
Its a picture of a deliriously happy family. A picture of The American Dream.
I find it actually very very sad – can you think why.
Here it is
You should see a photo of the Gaines family.
Apart from being horribly ‘posed’ and blatantly fake. The couple are selling themselves and using their children to do it. Exploitation at it most gross and horrible.
See those 4 children – soon to be 5.
How old are they – what is the age gap between them?
Far too small for that supposed mother to have breast fed them – certainly not until they were each 30 months old. (Remember, breast feeding is a near perfect contraceptive)
Hence they are each ‘deposed children’. They were fed on something that, by the definition of not being their mother’s own, was malnourishing. The people of Ghana have a word for it, begins with the letter K.
Not only that, they were deprived of the social contact and learning that only a real mother can provide.
A grandmother, an aunt, a nursery worker CANNOT supply what a tiny baby needs socially and emotionally.
Those babies will have been spoilt right from the word go. And they will have been ‘told’ what to do, how to behave by a stranger using (typically) sugar as a chastisement/reward mechanism. No-one else can control a small baby as a mother can. She’d go ballistic if she found out not least.
So, roll that all together and what do we get…
1. A lot of children in a family that is going to destroy itself within the next 10 years
2. Spoiled children who don’t know what is right and wrong because their mother was hardly ever there – apart from self publicising photo shoots. Wow, what an example to set there.
3. Finally and the real killer, young brains that were malnourished when they needed it most (age 30 months and less) They will become unintelligent, lazy & morose and easily irritated people – when they can start to express those things in their late teens. (Have I just described yer average Climate Scientist)
Even worse, they will be addicted to a mind-altering substance – sugar.
What could possibly go wrong
And how many times times do we pillory Malthus and Ehrlich around here?
Because in this story is one of real starvation – physically and emotionally, coming from those babies being deprived of their mother’s milk and also, simply, her ‘being there’ for them.
and that picture looks soooooooooooooo happy.
…..her not being there – but you knew that.
And DO NOT blame the parents. They don’t know they’re doing wrong.
So, for Today’s Brain-Ache, where is it coming from?
PS If you’ve the time, search out Dr Jonice Webb and her thinking on “Childhood Emotional Neglect”
She describes what I’ve just done, ‘cept you have to pay for her advice.
I’m 10 younger than my older brother.
I’m living proof that breasfeeding is not a good method of contraception.
Man oh Man, that’s a huge number of conclusions to be reached from a single photograph.
After reading your attempt at a different tack, my conclusion is that if you had stayed the course instead of trying a different tack, you might have avoided exposing your self-righteous judgmental side. We pillory Malthus and Erlich because they exposed their extreme foolishness in their wrong (could say not even wrong) predictions. You could have stayed quiet and let us wonder, but no……
You may want to look at this : “DON’T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E&feature=youtu.be
To quote the bimbo – er, sorry! – young lady complaining about two people who are doing something normal, :”population control is a fraught problem”. Aside from her illiteracy issues, she has absolutely no clue what she’s talking about.
7.5 billion humans (current population estimate?) all placed in one area would take up maybe the amount of square mile room in a small country like Kuwait and still leave room for portapotties, but not much else. (I’m trying to imagine enough portapotties to serve that large a crowd.)
The only real population issues are in regard to large cities like New York, London, Paris, Chicago, San Fran, Delhi, Beijing. If they are overcrowded, it is not my problem. It is theirs.
We have the suburban commuter population out here in my kingdom. There is some commuter spillover from the city, but it’s mostly because the offspring of horse farm owners didn’t want to be bothered and sold the property to real estate developers. There’s still plenty of farmland available even in this county, and people run produce farms nearby that you can visit and support, if you want fresh stuff in the summer. We also have, in this country, a rather fine bird and wildlife census program, and a lot of hiking trails, and that kind of thing is may or may not happen in the cities.
The idea that humans should not have children is nonsense. If this silly young person avoids having even one kid, then when she gets to nursing home age, no one will come to see her, and she’ll be left staring out the window.
The Earth is NOT overpopulated, so let’s get off the Homo Sapiens existence guilt trip.
Is this anti-Muslim or just safely targeted at white burden?
The link with migration is absurd. People migrate for either economic or “safety” reasons, not so that w Western country can have the “right” number of people.
People try to escape Cuba but not Chile, North but not South Korea, Somalia but not Kenya. allow freedoms in those places, and people will stop migrating.
