theguardian.com
>The environmental toll of having even one child is enormous - 58.6 tonnes of carbon each year. So is going child-free the answer to our climate crisis?
>Gwynn Mackellen was 26 when she decided to get sterilised. It took the recycling consultant, who is based in California five years to find an appropriate doctor under the public health plan she was on, but she was determined. In 2012, she succeeded. “I always knew I didn’t want kids, for environmental reasons,” she says.
>Mackellen identifies as an antinatalist, a philosophical movement based around the tenet that it’s cruel to bring sentient lives, doomed to suffering and to causing suffering, into the world. “Or at least I think our culture is very pro-natalist and it’s to our detriment. I would like to see us voluntarily reduce our population.”
> “I live in the liberal [San Francisco] Bay area,” she says, “and I’ve always been really vocal about this.” However, she can’t always discuss her concerns about human population with friends, which is why she is part of a community called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT (pronounced vehement) for short.
>She feels that the best way to reduce human suffering is to invest in the people we already have, with access to healthcare, living-wage jobs and better education, “especially for girls and women. And free and equitable access to contraception and more social pressure to not have kids or have fewer children.”
Are you guys willing to not procreate in order to save our planet?
Pic related chose to adopt a rescue dog instead of having a baby.
