Aussie vegans getting vasectomies proves the environmental movement haslost its huma

Watch
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Yes, yes its RT and its little more than a puff piece focusing on some of the more weird elements of society. However, it does raise some interesting points (that have previously been noted in other publications) about the truly insane direction the vegan movements going in.
On the one hand, great news for darwinism that such people arent passing on their genes. However, on the other hand, it does raise some interesting questions as to how on earth such simple minds have been led to the conclusion that castrating themselves will somehow "save the world" as opposed to merely providing grave humour for others.



During the pandemic Down Under it has become fashionable for young male vegans to get sterilised in the name of saving the planet. This Malthusian instinct shows that increasingly babies are viewed not as a blessing, but a curse.
Australia has long been the country with the second highest rate of vasectomies in the world. Since the beginning of the pandemic, however, the rate of sterilisation has doubled!
According to Australian psychiatrist Dr Tanveer Ahmed, young male vegans are getting the snip because they believe it helps reduce population and consumption, which benefits the environment.

The belief that newborn babies constitute a threat to the environment is not confined to Australia. Environmentalist lobby groups are busy condemning those who have large families, branding them “environmentally irresponsible.” Having children, especially lots of children, is treated as an eco-crime. Prince Harry, via the issue of Vogue edited by his wife Meghan, pushed this idea last September, with his promise to have only two children in the name of eco-sustainability.
Many young female environmentalists have also declared their decision to boycott motherhood. In the UK, they have formed the ‘BirthStrike’ movement. These activists have decided “not to bear children due to the severity of the ecological crisis and the current inaction of governing forces in the face of this existential threat.” The BirthStrike website features personal statements from individuals who think it is wrong to give birth. When you read these statements, you realise just how much this movement has become estranged from the experience of motherhood.
The idea that giving birth is some kind of crime against the environment is now even endorsed by celebrities. Miley Cyrus says millennials “don’t want to reproduce, because we know that the Earth can’t handle it.”
The BirthStrike movement is merely the most extreme and depressing manifestation of an anti-humanist culture of pessimism. As is the case with Australian male vegans opting to get the snip, what drives them is not simply a deep attachment to the environment, but also a sense of misanthropy that leads them to the conclusion that the world would be a better place if humans stopped having babies. Their view of babies as polluters of the planet seamlessly meshes with a sentiment that treats parenthood as an undesirable and ‘problematic’ goal.
READ MOREImageThe deaths of 9,000 infants in Irish homes for unwed mothers proves how little value women had in the eyes of the Catholic Church
The dehumanisation of babies illustrates the sensibility of misanthropy driving sections of the environmentalist movements. The consequences of this sentiment were shockingly brought home to me when I read an article in the Australian Medical Journal by Barry Walters, a professor of obstetric medicine.
Walters wrote that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases constitute the largest source of pollution, with by far the greatest contribution from humans in the developed world” and that “every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years.”
He went on to ask: “What then should we do as environmentally responsible medical practitioners? We should point out the consequences to all who fail to see them, including, if necessary, the ministers for health. Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a ‘Baby Levy’ in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
Depicting new motherhood as “greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour,” Walters proposed a baby tax. From this perspective, the very act of giving birth is a form of pollution!
The vegans who are getting snipped clearly got Walters’ message and are making absolutely certain they are avoiding any “greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour.” As potential polluters, babies cease to be those lovely cuddly things that bring so much joy to our lives. Robbing babies of their endearing innocence makes it easier to scare people off having them.
In centuries past, babies were depicted as a blessing, but now some argue that not having one is a blessing – at least for the environment. This reversal in the way we regard human life is explicitly advocated by the environmentalist writer Kelpie Wilson, who presents abortion as not so much a necessary option to allow women to determine their life, but as a sacrifice well worth making in the interests of the planet.
“To understand that a tiny embryo must sometimes be sacrificed for the greater good of the family or the human species as a whole is the moral high ground that we stand on today,” argues Wilson. Why? Because “we have to consider how we will live tomorrow on a resource-depleted and climate compromised planet.”

