LEFTIST BIOETHICS: Babies Are Bad for the Planet

Climate activists demonstrate in Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015 during the COP21, the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Several environmental and human rights groups are planning protests around Paris to call attention to populations threatened by man-made global warming and urge an end to human use of oil, gas and coal. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

It’s hardly surprising that the Left, which so often promotes abortion as a good thing, would also promote fewer babies in general as a net positive for Earth.


You see, babies are bad. Mewling infants cause many problems for those adults who have come before them. So often they ruin life plans, burden that bank account, and bring about sleepless nights. Come on, can you really blame those pro-choicers?

If those reasons aren’t enough, there’s one more huge factor that must be considered before you reproduce and increase the population of this already cramped planet.

Kids are bad for the climate. Not just kind of bad for the environment. They are morally wrong.

At least that’s what one bioethicist is saying. And according to his own knowledge of his field of study and fellow colleagues, he’s not alone. He shared his opinion in the absurdly named “Think” section of NBC News.

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.

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.


That preamble is bad enough. But one of his main points is even worse.

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.

Just think of all those little criminals out there, going about their lives in a carefree manner, contributing to the planet’s demise. Why are they so cheerful as they kill Mother Earth? Furthermore, why are parents so happy that these bringers of destruction are here, polluting and emitting? Parents should be mad – at themselves – for such wanton disregard of the trees, rivers, and oceans.

I mean, that’s essentially what Travis Rieder, Ph.D is saying in his op-ed.

Instead of promoting good stewardship (something everyone should support, no matter political leaning), the Leftist tendency is to look toward future generations and proclaim: “Hmm. There should be fewer of them.”

Personally, I believe that picking off of the unwanteds who are on this side of the womb will take place in the not-so-distant future. Society already cheers on assisted suicide as a good and noble ending to life. Nursing homes are filled with the forgotten from generations who have had their day in the sun. Why keep them around if they are hurting the planet? Iceland is already looking at abortion as a way to “rid” themselves of the cruel curse of Down Syndrome. How long until we look at those who have been born, but who don’t contribute in a “meaningful” way to society and get rid of them, for the sake of the planet?


Sure, it’s far-fetched as of right now, but it doesn’t take long to connect the dots from Rieder’s ideas to something a bit more, shall we say, purely genocidal.

At one time, it used to be humans who were given consideration first and foremost. Now, increasingly, the environment is becoming the determining factor by which we go about our daily routine, travel around, consume, and procreate.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos