Professor Claims Families Need To Have Fewer Children To Reduce Emissions, Says They Are ‘Degrading The Environment’

Trevor Hedberg, Assistant Professor of Practice, W.A. Franke Honors College/Philosophy Department, at the University of Arizona, recently published an opinion piece in The Conversation titled, “Children are expensive – not just for parents, but the environment – so how many is too many?”

Hedberg gets into the philosophical reasons why people ought to consider having less children, claiming that one less child saves metrics tons of additional carbon being pumped into the atmosphere, and more of them would just further erode the current conditions even more so.

Here are some of the salient points from his piece (citations included):

---

People born in the future stand to inherit a planet in the midst of a global ecological crisis. Natural habitats are being decimated, the world is growing hotter, and scientists fear we are experiencing the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history.

Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to bring a child into the world?

My philosophical research deals with environmental and procreative ethics – the ethics of choosing how many children to have or whether to have them at all. Recently, my work has explored questions where these two fields intersect, such as how climate change should affect decision-making about having a family.

Procreation is often viewed as a personal or private choice that should not be scrutinized. However, it is a choice that affects others: the parents, the children themselves and the people who will inhabit the world alongside those children in the future. Thus, it is an appropriate topic for moral reflection.

[…] But the decision to have a child – to create another person who will most likely adopt a similar lifestyle to your own – vastly outweighs the impact of these activities. Based on the average distance a car travels each year, people in developed countries can save the equivalent of 2.4 metric tons of CO2 emissions each year by living without a vehicle, according to one literature review. For comparison, having one fewer child saves 58.6 metric tons each year.

So, if you think you are obligated to do other activities to reduce your impact on the environment, you should limit your family size, too.

[…] For example, statistician Paul Murtaugh and scientist Michael Schlax attempted to estimate the “carbon legacy” tied to a couple’s choice to procreate. They estimated the total lifetime emissions of individuals living in the world’s most populous 11 countries. They also assumed a parent was responsible for all emissions tied to their genetic lineage: all of their own emissions, half their children’s emissions, one-quarter of their grandchildren’s emissions, and so on.

If emissions stayed similar to 2005 levels for several generations, an American couple having one fewer child would save 9,441 metric tons of CO2-equivalent, according to their calculations. […] But since climate change may harm billions of people over the next millennium, this person may be responsible for the severe suffering, or even death, of one or two future people.

[…] We could reason the same way about procreation: Overpopulation is a collective problem that is degrading the environment and causing harm, so individuals should reduce their contribution to it when they can.

[…] In prior work, I have argued the proper way to balance these competing moral considerations is for each couple to have no more than two biological children. I believe this allows a couple an appropriate amount of reproductive freedom while also recognizing the moral significance of the environmental problems linked to population growth.

Some authors reason about this issue differently, though. Philosopher Sarah Conly argues that it is permissible for couples to have only one biological child. In large part, her position rests on her argument that all the fundamental interests tied to child-rearing can be satisfied with just one child.

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:8

Beware of the philosopher and philosophy. Philosophy of any kind does not believe or facilitate dogmatism and absolutism: there is nothing that is truly truth, and everything is relative to the situation, and so therefore the concept of sin and righteousness are not compatible.

[1] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; [3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Though it is not the only purpose of a marriage, the core of it was established by the Lord for child-bearing and filling the earth with many of them. Marriage was not designed to be in name only, just so people can fool around and fornicate. Yes, a big component of a healthy marriage is the marriage bed and a sexual union, and as a preventative for fornication (1 Corinthians 7:1-9); but it’s true purpose is the result of that love that produces more children. What this looney-tune professor said, and the other idiots like him, have proven this prophecy true once again.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

[3] Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. [4] As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. [5] Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Genesis 9:1; Psalms 127:3-5

These globalist elites are increasingly becoming bolder and bolder about depopulation. What used to be “conspiracy theory” is now become a casual talking point in the media, government, and higher academia. The WinePress has covered this in a number of reports previously.

Going back to the prophecy in 1 Timothy 4:1-3, it is not hard to see how they are interlinked with all this climate nonsense. These same weirdos calling for less children are simultaneously calling for eating less meat, or outright all together and go totally vegan, and eating fake meats as the replacement. By reducing and banning meat consumption it too will lead to famine and malnourishment, and therefore literal vegetable-brains and mass death.

SEE: World Economic Forum Panelist Thinks It’s Good People Can’t Afford Electricity And Basic Living Standards, Helping With Decarbonization

New Study Claims Homegrown Garden’s Carbon Footprint Is 6 Times Greater Than Conventional Farming

The King James Bible Is The Only Version That Accurately Predicted The War And Restrictions On Eating Meat

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE