Klaus Schwab says nationalism is a threat to the Great Reset. pic.twitter.com/sjkuw3VlbO— Mattea Merta? (@MatteaMerta) July 12, 2021
I’m deeply skeptical of climate change.
Back in April, Vogue ran an article which asked if having children was an act of pure environmental vandalism. It is based on the same logic that sees a chicken sandwich as a moral catastrophe and which is fueling this bizarre media obsession with promoting bug eating. Now, Prince Harry and Meghan are pushing depopulation for the ostensible purpose of limiting carbon emissions.
“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been named as environmental “role models” for deciding to have no more than two children to reduce their impact on the planet.
Population Matters, a UK-based charity that campaigns for a “sustainable human population” said it had chosen the couple to receive an award for their “enlightened” decision.
Harry previously told British Vogue he and Meghan would have “maximum” two children. The couple’s son, Archie was born in May 2019, followed by their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana in June this year.
“In choosing and publicly declaring their intention to limit their family to two, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are helping to ensure a better future for their children and providing a role model for other families,” a spokesperson for Population Matters said. …”
Anything that emits carbon is destroying the planet.
Therefore, it is immoral to have children and to eat meat.
“As the global population exceeds 7.8 billion people, some French people have made the decision not to have children – a radical choice born out of a desire to help the planet and do their part to reverse global warming.
“Having a child would be totally against my principles. I’ve never wanted children and am more certain of this decision the older I get,” says Manon, 26. “I don’t see why I would impose another consumer on this world. In the Western world, we consume more than the resources available,” she adds.
Like Manon, more and more young adults are deciding not to have children for environmental reasons. Online they call themselves “childfree” or even “ginks” – short for “green inclinations, no kids” – and they staunchly defend their decision not to have children. World Population Day, which falls on July 11, serves as another reminder of the world’s ballooning population. It comes from the Day of Five Billion – July 11, 1987 – chosen by the United Nations as the approximate day on which the world population reached 5 billion.
“I have absolutely no desire to leave this planet to a child,” YouTuber Anna Bogen tells her more than 15,000 subscribers in a video on her channel. “When the planet has no resources left, I’ll be six feet under. But if I have a child, they and their children will have to live with it. I don’t want to inflict that on anybody.”
Denis Garnier, the president of Démographie Responsable (Responsible Demographics), an organisation founded in 2009 to promote a lower birth rate, says that over the past 10 years, talking about not having children has become a lot more common. “Young people are a lot more aware, thanks to the publication of studies about global warming and more public questioning about the destruction of biodiversity,” he explains.
A graphic on the organisation’s website counts in real time the number of people alive on earth. The counter steadily ticks upwards. “We’re already at 7.8 billion. It’s already too much. We should hit 8 billion by 2022 or 2023,” says Garnier.
‘One less child, that’s 40 tonnes of carbon saved a year’ …”
Just observing these people, I get the sense that climate change is becoming a central tenant of their post-Christian religion. It has replaced the Apocalypse. They have their own diet now like the world’s other great religions. They have their own original sin which is whiteness.
Note: Christianity doesn’t deify Mother Earth. Christianity also encourages procreation.