Should We Have Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?

Another liberal social lever to justify population control and higher taxes. What they lack in honesty they make up for with persistence.

Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.

For years, people have lamented how bad things might get “for our grandchildren,” but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore.

He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.

“Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.

Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.

There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

  • Martin B

    I propose a new green initiative – Castration for Climate Change! All male progressives will be castrated to make sure they don’t contribute to global warming for future generations. Travis Rieder will of course volunteer to go first.

    • Alain

      Tie the tubes of all the progressive females at the same time.

  • Those rules would only apply to the proletariat; the privileged classes and their enablers would be allowed to reproduce at will.

    Just like everything left, there are different rules for everyone.

  • GrimmCreeper

    Another drama queen heard from.

  • simus1

    What they really mean is “should we have white and black working class kids”.
    Parasite class kids and fake refugee kids give social workers cover to fake appearing busy so no problem there.

  • Spatchcocked

    Tweed jacket and tennis shoes….
    I stopped reading at that…

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      I looked at the link.
      It said NPR.
      So, I didn’t even get as far as you did.

  • DavidinNorthBurnaby

    This tweadie asshole should do the Earth and favour and just kill himself.

    • Shebel

      This asshole is ,no doubt, is referring to White people , Jews and Christians. What do we have now ? 1.5 kids per family . I guess we should go to 0 children .
      Maybe we should all just quit working and paying taxes–so that the prolific ones starve. It would be just as effective.

  • xavier

    If I were much younger,I’d have a large family 4-9 kids just to spite them as well as affirming the greatest natural beauty: kids.

    Even if you want to strangle them sometimes they’re still the most awesome natural creation
    Nothing makes me smile then to see and hear boisterous kids running around laughing

    • Shebel

      The kids really are sucked into this bullshit lingo.
      I hate to say it —but– I absolutely adore and tolerate my Grand kids and I know that without a doubt — I am much nicer to them than I was to my own kids. At least I am getting grand kids from some of them. LOL I want more !

  • Rosenmops

    Back in the late 60’s, early 70’s people said the same thing. Don’t have kids, but back then it was because of the coming “population bomb”. But the population bomb never happened. I’m glad I had 4 kids, and now have 5 grand kids.

  • malik