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.”

Frizzell writes:

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.

We’ve already heard hot takes about how the coronavirus and lockdowns have shown the way toward a more environmentally friendly future.

Related: