Or, at least, don’t have any children (i.e., little polluters). Again, Gene Veith(love that Veith) links to a new Mark Steyn column about a movement he calls anti-natalism:
But here’s something new that took hold in the year 2007: A radical antihumanism, long present just below the surface, bobbed up and became explicit and respectable. In Britain, the Optimum Population Trust said that “the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers – in other words, human beings,” and professor John Guillebaud called on Britons to voluntarily reduce the number of children they have.
Last week, in the Medical Journal of Australia, Barry Walters went further: To hell with this wimp-o pantywaist “voluntary” child-reduction. Professor Walters wants a “carbon tax” on babies, with, conversely, “carbon credits” for those who undergo sterilization procedures. So that’d be great news for the female eco-activists recently profiled in London’s Daily Mail who boast about how they’d had their tubes tied and babies aborted in order to save the planet. “Every person who is born,” says Toni Vernelli, “produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases and adds to the problem of overpopulation.” We are the pollution, and sterilization is the solution. The best way to bequeath a more sustainable environment to our children is not to have any.
What’s the “pro-choice” line? “Every child should be wanted”? Not anymore. The progressive position has subtly evolved: Every child should be unwanted.
The logic is unassailable. As a father of three, I am amazed at the sheer amount of garbage we produce–much of it toxic waste (think baby diapers are bad? try toddler diapers!). If you place “saving the planet” at the top of your principle list, this is the end result.
But, let’s fast forward thirty years. If all these dirt worshippers stop having kids, will we have any more dirt worshippers? Hmmm, maybe they should follow their own advice.
Read Steyn’s whole column. It’s great and not a little bit scary.