There is an old technique used when questioning captured terrorists: While detained, they’d be exposed to news stories showing things going badly for their movement. This inspires a why-not-tell-all attitude in the terrorist that they might not have developed if not provided with this perspective.
Recently, legacy media outlets have come to the awareness that birth rates are falling to crisis levels. What’s more, the current government of China has come to this same awareness.
In light of these developments, the uber-environmentalist neo-eugenic depopulation movement has suddenly found itself under pressure, and we’re starting to see the quiet part spoken out loud.
A contributor to Vogue, Nell Frizzell, has straight-up declared her doubts as to whether her pregnancy was environmental vandalism, declaring in no uncertain terms that she viewed her first-world child in terms of the resources that he would eventually consume.
Does anyone have any doubt that this poor child will turn out normal?
Here’s a blurb from the article:
For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby. Whether your body throbs to reproduce, you passively believe that it is on the cards for you one day, or you actively seek to remain child-free, the declining health of the planet cannot help but factor in your thinking.
If by “scientifically-engaged” you mean someone who consumes data presented through the opaque lens of environmental activism, which is usually distorted or outright misleading.
If science did factor into a person’s thinking, their question is how to achieve the breakthroughs to ensure a brighter future for a child born into a world which, at the bare minimum, has the ethics to permit his birth.
And, make no mistake, if it so happens that the world is ethically-lacking, that concern takes priority over any scientific development. Every single time.
Nell is pretty far from the first person to make the claim to be scientific insofar as science can be tortured into a neo-eugenic worldview, but if I were to hear that she were the last, this would be news that I would welcome.
The food he ate, the nappies he wore, the electricity he would use; before he’d even started sitting up, my child would have already contributed far more to climate change than his counterpart in, say, Kerala or South Sudan.
But rather than make the move to South Sedan, where she and her child could consume few resources (largely because South Sudan has few resources), she prefers to remain in the developed world, where she can continue to consume as many resources for her child, and herself, as she wishes.
Apparently, Nell is okay with continuing to live in the world of Big Macs, high-speed internet, SUVs, and air conditioning, and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that that very society provides her with a platform she can use to continually complain into the digital abyss on the off-chance that her inanities will be read by someone. And, to my vexation, I was among those who happened to find them.
What I’m about to share may not sound very romantic, but it’s an observation that’s easy to make. In today’s connected world, there’s a new form of “natural selection” which, rather than going specifically for the physically unfit, instead weeds out the gullible. Due to the nature of today’s world, the ones more likely to have their genes passed on to successive generations are those less likely to fall for bullshit.
Considering this, there is a certain irony in that the depopulation movement, due to its intrinsic nature, removes from the gene pool those who believe in it with sincerity.
“They will be the architects of their own destruction.” -Grand Admiral Thrawn