“Science proves kids are bad for the earth. Therefore, morality suggests we stop having them.” Are people just creating a larger carbon footprint when they have children? Is it morally suspect to have children? Would you consider your children high-cost luxury goods? Has human life become nothing more than a carbon footprint? Dan and Amy discuss the once accepted “extremist” views of environmentalism.
View full transcript
Dan Proft: Good morning. Dan and Amy on uh the question for ya, should we sterilize Mother Earth? You know this from the perspective of uh the uh environmentalists uh Mother Gaia is their god, uh Environmentalism is their religion. Uh, this piece uh an op-ed by Travis Rieder who is a PhD at the director and uh the director of- the master of bioethics degree program at Bermon Institute, uh of Institute of Bioethics, this is at John Hopkins. Amy Jacobson: Okay. D: Uh huh. (Reading) “Science proves kids are bad for the earth, morality suggests we stop having them.” A: Wow. Forced sterilization 312-642-5600’s is our turnkey pro answer line. D: No, he doesn’t go that far- A:: Okay. D: Because of course he’s civilized, he wants you to come to that conclusion yourself that uh having a large number of kids, having a big family is “self indulgent and morally suspect.” 312-642-5600 turnkey pro answer line. (Reading) “Having a child is a major contributor to climate change, the logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth should consider having fewer children.” Umm, this guys is gonna be a big hit in China. A: Yeah. D: (Reading) “Uh although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is well established.” A: Shi- D: (Reading) “Having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy-” (mock scoldingly) AMY (continues reading) “is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. A: (mock scoldingly) DAN! D: Uh the- A: This is why you don’t have children. Now we have figured out the answer! D: Because I care about the planet, unlike SOME people! A: Well personally, I didn’t have more children because I couldn’t afford more children. I’d have to- no I mean I’d have to get a bigger house. I wouldn’- no I’d have to get a bigger house and I have t- they’re expensive. They eat food D: Is that right? A: And now that they’re going through puberty, they’re eating me out of house and home. D: It’s been so- A: I had to put a padlock (with exaggerated accent) a padlock? A padlock on the uh the pantry. D: That’s pretty- it’s been so long for me I’d forgotten, I don’t remember if I did or did not eat when I was a young man. A: And then you have to clothe them too. D: But you’re missing, you’re missing uh the real point here. A: Yeah okay, Dan. D: It’s not about food and clothing and shelter, it’s about carbon footprint. Having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint, and we all have a personal carbon ledger for which we’re responsible for. So uh you’re uh, you’re expanding your carbon footprint through Peyton’s carbon footprint through Eli’s carbon footprint. Let me g- let me try and analyze this for you to drive it home A: Okay… D: By recounting the uh deep thinker uh the pilot, higher and deeper uh over over at uh Johns Hopkins, Travis Rieder (reading) “If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people then I bear some responsibility for those deaths. Correspondingly, if I have a child although that person is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions, but that doesn’t negate my moral responsibility for her carbon footprint as well. It is the same thing as releasing a murdered from prison, having a child.” A: Holy hell. D: This is, this is the argument. “You might eventually admit that having uhh children is wrong or at least morally suspect uh for standard environmental reasons. Having a child impose high emissions on the world while the parents get the benefits, so any high cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence. Do you find your- A: A high cost luxury- D: Do you- A: A luxury? Not right now. D: Would you describe Peyton and Eli and our friends listening, guys would you describe your children as high cost luxury goods? 