Tuesday, 30 April 2019


More and more, I am noticing my friends jumping on the anti-procreation bandwagon, blaming the act of reproduction as the primary cause for negative environmental impacts and, therefore, the highest risk to the future of our species—when (quite literally) the opposite is true. Deep down, you all know this, but I'll spell it out for you anyway: the act of breeding is the undeniable fundamental basis of basic survival. If everyone in the world refused single-serving plastic (for example), then yes, our descendants would benefit from this action immeasurably so. But if everyone in the world refused to procreate? There is no process known to man/woman which would bring us to a quicker extinction.

Of course, there is a value in this anti-birth concept, as our ever-expanding numbers are noticeably placing a great strain on our resources whilst building a bigger and bigger shoe to fit our collective carbon footprint. Hence why if I ruled the world, I would happily implement China's former controversial one-child policy until the 1.1% annual population increase stabilised, and then ultimately began a healthy descent. Furthermore, I would also rule that the birth of a second child could be permitted but heavily taxed, meaning that a (non-corrupt) government could use this money to benefit society (potentially, by law, in environmental sectors) while also ensuring that any couple who wished to invest in this subsequent offspring were coming from a place of financial stability, resulting in a higher chance of better education. On the flip side of this, parents looking to adopt children should be compensated for their contribution to the community.

I know this type of program is a flawed idea, one which perhaps favours the rich and causes complications in times of divorce, but it is a far better approach than the other two extreme examples I am noticing in today's newsfeeds, namely: (1) where each individual is responsible for the birth of more than one child, at times doubling or even tripling their own human number on the planet, the very definition of unsustainable multiplication; or (2) where there are those voices who so proudly shout they have decided not to reproduce for environmental reasons like they're some sort of a fucking hero, when, in fact, this is the most detrimental act one can perform for the continuity of any species.

Once again, moderation and middle-ground are the keys to success. Also, please don't forget that in July 2017, 1.5 million volunteers in Madhya Pradesh, India, planted a world-record 66+ million trees in 12 hours. Australia reported an 80% reduction in plastic bag usage in 2018. The ozone hole is said to be shrinking and should disappear completely in our lifetimes. France recently banned all bee-harming pesticides. The EU are in the process of outlawing all single-use plastic by 2021. It is estimated that global tree growth has risen (not decreased) by 7% since 1982. China have cut down their levels of pollution by 32%. The Southern white rhinoceros and the panda bear (among many others) are no longer on the endangered list. Fortnite creator Tim Sweeney purchased 40,000 acres of land purely for preservation purposes. And media mogul Ted Turner is donating $1 billion to the UN with the goal of conserving 30% of our Earth's surface by 2030. These are only a few examples.

People did this. Procreation did this. Your kid could be the genius who discovers the solution to cleaning up the ocean, you don't know.

No comments :

Post a comment