Another blogger linked to an article. This particular blogger happens to be greatly more conservative both politically as well as spiritually. So, I went to read the article, but with a grain of salt that perhaps I wouldn’t be quite a perturbed as she was. I was wrong. The article actually disturbed me a great deal – and I’m not certain why, so I’m going to talk it out here.

First off, click here to read the article.

In synopses, the article is about two couples – both have been sterilized by choice… One of the women even had an abortion. If I left it at that, you’d wonder what my problem was in this day and age. The reason for the sterilizations (AND the abortion) was to protect the environment.

Before I share my impressions, I do want to state that if a couple doesn’t want to have kids? I don’t care. If you don’t feel the calling to be a parent? Then I don’t want you to! It’s hard enough when you want the little buggers. Their future children are better off rather than be born to people who resent them.

That being said, the impressions and queries I’m left with… Oh. Where to begin.

They basically say that the child’s carbon footprint is the reason they don’t want children. They don’t want to contribute to the overpopulation and use of resources on the planet. OK. They claim this is unselfish. OK. I guess to a point it is. Except that one of the couples feels that since they don’t have the guilt of their child’s carbon footprint and resource usages, they can take one long flight a year – sort of a more fun for them, since they’re not using as much resources as others. Oh, and that couple also says that they have a much nicer lifestyle than they would have if they had kids. OK, that’s valid since the little ones are mighty expensive – but my point? Unselfish? I don’t think so.

Couple of questions… If they’re so hell bent on reducing the carbon footprint they leave, why don’t they commit suicide? Cancel out their usage completely? If someone mentions that if they live they can educate the world on protecting the environment, my response would be… Then the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is raise up a generation with that awareness. Grow their own little army of green educators. Otherwise – if that’s REALLY the reason? Erase your own usage completely.

Their thinking also begs the question: Do they wish for human extinction? Because usually people feel that their way is the right way. So, basically if we completely erased our footprint, we’d erase ourselves. If they feel this way, OK. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But if that’s the case, why’d they bother to get married and forge relationships? We shouldn’t even be here anyway.

And again, that leads me to another question: Do they feel that plants/vegetation and animals/insects/other life forms are more deserving of an existence than humans are? Which then leads me right back to the suicide point.

I think the first couple especially are kidding themselves. If you don’t want kids, fine, but don’t come up with some grandiose reason why, and then out of one other side of your mouth mention the better lifestyle, and out of the other espouse your unselfishness to the earth.

I’d love to ask both of them what they think the point of our existence is. I’d also love to ask them, when it comes right down to it, are humans or animals more important? If you were faced with a bear, and it was going to be him or you, which would you choose? Lay down and die, so that you wouldn’t harm the animal?

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35… “We used to say that if ever we did want children, we’d adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family. “At least then, we’d be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative.”… “I’ve never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children. We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends. Every year, we also take a nice holiday – we’ve just come back from South Africa. We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

You know they deserve that vacation after all that hard work of not producing. So they’re “worthy” of taking that fuel belching vehicle because they didn’t contribute to the monstrosity that is humans on the face of this earth. Like I said before – it’s not the fact that she doesn’t want them – it’s the reasoning behind it. You can give mouth service to this great thing you’re doing, but I don’t see the answer to the tougher questions.

The other couple in the article:

Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children. Sarah says: “We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person. My sister recently had a little girl, and that has taken the pressure off me because my parents wanted to be grandparents.”

Again – doesn’t seem so unselfish to me. After all, thank God her sister’s kid was born, and now the pressure’s off her for those pesky grandchildren. I mean yeah, another mouth for the earth to feed, but at least if won’t be their fault.

“I’d never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It’s a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts. When I see a mother with a large family, I don’t resent her, but I do hope she’s thought through the implications.” Mark adds: “Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That’s why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.”

The implications being? It just seems so very very cold.

When they are on their deathbed, what are they going to regret? Anything? And when they ARE on their deathbed, will they be alone? And I know I keep harping on this, but why aren’t they dead, having erased their own future footprint? Could it be because they have this natural instinct to survive? You know, that pesky instinct that’s kind of attached to the whole survival of the species thing?

Which brings me to my last point. Survival of the fittest. It’s not them.