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 ...
My 8 year-old son DOES enjoy flatulence.
................No ‘mo...thank-ya fer having me!
never liked that cutey-pie faux-noose thingy!
i’m sorry, but G-d created the earth for human beings, He did not create human beings for the earth.
these people have their heads where their butts are supposed to be
How is it bad “especially for the wealthy?” It would seem they are best able to support children. Maybe we should encourage third-worlders to stop breeding.
This used to be called Malthusian-ism.
Now it’s called liberalism....................
Being alive and living is expansive and there are many costs. Never existing and death is cheap and clean, very quiet too. Idiots.
Expansive=expensive
RE: Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.
That’s exactly what most developed nations are doing. Their populations are aging and they are forced to import from “immoral” Muslim nations.
This underscores how selective "environmentalist" left-wingers are. They act as though only developed (i.e. mostly western) nations pollute and overpopulate. The reality is that developed western nations are already close to zero population growth or would be so without immigration. Furthermore, wealthy western nations have cleaner air and water than Third World nations, and are better at conserving forests and fisheries. In spite of these facts, criticizing Third World nations for overpopulating or polluting would be "racist," so the Left once again reveals what its real agenda is all about. Their environmental agenda isn't about "saving the planet" - it's about destroying wealthy, developed western nations.
Once the Islamics and third world breeders decide this is a good idea then we’ll talk.
What a perfect ploy.
1. You tell people in the Western World to quit reproducing. Read that mostly Whites.
2. You advocate for third worlders to flood into the Western World because there aren’t enough people in the work force to pay for the retirement of the last generation.
3. This removes the White race from contributing in any meaningful manner to new policies.
4. End result, the White race is systematically removed from the face of planet earth.
We are already well on the way to only a few nations where Whites will have self-rule by 2050. (less than five, down from 12-15) [guesstimates]
A program like this if bought into by the public, could achieve that by 2035 to 2040.
Folks, take a look at our universities today, when we are still the majority.
Please don’t smile and move on. This is a very important issue.
Have you ever noticed how "environmentalists" who complain about too many people never want to do anything to restrict massive Third World immigration, without which US and European population growth would be near zero. Nor do they ever complain about Third World people having too many children.
As I said before, "environmentalism" has nothing to do with "the environment," it's simply another tool to destroy the United States and other western nations.
For the sake of the children, we need to get rid of the children.
Only liberal logic could come up with this.
LOL. The world will be inherited by those who just don’t give a damn about it I guess.
Ironic.
seriously, if people don't understand the value of children I don't know what to say....
elderly in this country alone take $10 to $1 for children in govt subsidies...
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.