312-642-5600 A: They’re high cost, not a luxury right now. I told Andrew or Peyton the other day as he turned 14 and immediately we’re buttin heads you know I said “you know, I think we’ll get along great if we don’t talk for four years.” D: Yeah. A: Great parenting. D: Sounds like you’re really enjoying your luxury good. A: It’s a luxury item yes yeah. That is spectacular. D: Uh huh. A: So what do we do? I mean I understand you know I’ve lived in northern Minnesota and I was friends with Bonnie Waldorf, she was one of 17 kids because they had more children because they needed hel-help on the farm. D: That’s like serial killing according to ah- A: That’s litter D: Mister according to the the ruh ruh professor Read-uh. A: But that’s what I’m saying, a lot of families CUTS D: Releasing a murderer from prison okay but he concludes his piece by saying “I’m certainly not arguing we should shame parents-” NO of course not A: No no, there’s no shaming D: Comparing them to a released murdered “or even that we’re obligated to have a certain number of children. I don’t think there’s a clean answer to the challenging question of procreative ethics, but that does not mean we’re off the moral hook.” This is him attempting to present a thought provoking question when you treat uh human life as nothing more than an autonomous carbon footprint and a uh uh a a a carbon footprint that corresponds to the procreators. A: Um hm. D: Okay. Uhh that’s the left, that’s where you genuflect and you worship Mother Earth, that’s environmentalism as religion. That’s what we’re replacing uh they the fo fo fo religious foundations of our country with. You on board for that? Uhh Don in Bloomingdale Don: Morning guys! Typical academic creating a problem that doesn’t exist. I literally watched this on the Discovery Channel last night. Japan is having such a population decrease that they’re paying young people to have kids! D: Yeah. Don: Nobody’s having kids over there. They’re gonna reduce their population by 33% in the next 25 years. D: Yeah, no that’s right Don. I thanks- think Japan is the perfect example of the demographic death spiral what the uh replacement rate I think is like 2.1. Ummm kids per family in Japan’s like 1.2. As Mark Stein famously said in uh which one was his book? Not a Miracle Alone, the one before that. Ummm I’m I’m blanking on it, but anyway um “Japan would have better would be better to invent the walker rather than the walkman because their population is getting old and it’s not replacing itself and they’re going to make themselves extinct as a people uh and thus they’re taking the dramatic ah uh action on just described, incentivizing people to have kids and have family. Uhhhh Bill in Skokie. Bill: Hey good morning Dan, good morning Amy. I mean whoever this author was, he he never must have fathered child I mean just last night, I’m a new parent but waking up six times during the night I don’t know what luxury wakes you up middle of the night cries all day. A: Poops. Bill: What luxury? It’s called sacrifice so better the world better future. D: Thanks for the call. A: And to keep the family name alive. Keep the family name alive. D: That’s it. A: What are you doing, Dan to keep your family name alive? D: That’s the whole labeling you’re just wondering about the Jacobson brand rather than the planet. So selfish. A: Tim in Darien Tim: Hi Dan, hi Amy. Uhhh no I just wanted to comment that my five kids are going to be paying Travis Rieder’s social security and yours too, Dan. D: Yeah yeah yeah thanks for that, appreciate that. Tim: Sure thing. D: Hey uh uh give them some give them some ice cream after dinner tonight on me. Uh appreciate that. Tim: I’d love to. D: Thanks for the call, Tim. Appreciate it. Larry in Bartlett. Larry: Heeeyy good morning Dan and Amy. Does that now mean that people that haven’t been born still get to vote in Chicago? A: Hmmmm. D: It’s a great question. Yeah, it’s a great question and I’m uh gonna have to run that up the flag pole, thanks, Larry. Uhh David on the Northside. David: Uh yeah uh thanks for taking the call. Uh two things, one is um more kids could be a little for meals for Prisker A: Oh my god. D: Yes and and more extras for his commercials, right? That’s a good point. David: Exactly exactly right he-e exactly. Secondly, the Ponzi scheme that we run by this whole situation is without them how-how you gonna get paid? D: Yeah, exactly, thanks for the call, David. Who’s gonna whose public sect- those unfunded public sector pension obligations? Uh s s you know coming from an academic of a no less he’s a John Hopkins. Charles excuse me Chris in St. Charles Charles: Oh hey how are you guys doing? Umm I have I have four boys and uh they are not lux they are not even they ask for- D: Wha- they what? Oh he said they A: They took over his phone. D: Oh they ask for luxury items I think he said. They’re not luxury items. A: And then they just commandeered his phone and took it away from him cuz they needed to use it. D: Uhh Tom in Barrington. Tom: Good morning guys. A: Hi. Tom: How are you? D: Good. Tom: Hey great job out there on Saturday by the way. A: Thank you. Tom: I uhh D: He was talking to me. Tom: Regarding people who are profoundly disturbed with the carbon