Ah, love. There’s nothing like finally settling down with the one you cherish, and eventually contributing to the next generation by having offspring.
Not so fast, says a Penn State University journalism student.
Echoing some of the wackier “intellectual set” climate change alarmism in a Daily Collegian op-ed, Antonia Jaramillo advises against procreation so as to save that mother of us all — Earth.
She begins by bringing up a question she had heard asked at a party: “What is the most important thing for a living species?”
The … “stimulating” nature of this party notwithstanding, most in attendance answered “food” or “water.” But the guy who posed the query answered “reproduction.”
In a “Population Bomb“-ish missive, Jaramillo ponders if “[reproduction] truly is the most important thing for us right now” because of global warm– er, climate change:
“The human population keeps increasing exponentially, but our planet isn’t, and that’s a problem,” she writes. “In a world where we are suffering the consequences of climate change, many people are considering not having children.”
Now, I know what I’m about to say isn’t going to bode too well with many, but here it goes: Humans have got to stop having so many babies. If not for the planet, then for our future generations.
While it’s true the birth rate in the United States has been falling for over a decade, it still isn’t enough.
Our planet can take only so many of us, and with humans already destroying our environment as it is, there’s no reason for us to bring in another generation of people who cannot help sustain this planet.
Yes, many people will still opt to have children and raise families, which is completely understandable. I do not want to have children, but that could change.
Nobody knows for certain what will happen in the future, but as of right now, all of our futures look pretty bleak. …
Scientists have been warning us for a LONG time about the rising temperatures and its disastrous effects on our lovely blue planet, but there are still so many of us who refuse to listen.
Well, now we have made our bed and it’s time we accept it. It’s true we shouldn’t lose hope, and we should continue to try to fight climate change, but we must also open our eyes and see things for how they are. …
So yes, it’s true that our “primary biological purpose” may be to reproduce, but we no longer can afford that luxury. It’s time we change our priorities and make the necessary sacrifices for our planet to continue to survive and so that one day we will be able to have children without feeling the underlining effects.
Alas, according to Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich who wrote “The Population Bomb,” many of us shouldn’t even be here today. That’s because his book — wildly erroneously — predicted what Jaramillo says will occur … but back in the 1970s and 80s.
Jaramillo also joins professor Travis Rieder of Johns Hopkins who argues “the threats posed by climate change justify population engineering” (emphasis added).
However, keep in mind (as Jaramillo touched on) that burdensome population growth is not an issue in the US, nor is it in other First World countries. So how would developing nation populations look upon the modern nation Jaramillos and Rieders coming to their countries … and telling them what they have to do?
Will they say “Oh, yes! Thank you! We must act to save our world!”? Or — more likely — will they roll their eyes at the virtuous (white) academics attempting to force their beliefs onto the native cultures?
IMAGE: Justin Lincoln/Flickr