“We know exactly how to make fewer babies,” Rieder says
from The College Fix via Infowars:
In a Thursday story at NPR.org, Travis Rieder of Johns Hopkins’ Berman Institute of Bioethics says “[m]aybe we should protect our kids by not having them” in this precarious era of climate change.
The “tweedy jacket and tennis shoe-wearing” Rieder uses the year 2036 as a potential “tipping point” for “cataclysmic” climate change where the average global temperature will have increased by two degrees Celsius.
By that time, or perhaps a bit after, “the world is expected to add several billion people […] each one producing more [greenhouse gas] emissions.”
But if the global fertility rate could be slimmed to a half-child per woman, that “could be the thing that saves us,” the professor says.
He cites a study from 2010 that looked at the impact of demographic change on global carbon emissions. It found that slowing population growth could eliminate one-fifth to one-quarter of all the carbon emissions that need to be cut by midcentury to avoid that potentially catastrophic tipping point. …
Rieder and his Georgetown collaborators have a proposal, and the first thing they stress is that it’s not like China’s abusive one-child policy. It aims to persuade people to choose fewer children with a strategy that boils down to carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich.
Ethically, Rieder says poor nations get some slack because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.