From Wilson’s perspective, abortion is morally justified as a resource-saving strategy. She believes that “most women who seek abortions do so in order to conserve resources for children they already have.” Scare stories about the “physical limits of the planet” are now being presented as “moral arguments about abortion.”
King Herod’s fear of newborns was confined to one baby. Today’s misanthropic fear merchants have a far more ambitious target – the act of human birth itself. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those who believe, far from being precious, a human life is a burden on the planet are deeply messed-up people.


https://www.rt.com/op-ed/512557-auss...environmental/
Last edited by Napp; 1 month ago
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
I mean the base principle is correct, a lower population that requires less industrial effort to support would be better for the environment, it's just that a tiny group having vasectomies is going to do f*ck-all to achieve that.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
I agree with with their principle, fewer people is more good. But as with the above it won't make a lot of difference.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by DiddyDec)
I agree with with their principle, fewer people is more good. But as with the above it won't make a lot of difference.
Mm theyre probably talking about the wrong country though. a few million aussies ( in this case) is fairly irrelevant compared to the population explosion ongoing in Africa and, to a point, in Asia. although just imagine the outrage if they actually raised such a point :lol:
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Napp)
Mm theyre probably talking about the wrong country though. a few million aussies ( in this case) is fairly irrelevant compared to the population explosion ongoing in Africa and, to a point, in Asia. although just imagine the outrage if they actually raised such a point :lol:
It would benefit developed nations to reduce population and increase automation. So many jobs could be replaced even most of mine could be better done by an AI.
Last edited by DiddyDec; 1 month ago
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
They're right in principle, a smaller population would be better for the environment. This is pretty much a non-story anyway, I doubt many vegans in Australia have got a vasectomy solely for this reason and many may have children already.

Well done for using this story as an avenue for insulting vegans, though.
0
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Well done for using this story as an avenue for insulting vegans, though.
Are you a vegan?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by caravaggio2)
Are you a vegan?
No, why?
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
On the understanding there are no follow up questions I also agree with their principle.
0
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by SHallowvale)
No, why?
Just wondered.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by SHallowvale)
They're right in principle, a smaller population would be better for the environment. This is pretty much a non-story anyway, I doubt many vegans in Australia have got a vasectomy solely for this reason and many may have children already.

Well done for using this story as an avenue for insulting vegans, though.
Thank you Although, unless you're one of lunatics getting the snip for this i fail to see how you can find it insulting? I can only apologise for apparently triggering you though?
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Napp)
Thank you Although, unless you're one of lunatics getting the snip for this i fail to see how you can find it insulting? I can only apologise for apparently triggering you though?
I don't have to be a vegan, let alone one who gets a vasectomy, to recognise that what you've said is insulting. Do you really think that calling these people "revolting elements of society", "nut jobs" and saying that they have 'faulty genes' and 'simply minds' is not at all insulting?

I'm not triggered, though honestly I'm rather surprised. I've disagreed with you in the past but I didn't expect you to be a horrible person.
1
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
Fewer imbeciles breeding.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I don't have to be a vegan, let alone one who gets a vasectomy, to recognise that what you've said is insulting. Do you really think that calling these people "revolting elements of society", "nut jobs" and saying that they have 'faulty genes' and 'simply minds' is not at all insulting?

I'm not triggered, though honestly I'm rather surprised. I've disagreed with you in the past but I didn't expect you to be a horrible person.
Mm i might have been somewhat crude in this post and i will edit it accordingly.
However, if you really take the view that there is not some sort of mental issue at play in castrating yourself for an ideology.. well.
As to 'horrible person', you're more than welcome to think whatever you so like about me. It really is of no particular importance.
0
reply
hajima
Badges: 20
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
The human population is predicted to cap short of 12 billion. In fact, it’s fairly unlikely the Earth will ever see a 12 billionth person whether a small group of delusional vegans sterilise themselves or not.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Napp)
However, if you really take the view that there is not some sort of mental issue at play in castrating yourself for an ideology.. well.
Why do you think there is some mental issue at play?
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
You know an article is sensationalised nonsense when the article body barely touches on the headline topic
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why do you think there is some mental issue at play?
Is that a joke or do you think castrating yourself for veganism is "normal"?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Napp)
Is that a joke or do you think castrating yourself for veganism is "normal"?
I don't think that it's normal, but being 'non-normal' doesn't automatically make it a mental health issue.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
You know an article is sensationalised nonsense when the article body barely touches on the headline topic
Indeed. The original source of the article doesn't even give any data on the number of vegans that are doing this. I'm guessing this is just clickbait.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Following the government's announcement, do you think you will be awarded a fair grade this year?

Yes (164)
51.25%
No (156)
48.75%

Watched Threads

View All