Climate change hysteria has brought people to such lowly depths of despair that they are now refusing to have children in order to protect the environment.
In an op-ed for The Huffington Post, guest writer Mariana Keen declared that she feels a “responsibility not to have children” in order to combat the world’s “unsustainable population size,” thus seeming to offer support for something that conservatives have alleged for years: Climate change hysteria can sometimes simply mask an insidious leftist/Malthusian movement for global population control.
“The world population is growing by approximately 83 million people every year, largely due to a high birth rate and falling death rate, and this is having a devastating impact on the planet,” argues Keen.
In Keen’s mind, not to mention the scientists who have echoed her sentiments, having children simply translates into “multiplying my impact on the environment” — which is further compounded by our “increased life expectancy.” The question of having children has weighed on Keen for years and has now reached an apex, given her age of 36. However, after careful consideration, she has decided that children will not be in her future.
“I don’t want children, and a major deciding factor for me has been the impact this would have on the environment,” she argues. “Of course, such a major life decision is multifaceted. I’ve made a lot of choices in response to environmental concerns, but the matter of kids has certainly been one of the more challenging topics to ponder because I’m interested in balancing my duty to our planet with making enriching life choices.”
Keen says her choice stems from two factors: Seeing that her friends are no more happier after having children and her responsibility to the environment.
“This, for me, means not adding to my home city’s population density, global population growth, and further destruction of our planet,” she emphasizes.
Keen then cites a 2009 study by statisticians at Oregon State University to support her claim, which argued that “having one less child in the U.S.” would dramatically impact the output of greenhouse gas emissions.
“The study found that under current conditions in the U.S., 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 an average person worldwide,” she says. “For me, this impact has been worth considering. Just as I can do my bit by recycling and limiting my waste, I can help to curb the population by limiting the number of children I have.”
“So considering the environmental impact I can have in my lifetime, I’ve decided not to have kids,” she continues. “There are so many great people in my world with whom I can share love and companionship, so I don’t feel the need to have my own child in order to feel fulfilled.”
While certain segments of the climate change activist community have called for more population control, other segments have cautioned against it. The feminist Ms. Magazine, of all places, even argued that population control would not solve the supposed problem.
“Today, arguments for population control are reemerging in mainstream and even liberal discussions around limiting women’s fertility in the name of environmental sustainability,” the article stated. “This isn’t the first time women’s bodies have been treated as a means to a demographic end. Recall such ugly initiatives, all mainstream in their day, to forcibly sterilize Black, Latina, and Indigenous women, to treat Puerto Rican women like lab rats in contraceptive trials to keep the island’s population down and to fund sterilization camps in India.”