translated from Spanish: “I have decided not to have children to help fight climate change”

“Drastic times require drastic measures”, tells Jason MacGregor to the BBC.
“I am an island called Prince Edward in Canada and have seen strong storms that have had a destructive effect on our ports”, starts the environmentalist.
“We see stronger hurricanes due to a warmer Gulf stream,” he explains.
And with its island being particularly vulnerable to coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels, McGregor has decided that to help you renounce being a father.
“It is very sad as frustrating to see how climate change is already having a dramatic effect on the place which I call home,” he says.
“So I have decided not to have children to help combat climate change.”
Sand granite agreement with MacGregor, who is defined as a global citizen, “the complicated in relation to climate change and how to combat it is that less is more”.
What is needed, he says, is “using less resources, i.e., fewer children, eat less meat, driving less, travel less”.
Protest to fight climate change in Australia in November 2018.” I have a couple and the two agree. We had an in-depth discussion about not having children and help combat climate change,”features.
“It is something that we do not take lightly and is always that fear that we may regret,” he acknowledges.
“But if I can do my part by not having children, that it is a good thing that I can do for the environment.”
One of many MacGregor joins a group of people who, in different parts of the world, have decided to not procreate to help protect the planet.
For example, Audrey García, a 39-year-old from Barcelona “is not ethical to have biological children”.
Leilani Munter decided not to have children when I was twenty.” “Isn’t it in a world overpopulated where missing water and food for many people, where we are destroying the environment, where we do not stop consuming more and more resources”, you said to the BBC in March 2018.
Antinatalism: “It is not ethical to have biological children” “isn’t it when you can adopt or accept”, then insisted.
While Anna, United Kingdom, told the BBC in April of 2018 you won’t have children because she wants to “save the planet”.
Although the idea of being a parent never found it very tempting, he realized that “the best thing I can do for the environment is not having children”.
“Now I consider myself an environmentalist, and try to live in the most sustainable way possible,” said 35-year old who is vegan, is transported by bicycle and washing your hair once a month.

Anna is opposed to having children to not contribute to the growth of the world’s population.

“Unavoidable is that having children, mainly turns you into a consumer of resources.” I am not saying that no one should have children, but it is a fact. If she is pregnant, have an abortion”, said categorically.
The professional driver Leilani Munter race cars has also become an activist who wants to draw attention to the problem of global overpopulation.
“We have to normalize people have children so we can save the planet,” he said to the BBC.
Munter decided not to have children when I was twenty one.
“One child less” these approaches rely on studies as “The climate mitigation gap”, published in 2017 on the specialized site: Environmental Research Letters.
In it, Seth Wynes and Kimberly A. Nicholas pose that “current anthropogenic climate change is the result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is the sum of billions of individual decisions”.
Investigated them also published their findings on the web site of the Lund University of Suecia.Y after considering “a wide range of individual lifestyle choices,” the researchers from the University of British Columbia, Canada, and the University of Lund, in Sweden, identified four recommendations to substantially reduce annual emissions of each person.
One of them is having “one child less”, which, in the case of developed countries it would have repercussions on a reduction of 58.6 tonnes of CO2 per year, on average.
The other three recommendations are: do not use automobiles avoid air travel eat a diet based on plant anything new current antinatalism, the philosophical and current of thought which believes that they should not be brought new people to the world, is not in embargo something new.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was one of the leading Western thinkers in question the value of existence.
The antinatalism has been a source of debate among philosophers from different eras. For the South African philosopher David Benatar life is terrible and not worth at all be lived.
In his book”Better Never to Have Been” (better never have existed), the director of the Department of philosophy of the University of Cape Town, South Africa, ensures that birth is a deep and terrible misfortune. ” It is a mistake to bring new humans to the world”: provocative anti-childbearing thought of philosopher David Benatar therefore believes that the best humanity can do is to stop childbearing to achieve the extinction of human beings in the face of the Earth.
“One of the reasons is that shouldn’t be given life to new people for the suffering that these individuals will experience”, he told BBC World in 2017.
“There are numerous arguments on the matter, but one of them is that there is a lot of pain and suffering in human existence, so for this reason is an error bring new humans to the world.”

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment