Bioethicist Insists Having Kids Is Bad For Planet Earth

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
For anyone who doubts the unhinged zealotry of climate change activists, NBC News Think now offers the most cruel, heartless suggestion from one activist that has likely ever been offered: having children is bad for Planet Earth.

This astonishingly inhumane perspective is offered by one Travis Rieder, Ph.D, the Assistant Director for Education Initiatives, Director of the Master of Bioethics degree program and Research Scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

Rieder has written approvingly about population control, and insisted in September 2016 that he liked “small humans in general,” as he admitted he was “pretty wild about my own kid.” Of course, having more than one child must be problematic for Rieder, who noted, “I, like many philosophers, believe that it’s morally better to make people happy than to make happy people. Those who exist already have needs and wants, and protecting and providing for them is motivated by respect for human life. It is not a harm to someone not to be created.”

Glad for him his mother didn’t feel the same way.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/23609/insane-bioethicist-insists-having-kids-bad-planet-hank-berrien
 

glhs837

Power with Control
There is a point to be made. Until we can harness the effectively unlimited resources of the solar system, more humans than simple replacement do nothing to help the race or planet. Nothing to do with climate change, just common sense. Uninhibited breeding increases the chances that resources we need to make it to that day when we do not run a scarcity economy will be used elsewhere. The best population control is self control, realizing that making 4-6 children per couple exacerbates the problem of a planet that is a single basket with every damn egg. I do not advocate govt controlled procreation but I do recognize that Jim-Bob making five or six little Jim-Bobs isn't helping any.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The author, an alleged "bioethicist" and confirmed maniac named Travis Rieder, compares having offspring to freeing a murderer from prison (no, seriously). He says that you would be morally responsible for the future murders the escaped convict commits, just as you're morally responsible for the carbon emissions your daughter emits. When your daughter breathes, selfishly, and melts an ice cap, and a whole family of polar bears drown in the icy depths, you're on the hook, pal. Having one child is tantamount to directly murdering probably 12 polar bears or so, if I have my math right. My wife and I have already slaughtered 36 polar bears according to this equation I just made up. We can't get enough of it. It's pretty disturbing, really, how much we love murdering polar bears.

Rieder admits that his view may seem a tad extreme to some of you, but that's only because you're a bunch of dumb, backwards hicks and your "moral psychology hasn't evolved" enough to understand and appreciate the brilliance of Travis Rieder. I'm not sure that the term "moral psychology" actually means anything, strictly speaking, but that's probably because I'm a dumb, backwards hick, too.

Now, it wouldn't be worth responding to the ravings of this self-loathing madman, except that the ravings were published by a major news organization, and he's articulating an idea that has many proponents on the Left. Whether or not they'd go so far as to compare childbirth to releasing a serial killer from prison, many of them believe that having "too many kids" is ethically dubious. I'd like to take a few moments and explain why this view is extremely stupid. There are many more than six reasons but I'll just focus on these six:


1. Overpopulation is a myth.
2. Man-made climate change is a myth.
3. Human beings are not commodities.
4. Speaking of which, why hasn't Rieder availed himself of that option?
5. By the way, why are we still trying to save the panda bears?
6. It's called selfishness.

What lies at the foundation of these attempts to make procreation seem irresponsible, besides nihilism, is selfishness. Rather than admit that they decided not to have kids due to their own materialism and greed, environmentally conscious Leftists have latched onto this rationale. It's all nonsense, of course.

The "morally suspect" thing is to forgo raising a family in favor of pricier vacations and nicer home furnishings. Their attempt to make their shallow, self-interested lifestyle seem noble is pitifully unconvincing. Especially because this excuse is usually trotted out by well off liberals who rarely follow up their "sacrifice" of not having kids by sacrificing any of the wasteful luxuries their childless life now affords them. Oddly, they were so concerned about the planet that they bypassed procreation, but not so concerned that they bypassed that trip to the Bahamas, or that third car they don't need, or the eighth pair of shoes in their closet, or the TV in the guestroom nobody sleeps in.

Strange how "sacrifice" works with these types.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/23614/walsh-nbc-news-says-its-immoral-have-kids-here-are-matt-walsh
 

acommondisaster

Active Member
The author, an alleged "bioethicist" and confirmed maniac named Travis Rieder, compares having offspring to freeing a murderer from prison (no, seriously). He says that you would be morally responsible for the future murders the escaped convict commits, just as you're morally responsible for the carbon emissions your daughter emits. When your daughter breathes, selfishly, and melts an ice cap, and a whole family of polar bears drown in the icy depths, you're on the hook, pal. Having one child is tantamount to directly murdering probably 12 polar bears or so, if I have my math right. My wife and I have already slaughtered 36 polar bears according to this equation I just made up. We can't get enough of it. It's pretty disturbing, really, how much we love murdering polar bears.

Rieder admits that his view may seem a tad extreme to some of you, but that's only because you're a bunch of dumb, backwards hicks and your "moral psychology hasn't evolved" enough to understand and appreciate the brilliance of Travis Rieder. I'm not sure that the term "moral psychology" actually means anything, strictly speaking, but that's probably because I'm a dumb, backwards hick, too.

Now, it wouldn't be worth responding to the ravings of this self-loathing madman, except that the ravings were published by a major news organization, and he's articulating an idea that has many proponents on the Left. Whether or not they'd go so far as to compare childbirth to releasing a serial killer from prison, many of them believe that having "too many kids" is ethically dubious. I'd like to take a few moments and explain why this view is extremely stupid. There are many more than six reasons but I'll just focus on these six:


1. Overpopulation is a myth.
2. Man-made climate change is a myth.
3. Human beings are not commodities.
4. Speaking of which, why hasn't Rieder availed himself of that option?
5. By the way, why are we still trying to save the panda bears?
6. It's called selfishness.

What lies at the foundation of these attempts to make procreation seem irresponsible, besides nihilism, is selfishness. Rather than admit that they decided not to have kids due to their own materialism and greed, environmentally conscious Leftists have latched onto this rationale. It's all nonsense, of course.

The "morally suspect" thing is to forgo raising a family in favor of pricier vacations and nicer home furnishings. Their attempt to make their shallow, self-interested lifestyle seem noble is pitifully unconvincing. Especially because this excuse is usually trotted out by well off liberals who rarely follow up their "sacrifice" of not having kids by sacrificing any of the wasteful luxuries their childless life now affords them. Oddly, they were so concerned about the planet that they bypassed procreation, but not so concerned that they bypassed that trip to the Bahamas, or that third car they don't need, or the eighth pair of shoes in their closet, or the TV in the guestroom nobody sleeps in.

Strange how "sacrifice" works with these types.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/23614/walsh-nbc-news-says-its-immoral-have-kids-here-are-matt-walsh

Agreed. It doesn't seem to have stopped him from having a kid and living in a suburban neighborhood. By rights, he should be living in a one room shared commune, alone - consuming little and spending his time trying to shorten his life.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Agreed. It doesn't seem to have stopped him from having a kid and living in a suburban neighborhood. By rights, he should be living in a one room shared commune, alone - consuming little and spending his time trying to shorten his life.

:yay:

Practice what you preach or shut up.
 

Starman

New Member
Not concerned at all. Birth rates are at or below replacement rates everywhere on the planet except for sub-sarahan Africa. Population trends take a while swing one way or the other.

This has to do mostly with the education of women. The innate human need to reproduce will never go away, but as women get more educated they realize there is a lot more to life than breeding.
 
Top