SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-harness-the-children's-energy dept.
Travis Rieder has defended his assertion that families should consider having less children to lessen the impacts and suffering caused by climate change:
Earlier this summer, I found myself in the middle of a lively debate because of my work on climate change and the ethics of having children. NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden profiled some of my work in procreative ethics with an article entitled, "Should we be having kids in the age of climate change?," which summarized my published views that we ought to consider adopting a "small family ethic" and even pursuing fertility reduction efforts in response to the threat from climate change. Although environmentalists for decades have worried about overpopulation for many good reasons, I suggest the fast-upcoming thresholds in climate change provide uniquely powerful reasons to consider taking real action to slow population growth.
Clearly, this idea struck a nerve: I was overwhelmed by the response in my personal email inbox as well as op-eds in other media outlets and over 70,000 shares on Facebook. I am gratified that so many people took the time to read and reflect on the piece. Having read and digested that discussion, I want to continue it by responding to some of the most vocal criticisms of my own work, which includes research on "population engineering" – the intentional manipulation of human population size and structure – I've done with my colleagues, Jake Earl and Colin Hickey. In short, the varied arguments against my views – that I'm overreacting, that the economy will tank and others – haven't changed my conviction that we need to discuss the ethics of having children in this era of climate change.
Consider reading the article before commenting, or turning off your computer to conserve energy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:06PM
The thing about Idiocracy is that it claims that the society of retards is the result of natural selection and genetics. So it's wrong in a pedantic way. I still think it's ultimately correct because culture can change that rapidly, and it's culture that gets passed down. Culture can also spread. We are on the verge of embracing anti-intellectualism on a dangerous scale. Instead of Idiocracy, it's entirely possible that the West is headed for another dark age.
A single mother with two kids does not contribute more to the numbers of future humans than a married mother with two kids.
You are correct. Some single mothers make a mistake with a guy, even involving marriage some times. I don't press for details because it's none of my business, but just what I hear. Those tend to be happy with just the one kid since they realize that's more than enough for one person to handle.
However, what you underestimate is career mothers. We have a perverse welfare system that will take care of you 100% as long as there's a baby under some cutoff age in your home. So, what's a career mother to do? Can't stop the tykes from growing up. The answer is to keep popping out babies about once every 2 years to keep the benefits coming.
In the latter case, mothers actually teach their daughters how to become career mothers and many actually expect that the daughter will follow in their footsteps. It's quite horrible, but I don't know how to help it without suggesting eugenics. It wouldn't even need to be race-based eugenics (not directly). Just require an income of 70,000 for each child license. You make 140,000? You get two children. Maybe there would need to be some kind of escrow requirement, too. That will never fly.