A group of people who call themselves “birth strikers” are pledging not to to have children in order to save the Earth, according to CNN.
BirthStrike appears to be a small group — no more than 330 people so far — but the group’s members say the trend is growing, and that at least 80% of their membership is female.
One member, a musician, told CNN that the purpose of “BirthStrike” is to prevent an “ecological Armageddon” by voluntarily reducing the global population, but also to protect a future generation of humans from having to endure the after-effects of that same “ecological Armageddon,” including harsher weather and food insecurity.
“The BirthStrikers have decided they can’t bring children into a world where scientists predict climate change will bring bigger wildfires, more droughts, and food shortages for millions of people,” CNN reports. The group claims “climate change,” which is happening at a nearly negligible rate, is responsible for everything from sea level rise to war.
“When climate change gets worse, it multiplies other things. It’s like dominoes that are falling,” one prominent member of BirthStrike told CNN. “It goes beyond sea level rise and storms. It affects food production, migration, resources and war.”
Others claim it’s “unfair” to bring children into a world where they may have to adapt to a changing environment, even though that’s been a function of the human race for as long as it has roamed the Earth.
The group relies, of course, on the United Nations climate study that suggests denizens of this planet may only have around 11 quality years left to address the “climate crisis” before an unspecified catastrophic event. They’re largely convinced that humanity has only a little more than a decade to address the issue, and bringing children into the world would contribute to, rather than alleviate, the problem.
BirthStrike is hardly the only group looking to address “the surplus population.” There are several, including a group called “Voluntary Human Extinction,” made up of activists who are choosing not to have children in order to “save the planet.” The United Nations has, on occasion, even encouraged responsibility in “population control” to help alleviate the pressure on resources, especially in the third world (it’s why Planned Parenthood is so popular and commands so much time in the global forum).
It’s also not a new proposition. In the late 1990s, a group called “Zero Population Growth” tried to lobby for policies that rewarded limited reproduction in the name of preserving the environment.
But according to experts who spoke to CNN, BirthStrike and its fellow anti-child organizations may not be doing as much for the environment as they believe they are, because it’s not necessarily how many people the Earth holds that makes the difference — it’s how much those people consume. Those who do not reproduce also run the risk of their ideology dying with them.
In other words, voluntary extinction is its own form of social Darwinism, and the leftists who embrace it are actually doing themselves a disservice by ending their own lines.