Are babies eco-friendly????
Well..some say no...and that's a good reason not to have kids..
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
ncredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
What a perverse way to look at children? But, then she's an environmentalist, no?
posted by GayandRight @ 8:19 AM
12 Comments:
They should also think about suicide, the world would be a far better place.
What a perverse way to look at children? But, then she's an environmentalist, no?
Oo, guilty by association. Let's see, that's ad hominem, and... shoot, what'sitcalled... the fallacy of composition.
Eat the babies...
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
I think this is an accurate statement if you fail to take into account the fact of your inevitable demise. Something that you are more likely to do when you are younger.
Toni's decision seems like an extreme version of the same reluctance to reproduce that my daughter and a few of her friends have discussed with me in the past.
They expressed it as a reluctance to accept the responsibility for adding to the sum of human misery and for bringing a child into "this world"
I told them that deciding to have a child was a big enough commitment without having to include the well being of the entire planet into their considerations. If you just replace yourself and your partner then you will be acting to decrease the population.
Creating new life is about as close to the miraculous as you will experience in this life.
This has been my experience as a father and now as a grandfather.
I'd post a picture if I knew how.
I think this is an accurate statement if you fail to take into account the fact of your inevitable demise. Something that you are more likely to do when you are younger.
It's also true if you don't fail to take that into account, right? You either decrease it by a little by having one child, or decrease it by a lot by having none.
Congrats on becoming a grandfather! I plan to have many children of my own someday!
Thanks Jesse
"It's also true if you don't fail to take that into account, right? You either decrease it by a little by having one child, or decrease it by a lot by having none."
Yes in the ordinary span of a lifetime but if everyone couple had just two then the population will decrease because some of the children will not survive long enough to reproduce.
I applaud your choice.
I applaud my choice too. I love my genetics, and I will love my children. I want them for purely selfish reasons.
Yes in the ordinary span of a lifetime but if everyone couple had just two then the population will decrease because some of the children will not survive long enough to reproduce.
That will slowly decrease the population size. We are already overpopulated. From a purely environmental point of view, only the top third of humans should have two children, and the rest of us should be sterilized.
Not that this situation could ever occur voluntarily. Which is why I have the modest proposal of the shipping the best of the world into North America, pushing everyone else out, and then nuking all other continents with sterilizing gas. It would be one giant explosion of awesome.
Sorry Jesse, you are right.
Having no children at all would be a faster way to reduce the population.
But just who decides who the top third are?
Let's hope that they include you on the list.
What kind of dictatorship would be necessary for your plan to be feasible?
It sounds like you are saying that you are keen to make a sacrifice to the Earth Mother but just not with your children.
At least Toni wasn't hypocritical.
What kind of dictatorship would be necessary for your plan to be feasible?
I'd like one of those dictatorships where you don't actually do anything, but fire the ministers who don't attribute their work to you. Big fan of Robert Mugabe right here. ;)
It sounds like you are saying that you are keen to make a sacrifice to the Earth Mother but just not with your children.
At least Toni wasn't hypocritical.
There are two ways to read this: 1. Where "sacrifice" refers to sterilizing part of the population, and 2. Where "sacrifice" refers to the changes in my lifestyle I am willing to make for this planet, which were not alluded to in this conversation.
1. See A Modest Proposal.
2. You are absolutely right. It is hypocritical and, as I said, selfish. However, I will attempt to make it up to our Earth in other ways.
Jesse;; Funny stuff
doug newton...Get a sense of humour..are you a liberal or someting? I vote for doug to be the first to be steralized under Jesse's regime.
Naive... her points are valid, but she overlooked the numbers - her own pregnency is insignificent, when the rest of the world are breeding like rabbits.
Sooner or later, the population is going to stableise. This is undeniable: There is only a finite amount of room on the planet. It may be a long way off, but it will happen, eventually. The only options then are either get deliberate population control in place, or let it happen the natural way: Disease and mass-starvation.
I think its going to go the natural way, because population is the elephant in the corner of conservation. There are many ways to solve it, but all of them are so unpleasant to consider that noone wants to even admit its an issue.
Anonymous:
I'm a libertarian. Because I am socially liberal, I have to take offence at using the word "liberal" as an insult. As such, you shall be the second to be sterilized under my new government.
Have a wonderful day.
Raven:
The only options then are either get deliberate population control in place, or let it happen the natural way: Disease and mass-starvation.
I think its going to go the natural way, because population is the elephant in the corner of conservation. There are many ways to solve it, but all of them are so unpleasant to consider that noone wants to even admit its an issue.
As soon as food starts running out, I believe that countries who are used to violence will start killing each other before they begin to starve to death.
In some places, where violence is not known as intimately, some people will starve to death, and the others will eat their bodies.
This doesn't sound as fun as my awesome state of awesomeness, where all people are less likely to starve for any length of time.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home