“Good Housekeeping” Article Urges People Not to Have Children for Climate’s Sake

[Stone]

“Good Housekeeping” Article Urges People Not to Have Children for Climate’s Sake

New American | January 27, 2022
   

If you’re still under the delusion that the climate-change movement is not an anti-human, Malthusian religion whose tenets include that far fewer people on the Earth would be a good thing, consider a recent article in Good Housekeeping magazine entitled “The Biggest Thing Holding Me Back From Having Kids Is Climate Change.”

Written by Good Housekeeping senior editor Lizz Schumer, the article touches on Schumer’s and her husband’s anxiety about having children in what she termed “our rapidly warming planet.”

According to Schumer, after marriage, having children was once a foregone conclusion in her mind, even discussing how her husband purchased books about deciding when to have children. Like most young couples, having children just seemed a normal part of life — not a necessity, perhaps, but, certainly, something that most people did: create a family of their own.

Schumer explained, “When the decision felt mostly theoretical, I looked at kids the same way I did any other milestone: just another box I was expected to check along the path toward adulthood. But once it became a real possibility, I began to take stock of my place in the world and my responsibility to it.”

But the never-ending, ongoing, ubiquitous climate propaganda that we are all exposed to began to gnaw at the author and, supposedly, her husband as well.

“As we discussed having kids, Nick and I looked around at our overcrowded world and didn’t see a compelling argument to add to the population,” Schumer wrote.

Certainly, there are places on Earth that can be considered “overcrowded” — urban India; Mexico City; and Dhaka, Bangladesh, spring to mind. But is the world itself actually overcrowded? It’s one of those eye-of-the-beholder things, although the climate propagandists declare it a fact.

The article goes on to discuss climate anxiety — a malady that Psychology Today calls “an understandable reaction to one’s growing awareness of climate change and the global problems that result from damage to the ecosystem.”

It’s only “understandable” if one falls victim to the hype surrounding the issue.

Schumer discusses her own climate anxiety in vivid terms.

“For me, it’s a gathering dread as hurricane season grows longer and more intense, a pit of despair in my gut that yawns wider with every second the doomsday clock ticks down and a sense of foreboding that tells me bringing a child into this world would doom them to an existence that looks more like Mad Max: Fury Road than Sesame Street,” she writes.

“To us, it felt cruel to subject a child to what feels like a worsening world,” Schumer concluded.

Schumer’s fears are not due to reality. They are a product of believing climate propaganda. Hurricane seasons have not become longer or more intense. And the Doomsday Clock is nothing but the opinion of a fringe group of scientists struggling to maintain relevance in a post-Cold War world.

Good Housekeeping was once an American institution — seen in homes, doctors’ offices, and pretty much anywhere with a waiting room. It was a reliable source for household tips, recipes, and information on the latest diet fads. With this offering from Lizz Schumer, it has become yet another source of climate propaganda.

Articles such as this are especially troubling since we know that Schumer is not alone in her fear that mankind is destroying the climate. Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg has created her own cottage industry based on climate anxiety. Hollywood’s Leonardo DiCaprio makes ham-fisted metaphorical movies about it. Failed presidential candidate Al Gore has even won a Nobel Prize for his own contribution to the lie of impending climate disaster.

The fear of man-made climate change is pervasive and is preached from every public-school science class and every mainstream news source. It’s impossible to get away from it unless you do your own research and come to the realization that the climate change emperor has no clothes.

Schumer’s doubts about procreating are exactly what the climatistas are hoping for — a world full of anxious young people, ready to give up nearly every freedom, even having their own children, in exchange for a clean, livable planet where everyone’s needs can be met and everyone can be happy.

The sad thing for young people such as Schumer and her husband is that such a world will never exist whether they have children or not.