Friday, November 23, 2007
The left has found a form of "activism" that is, er, self-executing:
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
She understands the meaning of life. She is just against it.
There is, though, an obvious silver lining: The right will inherit the earth.
I think it is time to extend the Darwin Awards to the offsprings... The Extended Darwin Awards.
Or maybe this is a special case of Darwin Awards? When somebody intentionally takes herself out of the common genepool?
BTW if she is so protective of the planet, then why doesn't she just kills herself? I am serious.
TH, it cannot be said better than you did:
> There is, though, an obvious silver lining:
> The right will inherit the earth.
I actually find this very depressing. Anyone who has children knows first hand what free-thinkers they are. Just because their parents are leftist-nut-cases doesn't not necessarily mean their children would be.
Plus, kids rock.
Call me old fashioned I guess.
That woman is going to come to deeply regret her choice IMO.
Boy, if this isn't the ultimate extension of the usually-quite-a-bit-better-veiled anti-human subtext in so much of environmentalism, I don't know what is.
Truly bizarre. Just as well-heeled liberals rail against wealth and possessions, earnestly urging everyone else to get rid of theirs, so a healthy, well-educated (for all the good that did) young woman at the peak of her life rails against life itself. And so makes the courageous choice to take another potential source of tax revenue out of the coffers of the welfare system she will doubtless be among the most strident to claim as her birthright. And, by the way, gets to spend quite a bit more money on herself without the responsibility of a little human to feed.
Cordwainer Smith wrote about a far future space culture, where, as a right of passage, a person was hypnotised and given truth serum, then asked a very secret sacred question. "Do you think you should continue to live?" If the absolutely truthful answer was, "Yes", then the person would have their memory of the event erased and be returned as a successful new adult. Otherwise they would be painlessly killed.
The logical fallacy being promoted by Toni Vernelli and her philosophical cohort is that, if you chose to eliminate your contribution to the gene pool, you are choosing to condemn everything about yourself as "unfit". You are insuring that the future will be less likely to include people like yourself and people who think like you. The logically correct response is to assess yourself, and, if you admire your own genes, you should reproduce to that extent. If you admire your own memes, then, for the good of all, you should teach. If you don't like anything about yourself, then maybe you should consider changing yourself.
It doesn't make sense to eliminate your influence on the world in order to impress your friends and confound your enemies. It is, as you suggest, a form of suicide, and just as self-centered.