Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder (a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University) tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.
He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”
Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.
For years, people have lamented how bad things might get “for our grandchildren,” but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore.
He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.
“Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”
Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.
Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.
There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.
“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.
His arguments sound pretty persuasive in the classroom. At home, it was a different matter.
…
When she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can’t help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term “global warming” in elementary school. “Knowing that I gave that future to somebody is something that just doesn’t sit very well,” she says.
Full NPR article here: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change
#
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who advised both Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claims that the maximum number of people Earth can support is a mere 1 billion people. As of 2016, there are more than 7.3 billion humans on Earth, making the question of which 6.3 billion people are supposed to die a fairly important one.
Dire predictions of greens have consistently failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The quality of life of the average person has also immeasurably improved.
#
Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth
NPR Lectures About Selfish Moms Having Kids in ‘Age of Climate Change’
Skeptics Mock: ‘Having less babies might cool the world. There are no kids in Antarctica, and there’s no warming there either. How many non-babies does it take to stop a flood in Bangladesh? Perhaps the IPCC has an App for that.’
Related Links:
Warmist Mike Hulme: Since 1979, China’s ‘one-child’ policy’ has ‘avoided’ 300 million births — Reducing ‘about 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 from being emitted annually to global atmosphere’ – Warmist David Appell mocks Overpopulation/climate fears: ‘On the other hand, maybe one of those 300 Million people would have invented a technique for massive noncarbon energy production’
46 Responses
Rider might be onto something. Perhaps people who believe the climate catastrophists should indeed voluntarily not have kids to help save the planet. Society’s average IQ would certainly increase over the ensuing decades.
Perhaps people who believe the climate catastrophists
What about the vast, vast majority of reg’lur people who accept the findings of science? Since the fraction is so large, IQ would likely not be affected…
Best,
D
So you (and the vast, vast majority) accept every single finding of every scientist (and groups claiming to be scientists)? If so, we have a serious IQ problem here. Science has never been “settled”, and new theories continue to disprove old ones. Studies are frequently biased by the scientist’s preconceived ideas and political agendas.
So you (and the vast, vast majority) accept every single finding of every scientist (and groups claiming to be scientists)?
Whoa, whoa – careful there! Keep all flame well away from that strawman!
Best,
D
Your strawman is much bigger than mine, i.e., “the vast, vast majority” accept “the findings of science”? What the hell does that mean?
Most people across the planet accept that man-made climate change is a fact.
The notable exception in the First World is conservative, English-speaking Anglo-Saxons.
HTH
Best,
D
That is such a dumb statement, I don’t know where to begin…Where is your global polling data to support your contention? I would suspect that the majority of the world’s population has never read a scientific paper on the subject. How could they possibly make an informed decision on anthropogenic affects on climate? I will accept the concept that the majority of the world’s population are naive and gullible, and will accept the word of someone with a political agenda who claims to be knowledgeable on the topic.
Cons hate polls. It reminds them of how
backwardbehind the times their ideology is.1. , 2. , 3. ,
Best,
D
Facts don’t seem to matter to leftists.
I’d blather and ululate to try and hide poll results if I were a con too.
Best,
D
What poll results? What are you talking about? Am I wasting my time arguing with a drunk or a pajama boy?
I gave you poll results. Can you grasp it?
Best,
D
That doesn’t mean the fools who listen to NPR shouldn’t have kids. I think that is a capital idea. We should even enforce the ban on childbirth from those morons. It would take awhile, but some things are worth waiting for.
You made this up: hundreds of climate predictions that have all proven to be wrong.
You can’t show it is true.
Best,
D
Well, here’s a link to 107 failed predictions. There are plenty more examples I could pull up fairly quickly, if you are interested.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
Disinformation site! Drink!
Best,
D
I provide facts which you requested, and you dismiss it as “disinformation”. I should have expected that facts don’t mean anything to a leftist. I could provide many more, from James Hanson, the IPCC, and other climate alarmist sources, but it would be a waste of my time to try to dissuade a true believer.
No, you linked to a disinformation site. You can’t hide it. It’s all you have, isn’t it?
Best,
D
Your 13 more amuses me. You apparently are ignorant of the fact that the petroleum, demographics, and agronomic professions do not make climate perdiktins. Aren’t you something?
Best,
D
Watch out for the “informal expert”….. those who, eager to garner the attention of the mainstream news media, will “do whatever it takes” to rig the system to “save” our planet. To hell with the 10 commandments or equivalent which have served as the foundation of civilized society for the last approx. 2000 years.
You are confusing real science with voodoo science…… In fact even the latest 2013 IPCC AR5 – Annual report on Climate change confirms there has been in fact a 15 year hiatus on earth temperature increase……because the pdf file is 1500 pages long, taking well over one hour to download and store on a hard drive I will make it easy for you – see snippet below….. I think it was from page 769 chapter 19….
