Nov 21 2009
Saving the planet by having fewer kids
I’m not exactly surprised or shocked by this story, for it is not new. Hard-core “environmentalists” have, for the longest time, been more partial to the earth than to humans. See this, for instance. Or this.
Of course it’s silly. And in some cases, more than a little creepy. But hey, I’m not particularly worried. Besides, if the most hard-core activists choose not to reproduce, it will mean that many fewer hard-core activists born and raised, so how can we lose?
Related posts:
- Stark on the page Share Is it just me or is the tone of...
- Little kids with lots of political sense Share This may amaze you, but I am not a...
This particular philosophy has always made me laugh. The birth rate has been dropping, significantly, over the last hundred years. Children make up a significantly smaller proportion of the population pyramid than they have in the past.
The reason that the world population is increasing is not that we are having children–it is that people aren’t dying as early as they used to.
Which makes me wonder–why aren’t these population control fans advocating the cessation of medical research, so as that people won’t live quite as long? After all, if you compare the carbon footprint of a kid to a retiree, the retiree is the one who emits much more carbon, what with jet-setting off on vacations and whatnot.
Ah but see, these population control people have already passed their childhood, and are therefore safe. If they were to advocate dying earlier, that would be something that would actually affect them.
Excellent points Melissa!