According to the timely July 14 article in the Washington Post by Erica Gies, “Having kids is terrible for the environment, so I’m not having any: The population explosion and climate change are linked. I want to do my part,” “An American woman driving a more fuel-efficient car, improving the energy efficiency of her house, recycling, and making similar lifestyle changes would save 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, while choosing to have one less child would save 9,441 tons.” [Or 18.8 million lbs., whichever sounds worse.]
If you’re thinking of adding another baby to this morbidly over-crowded planet, please do the world a favor: don’t. Or at least think first of the other species your little monster love-child would crowd off the Earth.
Sure, you plan to raise it right; but there’s still an even chance the little bundle of joy will turn out to be the next Hitler, George W. or Ted Nugent rather than another Jesus, Einstein or Gandhi. The world needs more bison and prairie dogs, more moose, elk and wolves, more salmon, smelt and sea lions, more swans, snow geese and pelicans—more biodiversity—not another climate-warming, Earth-gobbling human baby.
Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2015. All Rights Reserved
Exposing the Big Game 
Absolutely, positively could not agree more. We often hear that old saw about a child prevented might have been another Sophocles or Shakespeare or Bach. Fat chance! As noted, the chances would be more likely for a Ted Nugent or Jihadi John. As for the others that are really missing–the moose, the swans, the snow geese, et al.–there would be more if we’d quit killing them.
BYW, one of my all-time favorite photos. Wish prints were available at Art.com or somewhere.
Thanks, you can contact me for photos exposingthebiggame@gmail.com or check out more images here: http://www.all-creatures.org/aw/
Too many chimpoids – not enough fuggin’ WILDLIFE !!!! 😡 😡