From today’s highly recommended Washington Post article entitled “D.C. Area Families Take Green to the Extreme,”
For Iklé-Khalsa’s wife, his push for green living has affected a much bigger decision.
“I’m 40, so my clock is going boom! Boom! Boom! Sometimes, I just roll my eyes and go, ‘Come on, honey, think about who our child could be!’ ” said Mimi Iklé-Khalsa. But her husband says a second child could have too high an environmental cost. “We’ve had the discussion of, ‘If we have another biological child, it means we never fly,’ ” and do other things to offset the child’s carbon footprint, she said.
If those greenies are so illogical that they don’t want children for environmental reason, then I am glad they are removing their genes from the pool. My decision for not having children was because I did not want any. There is no agenda, I simply had no urge for reproduction. Human reproduction that is, I love it when the animals have their babies and I love propagating plants. 😎 Now, people might misunderstand and think my no children stance is for political reasons not simple indifference. oh no!
Way to make a child feel guilty for existing! Good Grief!
I have SEVEN biological children; married to the same man for 28 years. I wonder what they think of MY ‘carbon footpring?’
It’s too bad WaPo’s ad sales people missed the opportunity to sell some space to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. And VHEMT blew an opportunity to get WaPo to run a sidebar about VHEMT’s “forward” thinking…;-)
Although I think Greens are insane (or maybe because of it) I would be very glad if people like those quoted above would decide to not have ANY children.
If all of these bubbleheads wish to self deselect themselves from the gene pool, a lot of our problems will disappear in a generation. They shouldn’t have the right, though, to lean on my children for their social security payments. They better save for their own needs.