Reducing Carbon Footprint gone bad...

[SoonerTexan]

Came across this today:

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/10/02/w...uickly-pulled/

I'm all for reducing your carbon footprint, but really what could they have been thinking? Especially when they say, "no pressure" and "it's your choice." What's worse is it actually looks like a good group, too!

I don't know if this is what happened here, but I hate it when environmentalism goes past "let's protect our planet for ourselves and future generations" to "Let's protect our planet from these damn humans at all cost"

[Urowife]

That video was awful! That does NOT make me want to join the cause.

[GrayMatterWife]

I hate it when environmentalism goes past "let's protect our planet for ourselves and future generations" to "Let's protect our planet from these damn humans at all cost"

A couple of years ago I read an article on the BBC about a woman who chose to abort her baby because she was a very committed environmentalist and she thought it was immoral to bring one more human into the world to make a carbon footprint. She didn't come across as crazy or anything, and explained how she and her husband came to the decision. And then chose to go public with their story--I guess to encourage others, maybe.

It made me want to vomit. To suggest that a mother's protection of the planet was more important than her protection of her child? I just thought: what on earth have we come to as Western civilization? How self-hating is that? This was nothing even close to the situation where a woman contemplating elective abortion has to wrestle with her personal options and limitations. She was married, with a good home and enough income. It seemed to make a mockery of the personal ethical issues that a mother considering abortion wrestles with. It was not about a woman's right to reproductive choice or control over her body--the reason that choice has been unpheld as a right. It was about an implied moral imperative to the planet--an imperative that was more important that the woman's personal needs/concerns. As if a really thoughtful, intelligent, informed woman was obligated to stop reproducing. It was just awful on so many levels.

So not helpful to the cause of environmentalism. Or pro-choice advocacy. Or feminism (as the argument implied that a woman's choice to abort or keep the child was morally subject to the greater needs of the planet...so we've moved on from being oppressed by male hierarchy to being oppressed by the planet??).

[ladymoreta]

Wow - that's creepy. Not sure what they were thinking!

It's so opposite of freedom, almost reminiscent of the guillotine and burning at the stake. I'm sure they felt justified because we may be looking at such an overload on the environment that we see increased disease and changes in the availability of certain foods, just as a start. There are lots of other ways to strongly encourage people to make certain choices - public health education campaigns (that do not include jokes about annihilation ), government-based financial incentives, development of different consumer products, laws & fines.

GMW - I started to post a reply earlier, but then I felt like a hypocrite talking about the environment when we have so many children. Why that happened, how I feel about it, and how it affects the environment are a whole different topic... I'd give my own life for any one of my kids. There are many reasons for abortion, but the environmental issue and SO many other issues are much better handled through birth control.