Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies, by Eric Roston.
Carbon dioxide doesn’t kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.
That’s a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University. …
“Okay, humans have shown me that they’re just not willing to give up their toys. And so we need another option on the table. You want to continue to live in your 10,000-square-foot house? You know, fly private jets around, and that kind of thing? Well, that would mean a lot fewer people on the Earth.”
More junk based on junk “science”. It’s the Sun and space environment that predominately controls our climate. The models that led us to be worried about carbon dioxide are in error, omitting one of the two main feedbacks that regulate our climate. The relevant empirical evidence points to only a minor role for carbon dioxide.
Raising offspring is hard work. “Saving the world” might just be the excuse you’re looking for if you are not inclined to do nappies. …
I can see his point. Having less babies might cool the world. There are no babies in Antarctica, and there’s no warming there either.
How many non-babies does it take to stop a flood in Bangladesh? Perhaps the IPCC has an App for that.
The Sierra Club thinks the government should issue licenses for parents. … What could possibly go wrong? Teenager gets pregnant… Do we give all kids the pill in primary school or just put the drugs in the water?
Seems to me that rich nations look after the environment. Poor nations raze forests. The real problem is wealth. Solve that and the rest solves itself. Wealthy women choose to have less kids, and well fed people choose to eat fewer monkeys.
Burn oil, feed the world, save the environment.