Posted on 11/15/2017 11:54:55 AM PST by C19fan
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I don’t know about the earth, but my 2 year old grandson sure is bad for my house. He climbs on everything, breaks decorations... He has already broken two flat screen tvs. He uses them for ramps. Sheesh.
________
Thank God Webster and Hillary only had one.
____
LOL
... Where is Hillary’s signature?
____
done yet?
:-)
Earth will be a nice place but no one here to see it. What offensive idiots. Children are a blessing.
Agree with your post a little however if no elderly, which should be cherished then there is little wisdom left in the world for children and less love. Sounds eerily like a Soylent Green thought?
Not only that, but the wealthiest countries, including the US, are the ones that are actually decreasing their carbon emissions. All of the increase is coming from the poorer countries.
Nonsense like this just exposes the truth about environmentalism. Just like progressivism generally, it has nothing to do with saving the world or helping people, and everything to do with control.
This article is the entire premise of the movie, “Idiocracy”.
Bkmk
Travis and Sadiye Rieder read a book with their 2-year-old daughter, Sinem, in their Maryland home. Travis is a philosopher and ethicist who argues against having too many children, for moral and environmental reasons. His wife always wanted to have a big family.
Well, let’s eat the little polluter, and finally take Swift’s Modest Proposal up. Just don’t fart after the meal, or we’ll have to eat you, too.
The satirical possibilities of this thread are endless. Why only 112 posts?
Eat the Rich - Aerosmith (1993)... also a 1987 movie... and a Jean-Jacques Rousseau quote (1756)... and a 1998 book by PJ O'Rourke...
"A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick" - Jonathan Swift, 1729...
Soylent Green (1973 movie)
Euthanasia has been around as an idea since the 1600s, at least.
and pretending that Science dabbles in vague qualitative definitions like "good for"...
And then pretending that we know what is best for the planet or not...
Appalling the way journalism majors will twist words from simple scientific articles or hypotheses.
2Kings 6:27 And he said, “If the Lord does not help you, where can I find help for you? From the threshing floor or from the winepress?” 28 Then the king said to her, “What is troubling you?”
And she answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ 29 So we boiled my son, and ate him. And I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him’; but she has hidden her son.”
Yep...biology tells you when to stop...
Ha, just wait until he’s a teenager!
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration...”
yeah, sure it is.
If true, it will put abortion clinics out of business
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.