You think right-wingers make this stuff up about liberals? Their culture of death including their pro-abortionism, pro euthanasia; and then their anti-Americanism, and so on, to say nothing of their hideous reasoning, science based on pure junk, and their Godlessness?
Here’s some liberal-speak from some Class A typical run-of-the-mill liberals, as written-up in a totally mainstream, major San Francisco newspaper, and presented as the work of a totally normal mainstream liberal columnist named Gregory Dicum:
Is having a child—even one—environmentally destructive?
“We can’t be breeding right now,” says Les Knight. “It’s obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can’t be justified today.”
Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.
“As long as there’s one breeding couple,” he says cheerfully, “we’re in danger of being right back here again. Wherever humans live, not much else lives. It isn’t that we’re evil and want to kill everything—it’s just how we live.”
You’d think, as a rational person would, that Dicum would go on to refute this utter nonsense. And you’d be wrong. Quite the contrary happens.
Knight’s position might sound extreme at first blush, but there’s an undeniable logic to it: Human activities—from development to travel, from farming to just turning on the lights at night—are damaging the biosphere. More people means more damage. So if fewer people means less destruction, wouldn’t no people at all be the best solution for the planet?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because my wife and I have been talking about having a child. We’re the kind of people who reduce, reuse and recycle. We try hard not to needlessly fritter away resources. We think globally and act locally in our day-to-day decisions. So while the biggest quandary of most couples in our shoes might be what color to paint the nursery, we have to ask ourselves, Is the impact of a new person justified?
[…] As it is, even with my vegan diet, avid bicycling, recycling and energy-conservation measures, if everyone on the planet lived the way I do, we’d need three more Earths. As far as I know, they aren’t making any more of these.
[…] Meanwhile, almost 16,000 humans are born each hour. Regardless of the merits of reducing the population to nil—as Knight advocates—it’s pretty clear that the world could do without any additional people.
Certainly without more Americans. […]
He adds, just for clarity:
The question of having children gets to the heart of some of our most basic drives, a place where rationality can take us only so far. Though I can picture myself as a father, I just can’t see myself adopting.
Of course he can’t see himself adopting. As a liberal, rationality has indeed taken him only so far. Not very.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- State-Funding of Sports Boondoggles Need To Be Sent To The Penalty Box - Wednesday March 13, 2024 at 4:44 pm
- I’m from the government and I’m here to help you become barely mediocre like us. - Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 11:53 am
- Big-Ass Government makes Big-Ass Blunder - Friday March 1, 2024 at 12:36 pm