Politicians have a long history of failing to discern the difference (FAILING EVERY TIME) and the results continue to devastate…… They fail every time because truth has to be filtered through the political agenda to win an electrion NO MATTER WHAT!
https://books.google.ca/books?id=LjhtdMmJdQMC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=the+gods+of+energy+planning+foolishness&source=bl&ots=SxKplKt3K6&sig=CdwKmSUCnhpbk6ejuyaT2WOhAJI&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiKtrisks7OAhUW_WMKHeIGB0EQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=the%20gods%20of%20energy%20planning%20foolishness&f=false
Nice cherry-pick.
That aside, try giving us the latest science. What do a half-dozen papers since (by some of the authors who constructed this statement) have to say about the hiatus?
Let us know what your awesome research skills find.
Best,
D
I opened the AR5 document again yesterday and did a search for the word “hiatus”…… I gave up counting that word after finding it over 35 times…… By the time one reads and begins to understand it there are a few things that become obvious:
1) Most of the scientific material contained tends to be quite honest in revealing uncertainties, unknown factors yet to me taken into account, need for much more work to reach a definitive conclusion in line with the scientific method, failure of many computer models to account for unexpected hiatus and a significant risk that CO2 is a prime suspect based thus far on circumstantial evidence.
2) Pachauri’s summary statement within AR5 does not align well with the contents but is the only part that politicians, mainstream news media etc. are interested in and/or are capable of understanding….
In summary, it becomes blatantly clear that the mainstream news media and the politicians are making dangerous assumptions about the severity of AGW relative to factors totally beyond the control of mankind… e.g., solar, solar system, Van Allen radiation belt, cosmic radiation variance, volcanic factors as well as many others yet to be discovered other factors.
We can blame Al Gore and the mainstream news media for convincing us that AR5 supports their claims of catastrophe forthcoming.
I’ll type slowly.
What do the results of studies SINCE (after) AR5 say?
TIA
Best,
D
I have no idea! If you do…. please advise…… I make it a habit of examining both sides of any issue and not to reinforce an existing bias ad infinitum as so many people today seem to be doing.
They say no hiatus.
Best,
D
Don’t read it. Just believe what it says.
Between unfettered abortions and global warming hysterics not having kids, perhaps we will see the extinction of the leftist population.
Uh, no. Progressives/leftists always exempt themselves from their policies.
<<hp.. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il449r:….,……
If they don’t make their own kids they will import them. legally or illegally.
This is the same dribble as the ‘Voluntary Human Extinction Movement’. Yes, there is such a movement in today’s world (http://www.vhemt.org).
This is just another manifestation of the malthusian/people are toxic to the earth/global warming catastrophe death cult. As I watch this unfold, I think I see an answer to the Fermi paradox – progressive liberals.
I’m all for Liberals not having kids. I’ve been saying this for decades!!
sure, they (Liberals) should be the ones leading by example to show us how rapidly a specific group can depopulate and change the arc of history.
Travis Rieder should not have kids – he is a bad seed. In fact, far-left idiots – which, by definition, is all of them, should not have kids. We, on the other hand, will continue to have kids.
the warmists are a cult. a wacky, mind warped neo-hippie cult. nothing else.
For God’s sake has everyone gone mad?
The altruistic argument of the extreme green movement is utterly bogus and here is why.
Basic human nature is to procreate, nuture and protect our own progeny first and foremost….(tribal instinct)… Without any possibility of a doubt, the extreme green’s are more interested in protecting their own tribe than any other. And now many including some UN leaders are calling for “depopulation” as a means of controlling Earth’s climate: http://www.emancipatedhuman.com/2015/04/10/un-climate-chief-calls-depopulation/
Comparing the end result of man’s efforts to a fruit tree – “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit!”
What they meant was, their parents should have protected US by not having THEM.
Unbelievable omniscient ignorance. The climate after it got here has always changed. Earth’s history recently there was an ice age. GOD’s Nature will decide whether offsprings are born or not.
Why does the world need more people?
Good point. Remove yourself, please. Nice to see you lead by example.
This all goes hand in hand with their theory that humans are a parasite that needs to be eradicated in order for the planet to survive. That is, all humans that don’t believe as they do.
Of course, the people who need to stop breeding are the primarily non-college-educated, blue-collar Anglo-Saxon types; i.e. Christians. It would be nice for the progs if the Muslims stopped breeding as well, but the primary threat is Christians. You will never catch a progressive denying him or herself something they desire, whether it be a pet, a child, or an abortion. That duty falls on the benighted masses, not the educated elite who will take care of Mother Earth.
Not going to a secular University ever!
The corrupt, liberal, propagandists, who are pushing this agenda should definitely not be having any offspring!