The ravings of a cult. This is what you get, blithering idiocy. Things that no one was thinking about turned into big productions, all based on the notion of more Progressive (nice Fascism) government
If Politicians Want to Raise Birth Rates, They Should Pass Climate Policy
Because of the climate crisis, other young people often ask Luisa Neubauer whether she would choose to bring children into the world. The fact that people are even asking this question, 25-year-old Neubauer said at a recent online panel, is “a tragic moment for humanity. I don’t think there yet exists in English a word to express how dramatic that is.†Neubauer, who founded Germany’s chapter of the global climate youth movement Fridays for Future, has a point: Surely, it’s a fairly monumental development when a species starts rethinking its most basic instinct to procreate.
It is tragic, because so many youngsters have been indoctrinated into a doomsday cult, and the people who should be doing interventions are actually the ones helping propagate the cult doctrine.
Once upon a time, environmentalists might have cheered falling birth rates. After all, babies born in wealthy countries, particularly, have a large carbon footprint. (Even though they look so innocent! It’s like the Christian doctrine of original sin.) Labeling procreation an ecologically destructive consumer choice—like buying an SUV—has at points been a staple of liberal guilt-tripping over climate.
There is that, because the same cult also pushes for lower numbers of humans and population control, and some of their more extreme even want population reduction (usually involving reducing the number of icky black and brown people in 3rd world countries, because the climate cult is rather racist and bigoted, preaching from their 1st World perches)
It’s not the first time in history that people have questioned the wisdom of bringing children into a screwed-up world. But this moment is unusual: People don’t usually forgo reproduction en masse out of apocalyptic fear. There is no evidence that Cold War anxieties around nuclear war shaped Americans’ family planning, for example.
One reason today is different is that although the idea of nuclear war was undeniably scary, it was only a possibility. Climate disaster, on the other hand, is a current reality with a grim trajectory: A study published in Nature this week found that if the planet keeps warming at its current pace, a child who was six years old in 2020 will live through 36 times more heat waves, twice as many wildfires, three times more river floods, and twice as many droughts as an adult born in 1960, all increasing the risk of crop failures, as well.
The political implications and potential of the birth rate is a touchy subject, because we’re used to framing reproduction as a personal choice (except for the far right, which is happy to let the government force people in Texas into child-rearing labor). And low birth rates aren’t only a sign of anxiety and pessimism about the future, or poor social supports; when women are more educated and have more career options, they tend to have fewer kids. Having no children—or fewer than your foremothers—can be a sound life choice. But when almost two in five young people say they may not have children of their own because of the climate crisis, that’s not progress. It’s a sign of pain and distress—and a call for help. It may not move congressional Republicans and moderate Democrats into investing in sound climate policy this month—but it should.
It’s a cult. And it’s better if these people do not have children, so as to not infect their children with doomsday cult beliefs.
