Babies are the problem. And American babies are the worst. As if liberals weren’t doing enough to limit the number of babies, now a new study is saying that babies may just be the death of us all doe to their calamitous environmental impact…and something must be done!!!!!
This kind of talk is more than just the typical environmental scare-mongering of the left. It’s dangerous. Because in the past, liberals had to limit their hatred of babies to convincing women there was no shame in ripping infants apart limb from limb. But now, liberals are no longer willing to leave up the choice to individuals because quite simply too many of them aren’t doing what the liberals want so the environmental impact argument is advanced to take the argument to a whole new level. (Let’s face it, liberals were never all that crazy about individuals anyway. They like talking about “man” as a concept but not actual people.
The ironic thing is that these so-called champions of “reproductive choice” are pulling a 180 as they reveal more and more that it’s not that they’re all that much into “choice” it’s just that they’re all just not that much into humanity.
When so much of government has taken the role of punishing behavior that is seen as harmful to ourselves and others either economically, financially and environmentally. (See smoking, healthcare and discussions over taxing fatty foods) is there any doubt that as environmental alarmism heightens, the government will take it upon itself to punish behavior they deem will hurt the environment under the guise that they’re protecting people.
Look, companies are being punished for having too large a carbon footprint. Logically, why shouldn’t individuals?
So when studies come out saying that babies are bad for the environment but insists it’s not advocating government intervention I just roll my eyes. Just listen to the professed views of some of the leading lights of liberalism. Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren advocated mass sterilization and population controls. And Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought Roe v. Wade would allow the government to limit “populations” we don’t want too many of. And some are arguing that she didn’t explicitly say she was for it. But the truth is that she thought Roe guaranteed the right of the government to “limit populations” and she didn’t ever speak out against it.
The new study, according to Live Science says:
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.
“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said study team member Paul Murtaugh. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”
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.
A child’s impact
Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.
The impact doesn’t only come through increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – larger populations also generate more waste and tax water supplies…
The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.
What is recommended by government today will be required tomorrow. Be assured of that. Be wary of that.
August 5, 2009 at 8:04 am
Simply disgusting. No to babies. Yes to chimpanzees. Great logic there.
August 5, 2009 at 11:10 am
That is horrible. And they obviously haven't seen those families that have children but don't produce more waste. You know, the ones who recycle, breastfeed, use cloth diapers, maybe even grow their own veg (I'm not quite that cool yet). And you don't have to get tons of things for children! The problem isn't having children, it's the idea that the child needs to have all the latest things, IMHO.
August 5, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Am I reasonable for making contingency plans to flee the country? Or should I get fitted for my tinfoil hat?
August 5, 2009 at 12:38 pm
How ridiculous. They add the entire life of a "baby" to the parent's footprint. That's double-dipping, since that "baby" will one day be an adult who also has his own footprint. It's a great way to vastly inflate the numbers, and scare people.
In fact, it's probably even more, now that I look at it. How can one child (with his own footprint) be responsible for 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which one person is responsible? Only by having more children. "Carbon legacy"? The only thing that makes sense to me with regards to how they got that number is: child (1) + grandchild (1) + great-grandchild (1) + great-great-grandchild (1) + great-great-great-grandchild (1) + 70% chance of great-great-great-great-grandchild (1 * 0.7) = 5.7.
This is just stupid.
August 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I saw this last night and it truly made my stomach churn. Once again I can't say I'm surprised and I won't be surprised when something similar to the studies recommendations is taken up in Congress. Will our children see the day when they will be subjected to an enforced "one child" policy? Sadly, I think it is very possible.
August 5, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I'm sure the statisticians at Oregon State University will be thrilled to learn that their little study of the environmental impact of children will serve as the linchpin for controlling the population.
I had no idea that the scientific journal called Global Environmental Change wielded such control over our lives.
I better get a subscription.
August 5, 2009 at 1:18 pm
It is extremely stupid. But in its stupidity it is also evil.
What is the worst, however, is that the general public will subscribe to such cr**.
And the likes of us are not only domestic terrorists (praying the Rosary – they got that right, eh? the Rosary is indeed the weapon of mass destruction of evil – see how scared they are) but also environmental terrorists.
Communism alive and well in —— the USA!
Who would have thought…..
Immaculate Heart of Mary help us.
Mum26
August 5, 2009 at 1:24 pm
A good gist of other studies says consumption is the real problem here, especially America's materialistic obsession for cheap products from China. Just think of the size of new homes, having 2 1/2 baths and three car garages for a family of at most four people. People could have a family of six on a .1 lots, not nothing less then an acre is acceptable for a smaller family. The more space people need for their dwellings, the more reliance on their cars and for further distances. It's not a population problem, it's an expansion problem.
August 5, 2009 at 1:45 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm
…meanwhile, the US fertility is hovering around 1.9, or slightly below replacement. But for immigration, our population would be shrinking. A study like this is akin to telling the captain of the Titanic, "Hey, hit that iceberg there." Recommendations based on this study would virtually assure the destruction of the United States.
On the other hand, why don't studies like this (www.csis.msu.edu/Publications/PNAS_divorce_environment.pdf) get more attention? If people actually took marriage vows seriously, we wouldn't worry so much about the environmental impact of the "fruits of marriage."
August 5, 2009 at 2:15 pm
And note the usual trope: Humans are merely polluters and consumers, not conservers and producers. This is a degrading and widespread view of humanity not limited to a tiny group in Oregon. How people can play silly bugger and not exhaust themselves from the cognitive disonance eludes me.
August 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm
The people who want to restrict reproduction are so often the same people who want to complain because the laundry is hanging out making the place look ugly, because they have a "right" not to look at your laundry. I am one of those recycling, breastfeeding, car-sharing, veggie-growing, cloth-diapering, baby-loving mamas…
August 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 5, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This alarmist view is something I've seen a few times. At a basic level, it's because we have an innate desire to want resources for ourselves and our families. But this is an unconscious extension: If I limit other people, I get more resources.
A few years ago, there were "scientists"** who applauded the idea of a pandemic that would wipe out 40% of the human population. I remember one 30-something woman who waxed eloquent about the idea of North America returning to a virgin wilderness. I figured she 1) was paying outrageous rent in the then-inflated housing market or 2) had bought early in a subdivision and the new construction bothered her.
**These aren't scare quotes. They're sarcasm quotes, because some of the people identified as "scientists" in media are researchers who build theoretical models. But "researchers" and "statisticians" doesn't sound as cool.
August 5, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Ask me about "Operation Bailout."
Those of you thinking of leaving are not insane.
August 5, 2009 at 4:45 pm
They're sarcasm quotes, because some of the people identified as "scientists" in media are researchers who build theoretical models.
One of my favorite quotes is from blogger Mencius Moldbug: "To estimate climate sensitivity, all you need is an accurate model of Earth's atmosphere. Likewise, to get to Alpha Centauri, all you have to do is jump very high."
August 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Just who are we saving the Earth for and why?
The reason they want to stop having children is that the God fearing folk keep having them and if that continues, the Pharoahs won't be able to control the population…at least, not without taking more drastic steps. Better to persuade the people to walk into the alligator's throat willingly than to throw them there….it's just so much less upsetting.
August 5, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Where would you go, Dr. Lacrimosus? We don't have the same fluffy "Off to Canada or Mexico or Europe! Life is Puurfect there!" worldview as many Liberals.
What would you say your top choices are, and why? I'm just curious.
August 5, 2009 at 6:51 pm
This makes me want to have a 6th child right away…just because I still can…
August 5, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Dr. Lacrimosus,
Please say more.
William,
I don't think this is a matter of pouting off to Canada like the libs. It's a matter of preparing for a full-fledged persecution. I don't fear personal harm (too much)…but I don't want me wife to suffer forced sterilization or abortion if that comes to pass. And I don't want my children's souls to be destroyed either.
If these sorts of things come to pass, I'd rather pack up and eek out a meager existence in some third world country that doesn't have the capacity to oppress its people than try to hold out here.
I'm more than willing to be told I'm a lunatic and should be fitted for a tinfoil hat. (I'm pretty sure my wife and parents think that would be a good idea!) But this seems to me to be the direction our country is headed.