Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them

ARTICLE uses 2 times picture with white babies


Other urls found in this thread:

A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.

Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.

The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have written widely on the topic myself.

But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn't have environmental and ethical consequences.

The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.

Most environmentalists accept this sort of ledger view when it comes to recycling, driving, and flying, but support begins to decrease when applied to family planning. The opposition is typified by Vox writer David Roberts, who argues that “such an accounting scheme is utterly impractical” because it seems to entail that one is never responsible for one's own emissions. Because "we don’t want to double-count,” as Roberts says, this means parents are really only responsible for their kids’ emissions.

The flaw in this objection is the plausible-sounding caveat: “we don’t want to double-count.” Because why wouldn’t we want to double-count? If moral responsibility added up mathematically, then double-counting would be a serious problem. But I think it’s clear that we should not accept a mathematical model of responsibility.

Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.

Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical.

If you buy this view of responsibility, you might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.

Having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons.

The rebuttal to this argument is that individual actions simply don’t make a significant difference, and that institutional action is how you actually have an impact. Do everything you can to minimize your emissions, and the “earth won’t give a damn.”

All of these claims are true. Most individual actions won’t matter in the context of a trillion ton, all-time anthropogenic carbon budget. And indeed, policy and collective action are important for seriously mitigating the harms of climate change.

But does this mean my individual actions are morally permissible? I think the answer is clearly no.

If morality only applied to meaningful change, then morality would rarely recommend actions of symbolic integrity or defiance. We would not, for example, praise the activist who stands up for what she believes in until there was evidence that her tactics work. And those who sacrifice their own interests in order to contribute minuscule amounts of time, money, or labor to alleviating global hunger or poverty would look like suckers rather than saints.

I don’t think these judgments sit well with our moral sensibilities. On reflection, many of us believe that it is wrong to contribute to massive, systematic harms, even if each individual contribution isn’t causally significant. This explains why many of us think you are obligated to do things like recycle, especially when it’s easy. Your recycling doesn’t matter much to the environment — the earth doesn’t give a damn — but you should do it anyway.

The confusion around this sort of moral claim is understandable. Our moral psychology has not yet evolved to solve the problems of today. Humanity grew up in relatively small groups; Rules like “don’t harm others,” or “don’t steal and cheat” are easy to make sense of in a world of largely individual interactions.

That is not our world any longer, though, and our moral sense is evolving to reflect that difference. Moral decisions are no longer about math; Being a part of the solution matters.

The importance of this argument for family size is obvious. If having one fewer child reduces one’s contribution to the harms of climate change, the choice of family size becomes a morally relevant one.

I am certainly not arguing that we should shame parents, or even that we’re obligated to have a certain number of children. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think there is a tidy answer to the challenging questions of procreative ethics. But that does not mean we’re off the moral hook. As we face the very real prospect of catastrophic climate change, difficult — even uncomfortable — conversations are important. Yes, we should discuss the ethics of making babies with care and respect; but we should discuss it.
Travis Rieder, Ph.D, is the Assistant Director for Education Initiatives, Director of the Master of Bioethics degree program and Research Scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

Since he is saying it's the babies of the wealthiest that cause the most harm (I'd agree but nothing to do with climate change) he is really calling for jews not to breed.
Someone ought to call him an anti-semite really.

Why not address directly the problem? Niggers have big families. If they would be left alone they would burn down Africa and cause more environmental damage than anything.

Good idea.


Of course whites should breed less though. Yet we should also replace those potential white children with immigrants from the third world. We must protect the environment by having no more children, but we have a duty to create a mixed utopia free of hate. We must stop our aggressive and greedy consumption of the Earth's resources but we must bring over millions of young men and families that will need new houses, cars, electronics, power, jobs, schools, hospital beds, medicines etc.

Who breeds the fastest?
Oh waits (sand)niggers, somalis and spics with clown car vaginas.
Overpopulation is caused by raysis whites, am I right guys?



meanwhile on his twitter

Travis N. Rieder
‏ @TNREthx
3 Oct 2017

By my good friend and co-author, Colin Hickey: Slowing Population Growth Is Important And Immigration Can Help

Travis N. Rieder
‏ @TNREthx
12 Dec 2017

Travis N. Rieder Retweeted Charlotte Clymer


Important context to remember. Yes, ‘Alabama’ pulled off an important victory, but not all Alabamans contributed equally. White folks: we’ve got some serious work to do.

I think this cunt could be used as a redpill example on climate change cucks

Well, I told NBC the gas chambers are gonna be real this time. Anything else I should tell them?

Travis N. Rieder
‏ @TNREthx
23 Aug 2017

One of my favorite organizations!

How To Fix Poverty: Why Not Just Give People Money?

Why write the article at all if you weren't targeting whites to try and shame them into not breeding? No other species will ever not breed to preserve the environment, no other species even cares about the environment to begin with. The objective is not to preserve the environment here, it is another blatant attempt to destroy Europeans.


These irritating articles are always written by kikes, but it's important not to get blackpilled over it. Jews in both Israel and the diaspora in the US and Europe have their own demographic problems from drinking their own Kool-Aid. The only part of the Jewish demographic with above-replacement birthrates are the Haredim, useless religious zealots who don't have to join the IDF or work, but instead live their whole lives on welfare and have 12 kids per couple. They're the niggers of Jews. Israel is projected to be majority Arab Muslim in 12 years because of this trend. Then factor in that Jews have catastrophically high rates of race-mixing for a race of people that really can't afford to lose any of their numbers.

Meanwhile, conservative whites have the highest birthrate of any demographic in the United States, and European countries are starting to take steps to increase their native birthrates instead of importing infinity niggers and shitskins just because (((experts))) oy vey about the economy. This whole thing is going to turn around and the Jews will end up dooming themselves by their own hands, as they've done hundreds of times throughout history.

do these retards even grasp they are in a jones-town style suicide cult?

tell them I'll enjoy their suffering

OP they are correct. We should start by ending foreign aid to nations that are overall below the poverty line and have more than one child on average. It is our duty as environmentalists to ensure that the earth survives and as such we must be willing to prune back a few rotten branches that are only hindering the tree’s growth.

hi schlomo

Dubs confirm. For every white child you have, please postnatally abort two PoC children. It's the responsible, moral thing to do.

The author of the article actually wrote a study against that.

Fertility, Immigration, and the Fight against Climate Change
by Jake Earl, Travis Rieder и Colin Hickey
Several philosophers have recently argued that policies aimed at reducing human fertility are a practical and morally justifiable way to mitigate the risk of dangerous climate change. There is a powerful objection to such " population engineering " proposals: even if drastic fertility reductions are needed to prevent dangerous climate change, implementing those reductions would wreak havoc on the global economy, which would seriously undermine international antipoverty efforts. In this article, we articulate this economic objection to population engineering and show how it fails. We argue, first, that the economic objection paints an inaccurate picture of the complicated relationship between demographic change and economic growth, and second, that any untoward economic effects of fertility reduction can be mitigated with additional policies. Specifically, we argue that supplementing fertility reduction with policies that facilitate the emigration of younger people from developing nations to developed nations could allow for both global reductions in GHG emissions and continued economic stability. Further, we show that moral arguments against such unprecedented increases in immigration are unsuccessful. We conclude that population engineering is a practical and morally justifiable tool for addressing the twin evils of climate change and global poverty.

and retweeted this:

Travis N. Rieder

‏ @TNREthx

3 Oct 2017

By my good friend and co-author, Colin Hickey: Slowing Population Growth Is Important And Immigration Can Help

If there's anyone needing to be killed first on the day of the rope, this piece of shit is a good candidate!

the overpopulation problem has nothing to do with the birth rate being too high
it has absolutely everything to do with the death rate being too low

It is our moral duty to sterilize all immigrants.




Might as well. They will raise more marxists.

Does no one think to ask him, in his retarded lectures, why he hasn't killed himself yet? Lead by example you fucktarded kike….

What's the old saying? "Liberals abort their children and indoctrinate yours in school." Always be vigilant.

Look up the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEM, pronounced "vehement"). The actual founder/leader is known only by a fake name, even decades after the fact, but all the rest of the leaders are obvious Jews. They promote human extinction via any means necessary, but primarily promote voluntary sterilization because "exterminate the goyim" doesn't sell as well.

Every time someone asks why they don't kill themselves, their excuse is that they have to die last so they can promote their message to others.

Fuck off yid

Basically jews created a degeneracy eggregore so sucessfully it even mindcontrols jews aswell

I guess I'm pure evil then. Oh well.

Here's a big tittied hwite woman for your nice picture that I will shitpost all around

you know that video of the professor that told the white males in his class to kill themselves? He's a jew.

You can tell if a person is a jew if the person has white skin, is male, yet tells white males to kill themselves.

So this means that Africans and Middle Easterners are the most evil among us due to their high fertility. Wonder how they (((missed))) making that connection.

extremely relevant thread

Israel offers to pay African migrants to leave, threatens jail
OY VEY GET OUT!!!!!!!!!!!

diversity for israel! diversity for israel!

diversity for everyone, except for israel!

open gates

We only slow down on children when we outnumber and are the holders of absolute supremacy. I stop here, there will be no hope for the earth. Not in the hands of the africans and chinese.

Technically in that anti-German propaganda musical/movie those are not her kids, she would have probably have a few of her own with the Father later. The high birthrates of Germans after Hitler and the NSDAP took back Germany form the jews/foreign interests was the only thing they got right.

A Chinese world would be miserable but they would endure for a while ( if historical Chinese society is anything to go by) , perhaps even conquer planets someday.
Blacks would die off almost immediately ,imagine one of them getting their hands on biological weapons or nukes……



faggot speak of soy eaters and jews.

The 'chronic' in 'chronic empathy' implies it's bad, but they way that kike's using it implies it's good




Also, anyone able to archive this? I keep getting network errors.

You didn't read clearly enough. They said it's only evil to reproduce if you're rich (read: white).

So fucking stupid. Varg covered this in a video. Without whites, there would be no concept of "environmentalism" or "conservation."

Oh my what a coincidence.

50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade aye? I'm happy to wait 2 years to see if that happens. Wonder what they will come up with when it doesn't.

Science needs to find a way to wipe out arabs.

They'll probably flipflop and say the african and middle eastern civil wars that drove them into europe were caused by stresses from droughts and hunger etc caused by global warming.