This is all the result of the warped thinking derived from the absurd concept of “privilege”.
Privilege abdicates responsibility for the decisions of prior generations and seeks to shame those we benefitted from their parents and grandparents sacrifices.
There were times when my parents had to choose between eating and feeding the kids. Working two jobs and saving for a child’s college does not make the recipient “privileged”, it’s a choice. Just as I starting saving for my children’s college the day they were born.
In the 1800’s people moved south and west looking for their riches. Some died, some survived. Cracker farmers in Florida faced hard living and Indian attacks. Yet, their great-grandkids now sit on multi-million dollar tracks of land because of those risks.
DACA kids have parents who broke the law to give their kids a better life. It may have been a risk worth taking, but Americans are under no obligation to reward those children over immigrants with children that lawfully apply for entry.
The Gains took a risk in opening a business. They earned success and can afford to pass that wealth down to four, five, or more children.
The real immorality is people who have kids, stay out of wedlock, and leave them as a burden to the rest of society.
Unfortunately, instead of holding moral account on those who fail to sacrifice for their children. We blame the children of those who endured the sacrifices to give their kids a better life.
We have truly moved through the looking glass, and Atlas shrugs his shoulders.
Biology is destiny.
Those who don’t procreate become extinct.
Choosing extinction is a form of suicide.
Suicide is a form insanity.
Those who discourage procreation are encouraging suicide.
Encouraging suicide is evil.
From Ehrlich on, the Academy has accepted thise who encourage suicide.
This is the least of their worries. Anti Christians have also tried to have their show cancelled because of their beliefs about marriage.
What are the odds that Chip & Johanna’s children will pay taxes, & keep SS, Medicaid, etc. alive, or immigrants?
I really can’t understand this migrant obsession. Europe has it the worst (and we see the results), but the US is catching up. The conspiracy nut in me says it’s an implanted propaganda meme feeding on people’s sympathies to ensure votes for the socialists.
They think it’s appropriate to shame a family for having multiple children when they can fully support every single one of them, but you mention reducing welfare for families that can’t support the children they are having or to limit migration of large poor families and all of a sudden they are up in arms.
We could shame these types of people back, but I don’t think they have the mental capacity to feel its effects.
Do the greens forget that when immigrants come to the USA, they generally begin using a lot more energy than they did in their home country. Greens can be so ignorant. Also, for many years in a magazine I receive there was a guy that put an ad in every month where he stated, “The more intelligent you are, the more children you should have.” And, yes I know that intelligence tends toward the average.
I just want to put on record here that when extreme longevity tech is available, I’m planning on having ~twenty kids per century in batches of 2 to 10 with the finest women on the planet. We are going to fill up the solar system with trillions of awesome, beautiful, talented, and joyful children…and then on to the stars. The left can take their nihilism to oblivion.
By that token I assume they would agree that is it right to ban totally, unconditionally and with no recourse to human rights laws any migrant from a family with more than two children.
The problem is that the immigrants breed like rabbits once they arrive in the land of other people’s money with politicians willing to pay to raise all the children they can pop out, never having contributed to the system.
In 2016 28.2% of live births were to mothers born outside the UK, the highest level on record.
People born in the UK have less than 2 children on average, foreign born is about 5 (from memory).
The commonest boy name in the UK in 2017 was Muhammad.
So taking in immigrants actually massively increases the global population problem.
I see no distinction between that thinking and simple anti-white racism. Quacks like a duck.
‘What should be one of the happiest moments of their lives is subject to public bullying by eco-lunes’
Again – almost by-rote hypocrisy. Don’t forget this is also the ‘anti-bullying’ crowd.
So naturally their tactics are almost exclusively some form of intimidation and bullying.
And again, almost in lock-step stereotypical conformity, like any bully they absolutely cannot take getting pushed back.
Anyone who’s every busted a bully a good one knows this.
No personal choice or God-given right is immune from the progressive filter of collective moralizing. In fact, it’s just a wrong way of thinking to see yourself as an individual with any rights or privileges at all. At the individual level, it’s all about duty . . . to the collective.
free speech includes those nonsensical rants. So be it. As long we can also shame those Malthusian xenophile, homophobic, morons
Seems legit, migrant families in Europe average 4 kids, Europeans half of that
So we need to stop having kids to allow for people who have twice as many kids as we were having.
Climate maths