Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 15, 2014
Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers
I guess it takes global warming hysteria to get the bioethics movement to criticize what is known in the trade as “artificial reproductive technologies” or ART.
But now, in the ever more radical Journal of Medical Ethics, Cristina Richie, of Boston College’s Department of Theology, argues that these technologies should be regulated to limit the number of children–called “carbon legacies,” as a means of fighting climate change. From the article:
A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies.
I don’t know if Richie coined the term, but it is ridiculous. Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers.
ART is an almost unregulated industry, a lamentable circumstance with which many bioethicists are content. But Richie says global warming has to change the field’s thinking about ART.
Through the use of ARTs multiple children are born, adding to worldwide carbon emissions. This is a burden on the already over-taxed ecosystem to support new beings who might not have existed without medical intervention. It is therefore the obligation of environmental policymakers, the ethical and medical communities, and even society to carefully weigh the interests of our shared planet with a business that intentionally creates more humans when we must reduce our carbon impact.
All those IVF babies are melting the ice caps!
While population growth and ARTs are not the primary environmental issue that should concern ecologists and bioethicists, the numbers of ART babies are increasing at an exponential rate. If we were to look at these numbers in terms of carbon emissions instead of raw population growth data, the statistics look grim.
No, grim is the exploitation of surrogates in biological colonialism and the eugenic impetus that has sunk its fangs deep into the heart of the industry. In the face of such human objectification, sorry, I can’t get upset about global warming.
It’s time to regulate!
The unregulated ART business can no longer be endorsed and the medical industry ought not operate in an environmental vacuum. Retrenchment in all areas of life is the key to slowing down or halting carbon emissions that lead to climate change. For each child made through medical intervention a carbon legacy results. ARTs should be allocated with due concern for the environment and sober consideration for the implications of climate change.
Carbon caps on the fertility business and eliminating funded ARTs for those who are not biologically infertile are the beginning of an environmentally sustainable ART business.
“And Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little carbon legacies to come onto me’…” Good grief.
8 Comments on "Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers"
JuanP on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 7:48 am
What a BS article for such an interesting subject. Of course having children has a cost, but I am for ARTs for people who want to have children, but can’t. I don’t approve of those 1%er bitches who rent another woman’s womb, o they don’t have to get pregnant, but can still have their biological babies.
I had a Vasectomy and no children, but that is a personal choice, and I am aware that most men won’t choose my way. I am OK with that.
My youngest and favorite aunt got married and they couldn’t have children for like almost 20 years. They went to all the specialists and gave up. Then she got pregnant, in spite of the fact they had been told by several doctors it wasn’t gonna happen for them.
My aunt really wanted a child, and there life turned around for the better big time after she had her daughter.
It was then she started thinking about what school to send her daughter to and didn’t like any school in my country enough, though there were several excellent options.
So my aunt founded a private school that is the best private elementary and secondary school in my country today, from which thousands of students have benefitted enormously.
My point is that it was her child that inspired and motivated her to do something she would not have done otherwise, and a whole country benefitted from that. Some people should have children and others shouldn’t
ghung on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 7:55 am
“Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers.”
….as if the two are mutually exclusive. Another useless comparison and article. Children are raised to be consumers, therefore they consume and emit.
eugene on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 7:59 am
Over population is out problem. In reality we’re no smarter than rabbits. And your “genius” relative will starve just like the rest when the time comes.
penury on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 12:01 pm
I suppose that like most people I sympathize with people who for one reason or another wish to reproduce (or give the appearance of re-producing) and are incapable of doing so. However, I think that under the current over population, shortage of resources and other limitations perhaps the failure to reproduce should be rewarded by society and actual reproduction should be penalized. The current keep the fetus alive at all costs, even when the result is a non-functional organism I think needs to be re-evaluated. You might say I feel sorrier for the children who are born these days.
HARM on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 3:31 pm
Pure idiocy. *All* human beings consume and therefore contribute to the problem of AGW, deforestation, overfishing, soil erosion, loss of habitat and pollution.
“And Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little carbon legacies to come onto me’…” Good grief.”
So when you don’t have a rational argument, resort to maudlin sentimentalism and religion.
Norm on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 7:09 pm
Why be s complimentary about people. The vast majority, their only achievement will be to burn up carbon and make piles of landfill. Break some windows and smoke some pot. Calling them carbon legacies seems needlessly generous.
SilentRunning on Fri, 15th Aug 2014 9:36 pm
Any sane intelligent species will regulate their numbers so as to avoid unsustainable exponential growth – which can only end in massive die off.
The Catholic religion is not a sane organization, and believes in explosive growth of their numbers – at all costs. Unfortunately, the result of their political and PR efforts is something that will probably kill off most of earth’s ecosystems – and Catholics – and the rest of us – with it.
Kenz300 on Mon, 18th Aug 2014 10:01 am
Tax policy that encourages reproduction needs to end.
If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
The worlds poorest people are having the most children. They have not figured out the connection between their poverty and family size.