The Daily Mail has an amusing article today about two couples who are doing their part to save the world by not having children.
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Perhaps having an abortion was the right decision for Ms. Vernelli. Doesn’t seem like she’d make much of a parent if merely thinking about having responsibility for a child makes her “shudder with horror”.
Happily Toni lives in a country that allows her the freedom to act according to her beliefs, whether misguided or otherwise. If she’s convinced that she should not have children, no one should dictate the contrary to her.
Yet I can’t help believing that such “firm beliefs” are rooted just as much in personal narcissism as in genuine concern for the future of the planet.
Having a child is a life-changing event, one that circumscribes a parent’s freedoms and puts him or her into a sort of life-long servitude that we conduct with uncertain hopes of being rewarded in return. But most of us realize that there is nothing of comparable worth to be found on Earth.
People who don’t want children should consider following in Vernelli’s footsteps. Certainly they have the right to do so. But some (many?) such should also be honest enough to acknowledge that they’re doing so to preserve their personal freedoms and obligation-free lifestyles rather than pretending to save the world.
More about Toni:
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
I would think that the world would be a better place for having more children of “green” parents rather than fewer. Vernelli and those like her are (not) breeding themselves out of existence. Their ideas and values will die with them despite the nobility of their “sacrifice”.
h/t memeorandum
Here’s my take on this:
The growth of postmaterialist ideology is a well-studied phenomenon in the political science literature. According to Ronald Inglehart, following World War II, as the Western industrialized democracies recovered from material hardship and deprivation, many in the younger generations coming of age rejected the societal ethos of materialistic consumption in favor of more progressive views on environmentalism and the support for non-traditional values.
The decisions cited here, of the women to denounce childbearing as a threat to the survival of the world, is explicable according to this paradigm. Still, these views could be seen as representing the ideological demonization of childbearing. Without all those kids in tow, suburban moms won’t need those big, carbon-busting SUVs!
Have a great day!
It may be “some”, it may be “many”—but I’m sure there are also “many” for whom not having children is a proper and moral decision…not just an attempt to avoid responsibility.
I know; I’m one of those people without children (or a spouse) and I don’t think, nor do the people who know me think, that I’m selfish or narcissistic.
I’d agree with that. But I think for the many you may be describing may feel they would not be a good parent in one form or another. I’ve had friends who have expressed worry over anger issues passed on through generations and not wanting to put that onto their children.
But in Toni’s case here - it does not seem to evolve around anything other than her not wanting to be a parent (which is fine) but transposing that non-wish onto an irrational thought.
I agree that she’s engaging in false rationalizations. But I think that often people are driven to such rationalization because many parents honestly can’t imagine why someone wouldn’t want to be a parent, and assume the worst.
In addition, I think there’s too great a focus on negatives…
True, but then again your talking about parents, who have already seen and know the experience - and want their child to be able to experience the same. And probably to be able to benefit from positive and negative aspects.
It’d be a knee-jerk reaction for sure but a pretty understandable one - especially where the entire world unites around the one necessity of having children.
Of course it’s understandable. And of course it’s necessary to reproduce.
It’d just be nice if the understanding went both ways…
yeah.
I’m not going to get too p-o-ed that others make their choices according to their own perspectives. Judge not, lest ye be judged. But I do agree with marc moore that many on the eco front are full of narcissistic self-congratulations for their efforts to keep down with the Joneses in the ecology underconsumption. I’m reading a wonderful novel by Kiran Desai describing among many things how Indian immigrants regard the preening white wine and brie Volvo set here in the USA. Frankly, they find them ridiculous and lacking any true spirituality—at least through Kiran’s prism which won her the Booker and the National Book Critics awards in the UK and US.
Parenthetically, I have found being a parent the most wonderful experience of an experience-filled life. And my offspring are among the most careful stewards of the planet that one could imagine.
I’ll agree with you there. Often it seems environmentalism is a poor substitute for real religion
[...] The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Fellow Swamp Stomper Blue Crab Boulevard, Hot Air, Jules Crittenden, Don Surber, and The Jawa Report, as well a a pile more at Memeorandum are on this. [...]
The motives for not having children are very varied. I don’t feel I’m one to question anothers motives on what is probably the most life altering decision one can make. Way too many people take the decision to become a parent lightly (with disastrous consequences for their children) for me to quibble much about those who decide not to, for however ridiculous a reason.
I myself am unclear on whether I want to be a mother, though that itself is a weakening of my earlier position, of 100% opposition. I have no qualms about saying that I value my own life and achievements and am not at all sure I wish to sacrifice them for a potential human. Frankly, I don’t see that as selfish at all, not as long as the baby isn’t born. Selfish is not taking proper care of your child because you are far too busy with your own life, and there is my worry. I’ve worked very hard to become a scientist. It’s not a career that has much leeway for anything other than full dedication, and yet I’m sure that if I did have a baby, three months maternal leave and then leaving my child in the hands of others (babysitters, daycare, schools) for most of their time until adulthood would NOT suffice, not for me. My own mother was always there for me, and I think I benefited greatly from that. I would want no less than the best for my own child, but that would mean sacrificing a life I’ve worked my ass off for, something I don’t think I’m prepared to do.
Having previously worked in research for 10 years, I can certainly testify to that. And there isn’t exactly a lot of financial renumeration in the field either…
I know there’s no way I could be the nurse I want to be if I had kids to worry about (or a spouse for that matter). Unlike you I see it from a religious perspective…i.e. this is the path God wants for me and I have to follow it, to greatness or failure or triumph or death…..
Heh, I think Marc posted this to stir up a debate about abortion.
Vivre la Difference!
As for me, my three boys never interfered with any research at all! Truth is they provided great breaks at times and allowed me think without concentrating too hard. I worried about how good a parent I’d be at first, but hey I’m with dave up there in that they are the best things that happened in my life.
And for those of you who are worried about overpopulation, well, there is a whole universe out there and I have enough faith in humanity to believe we can go there eventually. Problem solved!
It’s interesting…I’ve looked at responses to this story at other right-leaning sites (the Left doesn’t seem to be interested) and everyone seems to agree that these women certainly have the right to make the decision that they do, even if they don’t agree with the reasons behind their decision.
I’ll be a generation or so ago even the liberals would have opposed the decision these women made, would have stated that motherhood was their duty. How times have changed.
[...] Childless and Saving the Word - One Bad Baby at a Time Van Der Galien [...]
[quote]Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.[/quote]
It is my strong believe that she will save the planet by removing herself as well, these kind of people do not belong on this planet, certainly not when they openly and progressively kill their offspring with a retard reason for doing so!
I am not sure what was amusing about the article on itself, because I am still not laughing, that’s my thought for today which I also placed elsewhere.
She is entitled to her opinion, but she could further her theory by going on a baby killing spree. My guess is 1 whole acre of farmland can be saved if she drowns about 100 babies. However, I do believe environmentalism must start with one’s self and not forced upon others. So I feel that she should begin fasting until death as an example for those who follow her theory. Of course I jest in sarcasm and don’t wish death upon anyone, but this clearly reveals her lunacy and her weak attempt of justifying a past mistake. Anything to sleep better at night I suppose.