A British Vogue article caught the ire of the internet for asking the question, “Is having a baby in 2021 pure environmental vandalism?” The author suggested that people should consider the “current climate emergency” before procreating, despite that she had already given birth to a baby and saying that she would gladly bring another human being into the world.
“For the scientifically-engaged person, there are few questions more troubling when looking at the current climate emergency than that of having a baby,” Nell Frizzell wrote in the fashion magazine. “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.”
Frizzell claimed that before she got pregnant that she “worried feverishly about the strain on the earth’s resources that another Western child would add,” including the food he ate and the electricity the baby would use. The writer also panicked over a possible dystopian future on a planet with no water and crops that her son would live in decades from now when he is an elderly man.
Despite her professed overwhelming fears, Frizzell got pregnant and brought another person into the world.
“And yet, like millions of others, I did it anyway,” Frizzell said. “I had a baby. I’d have another if my partner agreed.”
Frizzell attempted to justify her decision to have a child by stating that everyone who has a baby needs to be “learning to live within our environmental means, of turning away from the fever of consumerism and overturning a political system that rewards a tiny rich minority at the expense of everyone else.”
Frizzell’s Malthusian argument was challenged by Human Progress, an organization that presents evidence from individual scholars, academic institutions, and international organizations to show “dramatic improvements in human well-being throughout much of the world.”
Read the rest at: theblaze.com