Global Warming Alarmism Hits Childbearing
The New York Times talks with people who are forgoing childbearing for the sake of "saving the planet."
“No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It.” That’s the topic of a New York Times piece this week in which the idea of population control goes beyond conceptualization. Some people, it turns out, are following through on the notion of sacrificing a fuller family to “save the planet.”
The Times trepidatiously reports, “It is not an easy time for people to feel hopeful, with the effects of global warming no longer theoretical, projections becoming more dire and governmental action lagging.” Speculation aside, it goes on to note, “A 32-year-old who always thought she would have children can no longer justify it to herself. A Mormon has bucked the expectations of her religion by resolving to adopt rather than give birth. An Ohio woman had her first child after an unplanned pregnancy — and then had a second because she did not want her daughter to face an environmental collapse alone.”
Population control is a contentious idea, but it’s been advocated for quite some time now — ever since the climate change scare went mainstream. It’s been suggested by people like Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Bill and Melinda Gates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ted Turner, Prince William, Prince Charles and Prince Philip, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Nye, to name just a few. And let’s not forget the even more sinister side of population control — eugenics — of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, among others, was a big fan.
The Times acknowledges that “few, if any, studies have examined how large a role climate change plays in people’s childbearing decisions.” Regardless, there are people out there who are taking it quite seriously. But there is also hypocrisy on the part of well-known elitists who advocate population control and encourage others to oblige. For example, Bill and Melinda Gates are parents to three kids. Ted Turner has five children. Prince Philip had four. And that’s their prerogative. In fact, it’s not unnatural to want many children. It’s even — gasp — biblical.
Which makes the whole idea of population control so preposterous. Not everyone enjoys parenting or wants to be a parent — even for ridiculous reasons, as the Times piece demonstrates — but for many, there is joy in parenting. And that’s by design. It’s so impregnated in us, in fact, that some people who demand population control end up rearing numerous children of their own.
Given the prevailing winds, it seems inevitable that the population control rhetoric will, at least temporarily, win out and that more people will decide against having children. But for how long? At what point will that reckless idealism succumb to human nature’s natural instinct to seek childbearing? It depends entirely upon society’s reinvesting in the way culture is intended to operate by the Creator.