Mother fears giving birth to her baby girl was ‘bad for the earth’ in bonkers WaPo analysis

According to a new analysis piece from the Washington Post the choice between having a baby and being nice to Mother Earth is “complicated.”

In a world that pushes fear — fear of carbon, fear of consumerism, fear of missing out — “climate zeitgeist reporter” Shannon Osaka points to Meera Sanghani-Jorgensen, who, when in her 30s, was afraid that having a beautiful baby growing inside her would be bad for the planet.

“I wanted to have a child,”  Sanghani-Jorgensen said, “but I was also looking at the planet and thinking: ‘Well, what kind of future will we have if there’s more of the same?'”

That thought apparently consumed the would-be mother with guilt.

“She thought about the diapers, the party favors, the toys, and the billions of tons of carbon emissions warming the planet every year,” writes Osaka. “She felt weighed down by the consumption of her children before they were even born.”

Ultimately, she and her husband did a bunch of research and “decided that having a child — a single child — could fulfill their desires without putting undue burden on an overheating world.”

It’s the predictable outcome for a generation that has grown up hearing — and, more importantly, believing — they are the reason climate change is going to end life as humans know it on earth.

Back in 2019, Rebel News tweeted, “AOC and Bernie Sanders now have kids going INSANE because they think the world is ending in 12 years.”

And among the many things — from racism to straws — blamed for contributing to climate change, the planet’s population seems to top the list.

“Multiple media outlets have also encouraged hopeful parents to rethink having children with headlines like this one from NBC News: ‘Science proves kids are bad for the earth,'” Fox News reports, adding, “Or as The New York Times asked in 2021: ‘To Breed or Not to Breed?'”

According to Osaka, Sanghani-Jorgensen is part of “a generation of people living in the U.S. and other rich countries preoccupied with how having children may worsen the world’s rapid warming.”

And for them, the question of starting a family is a moral one.

A child is, after all, “a small carbon bomb waiting to go off,” Osaka notes.

With a take that is reminiscent of Communist China’s infamous “one child” policy, during which women endured forced abortions, Osaka suggests that “having one fewer child” should be seriously pondered, especially considering that “climate change needs to be addressed within the next few decades.”

And even if the little darlings didn’t explode like a carbon-spewing Vesuvius, what loving mother would want to force their children to grow up in a world in which the climate gods have not been appeased?

“Should you still have kids if they will grow up with smoke-filled summers and steadily rising sea-levels?” Osaka asks. “Should you have kids if the developed, Western world will suffer minimal losses but developing countries will suffer hugely?”

While it may be “complicated” for Osaka and the Washington Post, the answer is pretty clear to father-of-eight Elon Musk.

Twitter battles aside, it’s hard to find a billionaire more concerned with the future of the planet. It was the inspiration for his work at Tesla, and it’s the reason he’s trying to colonize Mars.

But according to Musk, folks need to be making more babies, not fewer.

In May, the undeniable genius drew attention to the country’s declining birth rates on the platform he would ultimately purchase.

“USA birth rate has been below min sustainable levels for ~50 years,” he tweeted.

“Past two years have been a demographic disaster,” he continued, adding, “I mean, I’m doing my part haha.”

Melissa Fine


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles