The left has no shortage of horrifying, sickening and disturbing ideas in its intellectual quiver. As it dominates our culture and our institutions unopposed, more of these loathsome 'ideas' become mainstreamed. Each radical leftist idea that is normalized paves the way for the next one.
And so, here's NBC News presenting Zero Population Growth, arguing that children are evil, and that having them is much like murder.
Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.- NBC News
By morality, NBC means whatever deranged set of hatreds, power fantasies, distorted ideas, abstract propositions and evil schemes passes for leftist morality.
But if you accept leftist "scientism" as science, then people are an evil. And must be eradicated. If you liked Hitler, you'll love environmentalism.
... having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Well, not quite everyone...
... scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.
Americans should stop having kids. Third Worlders can go on having them. Warmunism macht frei.
And let's keep on mentioning 'science' and 'scientists' to prop up our little eugenics scheme.
The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles
Indeed. And once the left starts taking things seriously, the next step is mandating it.
I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations.
These uncomfortable conversations are quite comfortable for the perpetrators and uncomfortable for their victims. We want a one-child policy and mandatory abortions. Let's have an uncomfortable conversation about it.
But we have a manufactured crisis that justifies our eugenics scheme. Now let's keep on throwing in "science" and "scientists" every chance we get.
Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.
Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility.
Release a murderer. Have a baby. All the same.
This is the morality of the left.
Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.
You know it's funny.
When the left wants to bring millions of migrants in, they're somehow a net benefit to society. Everyone. But when a middle class American couple produce children whose ideas and efforts might change the world... they're an 'indulgence' whose only benefit is to the parents.
Again, this is the left. Evil will always show you what it truly believes. It will unreel its hypocrisy and poisonous lies. And behind them is its real agenda. Watch and learn.
I am certainly not arguing that we should shame parents, or even that we’re obligated to have a certain number of children. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think there is a tidy answer to the challenging questions of procreative ethics. But that does not mean we’re off the moral hook.
Don't worry, there'll be a tidy answer before long. Leftists always come up with one sooner or later.
Meanwhile here's an in-depth interview with the author titled, "Our Moral Obligation to Have Just One Child".
Speaking of immigration, our friend Travis Rieder, who penned this article has some thoughts on that.
Specifically, we argue that supplementing fertility reduction with policies that facilitate the emigration of younger people from developing nations to developed nations could allow for both global reductions in GHG emissions and continued economic stability
Oh yes. you know there is a crisis and everything.
But here's an even better paper from Travis Rieder.
Saving or Creating – Which are we doing when we resuscitate extremely preterm infants?
The argument here is that saving preterm infants isn't really saving, but creating.... and think of the implications for that with the "infinite abortion' set...
I am absolutely not going to argue for the view that we should never resuscitate e1tremely preterm infants. however, the goal of this paper is to suggest that the symmetrical reasoning above is flawed, that sort of reasoning is appropriate for a fully developed human, who has fallen from some standard of health to which we are trying to return it however, a wholly different kind of reasoning seems appropriate in creation cases...
And while deciding whether to resuscitate a 23 week newborn is not a pure case of deciding whether to create, our intuitions about various cases of miscarriage, abortion, or other early loss...
So yes, we've reached the slippery slope of post-birth abortion.
If you think you've seen the evil that the left is capable of... you have not seen anything yet. This is just the beginning.