The Daily Mail profiles female heroes who they say are saving the world when they’re actually contributing to Britain’s extinction.
I’m surprised the story didn’t use the phrase “not all heroes wear capes.” The Daily Mail profiled several women as female heroes because they say they are not having children. How can people take for granted a world view that dictates children are a global threat? Shouldn’t a mature, rational person at least consider whether there is evidence that this view of reality is utter… nonsense?
Even so, she has decided she will never experience the joy of discovering she is pregnant.[…]
So what has prompted this momentous decision? Put simply? Her desire to save the planet.
‘Humans are the greatest single driver of climate change and greenhouse gas contributions, of deforestation and the acidity of the oceans,’ she explains earnestly.
‘The only thing that will fix these problems is to have fewer people on the planet. I don’t see it’s justified to make more people than we already have. Yes, I have a maternal instinct, but I will never change my mind.’
Drastic? Perhaps. But, astonishing as it sounds, Oonagh is one of a number of British women who are deciding to remain child-free, not because of career aspirations or an inability to find a partner, but because they are concerned about the crippling impact of overpopulation on the Earth.
Crazy? They would urge you to consider the facts. The global population, they say, is growing at a rate of one billion every 12 to 15 years.
By the year 2050, it is estimated it will have grown by 30 per cent.
While much of the population explosion is happening in developing countries where lack of contraception and education means women have more children, the issue is just as pressing here in the UK.
Their proof? Last year, the UK’s population saw its sharpest annual increase in nearly 70 years.
But this isn’t proof that babies are bad! The very next paragraph destroys the argument:
Although the Office for National Statistics said that net international migration was the main driver behind the growth, there were also rises in births and fewer deaths. With our heavy consumption of fossil fuels such as petrol, coal and gas, they argue, we currently use nearly three times the renewable resources our land can provide.
So if international migration is the main driver of population growth, then what does refusing to have babies accomplish?
The answer is that it speeds up cultural replacement!
Apart from migration and cultural preservation, every Western country has trained their populaces to rely on a pension for their retirement years. Every one of those pensions is unsustainable apart from population growth.
Don’t comfort yourself that few women will go this far. This toxic message that children are a global threat means that many will have fewer children than they would if they weren’t fed this delusion.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com