Climate change makes having children immoral.

“No white Goyim, white genocide is just some crazy conspiracy theory invented by far right extremists. There is absolutely no desire to get rid of your race. However, you should probably stop procreating, because it’s immoral for you (and only you) to have children, due to climate change.”

From The Guardian

The decision whether or not to have a child is one of the bigger ones a person will make in life – often the biggest.

I needed some strong convincing from my wife when it came time for us to make it. Most of my reluctance was self-interested: I liked my life well enough, and I didn’t want to change it. My wife talked about feeling a biological imperative, which I had no answer for. Who was I to stand in the way of something like that? I signed on.

Yes, this gross looking thing here has actually reproduced. Shocking, I know.

But there is a whole other potential person to consider, too – the new life that you are bringing into the world without asking first.

It’s not really fair. For while the world is a wonderful place, one we humans have made nicer for ourselves with wonderful inventions like books and record players, penicillin and pizza, it’s also a really awful place, one we’ve ravaged with deforestation and smog, nuclear weapons and mountains of pizza delivery boxes and other garbage.

The awfulness seems to be getting worse, especially now that climate change has sped up – sea level rise that was supposed to take centuries has recently been projected as taking just decades. This complicates the already difficult decision of whether to have a kid.

We’re living through what scientists call the “Sixth Extinction”, an era of precipitous decline in the number of species able to live on the planet. The last mass extinction, the fifth, happened 66 million years ago, when a giant asteroid crashed into Earth and 76% of all the species on the planet perished.

This time, we’re doing it to ourselves.

Yes this all pretty terrible stuff. I actually agree with this. It is pretty sad what humanity has done to nature. I certainly don’t approve of it.

“Climate scientists agree that humanity is about to cause a sea level rise of 20 or 30ft, but they have tended to assume that such a large increase would take centuries, at least,” the New York Times’s Justin Gillis reported. But a recent study led by retired Nasa climate scientist James E Hansen, published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, indicates that the negative effects are happening a lot faster than we’d thought, perhaps feet of rise within the next 50 years.

“That would mean loss of all coastal cities, most of the world’s large cities and all their history,” Hansen told Gillis, adding, “We’re in danger of handing young people a situation that’s out of their control.”

Imagine that: New York, Tokyo, Mumbai, Shanghai, Bangkok, Amsterdam, Miamiwould go first. Think about the implications. Global economic collapse, famine, border disputes, wars. Jesus, just the inland traffic.

Again, all very terrible stuff. I don’t disagree with any of this.

Thinking about the horrific future scientists predict hurts a very specific part of me, a part of me that I only first learned was there when I met my newborn son, 11 years ago, as he lay on the tray of the scale where the doctors had just weighed him and counted his fingers and toes.

The moment is wordless, and as mind-blowing as any drug trip I ever took. But my friend Dave, who had kids before me, came closest to capturing its essence while we were talking later that day: it was like having a door open in your brain and stepping through it and realizing that there’s this whole other part of your brain that you never knew was there before. A room, roughly the same size as the part of your brain that you’ve been using all your life, it was vast and mostly empty (like your old brain) but in it I found stuff, inside myself, that I had never known was in there before.

This creature, this tiny newborn person, was half me. I felt a primordial bond that I’d never felt before, a connection different from anything I’d ever known. And I realized a deep, heavy responsibility: protecting him was instantly the most important job of all my jobs – to keep this thing alive, healthy, happy, thriving.

Again, I approve of this part. A parent should feel these things for their children.

Future climate meltdown was already a theoretical concern for future generations: what kind of world would my great-great-grandchildren inhabit? Now it all feels more pressing. How am I going to protect my kid? Was it fair for me to bring him into this world at all? Was it immoral?

Was I complicit in the damage? I remember every extra paper towel I’ve ever unspooled from the roll, and think about a tree falling in the Amazon, and then think about my son growing up in a gray, dying world – walking towards Kansas on potholed highways. Maybe while trying to protect his own son, like the father in The Road. Will he decide to have a kid? I have foisted upon him a decision even more difficult than my own. It’s all very depressing.

Still, I come down on the side of advocating reproduction. It gets back to the power we have, we humans. Such devastating power, with which we’ve already changed our world so dramatically. Maybe we can change it back, or at least innovate to survive. What if, and this is obviously a huge “if”, some young person, perhaps a certain 11-year-old in a Black Sabbath T-shirt (I highly doubt it, he can rarely remember to take his lunchbox out of his knapsack at the end of the day), perhaps someone who is not yet born, perhaps not yet conceived, is the one super-genius to figure out the invention that could save the planet?

The ultimate windmill system that can meet all our energy needs and somehow also cool the atmosphere while it works and also spread seeds to grow more trees as it does. And also make pizza. I don’t know. But that’s kind of the point: we don’t know. Maybe it could be something even better than that.

There’s always maybe. And that’s enough to persevere for.

Honestly, the whole article is just a confusing, rambling, mess. However, I thought it was interesting to look at for this simple reason. The Guardian’s primary audience tends to white, middle class people. The purpose of the article seems to be to discourage these people from having children, by making them feel as if their children will just end up suffering, due to how much humanity has fucked up the world. Yet if we look at the map below…


White countries already have some of the lowest birth rates on the planet. White people aren’t having many children as it is. Meanwhile, when we look at Africa’s birth rate…


It’s growing at a phenomenal rate. So what is this sort of thing going to lead to? Well it’s really quite obvious. White births in white countries will plummet, leading to a decrease in people of working age. Africa meanwhile (which already has an impoverished population as it is) will become more and more overpopulated, thus leading to a greater strain on African resources. As a result, these surplus Africans will migrate into white countries to find a better life and will gradually, over time, replace the white populations as the majority demographic in these countries. Eventually, the white population will be bred out of existence and thus, white genocide will be achieved.

To anyone who thinks this is racist to point out, and that it doesn’t matter if white people cease to exist as a race, seeing as “we’re all just humans”, then let me ask you this simple question. What if the reverse happened? If black people started declining, and white people started moving in to black countries, and gradually replacing them, until they ceased to exist, would you consider that OK? Would it be alright for black people to go extinct as a race, because we’re all just human beings, thus meaning that their extinction wouldn’t matter? I bet this seems like an uncomfortable concept to contemplate, and I understand that because black people do indeed have a right to exist as a distinct race. That right applies to white people too, and indeed, to every race. We have the right to continued existence too and I’m not ashamed to say that.

This Dave Bry fellow who wrote this, strikes me as having an ulterior motive. Why write an article that targets white people to have less children only, when there are other races having far more children than they can possibly take care of? I wonder if we can find out anything more about him.


Why am I not surprised by this? I really should have expected this.


One thought on “Climate change makes having children immoral.

  1. Fortunately, most young people don’t read the Guardian, but I remember the arguments myself and thought who is going to care for all the unemployables? Having such a great welfare system has meant we are breeding large numbers of the mentally ill and disabled as most disabilities now are confirmed as being genetic. Soon we will have an army of disabled who will require an army of carers. Who will fight any war? You can’t fight a war in a wheelchair so if the able bodied people are called away who will care for our army of disabled which we have bred?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s