We’ve already introduced you to the U.K. group Birthstrike, a group of women too afraid to have children because of climate change (which we’re fine with). Nell Frizzell had a baby, and now she’s writing for British Vogue a piece about having a baby in 2021 possibly being “pure environmental vandalism.”
For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby. Whether your body throbs to reproduce, you passively believe that it is on the cards for you one day, or you actively seek to remain child-free, the declining health of the planet cannot help but factor in your thinking. Before I got pregnant, I worried feverishly about the strain on the earth’s resources that another Western child would add. The food he ate, the nappies he wore, the electricity he would use; before he’d even started sitting up, my child would have already contributed far more to climate change than his counterpart in, say, Kerala or South Sudan. But I also worried about the sort of world that I would bring my child into – where we have perhaps just another 60 harvests left before our overworked soil gives out and we are running out of fresh water. Could I really have a baby, knowing that by the time he was my father’s age, he may be living on a dry and barren earth?
Well, you did. Kind of like how all of the other climate change hysterics have purchased multi-million-dollar mansions on beachfront property.
“Is environmentalism turning into anti-natalism” is a better question imo pic.twitter.com/y5vwM6UYSZ
— nicoco✿ (@PetiteNicoco) April 27, 2021
Any theory that treats babies as threats is fucking evil and extremely stupid.
— Fakeserpounce-Green Eggs/Ham (@fakeserpounce) April 27, 2021
Recommended
It's anti human to encourage people to not reproduce. Bringing children into the world is a beautiful thing.
— definitely not a skaven (@a_skaven) April 27, 2021
This is definitely a thing. Many people I know consider it evil to have a child today because it's anti-environment to add more people to an already overpopulated world (their words, not mine).
— Oh, Hush! (@ohhushmusic) April 27, 2021
It's interesting that this is the same crowd that wants high density housing built in my area, even though there is unused dilapidated space nearby that could accommodate it.
Apparently destroying the environment is good if it makes a nice area less nice.
— ❄?Ice Princess?❄ (@SneauxMaiden) April 27, 2021
Environmentalism has long been anti-natalism. pic.twitter.com/Ka8deTedpA
— ? (@long_sandwich_) April 27, 2021
Always has been.
— Life Is Brief (@recordofabeing) April 27, 2021
Might plan for a 5th now ??
— WhatIsInAName (@viralbunny) April 28, 2021
Here's a reason to have more??
— Lucia Barbieri (@barbierilucia20) April 28, 2021
They're anti-man. They want us to return to the primitive
— Maxwell Keyes (@redconfetti) April 27, 2021
It’s always been anti-population growth. Just read Apocalypse Never by Mike Shellenberger.
— The Ancient Mariner (@AncntMariner) April 27, 2021
A guy named Les Knight formed a cult called VHEMT (voluntary human extinction movement) in the early 90s and articulated its beliefs in detail. The vogue writer rehashed the same stuff but did not even mention anything about VHEMThttps://t.co/anOlrMxNM2
— Thyag (@thyagjs) April 27, 2021
Only white babies are bad.https://t.co/khdZoGalel
— Adam (@LindhAdam) April 27, 2021
Ninety percent of wokism is just people trying to work through their own neurotic behaviors
— Tucker Carlson’s Furrowed Brow (@Chimp_HQ) April 27, 2021
Technically, the very existence of the people who write this stuff kind of supports the hypothesis. But only in that one instance.
— @Private Citizen Shemp (@presidentshemp) April 28, 2021
Just agree and hope they don’t have kids.
— Joe Jagoti (@JagotiENT) April 28, 2021
The degrowth movement is fundamentally no different than a death cult.
Based on their logic, you could justify murdering millions of people in the name of "saving the planet".
— Gaming Grandpa ??? (@LAUrbanNerd) April 28, 2021
We’ve already heard hot takes about how the coronavirus and lockdowns have shown the way toward a more environmentally friendly future.
I suggest all these depopulation people volunteer to leave the world first. I mean it will save the planet and all… This world just keeps getting weirder.
— heafly (@heafly1) April 28, 2021
Environmentalists have been anti-natalist since long before you or I were even born.
— Only Mostly Gringo (@tgstk714) April 27, 2021
The future belongs to those who show up for it.
If they're not having babies, they're not showing up.
— Peak Boomer (@CeciliaGlennon) April 27, 2021
I am definitely in favor of whoever is susceptible to believing this crap not having any children.
— E (@JunkersFW190) April 27, 2021
it's insane how every left agenda is anti-human smh
— leslie?? (@Marantha777) April 27, 2021
The good news is people who ask these questions are less likely to reproduce. It’s a win for the future.
— Mrs. Keo? (@Mamavong_) April 27, 2021
Abortions are healthcare, having babies is environmental destruction. Got it.
— cyberdeath (@StoicHorse) April 28, 2021
Cows and babies are ruining the planet.
— Bunker Hill Bunny (@WAGongaware) April 27, 2021
Related:
‘Endorsed’: This is what happens when CNN covers BirthStrike, the group who won’t have kids due to climate change https://t.co/9enFoAsAjH
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 9, 2019