emissions I’ve been saying this for years, just quit exhaling. D: Exactly. Tom: Do us all a favor. That would solve it. D: Yeah, thank you for the call Tom. Tom: Thank you. A: Stop breathing, right now. D: Well I mean you’re they’re sac- they’re going to have to be sacrifices to save the planet, so. A: Mmhmm. D: You know Tom could be onto something. Uhh John in Lincolnwood. John: Hi Dan and Amy, how are ya? D: Good. A: Good. John: Good I uh love the article you just read uh I guess I’m uh I have three kids so I guess I’m triple uh murderer or homicide murderer or whatever. D: Something like that. A: Homicidal tendencies. John: Yeah how ridiculous is are these the scientists. They have nothing else better to do? Why don’t they figure out how to lower property taxes? That would that would help me. D: Thanks for the call, John. Ya you know here’s the thing too, Dan Savage this uh A: Oh. D: Dickensian named gay rights activist, he he he has previously proposed you know he’s one of these EPGers they’re a population growth these uh these ghouls like uh Zeke Emanuel and others. Umm he he Dan Savage pre previously presented proposed mandatory abortion. Now of course uh he’s exempt, right? Everyone who’s here is exempt, but he wants man mandatory abortions cuz we have too many fracking people on this planet, that’s Dan Savage. It’s false. A: What does he know about parenting? D: It’s always been false. A: He doesn’t know anything. What does he know about love? D: Paul Ehrlic’s population bomb was a dud, so any of your leftist Mother Gaia worshiping ZEPGers umm inform their ignorance. Steve in Naperville. Steve: You know it’s kind of funny how often people in academics still reproduce. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing. D: Yeah. Thanks for the call Steve. Yeah it would be interesting to see how many Mister Riedal has if any. Uhhh A: I don’t think he has any kids cuz yeah he doesn’t. D: He references like my daughter but I think he’s using that just as an example, I don’t know if he’s actually. A: Well you’ve got fake kids too, right? D: It’s true. A: Your invisible children. D: Just like I have fake best friends. Beth in Rosell. Beth: Hi I have two comments I mean should we start just letting people die of cancer? I mean if they get an illness it’s a uh deadly illnesses just let them die? And what about the child if we don’t have those children, maybe they’re the ones that do come up with the cure for these horrible diseases. D: Imagine that. Thanks for the call yeah, thanks for the call Beth. Yeah exactly and that’s why Zeke Emanuel’s uh 75 and out threshold is uh a little disturbing I’d say in addition to the push for euthanasia uh in I mean it’s really accelerated in Europe but it’s coming to the more leftist states particularly in the west California in the pacific northwest I mean you know people become inconvenient I mean not not just let them die, they’ve gotta get these people out! Get rid of em! That’s where it’s goin. Rich in Woodstock. Rich: That that that’s kind of what I was thinking of. You know you were talkin about lettin mass murderers out of prison well they’re more socially and environmentally acceptable, they’re reducing people’s carbon footprint. D: Yeah thanks Rich. Matt in Bartlett. Matt: Hi Amy, hi Dan. I wanted to comment that if you do care about carbon footprints, then we should be having more children in developed country. If the kids growing up in developed country that are going to develop the technologies into solar into wind technology into these battery technologies that are ultimately going to make the world a greener place. D: Yeah well that’s that’s a good point Matt, thanks for the call and it’s also to uh to to Matt’s point it’s a why in the US we’ve seen a reduction in our carbon emissions over the last couple of decades while say an underdeveloped centrally planned country, industrious country like China that’s got a billion people is seen an explosion in their emissions as they try and industrialize keep pace with uh the needs of their population. Of course they can’t do it because they’ve got to a flawed model. Jeff in Gurnee. Jeff: Good morning everyone uh thanks for taking my call. Uh what’s gonna happen to all the tree huggers because if people stop exhaling how are the plants gonna survive? D: Yeah yeah that that’s uh Jeff: So there’s not foresight in that in that logic but D: Thanks Jeff: Have a great day and a great weekend. D: Thanks Jeff. Thank you for the circle of life argument Simba. Paul in Palatine. Paul: Hey Dan and Amy love your show just wanted to share that the entire population of the earth could live in Texas at the population density rate of Manhattan so there’s plenty a room.