I have been discussing the anti-humanism of radical environmentalism for some time now here at SHS, that is, the idea that humans are the enemies of the planet and we must depopulate dramatically or the planet might die. This meme has been adopted by the global warming crowd too. For example, in the UK, an influential adviser on environmental issues–apparently indifferent to the murderous eugenics policies of China’s notorious one child policy–advocated that the UK adopt a two child policy and increase the abortion rate as a way of reducing carbon dioxide output.
And now, a new study from the University of Oregon supports the idea of not having children as a way to cut our carbon footprints. From the story:
For people who are looking for ways to reduce their “carbon footprint,” here’s one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids. A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs…
Reproductive choices haven’t gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.
The good professors state they don’t want any laws requiring small families. But the likelihood that many people will heed the call and sacrifice the size of their family over something as ephemeral as a carbon footprint is remote–at least in sufficient numbers to make a difference even if the hypothesis is true.
And here’s the thing: Misanthropic environmentalism is moving ever deeper into the mainstream, and in fact, has been accepted whole cloth by many among what my generation used to call “The Establishment.” Indeed, the weather has become an ever ready excuse for imposing ever-more intrusive and controlling policies intended to impede human flourishing, or tax human enterprise. And with the increasing tendency to personalize floura and fauna–as we depersonalize the most vulnerable humans–the worry that draconian population control policies could one day be imposed on society based on carbon dioxide is not all that paranoid.
August 5th, 2009 | 12:47 pm
Just ignore them. What do you expect? They’re liberals. They can’t handle war, either. Bunch of beardy effetes who wear bughead bicycle helmets. It’s easy to drown them out. IGNORE them. Paying any attention to them only makes it worse. Then other idiots think they should be thinking, saying, and doing likewise and there are more sheep to deal with. IGNORE them.
August 5th, 2009 | 12:52 pm
“Misanthropic environmentalism is moving ever deeper into the mainstream”
It’s certainly true. A classmate and friend of mine at my university expressed the very same sentiment: “I’ll have fewer children because I care about the environment.”
August 5th, 2009 | 2:38 pm
Thank you for commenting on these very disturbing trends. I have a child adopted from China, likely abandoned because of criminally oppressive population control. Yet people in the West are jumping in the environmental bandwagon, without stopping to consider that small families that are “encouraged” today will be enforced tomorrow. Down with humans, apparently…
What a crime.
August 5th, 2009 | 2:44 pm
Ianthe, you forgot to hang up your “I’m being facetious” sign. I thought that post was from the redneck that tried to run me over on my bike this morning until I looked at your signature. ;)
The one semi-ugly truth I wish folks would realize is that every human being, and most other animals, have an overall negative effect on the environment. Animals (especially warm-blooded mammals like us) consume a lot, make a lot of waste, and generally put a lot of wear and tear on our surroundings.
Now, that being said, let’s not take that to mean that people are EEEE-VILLLLL. We are what we are. And if we are willing to be a smart little species, we can maintain this lovely existence for some time.
Of course being smart involves avoiding overpopulation and overconsumption. If we approach that as being in the best interests of the human race, just might work. If we pursue it by acting as sanctimonious egomaniacal prigs, probably not.
August 5th, 2009 | 8:38 pm
I bet these same people demand IVF and Artificial Insemination be covered by the health plan and that research funding for IVF and same-sex procreation be increased. They surely would object to a ban on Artificial Insemination and IVF, even though that’s the most environmentally costly way to create babies.
I think everyone should be allowed to have as many babies as they want, but only through marital intercourse. They’d never agree with that.
August 6th, 2009 | 2:03 pm
All those who advocate that too many humans are a problem have only one course of action to take to prove their fidelity to their own message.
They must kill themselves to prove they really truly believe what they say. Otherwise they prove that they are not committed to their cause.
August 7th, 2009 | 2:36 am
Man, I can’t believe how ignorant some of these comments are. The facts are out there: human population is increasing at an alarming rate; this presents probably the biggest threat to our own planet, our home. What’s wrong with taking measures against that?
August 19th, 2009 | 12:28 pm
Oscar, the facts are out where?
Chew on this:
European Birth Rate Declines
Population Growth In E.U. Has Flipped From Positive To Negative
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml
Negative Population Growth –
20 Countries Have Negative or Zero Natural Increase
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact