Outrageous Guardian Article Suggests Having Fewer Children is Key to Solving Climate Change

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A recent article published by The Guardian which suggests that having fewer children is the best thing one can do to fight climate change has sparked righteous indignation among many. The liberal website has once again offensively imposed its political views on it’s audience, seemingly contradicting articles previously published. The tone many felt through the article was that of condemnation for families with multiple kids, or those who even wanted kids, emphasizing that children leave a huge (and apparently unpardonable) carbon footprint. Basically, white, middle class westerners are considered to be selfish for choosing to have children!

There’s a multitude of problems with the anti-child, anti-family views expressed by The Guardian, as noted by the National Review:

If the Left’s view becomes widely accepted as a desirable or necessary course of action, there is no limiting principle to prevent it from becoming a government-enforced mandate against over-reproduction. And if enough people become convinced that overpopulation is quickly killing the earth — which, by the way, it’s not, despite the endless paeans to the thoroughly discredited Thomas Malthus — a regime of legally limited reproduction could even be considered a routine part of the government’s duty to protect its citizens.

The poisonous ideas of Thomas Malthus are referred to as Malthusianism, which The Federalist elaborates on:  

Malthusianism is the discredited belief that populations grow exponentially while the food supply grows arithmetically, leading to food shortages and poverty. It crops up every once in a while despite it being false, and the more fringe environmentalists, pro-abortionists, and eugenicists carry the flag of Malthusianism to this day, as we see here.

The Guardian isn’t the only liberal source hailing the halt of procreation, Cosmopolitan’s senior political writer Jill Filipovic took to Twitter to share her support of the article, “Having children is one of the worst things you can do for the planet. Have one less and conserve resources.”

According to Motherboard:

In the US in 2016, the birth rate was the lowest on record, with 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down one percent from the year before. Canada’s seen a similar trend, as have European countries, and Australia.

These countries are ones specifically attacked by The Guardian, and yet they have some of the lowest birthrates in the world, ever. It appears that Westerners really aren’t having that many babies at all. Maybe the answer to climate control isn’t telling millennials to reconsider having children. Maybe there’s more to reducing carbon emissions than meets the eye, and perhaps the west is not the one to blame.  When a political group promotes anti-baby and anti-procreation ideas in the name of environmentalism, it’s time to rethink priorities.

(3) Comments

  1. I don’t believe that anyone has the right to dictate another’s choice regarding having children. I personally believe that the world is over populated and that down sizeing the population is a good idea. I also believe that it is unnecessary to create more children when there are so many children who have been abused and neglected and placed in foster care and need someone to adopt them and give them a good home. I never wanted to create a child since I was 13 years old and always wanted to adopt children who needed homes. However, I don’t believe in adopting unless I can afford to give them a christian education and be home with them until they are old enough to enter first grade and even then I wouldn’t want them to come home to a house without a parent at home. And I would never send them to public school so I would have to find a part time job to work while they were in school so I could afford to pay for private Christian school education. In the end, since I was unwilling to have or raise children unless I had the means to raise them my way….I have not adopted children…partly because my husband doesn’t feel that we can afford it. I would rather have no children then not be able to raise them the way that I believe would be best. So no kids so far but I did buy pretty much all clothes and other things for a kid for years, etc. which helped that person be able to afford to send their kid to a christian school. I’m not against the “liberal” concern regarding population control but I disagree with their acting like a dictator and any attempt to mandate how many children one has. Are they looking forward to making America like China which forces abortion on women who have already had one kid? Will they try to force abortion on people or make them pay a year’s salary to the governmen as a penalty for having a second chld like China does? Sharing one’s opinion is one thing. Dictatorship is quite another. And basicly, I don’t trust liberals….they always have an agenda I’m not likely to agree with.

    Reply
  2. I think the Guardian’s advice is sound, but I’ve thought for most of my life that there are just too many humans, and we are killing the planet with our excessive use of its resources, so my agreement isn’t surprising. The outrage expressed in this article seems quite overblown. The piece in the Guardian was an editorial, so of course it is expressing an opinion to its readers. If it had been an opinion that Mr. Denton agreed with, I’m sure he would have felt no outrage that it was being shared. As for the idea that expressing the thought that it might be wise for people to have fewer children would inevitably lead to the government controlling our reproductive choices is just hysteria, and shows, I think, that Mr. Denton has no good argument in response.

    Reply
    • Our planet is not running out of room or resources as long as we teach the future generations to love their Creator, be productive, constantly innovate, value human life, and care for the earth like a garden.

      Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *