Life.  What is it?  Where does it originate?  What is it that animates living things? What causes us to breathe?

In our “modern society” there is no respect for life.  Human beings are considered to be just a pile of cells, at best animals.  Just like any other creature that crawled out of the swamp.  That is what  mind of Lucifer/Satan/The Devil wants everyone to believe.  We are nothing more than the accidental conglomeration that sprang from the “Big Bang”.   Just one of Satan’s lies.  He is the father of lies and was a liar from the beginning.  

A master of deception, it is his purpose to deceive. In the mind of Lucifer/Satan/The Devil, why mess with perfection?   If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.  He has not changed his tactics.  The same old, same old lies still work.  Work like “Magick”.  He knows just how to play on human nature.  He knows our weaknesses and how to manipulate us.  He has it down to a “Science”.

The reason his lies work is PRIDE.  Pride is a very vital player in his plan to destroy the works of GOD.  Human PRIDE, all he has to do is convince you that YOU are GOD, or are LIKE GOD, or can become GOD of your own reality.

THE TRUTH IS, there is ONLY ONE LIVING CREATOR GOD!  Throughout history, humanity has created their own gods and goddess, that they choose to worship. These are embodiments of Demonic Entities who currently have power here on Earth because of the Fall in the Garden.  Adam surrendered his Earthly authority to Satan.  So, for the TIME being, Fallen Angels and their offspring have dominion over this realm.  BUT ONLY GOD THE CREATOR is ALMIGHTY GOD.  HE has POWER over EVERYTHING.  HE is ultimately in CONTROL at all times.  But, this world has an expiration date.  It is coming upon us very quickly.  The demonic entities are desperately striving to find a way to prevent the END OF TIME.

They are working to take control over the hearts, minds and spirits of human KIND.  So that their is no one living that loves and serves GOD.  Satan is working hard to usurp God and be worshipped by ALL.  IF they cannot stop the plan of GOD, then they will DESTROY the earth and everyone in it.  At least, that is their plan.

Lucifer/Satan/The Devil has the majority of the world convinced that they have the RIGHT to determine whether or not they will have children.  Now, they are able to even determine the sex, appearance and physical abilities of their unborn children.  So, humans are really feeling GODLIKE.

He has the majority of humans believing that they have to right to take life.  Because they believe they are justified they are killing old people, handicapped people, sick people, depressed people for the sake of the “Greater Good”.

The latest push from Lucifer/Satan/The Devil, is for humans to stop reproducing all together or at least to slow it way down.  BE FRUITFUL AND MULITPLY, is a direct commandment from GOD ALMIGHTY  In fact, it is the very first Commandment He gave Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis.  

Taking any life or preventing any life from coming is a direct act of disobedience and rebellion against GOD.  Whatever excuses one might give whether it be Climate Change, or the collapsing economy, or depleting resources, or diminishing space/land/property for more humans, are totally insupportable.  They are ALL LIES!!  Straight from the PIT OF HELL, designed to get humans to offend GOD by taking unto themselves that over which GOD REIGNS and ACTING AS GOD!

There is NO LACK WITH GOD!!  He created the Earth and EVERYTING IN IT.   HE is WELL ABLE to supply all of our needs.  He is well able to keep EVERYTHING in perfect balance.   We have NOTHING TO FEAR.  Fear does not come from GOD.  FEAR is a tool of the enemy.   Every evil thought and dead comes from FEAR.

If you have not viewed the following related series, check it out:

Godly FEAR – Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5


Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 

Psalm 139:13-16: For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. 

It is not for man to take life, but to understand that God is the giver and taker of such, according to His Sovereign will.

This applies to all murder, including abortion and euthanasia.

*Disclaimer: Sorry folks, there seems to be some confusion over the title. I meant to say that God allows death. He is the giver of all temporal and eternal life, but allows the time/means/etc. of our death. Sorry for any confusion there.

Genesis 1:11

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21

God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

Genesis 1:25

God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

GOD is the only one who can give life. He is the ONE with the POWER and Authority. God not only creates the baby in the womb, GOD places the seed inside each person when they are created.  The purpose is to populate the world to come with people who have learned the truth and turned to HIM out of love.  He is building His FOREVER FAMILY.

Genesis 48:4

And said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples and will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession.’

Psalm 127:3-5

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

When we take a life, or prevent a life from coming into the world, WE ROB GOD!  Not that we diminish God in anyway, but we are taking what belongs to him.

The enemy of your soul hates GOD and wants to usurp Him in every possible way.  He wants to be worshipped as GOD.  He wants to have all the POWER of the Living Creator God.  If he can’t have the real thing… he will settle for an imitation.  He takes everything that GOD says and does and reverses it.  It is the secret of the MIRROR.

To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post.  LIFE and BREATH come from GOD!   GOD places LIFE in every seed, and places the SEED within each living thing.  They may only produce after their own KIND.  Like produces Like. The life springs forth when it is birthed.  Everything is birthed in God’s timeframe.  He has numbered our days and He determines the day of our birth. The LIFE of each of your children is already inside you.  When someone is murdered their seed is KILLED as well.

Robots are created by the “technology” of demons. When Robots are created and those Robots begin to appear to take on life…DO NOT BE DECIEVED!  There is no LIFE in them. They become ANIMATED by the Demonic spirits that possess them.  But, they have no life in them. They can NEVER have LIFE in them.  LIFE can ONLY come from GOD!

28 And God blessed them [granting them certain authority] and said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subjugate it [putting it under your power]; and rule over (dominate) the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:29

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit.

DO YOU SEE THAT IS WHY THE DEMONS have been making ALL plants on earth SEEDLESS!!  To take away our God Given Authority over the plants.  We have to go to GODLESS men to get seed whenever we want to grow “food”.

1 Corinthians 15:38

But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

That is why the demonic forces want to take US out of our BODIES and place us in THEIR WEB!! They are seeking to steal your souls and keep you trapped forever!!  Right now, we have a short life here on earth to earn a place with GOD in eternity.  But, if you allow the DEVIL to steal your essence from you and store it in his CLOUD you are doomed for eternity.

God is the ONLY ONE who gives life, real life here on earth; and LIFE ETERNAL at the end of TIME.  TIME has an expiration date.  It was created for the purpose of building the people of GOD.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life

John 1027-28

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.


Throughout the Bible, the Lord gives commands to humanity. One of the first commands, He gave twice. In the Book of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve:

“And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Genesis 1:28).

He repeated this command to Noah. After flooding the earth, the Lord repeated to Noah, his sons, and his sons’ sons: “and you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). In both these instances, the Lord gave the injunction for mankind to increase their population by having and raising children.

What Does It Mean to “Be Fruitful and Multiply”?

The mandate to have and raise children to populate the earth was a part of God’s plan. It is a remarkable invitation to join Him in the process of creation. But the responsibility does not end there. Parents should raise their children to love the Lord, and follow His wisdom and guidance. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Being a parent is a chance to participate in God’s plan for humanity in a special way that can leave an impact for generations.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/evgenya

Can I Only Follow This Command if I Have Kids?

Not everyone is called to be a biological parent. Sometimes it is because of the call to singlehood and celibacy. Sometimes it is because of tragedy, illness, or circumstance because mankind lives in a fallen world. These people can still be part of the process of being fruitful and multiplying.

Adoption is very Biblical. In fact, the New Testament refers to the Gentiles as grafted into the family of God, “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree” (Romans 11:17). Grafting is the process of incorporating a branch from one tree onto another, similar to the process of adoption. Though the gentile people rejected the one true God for centuries, He still made a way for them to find a place in His family.

Discipleship is another way of fulfilling this mandate. In the New Testament, the command to be fruitful and multiply does not appear directly. While it is still a part of God’s order and it should be done, the focus shifts to multiplying the family of God through conversion and discipleship. When a sinner repents and accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior, that person is a new man, with a new name in glory. “To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it’” (Revelation 2:17).

Mentoring that person in their new faith will bring them closer to their Savior, and is a key part of the Great Commission – Jesus’ final directive before His ascension to Heaven: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20a). Being an active part of another person’s walk and growth with the Lord is as much a part of the Lord’s plan for humanity as the creation of children. Obeying the Lord in how He calls each individual, which can involve having children, adopting, or discipling others in the faith, is what matters most to God.

From the beginning, the Lord wanted to see His creation increase and worship Him, and invited all His living creatures to create with Him. Humanity, made in God’s image, is the special part of creation who also cultivates the land, and builds civilizations. Through the centuries, people have married and had families, sharing the Gospel, and sharing the love of God with their fellow man. Being fruitful and multiplying God’s kingdom is part of man’s purpose on earth, and allows us to share in His creation, His plan, and His glory.


Want to save the planet? Don’t have children!Study finds having children is destructive to planet

  • Study finds carbon footprints are drastically reduced by not having children
  • Avoiding air travel, eating a plant-based diet and not driving a car also help 
  • Impact of having a child is calculated by taking their descendants into account 

Recycling, washing clothes at 30°C and switching to energy saving bulbs are all touted as ways to help the environment.

But if you really want to save the planet, one of the best ways is to not have children, according to a study.

Researchers said that bringing new life into the world is easily the most destructive thing you can do to the environment.  (Seriously, why would God command us to do something that would destroy His own Creation?)

Researchers found that while we are told to recycle, no government in the western world is advising its citizens to limit their number of offspring

This is the biggest impact of all possible actions you could take.

The team from Sweden’s Lund University came to this conclusion after conducting an analysis of the things individuals can do to produce less greenhouse gases.

But they found that while we are told to recycle, no government in the western world is advising its citizens to limit their number of offspring.

The study found that the other three main choices people can make in order to cut the amount of carbon dioxide they produce are to eat less meat, get rid of their car, and fly less.

The team from Sweden’s Lund University also say individual’s carbon footprint is also reduced by not driving a car.

By eating less meat and switching to a plant-based saves about 0.8 tonnes of carbon per year, the study found

After analysing 39 studies and government reports assessing the impact individual lifestyle choices make on reducing CO2 levels, the researchers concluded that many of the ‘green’ activities governments recommend – such as recycling or fitting energy-saving bulbsonly make small reductions.

Lead author Seth Wynes – who does not have any children – said: ‘There are so many factors that affect the climate impact of personal choices, but bringing all these studies side-by-side gives us confidence we’ve identified actions that make a big difference.

We found there are four actions that could result in substantial decreases in an individual’s carbon footprint: eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car-free, and having smaller families.’

He added that these actions ‘have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies’.

The study found that the other three main choices people can make in order to cut the amount of carbon dioxide they produce are to eat less meat, get rid of their car, and fly less.  (Wait, aren’t those the same ones they just mentioned?)

For example, recycling is four times less effective at reducing greenhouse gases than eating a plant-based diet, while using energy-saving bulbs is eight times less effective.

Living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes.

The impact of having a child is calculated by factoring in not only the extra impact of the child, but also that of their potential future descendants.

Ok, did you hear that? They calculate your child’s future descendants and their impact.  Just how do they determine that? Based on what factors?  IN FACT, how do they determine any of their numbers?? Do we even have a clue??  Why should we accept/believe their figures and statistics??   Bill Gates’ favorite book is “HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS”.   I learned a long time ago that you can make statistic support anything you like.  They can be very creative and easily manipulated.  That old saying “the NUMBERS don’t lie” is a HUGE LIE.

Writing in Environmental Research Letters, the authors said: ‘Persuading a US family to have one less child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as persuading 684 teenagers who do not recycle, to recycle comprehensively for the rest of their lives.’

That is not hard to believe, as we have learned that “RECYCLING” is a big joke.  The Recycling centers have been found to just dump it all in the city dump, the ocean or ship it to China where it is made into junk that ends up the same way. 

Under the Paris Agreement, of which the UK is a signatory, everyone on the planet needs to reduce their carbon footprint to just two tonnes of CO2 a year by 2050 if we are to limit global warming to just 2C.

Population Matters, of which Sir David Attenborough is the patron, has urged parents to ‘Stop at Two’.

Jody Day: People should give greater thought to parenthood
Jul 12, 2017 — The study found that by not having a child, the carbon footprint of an individual living in a developed country would be reduced on average …
The Study found that by NOT having a child, the carbon footprint of an individual living in a developed country would be reduced on average
They want you to think that they have these numbers down pat, accurately figure to the nearest decimal point, and verified and solidified based on “Science”.  The truth is they are pulling these numbers out of their but and their is NO solid evidence for their calculations.

Is Climate Change Really a Reason Not to Have Children?

Having one fewer child in a wealthy country would reduce an individual’s carbon footprint by 7.8-58.6 tonnes per year over an 80-year lifespan, depending on how you measure it .Mar 17, 2023 

Jul 11, 2017 — And by choosing to have one fewer child in their family, a person would trim their carbon footprint by a whopping 58.6 metric tons
Sep 22, 2022 — Based on this logic, the authors found that having one child adds 9,441 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of each parent.
by J Nordström2020Cited by 9 — The average couple of adults in households with children emitted 3,513.80 kg CO2 annually, the childless household emitted 3,513.80–717.98 = 2795.90

At the minute .46 mark in the above video Ms Day (at age 52) claims that we were the first generation to actually make this decision (whether to have children or not) after, you know, a few 100,000 years of human civilization when if you were having sex with a male partner, and you were young, tthe chances were that you would get pregnant unless one of you had an infertility issue. So the possibility to think about whether to become a parent is very new for women.” 

SORRY, JODY DAY, BUT YOU ARE SO WRONG.  Birth Control began all the way back in Ancient Times, not long after the Earth was created.  The knowledge came from the Fallen Angels.  It is nothing new.  THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.  

Book of Jasher 2

The Book of Jasher is a History of the Earliest Humanity.   It is validated by JESUS CHRIST who refers to it more than once while he was on the earth.  

Book of Jasher, Chapter 2

19 For in those days the sons of men began to trespass against God, and to transgress the commandments which he had commanded to Adam, to be fruitful and multiply in the earth.

20 And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they might retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.

21 And when the sons of men caused some of their wives to drink, Zillah drank with them.

22 And the child-bearing women appeared abominable in the sight of their husbands as widows,whilst their husbands lived,for to the barren ones only they were attached.

ENOCH walked with GOD.  What a testimony, especially coming from God HIMSELF.   However, beware because there were two Enochs the first from the line of CAIN, and the Second from the line of SETH.   God’s word references the Enoch in the line of SETH.  

Book of Enoch – Chapter 8

Moreover Azazyel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered. Impiety increased; fornication multiplied; and they transgressed and corrupted all their ways.

1. Semyaza, Shemyaza, Semjaza, Semiaza, Samyaza, Shemhazai – “Taught enchantments and root-cuttings.”

2. Azazel, Azazyel, Azaziel – Taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and of all sorts of dyes and all colouring tinctures, so that the world became altered.”

3. Amazarak – “Taught all the sorcerers, and dividers of roots.”

4. Armers, Armeros, Armaros – “Taught the solution of sorcery/the resolving of enchantments.”

5. Barkayal, Baraqijal, Baraqel – “Taught the observers of the stars/Astrology.”

6. Kokabel, Kawkabel, Kakabel – “Taught the science of the constellations.”

7. Ezeqeel, Ezekeel – “Taught the knowledge of the clouds.”

8. Araqiel, Arakiel – “Taught the signs of the earth.”

9. Shamsiel, Shamshiel – “Taught the signs of the sun.”

10. Sariel, Suriel, Zerachiel, Saraquel, Asardel – “Taught the motion/course of the moon.”

11. Akibeel – “Taught signs.”

12. Tamiel – “Taught astronomy.”

13. Penemue – “Taught the bitter and the sweet, the use of ink and paper.”

14. Kasdeja, Kisdeja – “Taught the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away.”

15. Gadreel – “Introduced weapons of war.”

Chapter 9 Then Michael and Gabriel, Raphael, Suryal, and Uriel, looked down from heaven, and saw the quantity of blood which was shed on earth, and all the iniquity which was done upon it, and said one to another “It is the voice of their cries”; The earth deprived of her children has cried even to the gate of heaven. And now to you, O you holy one of heaven, the souls of men complain, saying, “Obtain Justice for us with the Most High”
For more information on the Fallen and their influence on the people of earth, check out my post:
Gifts from the Fallen  Part 1


Babies Are Cute — But They Might Not Be Environmentally Friendly

A study found having one less child is the best thing an individual can do to fight global warming. But the option is rarely discussed.


Babies: They’re adorable, but they aren’t the best for the environment.

A new analysis published in Environmental Research Letters says having one less kid is over 24 times more effective at cutting carbon emissions than the second best option getting rid of your car.

Having one less child would cut an individual’s carbon emissions by 58 metric tons per year of their life. To put that in perspective, living car-free would reduce someone’s emissions by 2.4 metric tons per year.   Based on what data?  People don’t all drive the same cars or drive an equal number of miles, or maintain them in the same manner.  Whose numbers are they basing their calculations on?

It’s (having one less kid) the single best way for individuals to fight climate change, but it’s not one that gets talked about often.

The paper says the U.S. and other developed nations tend to recommend less effective actions that only have a low-to-moderate impact on emissions — things like recycling or upgrading your lightbulbs.

The researchers involved don’t think people should abandon those smaller efforts. They just want governments to address the larger factors, too.  So, they don’t want you to keep your car, or your light bulbs, or the meat in your meals.  They want you to give up everything, but MOST ESPECIALLY in ADDITION TO ALL THAT STOP HAVING KIDS!

President Trump recently pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, which aims to reduce emissions worldwide and prevent the most damaging effects of global warming.  BOY, I don’t know that I like Trump as a person or a President, but Pulling us out of the UN and the Paris Agreement was the best thing anyone has ever done for our country.  Of course, Obama had Biden put us right back in.

Although thousands of mayors worldwide, including 130 from the U.S., are still committed to the goals of the Paris accord, it may be a good time to focus on individual efforts to reduce global warming.    Oh, for sure, the only way to do that is through totalitarianism.  How else could the FORCE individuals to comply regardless of their personal preferences or religious beliefs?

The research team knows the idea of limiting offspring can be unpopular. One member said: “We recognize these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has. It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data.”

The U.S. emits the highest amount of carbon per person in the world (based on what?) , and the second highest as a country, behind China.

Top 10 polluters

However, most of this pollution comes from just a few countries: China, for example, generates around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States is responsible for almost 14%.In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.

  1. China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
  2. United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
  3. India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
  4. Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
  5. Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
  6. Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
  7. Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
  8. South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
  9. Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
  10. Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT?   First of all, CO2 is the basis of all life and not an evil element.  Secondly, we have no clue where these numbers a pulled from or what they are based upon, or who compiled the data, or how and where the data was collected.

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices

The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions.

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found.

Carbon emissions must fall to two tonnes of CO2 per person by 2050 to avoid severe global warming, but in the US and Australia emissions are currently 16 tonnes per person and in the UK seven tonnes. “That’s obviously a really big change and we wanted to show that individuals have an opportunity to be a part of that,” said Kimberly Nicholas, at Lund University in Sweden and one of the research team.

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

The figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.  Wow, that is amazing,  since each child does not live the same lifestyle, eat the same foods, or grow up to have the same number of children, so even just based on life as we know it TODAY, how are they clairvoyant enough to predict their CO2 emissions??  Then, if you consider how lifestyles and everything else will change over the coming years, how is any of their calculations valid??

The graphic shows how much CO2 can be saved through a range of different actions.

“We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,” said Nicholas. “It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.”    That is a lie!

“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

Livestock-rearing is a major cause of greenhouse gases, in part because of the methane produced by the animals.
Eat less meat to avoid dangerous global warming, scientists say
Read more

Overpopulation has been a controversial factor in the climate change debate, with some pointing out that an American is responsible for 40 times the emissions produced by a Bangladeshi and that overconsumption is the crucial issue. The new research comes a day after researchers blamed overpopulation and overconsumption on the “biological annihilation” of wildlife which has started a mass extinction of species on the planet.   Wow, I just cannot figure out how these people think we should kill all farm animals, which feed people, but we should create open range restricted strictly to WILD ANIMALS, when land shortage is one of their excuses for population control.  I guess that WILD ANIMALS don’t fart or consume natural resources. Not only that but hey are creating hybrids and resurrecting extinct species that are HUGE and Consume more and FART MORE!

Nicholas said that many of the choices had positive effects as well, such as a healthier diet, as meat consumption in developed countries is about five times higher than recommended by health authorities.
It is funny to me that they want to eliminate all farm animals in the developed countries but increase the production of meat in the undeveloped countries.

Cleaner transport also cuts air pollution, and walking and cycling can reduce obesity. “It is not a sacrifice message,” she said. “It is trying to find ways to live a good life in a way that leaves a good atmosphere for the planet. I’ve found it really positive to make many of these changes.”  It is certainly a hardship on those who are handicapped, disabled, sick or elderly.  It is also a sacrifice in that no one can travel any distance by walking or riding a bike.  So, no visiting families who live in a distant location, no travel to see sights or enjoy nature, and what do you do if there are no doctors where you live or if you need a particular specialist?  What about travel to University or to change jobs or commute?  How do you carry all your groceries?  Or move your household?  How do families travel together?  How do you pick up Grandma and take her out?

The researchers analysed dozens of sources from Europe, North America and Japan to calculate the carbon savings individuals in richer nations can make. They found getting rid of a car saved 2.4 tonnes a year, avoiding a return transatlantic flight saved 1.6 tonnes and becoming vegetarian saved 0.8 tonnes a year.  What are they basing these numbers on?  Whose car? what sized car? What kind of car?  All cars are not the same, and all owners do not use them the same. Based on how much usage and what kind of usage?  A vegetarian diet is devoid of some very important nutrients.  Especially if you don’t like beans.  It takes a lot of beans to get the amino acids you need.  And what about the vegetables?  Now they have been changed/altered. God knows what is in them and what is now missing.  Every vegetarian I have ever known is a space cadet.  Like their mind is just not functioning properly.  

Nicholas said the low-impact actions, such as recycling, were still worth doing: “All of those are good things to do. But they are more of a beginning than an end. They are certainly not sufficient to tackle the scale of the climate challenge that we face.”   Why don’t we do some studies on how much wasted money and resources as well as how much CO2 and real pollution is created by big CORPORATIONS, NASA, GOVERNMENT MILITARIES, and GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, as well as ASTROLOGICAL GROUPS and UNIVERSITIES, and Scientific Organizations and RESEARCH centers??? 

Mixed fruit and veg
How to reduce your carbon footprint
Read more

The researchers found that government advice in the US, Canada, EU and Australia rarely mentioned the high impact actions, with only the EU citing eating less meat and only Australia citing living without a car. None mentioned having one fewer child. In an analysis of school textbooks on Canada only 4% of the recommendations were high impact.

Chris Goodall, an author on low carbon living and energy, said: “The paper usefully reminds us what matters in the fight against global warming. But in some ways it will just reinforce the suspicion of the political right that the threat of climate change is simply a cover for reducing people’s freedom to live as they want.

“Population reduction would probably reduce carbon emissions but we have many other tools for getting global warming under control,” he said. “Perhaps more importantly, cutting the number of people on the planet will take hundreds of years. Emissions reduction needs to start now.”


The natural citizens of the USA have already been experiencing a decline in the numbers of births since 2007.  Such a large decrease yearly that the native born USA citizen is in danger of elimination.  With the influx of illegal immigration and the Social Security Funds being used to accommodate them, along with the struggling economy, THE USA as we knew it, may very soon disappear!  


The Mystery of the Declining U.S. Birth Rate

By  and ·February 15, 2022
University of Maryland and Wellesley College
The U.S. birth rate has fallen by 20% since 2007. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes.

US birth rate 1980 through 2020. Between 1980 and 2007, the U.S. birth rate hovered between 65 and 70 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. But it dropped by almost 20 percent around the Great Recession. As of 2020, the US birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44.

The Issue:

Up until the Great Recession, the number of babies born per woman in the United States had been quite stable for the previous three decades. The birth rate fluctuated within a relatively narrow range, often along with economic conditions, with fewer babies born during lean times and with births recovering when economic growth was stronger. However, the U.S. birth rate has fallen precipitously since the 2007 Great Recession, with no signs of reversing. This decline cannot be explained by demographic, economic, or policy changes. It is reflective of lower childbearing rates across successive cohorts.

  • A sustained decline in the birth rate would have important social and economic consequences. A temporary decline in annual birth rates does not necessarily portend social and economic challenges. However, the decline in annual birth rates in the U.S. has been ongoing for many years and as shown above, corresponds to a decline in the number of children a woman has over her lifetime, on average. This trend predicts a persistently lower fertility rate in the U.S., which, absent increased immigration, would lead to a smaller workforce and an older population. In general, a smaller workforce and an aging population would have negative implications for economic productivity and per capita income growth. In addition, the combination of a smaller workforce and an aging population puts fiscal pressure on social insurance programs, like Social Security, that rely on tax payments from current workers to pay the benefits of current retirees. Some observers point to the idea that, all else equal, a shrinking population will reduce humans’ carbon footprint, and hence have positive environmental effects. We are not aware of any evidence, though, that population declines corresponding to the size of the drop in U.S. fertility would have a meaningful effect on climate outcomes. 

Would you give up having children to save the planet?   Meet the couples who have

The environmental toll of having even one child is enormous – 58.6 tonnes of carbon each year. So is going child-free the answer to our climate crisis?


Is it Ecologically Irresponsible to Have Children? A Personal Reflection.

Larger hands giving smaller hands a ladder

I am 20 years old. I am a soon to be senior in college, and I am going to have a BS in Environmental Science by the end of 2021. I’m excited for the future. I’m excited to see what it holds. Studying the environment has taught me a lot, especially when it comes to the impacts of climate change, voting for green policies, and conserving the earth. One thing I still wonder about though is how my lasting impact and the decisions I make will affect the planet. Is it ecologically irresponsible to have children?

This isn’t something you learn in school, and again, I’m only 20, but this is still a big question mark. I wonder what the world will look like in 10 years. I wonder what new opportunities there will be. What new innovations there will be. How legislation will look. How predictions for the future of the climate might change or remain the same. And I wonder if all of this will impact my decision to have children. I want to know what factors will I take into consideration before having a child. I want to know if I should skip out on having children, because bringing a person into a world that might be too late in saving a sustainable climate, is morally wrong. As someone who studies the environment, is it hypocritical for me to procreate?

When I think about why someone like me would not want to have children, the first thing I think of is my carbon footprint. I live in a country with one of the highest per capita carbon footprints in the world, and if I were to reproduce, I would create someone with a similar footprint to mine. If a major way to stop climate change is to curb carbon emissions, my hypothetical child would just contribute to those carbon emissions. The moral argument of it all is that it’s not ethical to bring a child into a world that is quickly warming beyond dangerous temperatures that have already severely impacted our environment. No matter how much I may personally want a child, it’s not fair to subject someone to a quickly degrading planet. In the Environment Journal, one study pointed out that “A US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives” (Mortimer, 2017).   There is no way that anyone could legitimately make such a claim.  Too many variables exist in all aspects of that statement.  How can any intelligent being not see how ridiculous it is?  What 684 teenagers? Where? In what country?  What income level? What housing situation and lifestyle? How old are these teenagers?  And what about the family that cut off one child?  How could they possibly know what impact that family will have in the future.  Things could change drastically in a very short time.  How many kids does that family have now and what are their ages?  What is their lifestyle?  Where do they live…etc., etc., etc….

By not having kids, or having fewer, I could be avoiding emissions. Maybe there’s hope. According to Seth Wynes, a climate change researcher at the University of British Columbia, the top four things that can result in a significant decrease in one’s carbon footprint is a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car-free, and having smaller families (Mortimer, 2017). When reading this, realistically, I don’t think I’ll live a car-free life. Maybe I could avoid flying as much, and I could definitely switch to a plant-based diet. If having smaller families is a significant way to decrease carbon emissions, I could do that too. For example, I could have one child instead of two. But then again, if I really want to make an impact, it might be most beneficial to just not have children at all.   So, this young science student finds it easier to ignore GOD and not have children than to give up her car??   We see where her priorites lie.

I also want to consider what my hypothetical children might do in the world. I was born in 1999; climate change was happening well before I was born and will continue to happen in the future. I turned out to be someone who deeply cares about the environment and is fighting to conserve it. If I have children, there’s hope my offspring will also protect the environment and fight to end climate change. Maybe they will be able to make more progress than I ever would have, or maybe they will do the same things I am doing to minimize my impact and educate my peers. They could turn out like I did: someone who’s environmentally conscious and cares. On that end though, it might be unfair to assume things about a person you haven’t met yet.   Gee you think?  My point exactly, how can these “scientists” make judgements about an entire generation of humans they know absolutely nothing about??   They could do the exact opposite of what I would like them to do, or worse, they could not care about their environmental footprint at all.

What do I owe my children anyway? Going further than just choosing to have smaller families in order to reduce carbon emissions, do we owe it to our children to provide, or at least work toward, a habitable earth for them to live in? In an environment where severe storms, heat waves, and melting glaciers are getting worse, is it just to bring someone into the world? I don’t think it is. But then again, we have no idea what the future holds. Tatiana Schlossberg, a climate reporter who also contemplates whether to have children, mentioned in her Vanity article that “We also don’t know how we will react to climate change, and what we might ultimately do about greenhouse gas emissions” (Schlossberg, 2020). For all I know, things could get better in the next 10 years. Predictions change. One of the biggest factors in predicting the future of our climate is how humans behave. And if that’s the case, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to have kids if things get better over time.

Before doing my research, another concern that came to mind when thinking about the decision to have kids was overpopulation. I thought that having kids would mean contributing to an already overpopulated planet. This isn’t necessarily a climate change issue, but it is an important factor to look at and educate yourself on. It’s important to bring up because as someone who studies the environment, making sure I am always seeing through a social justice lens is critical when thinking of solutions to climate change and educating my peers. Reducing the global population does, over time, slow carbon emissions (Porter, 2014). One thing I’ve learned though is that the fastest growing populations are in developing countries. When developed countries say that controlling the population could help with climate change, it’s important to ask which populations they are talking about.

Countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and most European countries have had steady or declining birth rates while countries like Niger, Angola, the DRC, and Equatorial New Guinea are among the fastest-growing (Indexmundi). Developed countries asserting that controlling overpopulation is the way to save the environment not only steps into an ecofascist mindset but is reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s when rich nations’ support for population control was just another form of colonialism (Porter, 2014).

Through my ecology classes at USF, I’ve learned that the number one way to reduce population growth is expanding access to education for girls. The more girls that are educated and the longer they are educated, the less likely they are to have children at a young age and the less likely they are to have as many children. Perhaps instead of thinking that by me having kids, I would contribute to overpopulation, I could support education for girls and reframe the way I think about overpopulation. It’s critical to research your views, who’s informing those views, and to always look at things through a lens that considers all people, especially when holding privileged positions like living and being raised in the United States.

Another thing to think about is the reasoning for having children, especially for women. Am I thinking about this because of climate change or because of societal expectations for women to have children in their 20s? It’s critical to examine why I may want children and if the reasoning may be expectations that have been placed upon me. One thing I’ve noticed while researching this topic is that most articles concerning ecological responsibility and reproduction are written by women. This may suggest that women get asked more often than men whether having a child is harmful to the environment. By that alone, I wonder how fair it is for the pressure to procreate to seemingly be a women’s issue. Ecological responsibility and reproduction are important issues, but it’s not fair that I have to be the only one to think about it. Men should too. Again, when it comes to examining critical issues, especially dealing with the environment, looking at it through an social justice lens is important, especially considering women are disproportionately impacted by climate change.

The truth, from what I’ve learned, is that having kids is one of those things where there really isn’t a right or wrong answer. There isn’t some sort of guarantee you’re doing the right thing by not having them. And we don’t know how much time we have to decide. If climate policy gets better and powerful legislation is enacted to move towards a more sustainable world, then I would feel more comfortable having children. But the thing is we don’t know if that will happen, and for most prospective parents there’s a limited window when having children is an option. Perhaps I’ll wait to see how policies turn out and, around the time I’m ready, I might make my decision based on that. After reading about women in climate and their decision to have or not have kids, it seems like the ultimate decision is up to me. And that unsettling, because I have no idea what that will mean in 10 years. What I do know though is that I will try my best to protect the environment for the generations that will come after me. I will be conserving the environment and minimizing my footprint for the children who will be here long after me, whether they are mine or not. I am 20 right now, but in 10 years I hope I will have done my best to contribute to a greener, cleaner planet for the children who come after me.


Does the value of children depend on their usefulness?

Children are a gift, not a liability

March 18, 2021

Kids are cute but they’re not really eco-friendly.” This is the title of a troubling 2017 article making the rounds, and making waves, on the internet. With an image of a smiling family of five pasted front-and-center, oddly enough, Caroline Mortimer spends the entirety of her allotted space comparing having children to other “carbon emitting activities” like eating meat, driving a car, and traveling by plane. The implication is that having many kids is irresponsible and harmful to the planet.

Leaning on a study performed by Lund University in Sweden, Mortimer concludes that “having children is the most destructive thing a person can do to the environment.”   NOW, bear in mind that the Norse people believe that they are the descendants of the SNAKE/The Fallen/The Old gods.  As readers, we must not rush past this statement too quickly. While the article goes on to quote the referenced study, championing the good that would come if families have just “one fewer child,” Mortimer’s conclusion is more cut-and-dry––having children at all is destructive. As Christians, what are we to say to Mortimer’s grim assertion?

What God says about children

Mortimer presents a sort of utilitarian view of childrenthey are worthwhile only so long as their usefulness outweighs their supposed liability to the planet. In her view, and in the view of the study, because children produce something like “58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year,” they’re more damaging to the environment than eating meat or traveling. That being the case, their existence should be limited, says Mortimer.  Limited how and by Who?  Limited by Law?  Enforceable by what and/or whom?  A child’s value is not inherent in this view, but contingent on how many brothers or sisters he or she has and their cumulative carbon output.

Here are three things God says in the Bible about children.

  1. Children are loved by God

The most foundational thing in God is not some abstract quality, but the fact that he is Father,” says Michael Reeves in Delighting in the Trinity. He goes on to say, “He is Father. All the way down. Thus all that he does he does as Father. That is who he is. He creates as a Father and he rules as a Father. Children are loved by God, first and foremost, because God is Father, and God is love.

Likewise, because we know that God the Father loves his Son, the second person of the Trinity, we can be certain that he loves our sons and daughters. He sent his beloved Son into the world, after all, because he “so loved it” (John 3:16). The Scriptures are replete with references and allusions and illustrations of parental love precisely because God is not just a loving Creator, but a loving parent, “A father to the fatherless” (Psa. 68:5).

  1. Children are a gift from God

In Psalm 127, Solomon’s song declares that “children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward” (v. 3). Contrary to what is implied in the article referenced above, there is no hint here of children being a liability or encumbrance of any sort, but purely a gift from a kind and gracious God.

Furthermore, we read God’s words to Adam and Eve in the earliest pages of Scripture, telling them to “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it,” a directive that still stands. Even the phrase itself, “be fruitful,” suggests that the offspring produced through the union of man and woman is good and to be desired (like fruit), and a process by which the cultural mandate and, relatedly, the Great Commission go forward.

We are not meant to value our children based on their utility but because they have been created by God and given as a gift. We are to take joy in receiving the gift (John 16:21) and glorify our Father in heaven.

  1. Children are welcome in the kingdom of God

In a scene that must have confounded Jesus’ disciples, Jesus spoke to his followers, after they had barked at a group of children and those who accompanied them, saying, “Leave the children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to me, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt. 19:14). And before leaving, the text says that Jesus “placed his hands on them.” Children are not just welcomed into the kingdom of God, they are welcomed with a hug.

But, of course, the text does not suggest that children are only welcome in God’s kingdom. Jesus states that the kingdom of God belongs to such persons, an idea that would have been unthinkable in the first century. Children, according to Jesus, are not expendable or disposable in God’s kingdom based on some carbon output equation, but are to be emulated within the kingdom. They have something to teach us. In fact, we won’t enter God’s kingdom unless we enter as little children ourselves (Matt. 18:3).

Turn and become like children

We live in an “enlightened” generation so confused as to suggest that being fruitful and multiplying is more harmful than it is blessed. But we are not called to weigh the pros and cons of a child’s carbon footprint before we consider the unchanging words of God. This sort of equational logic has no place in ascribing value to a child.

In fact, the crux of Mortimer’s logic is entirely backward, according to Jesus. His counsel to us is not to turn children away so we can make adult decisions, from discipleship to family planning, but for adults to “turn and become like children” (Matt. 18:3), the very ones Mortimer is suggesting we disallow. Children are a gift and a blessing and a heritage, not a liability. And we have much to learn from them.

The devaluing of children is fundamentally at odds with the Christian worldview. From Jesus’ proclamation that children are welcome in the lap of God to the Apostle John’s statement that the Father calls his saints “children of God” (1 John 3:1), both physical children and spiritual children are precious and loved by the God. Rather than employing equations that suggest we sacrifice our prospective children for the sake of the planet, we should “be fruitful and multiply,” bearing children for the cause of joy, for the sake of the gospel, for the good of the nations, and, yes, for the sake of our planet. So may the children of the world abound and teach us what it means to be “great in the kingdom of heaven.”


Climate change is making people think twice about having Children.

ChristinLola | iStock | Getty Images

A growing number of people are reluctant to bring a child into a world that’s set to be ravaged by climate change in the coming decades.

This week, the United Nations issued a “code red for humanity” as the world’s leading climate scientists delivered their starkest warning yet about the deepening climate emergency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on Monday said global temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next two decades, exceeding a key target of the Paris Agreement — a landmark accord considered critically important to reduce the risk of a climate catastrophe.

Scientists’ increasingly bleak outlook for the future of the planet is putting more and more people off having children.

Analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note to investors last month that the “movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline.”

To support their argument, they pointed to surveys, academic research and Google data that shows climate change is directly and indirectly accelerating the decline in fertility rates. UCLA researchers showed that the number of births in the U.S. fell in the nine months after an extreme heat event while a study of 18,000 couples in China last year showed that climate change, and particulate pollution in particular, was associated with a 20% increased likelihood of infertility.

Some people are choosing not to have children because they fear that that doing so will amplify global warming.

Having a child is 7-times worse for the climate in CO2 emissions annually than the next 10 most discussed mitigants that individuals can do,” analysts at Morgan Stanley said.

A Swedish study, published in IOPscience in 2017, found that having one fewer child per family could save approximately 58.6 metric tons of carbon each year in developed countries.

However, Kimberley Nicholas, one of the study’s authors, said in an interview with Vox this year that reducing the population is not the way to solve the climate crisis. “It is true that more people will consume more resources and cause more greenhouse gas emissions,” she said. “But that’s not really the relevant timeframe for actually stabilizing the climate, given that we have this decade to cut emissions in half.

Enduring extreme weather

Others are concerned about extreme weather events their children may have to endure and the likely knock-on-effects. Crops could fail in some parts of the world, for example.

Daniel, a 35-year-old Brit who currently lives in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has been married to his partner for almost 12 years. They were open to the idea of having children earlier on in their relationship but now they’re less keen.

Over the last few years, the climate has definitely been a major contributor to us not wanting children,” Daniel told CNBC, requesting that his surname be left out of the story over fears that he may be targeted online by people who disagree with him.

The couple, who rely on air conditioning most of the year and like to travel, have been looking for ways to significantly offset their carbon footprint. “We thought about it quite a lot and quickly realized that adding another human being to the world would have a huge environmental impact,” Daniel said.

There is another concern that I have about all this.  They are making outrageous claims both about our impact on Climate and what should be done.  That is just a step away from outlawing certain behaviors and making mandatory compliance to others also a legal issue.  They want to take away ALL of our RIGHTS, including the right to determine our own responses.  ALL people are not the same, and so there is no way to make a standard ruling about any particular solution to the climate problem.  Some people don’t care to have babies, others feel very strongly about having children.  Some people don’t care about travel, to others it is a vital part of their job, and to others it is the way they relax and unwind.  Some people don’t care about eating meat and others prefer meat to any other food for one reason or another.  Some people don’t really need a car and others cannot survive without one, etc, etc, etc.  We should all be treated like adults with rights.  We should have options on how we want to respond, not have demands put upon us.  We are free people, by GOD’s grace. 

Children cool off in the water at a park as a heat wave hits the city on July 16, 2021 in Shenyang, Liaoning Province of China. VCG | Visual China Group | Getty Images

Prince Harry said in 2019 that he and his wife Meghan were planning to have a maximum of two children, citing environmental concerns.

The issue of bringing more people into a warming world is being discussed by people on social media with big followings.

In a 2019 Instagram live stream to her 1.5 million followers, 31-year-old New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “Basically, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children?

‘Existential angst’

Jessica Combes, a 39-year-old English teacher, told CNBC: “I refuse to bring children into the burning hellscape we call a planet.”

Combes said she has always been unsure about having children of her own. “Now, as I look at the state of the economy, shoddy global healthcare and climate change, I just feel like all my trepidation was well justified,” she said.

Some of those who already have children are also worried. Thom James, 39, a managing partner at advertising and public relations firm Havas U.K., told CNBC: “I had a major depressive episode last year based on existential angst over the world my children would be growing up in.

James has two girls aged three and six. “Worrying about their future is a frequent trigger for me,” he said. “I’m constantly thinking about when it’s going to be appropriate to dissuade them from having children of their own, as I think we’re really past the point of no return.

I don’t know if you noticed, all of these statements refer to fear, anxiety, and worry.  These are all due to a lack of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD!  When you KNOW GOD, you recognize that no matter what situation you face, HE IS IN CONTROL.  There is no need to WORRY, be FEARFUL or ANXIOUS.  TRUST GOD.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Of course, if everyone stopped having children then humanity would eventually cease to exist. A fringe group of anti-natalists believe that’s exactly what should happen, but most people don’t share this view.   EVERYONE WHO HATES GOD, LOVES DEATH.  The devil is behind all the negativity you see in the world today.  He wants to KILL, STEAL and DESTROY.  

Indeed, many people see having children as a fundamental human right and one that can bring happiness and joy to families.   It is not only a right from God but a GIFT from God, and honor and an inheritance.  YOU are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, no matter how things appear.  It is an act of FAITH in GOD!

However, the climate emergency is a result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, not population growth.

Degrowth: Is it time to live better with less?

The IPCC’s report warned that some of the climate changes researchers observed — such as continued sea level rise — were projected to be “irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years.”

The report also reaffirmed the urgent need for “strong and sustained” reductions of carbon emissions and other greenhouses gases to limit climate change.

U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres said the findings were “a code red for humanity.”

He added: “This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

At present, even as policymakers publicly acknowledge the necessity of transitioning to a low-carbon society, the world’s dependency on fossil fuels is expected to get even worse in the coming decades.

— CNBC’s Sam Meredith contributed to this report.


Kids are cute but they’re not really eco-friendly ...

Kids are cute but they're not really eco-friendly One less baby helps the planet more than giving up meat, car Caroline Mortimer sving children is the most GOOD FOR THE EARTH Avolding trans-Atlantic flights 2.8 Living car-free Washing clothes in cold water 03 Caroline Mortimer sving children is the most destructive thing & per son can to do to the envi Upgrading light bulbs i ronment, study according to a Eating a plant-based diet Researchers from Lund University in Sweden found having one fewer child per family can save "an average of 58,6 tonnes of equivalent emis sions per Eating meat, driving car and tial to reduce emissions", ap Although governments focused on increasing recycling schemes and us: ing energy efficiont light bulbs, thes methods were between four and eigh travelling by aeroplane made up the ist of the most polluting things peo- le can do to the planet But having children was top, ac- 'cording to the new study, published n the journal Environmental Re- earch Letters. ;A US family who chooses to have ne fewer child would provide the ame level of emissions reductions as 34 teenagers who choose to adopt ymprehensive recycling for the rest their lives, it said. Lead author Seth Wynes told The cal: We found there are four ac- ns that could result in substantial decreases in an individual's carbon footprint: eating plant-based diet, avoiding afr travel, living car free and having smaller families. For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of equivalent per year, while eating a based diet saves OS tonnes of equiva- lent year The paper, which studied analysed 39-peer reviewed journals studying the environmental policies of several major economles, found most govern: ments focused on incremental chang- es which have much smaller poten- times less effective than eating plant-based diet Researchers found that avoldir one Atlantic flight per year save between 0.7 and tonnes of C equivalent per year (depending on ont distance travelled, amount of luge: on board and how many passeng on the flight) whereas recycling typically only save 0.21 tonnes of equivalent per year This means cling is 3-13 times less likely to the planet than avoiding that flight. Carbon emissions must two tonnes of per person by 2 avoid severe global warming: Searchers, THE INDEPENDENT


18 Sep 2021

Kids are cute but they’re not really eco-friendly. One less baby helps the planet more than giving up meat, car Caroline Mortimer sving children is the most GOOD FOR THE EARTH Avolding trans-Atlantic flights 2.8 Living car-free Washing clothes in cold water 03 Caroline Mortimer sving children is the most destructive thing & per son can to do to the envi Upgrading light bulbs i ronment, study according to a Eating a plant-based diet Researchers from Lund University in Sweden found having one fewer child per family can save “an average of 58,6 tonnes of equivalent emis sions per Eating meat, driving car and tial to reduce emissions”, ap Although governments focused on increasing recycling schemes and us: ing energy efficiont light bulbs, thes methods were between four and eigh travelling by aeroplane made up the ist of the most polluting things peo- le can do to the planet But having children was top, ac- ‘cording to the new study, published n the journal Environmental Re- earch Letters. “A US family who chooses to have ne fewer child would provide the ame level of emissions reductions as 34 teenagers who choose to adopt ymprehensive recycling for the rest their lives,” it said. Lead author Seth Wynes told The cal: “We found there are four ac- ns that could result in substantial decreases in an individual’s carbon footprint: eating plant-based diet, avoiding afr travel, living car free and having smaller families. “For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of equivalent per year, while eating a based diet saves OS tonnes of equiva- lent year” The paper, which studied analysed 39-peer reviewed journals studying the environmental policies of several major economles, found most govern: ments focused on incremental chang- es which have “much smaller poten- times less effective than eating plant-based diet Researchers found that avoldir one Atlantic flight per year save between 0.7 and tonnes of C equivalent per year (depending on ont distance travelled, amount of luge: on board and how many passeng on the flight) whereas recycling typically only save 0.21 tonnes of equivalent per year This means cling is 3-13 times less likely to the planet than avoiding that flight. Carbon emissions must two tonnes of per person by 2 avoid severe global warming: Searchers, THE INDEPENDENT


Some researchers have claimed the best thing to do for the environment is to have fewer children. The truth is more complicated.

Christine Rösch for The Washington Post
When Meera Sanghani-Jorgensen was in her 30s, she and her husband began to discuss having children. They both wanted to have kids, but Sanghani-Jorgensen couldn’t shake the feeling that, by giving birth, she might be doing something bad for the earth.

“I wanted to have a child, 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?’ ” she said. She thought about the diapers, the party favors, the toys, and the billions of tons of carbon emissions warming the planet every year. She felt weighed down by the consumption of her children before they were even born.

After much research, Sanghani-Jorgensen and her husband decided that having a child — a single child — could fulfill their desires without putting undue burden on an overheating world. “I was very particular about only having one,” she said.

Her husband died in 2012; in the years since her daughter was born, Sanghani-Jorgensen, 48, considered having a second child many times, but always held back. “My reservation has been exactly environmental concerns,” she said. Her daughter is now 13 years old.

Meera Sanghani Jorgensen, 48, (right) and her daughter Aayushi Sanghani Jorgensen, 13, pose for a portrait on a walking trail near their home on Nov. 13, 2022. Before conceiving their daughter, Meera Sanghani Jorgensen and her late husband decided they only wanted to have one child. (Taylor Glascock for The Washington Post)

Sanghani-Jorgensen is not alone. She joins 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.

The movement isn’t huge, but it has gained widespread attention. According to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey of childless adults, 5 percent of those who cited a specific reason for not having children said it was because of “climate change/the environment.” Thoughtful essays have been written on the topic; activist groups and support networks have been formed and then dissolved. In a letter to investors last year, Morgan Stanley analysts noted that the “movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline.”

Yet research on the question has a surprising history, and some of the findings may already be out of date.

The same year that Sanghani-Jorgensen’s daughter was born, two scientists at Oregon State University published a paper estimating that each child born in the United States adds thousands of tons of carbon dioxide to their parents’ lifetime “carbon legacy.” Those findings were later repackaged in a 2017 literature review by two sustainability scientistswho calculated that opting out of having a child would reduce emissions by approximately 60 metric tons per year, an amount that positively dwarfed the other possible actions (living car free: 2.4 tons of emissions avoided; skipping one transatlantic flight: 1.6 tons). Their paper fueled intense media attention — to date, it has been downloaded more than 850,000 times.

“Want to save the planet? Have fewer children,” read one headline in the Guardian. “Science proves kids are bad for the Earth,” declared another in NBC News.

In recent years, however, some climate experts have questioned the science underpinning such calculations. Others reject the idea that parents should feel responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions of their children.

There are, no doubt, environmental consequences to having children. But the question of whether to have kids in a warming world has started to shift from fears over what children will do to the climate to fears over what the climate will do to them.

Meera Sanghani Jorgensen, 48, (right) and her daughter Aayushi Sanghani Jorgensen, 13, walk to a trail near their home on Nov. 13, 2022. Aayushi said that if she decides to be a mother when she is older, she wants to adopt. (Taylor Glascock for The Washington Post)

Since before the Industrial Revolution, the planet has warmed nearly 1.2 degrees Celsius (or 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit), thanks to the fossil fuels that humanity has unearthed and burned, sending a heavy layer of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. At the same time, the world’s population has continued to grow. In 1960, there were 3 billion people alive, a fact that caused hand-wringing and fear of worldwide famines. Last month, the world’s population reached 8 billion. According to one demographic estimate, 7 percent of all the people who have ever lived – starting from the origins of humanity about 200,000 years ago – are still alive today.   Please! They want you to believe that they not only “know” that the earth is 200,000 years old (which it is not) they also claim to know how many people have been on the earth from the very beginning until now.  Give me a BREAK!  Does anybody really swallow all their BS?

Population concerns have an unsavory history: Writers and thinkers have warned about unrestrained population growth for hundreds of years often engaging in fringe ideas about forced sterilization and eugenics of people living in developing countries. These are not fringe ideas create by writers, these are real practices still being propagated today. But in the past decade or so, the worries have been more individual, personal, and rooted in Western consumption and responsibility. As of 2020, the average American had a carbon footprint — calculated by dividing the emissions of the country by its number of inhabitants — of around 14 metric tons of CO2 per year, one of the highest in the world. (The average Indian citizen has a footprint closer to 1.77 tons per year.) Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, a professor of English at Colby College who is writing a book about reproduction and climate change, interviewed many Americans concerned about having children in an age of climate change. He found that a majority of his participants were “very” or “extremely” concerned about the carbon footprint aspect of having another child. “Adding another American to the mix is not a morally neutral act,” one respondent said.

HOW INGENIOUS OF THE ELITE!  THey have found a way to get the public to demand population control, aka Eugenics by causing so much fear about Climate Disaster that the people believe it to be the best choice. 

“Any children we have in the developed parts of the world will be incredibly environmentally expensive,” said Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University who has argued for a shift toward smaller families. “And they might go on to have kids who also consume more than their fair share.”

But the scientific data around the carbon impact of having children is relatively slim. To date, the 2009 paper by two Oregon State University scientists is the only original piece of academic research on the question. And that paper took an unusual approach. In an attempt to quantify all potential future carbon emissions of a child, the researchers assumed that a mother and father were each responsible for one-half of the emissions of their future child, one-quarter of their grandchild’s emissions, one-eighth of their great-grandchild’s emissions, and so on until the year 2400 — or until the family line died out.   So, now we not only have PRE-CRIME we have PRE-DEBT placed on parents for possible future generations!  

That assumption resulted in extremely high estimates for the carbon impact of having a child. According to the study, having a child in a developed country like Russia, the United States or Japan, would result in approximately 60 metric tons per year in CO2 emissions — an amount roughly equivalent to putting 13 gas-powered cars on the road for a year. When those numbers were compared to other individual climate actions, in the 2017 study, they looked even more stark.   So, they are lumping the US, Russia and Japan all together, dispersing the cost equally on each parent even though there are huge differences in the consumption and CO2 production of those countries.  

That idea — that having one fewer child is the most important carbon-cutting move to make — has moved into society. Schneider-Mayerson says that many of the climate-concerned individuals he surveyed were familiar with the 2009 study, or at least its central finding; some even cited it as the moment when they definitively chose to not have children.

But several experts have argued for a different approach to assessing the contribution of having a child to climate change.

First, as Schneider-Mayerson points out, the 2009 study makes the current generation responsible for emissions hundreds of years into the future; by that logic, children born today are responsible for none of their carbon emissions – nor are their children or grandchildren. “It’s the problem of double-counting,” he said. “This suggests that a person is not responsible for their emissions if their parent chose to have them which doesn’t seem appropriate.”

Moreover, the study’s central estimate of the “carbon legacy” of having a child also assumes that the world makes absolutely no progress on shifting the economy away from fossil fuels from 2009 to 2400. “It’s very egregious in that respect,” said Zeke Hausfather, the climate research lead at the payments company Stripe, who has contributed to past reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “It not only assumes that we don’t decarbonize during the life of the child, but also that we don’t decarbonize during the life of their children, or their children’s children.” (The authors of the 2009 study declined to be interviewed on the record for this story.)

And carbon footprints of people living in wealthy countries have already begun to change. According to analysis from the energy and economics firm Rhodium Group conducted for The Washington Post, an American born in 1950 will, over the course of their lives, be responsible for, on average, 19 metric tons of CO2 per year. That person will have spent most of their life using energy provided by coal and other fossil fuels and driving heavily gas-guzzling cars. On the other hand, even if the United States doesn’t pass any new climate policy between now and 2100, a child born today will have an average carbon footprint of about half of their grandparents’: that’s because renewable energy has gotten cheaper, and natural gas has largely replaced coal.

Kimberly Nicholas, a professor of sustainability science at Lund University and one of the authors of the 2017 literature review, says that she still believes it is reasonable to trace the emissions of a child through multiple generations. “I think it’s a fair comparison,” she said. But she ultimately doesn’t think that the decision to have a child should come down to carbon footprint. “The numbers are the numbers,” she said. “But what you do with them — and how they influence your decision-making — depends on the person.”

If the United States reaches its climate goals – that is, cutting emissions in half by 2030 and to zero by 2050 – the picture looks even more different. In that case, a child born today would have a carbon footprint averaged over their lives of around 2.8 tons per year, not far from a current resident of Brazil. Under that scenario, having one fewer child starts to look on a par with living car-free or skipping a transatlantic flight — significant, but not even the most important individual action one can take.

HOW INGENIOUS OF THE DEVIL!!  He has everyone living in such deep seated fear that they will buy anything he is selling.  Including their own demise.  If the world continues to reduce CO2 at such a rapid rate everything on the planet will soon be DEAD!!

(That estimate doesn’t include emissions from outside the United States, such as the carbon dioxide released to produce goods that Americans import. But if current imports and exports were taken into account, U.S. emissions would only be about 6 percent higher.)

The central issue, Hausfather said in an email, is that humans don’t cause carbon emissionsfossil fuels cause carbon emissions. A planet with only 4 billion people but an energy system still tied to oil, natural gas and coal, would still emit more carbon than the planet could handle (that is, any amount in excess of what can be absorbed by oceans and land).

And climate change needs to be addressed within the next few decades. According to one study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, even a draconian worldwide one-child policy, instituted today, would still result in about 7 billion people in the year 2100. Less than the current United Nations estimate of 11 billion, perhaps, but still enough to burn a great deal of fossil fuels.

On the flip side, if countries decarbonize by switching to clean energy, “it doesn’t matter how many people are on the planet,” Hausfather said. “It comes down to: ‘How hopeful are you that society can solve this problem?’”

Rieder, the bioethicist, argues that while deciding to have a smaller family won’t overturn the problem of climate change, it can still be an ethically sound decision. “You have a good moral reason to be part of the solution, not part of the problem — even when your part is infinitesimally small,” he said. At the same time, climate change is only one segment of the world’s environmental problemsalbeit the most existential one. Human population also encroaches on wildlife, takes up land, and a thousand other things that weigh heavily on the earth.We might be carbon neutral in a few generations,” he said. “But what about their food use and their fresh water needs?”    Ya, it is time for you to choose to stop eating and drinking…and breathing!!!  You stinky humans are a blight on the earth.  YOU ALL NEED TO DIE!!!  Sounds to me like what they are saying.

Some women reject the framing that a child is a small carbon bomb waiting to go off. Josephine Ferorelli, a yoga teacher, and Meghan Kallman, a sociologist and state senator for Rhode Island, met through a friend almost a decade ago and bonded over their concerns about children and the warming planet. They eventually founded a group known as “Conceivable Future,” a network that hosts house parties for people to discuss their feelings about the topic.

Part of their goal now, they say, is to try to help women voice — and ultimately set aside — feelings of individual guilt around having kids. They argue that individual parents aren’t responsible for a system-wide problem. “I hope that when people come to a house party with us, what they leave with is at least an unburdening of the ‘carbon footprint’ way of thinking,” Ferorelli said.

But the other side of the equation — the worry about what kind of future today’s children will experience — is more difficult to untangle. The irony is that even as the footprint of a child born in the developed world is decreasing, the impacts of climate change that child will experience are increasingand in some cases much faster than scientists had expected. All across the world are already facing days filled with choking wildfire smoke, catastrophic floods, and dangerous heat waves. A child born today will likely still be alive in 2100, at which point warming could have doubled.

Camila Thorndike, the director of policy programs at the nonprofit climate group Rewiring America, is among a growing number of people who have begun to factor climate change into their decisions about whether or not to have children, November 7, 2022, in Washington, DC. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)

Camila Thorndike, a 35-year-old who lives in Washington, D.C. and is the director of policy programs at the nonprofit climate group Rewiring America, first started thinking about climate change and having children when she was in eighth grade. She says that much of her hesitation now to have a child is rooted in fear over what their future will look like. “It’s coming partly from a place of love for my hypothetical child,” she said. “I want to protect them from suffering. Not that life is ever free from suffering, but … what of the joys and peace and goodness that make me happiest to be alive will be accessible in 20, 30, 40 years?”

Other women have ended relationships over this question. Laurel, a 33-year-old from Wisconsin who asked to be identified only by her first name, divorced her first husband partly because he wanted to have children and she, worried about a climate-changed future, didn’t want to. “With the uncertainty of the world right now – it doesn’t feel safe,” she said. “I wouldn’t want to subject my children to that.” She is now remarried to a man who also wants to stay child-free.

Such concerns have no easy answer. Many people, perhaps, would choose not to have children if they knew with certainty that extinction-level warming were right around the corner. On the flip side, more people might choose to have children if they knew with certainty that countries would rally to end greenhouse gas emissions and create a more sustainable society. The in-between is where it gets difficult. Should you still have kids if they will grow up with smoke-filled summers and steadily rising sea-levels? Should you have kids if the developed, Western world will suffer minimal losses but developing countries will suffer hugely?

Hausfather, the climate scientist, argues that climate is more of a threat multipliersomething that will make political and economic upheaval much more likely. It’s up to us to decide if it’s going to be an apocalyptic hellscape,” he said. “And it depends on a lot of factors beyond just climate change.”

Thorndike, who has gone back and forth for many years about whether or not to have children, says that she now has a lot of humility about the decision. “My perspective has changed so many times over the last 20 years,” she said. “It’s a decision that no one can make for another person. And I allow myself the space for that uncertainty.”


Several media outlets and talking heads have encouraged parents to rethink having children because human beings — even small ones like kids — risk polluting the world and causing global climate destruction.

News and op-ed headlines have come out in unabashed support of having few or even zero children over the years. One example is from NBC News Think in 2017: “Science proves kids are bad for the earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.” Another headline from the Guardian that year declared that the answer to saving the planet was simple: “Want to save the planet? Have fewer children.” Or as one New York Times writer asked in 2021: “To Breed or Not to Breed?”

A climate reporter posed a similar question to parents and parents-in-waiting in a Washington Post analysis piece this month: “Should you not have kids because of climate change? It’s complicated.”

Climate protesters demonstrate in London, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019. Protesters around the world joined rallies on Friday as a day of worldwide demonstrations calling for action against climate change began ahead of a U.N. summit in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

That analysis piece promoted climate guilt over having children, telling the story of one mother who “couldn’t shake the feeling that, by giving birth, she might be doing something bad for the earth.” As a result, she and her husband “decided that having a child — a single child — could fulfill their desires without putting undue burden on an overheating world.”

Earlier this month, ABC’s “Good Morning America” interviewed meteorologist Ginger Zee on “whether or not to have children at all.” Zee said the issue was a personal one for her, recounting a tense encounter with her sister over her decision to have a second child.

“When I was pregnant with my second child, [my sister] said in disappointment, ‘I didn’t think you were gonna do that again for the planet.’ She thought I would adopt,” Zee said.


(Credit: SWNS)

GMA featured celebrity quotes from Prince Harry and pop star Miley Cyrus in support of limiting children. Prince Harry said that he would have only two kids: “Two, maximum!” Cyrus said that “until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water, I’m not bringing in another person to deal with that.”

In Oct. 2021, CNN featured two women who expressed anxiety over having a child because of climate change. “Gen Dread” newsletter writer Britt Wray told CNN that women were feeling “spooked, anxious, [and in] some cases fully traumatized” as a result of climate change.placeholder

“I look at my children and I don’t know if they’re going to be able to live out their full lifetimes,” Wray added, recounting fears that journalists related to her about the carbon cost of children. “I’m not a parent and I will not be a parent,” University of California, Riverside associate professor Jade Sasser said on CNN. Sasser’s specialty is in “gender & sexuality studies,” according to her university profile.


A man who wants human beings to go extinct has also received promotion from the New York Times and the TV program “Dr Phil.” Voluntary Human Extinction Movement founder Les Knight was likened to Mr. Rogers in a Times profile as he calls for humans to die out.

Tall and gentle, Mr. Knight comes across as clear-eyed and thoughtful, like a mash-up of Bill Nye and Fred Rogers. While Mr. Knight may be against the creation of more humans, he shows great compassion for the ones that already exist,” the profile read.

Climate protesters demonstrate in Athens, Friday, Sept. 20, 2019. Protesters around the world joined rallies on Friday as a day of worldwide demonstrations calling for action against climate change began ahead of a U.N. summit in New York. (AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)

The debate over climate change and children also rages on other platforms, including TikTok.

One TikTok user, named “@damiensoylash,” describes himself as a “satire” artist. He has over 50,000 followers and almost a million likes on the platform and summed up the arguments for a childless world in a video from 2021: “Having children is wrong,” he said. “I won’t be having them myself because all the experts agree that the single worst thing any of us can do for the climate is to have a person, have a child.”

“That child,” he continued, “over the course of their life, will contribute 58 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. So if you care about the planet, if you care about animals and the ecosystems and the oceans and the levels of carbon, don’t have children.”

Children have figured into other emotional coverage of the issue as well. CNN’s climate correspondent Bill Weir penned a letter to his newborn son in 2020, apologizing in advance to him for breaking “your sea and your sky.”

Having Children: Is Climate Change Really a Reason Not to Have Children?

12 minute read

Updated on Friday, March 17, 2023

Should I have fewer children to lower my impact on climate change?This is a question that is often raised in the debate on how we can reduce our personal emissions

We’ll try to answer it, focusing mainly on the people who live in high-income countries. For low-income countries, we must take a different perspective, which will be covered in our course ‘A Fair World’.

On average, each person on Earth is responsible for around 5 tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year.  This, however, varies greatly depending on which country the person is in. For example, in 2019, the average person in the United States emitted over 30 times more CO₂ than the average person living in Sudan

Comparing CO₂ emissions across nations

Does having fewer children really reduce emissions?

Having one fewer child in a wealthy country would reduce an individual’s carbon footprint by 7.8-58.6 tonnes per year over an 80-year lifespan, depending on how you measure it.

That’s a lot! However, which important aspects have we not yet considered?

Remember that a person’s carbon emissions are dependent on their lifestyle choices. It’s possible for an individual to reduce emissions by changing their lifestyle or by working to reduce the emissions of others (through volunteering or work). As well as reducing your consumption, education and community engagement can lower your overall lifetime emissions and encourages others to do so at the same time!

Population Pyramids: The need for children

There are benefits to having children too! The functionality of human society is highly dependent on a healthy, working population.

Population pyramids are used to show the distribution of various age groups in a population. We can roughly categorise population pyramids into 3 types: expansive, constrictive and stationary.

Expansive Population Pyramid

“Expansive” population pyramids are often found in developing nations. These populations often have high fertility rates and lower than average life expectancies, so their populations are growing. This is common in many Asian and African countries.

Constrictive Population Pyramid

“Constrictive” population pyramids are more common in countries with higher levels of social and economic development, whose populations are shrinking and ageing like in Germany.

“Stationary” population pyramids describe populations that maintain a consistent size and structure over time, like the USA or Canada.

Stationary Population Pyramid

Which of the following countries have ageing populations?

Countries with constrictive age pyramids will likely struggle due to a shrinking workforce and an increasing cost of caring for the elderly.

Paying taxes for an ageing population

In Japan, the low birth rate has caused shifts in education, while an increasingly elderly population has forced the government to reconsider its policies regarding labor, healthcare, and taxation.

What can be done to address ageing and shrinking populations?

Well, increase the birth rate!

A key statistic to determine if a population will shrink is the total fertility rate (TFR): the average number of children per woman in her lifetime.

For a population to remain constant, a TFR of around 2.1 is needed. However, some countries have a TFR of only 0.98. How can these countries implement policies to increase this number?

In Singapore, policies have provided financial and marriage incentives, as well as support for parents to balance work and family.

Earthly’s family

Policies used in other countries include maternity/paternity leave, family allowances, and subsidized child care.

But is it ethical to have children in the age of climate change? Some argue that having children would be unethical as it would increase the amount of people contributing to climate change and expose future generations to climate-related risks.

Children are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially children in developing countries. Climate change may incur physical harm due to high temperatures, natural disasters, and decreased availability of nutritious food. Climate change may also cause mental and psychological distress, as well as decreased availability of education for some children.

Child Earthly is sad

However, policy changes and community engagement can lower children’s climate-related risks. Educating children and encouraging their participation in climate discussions can help promote sustainable development and curb individual emissions. Thus, while having children does come with risks, these risks can be lowered through lifestyle choices and policy.


Having fewer children does reduce your carbon emissions, but some countries may face significant problems if their populations continue to age and shrink.

With policy changes and innovation, the impact of each person on the environment will be lower in the future than it is today. We must advocate for policies that can lower our lifetime emissions and make lifestyle changes that are more sustainable.

If you choose to have children, empower them to discuss and work on solutions to climate change. Together you can help construct a more positive future for everyone!

Earthly and their child planting together
This lady, same one as in the video earlier in this post Jody Day: People should give greater thought to parenthood, she is obviously looking at life from a humanist view and looking to psychology and philosophy for solutions to a spiritual problem.  The idea of helping lonely, childless women find hope and meaning is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, but the solutions she offers are temporal and will not bring anything but false HOPE.
Listen to this video anyway, hear what they are saying, the content will be important for you to fully appreciate my response…  meet me on the other side. 

ALL the trials and tribulations that we go through in our life are designed to bring us to the point where we recognize our need for GOD!!  In the hope and expectation that we will CALL ON HIM!  Not just in a superficial way, as in the foxhole prayer, where even non-believers call to GOD…but in a deep and heartfelt desire to know the truth and find GOD in our situation.  
GOD is the ANSWER and you won’t find a better guide book the Holy Bible.  GOD IS HOPE!!!  ALL true HOPE comes from GOD.  
He has the solution to every one of your problems.  If you will trust HIM and learn to live your life the way GOD intended.  You will find fulfillment, joy, peace, meaning, success, deliverance, provision, protection, etc, etc., etc.  EVERYTHING!   
You probably won’t find what you thought you wanted, you will very likely be surprised at how your life will change, and you will find yourself letting go of a lot things you thought you knew.  BUT I GUARANTEE YOU WILL BE FULL OF HOPE and PEACE!  The longing in your soul will be satisfied.  No matter how dark the world appears to get around you, you will have NO FEAR!

Romans 15:13 – The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2002

May the Elohei HaTikvah (the G-d of hope) fill you with simcha (joy and gladness) and shalom (peace) in believing, that you may overflow in tikvah (hope), in the ko’ach (power) of the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit).

Romans 15:13

King James Bible Online › Romans-15-13
Romans 15:13 KJV:
Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Hebrew Word for Hope

Hope, in Hebrew tikvah, is interwoven in our fabric as human beings. It is part of our narrative. How do we find it and how do we use it? Let’s see how the Hebrew understanding of hope can answer these questions.

HaTikvah (the Hope)

The Hebrew word for hope has a lot of meaning associated with it. Maybe you’ve already heard the word tikvah, or HaTikvah (the Hope)?

In the Hebrew context, both biblically and in the modern Hebrew, hope is more than just a dream. It is an expectation, and a strong expression of faith. The Bible teaches that hope is like a rock you can rely on. You can hold fast to it and it strengthens you. 

Through Jeremiah, God promised His people that His plans are not meant for evil, but to give them “a future and a hope [tikvah] (Jeremiah 29:11). The Hebrew concept of hope is powerful. 

How is your Hope today?

This is probably not a question you ask someone frequently. And yet most of us are hoping for something. Maybe you’re looking for a change in your circumstances, hoping for a better home, a job shift, perhaps hoping for a child.

The Bible details many stories of tikvah, of hope, amongst God’s people, looking toward something greater, waiting for an answer to a prayer.

Hannah hoped and prayed for a son. Job held on to hope through his trials. Abraham in hope believed, says Romans 4. He hoped even when there was no reason to hope and God credited it to him as righteousness.

Hope looks to the future, postured for something greater. It looks with expectation that something will happen.