A man from Montana has gone to the extreme lengths of getting a vasectomy in order to “fight climate change.”
Wes Siler, a 38-year-old anti-Trump liberal, writes in OutsideOnline that as soon as he got engaged to his beautiful fiancée last year, he “started planning for the future. It wasn’t just my dog Wiley and me against the world anymore. All of a sudden, I started thinking ten to 20 or more years ahead.”
Siler then cites the wildfire that destroyed Paradise, California, in November 2018; the Woolsey Fire that wiped out parts of Malibu, and the flooding of the Mississippi River during the first six months of 2019, saying, “And, of course, the whole Donald Trump thing has been going on.”
Dailywire.com reports: Siler asks rhetorically, “Is this a world we want to bring kids into? Is this a world it’s responsible to bring kids into?” He comments that he and his fiancée “started talking about something we could do—for ourselves and to make a meaningful impact on the bigger problem. We could just forego the whole kid thing altogether.”
Siler compares the carbon emissions he’d save by relinquishing his 15 mpg pickup truck, 2.4 tons of carbon emissions a year, to what he’d save the planet by eschewing having children: around 58 tons annually, per kid. He breathes, “Any other action we could take, even all the actions we could ever possibly add up together, pale in comparison.”
Then the bottom line: “That’s because there are simply too many humans on this planet …Two people deciding to make fewer humans eliminates the entire cycle of consumption that would fuel that kid’s life.”
Some classic leftist verbiage follows: “We’re already fighting wars for oil. Many think wars for water will ne next, and those are going to hit closer to home.”
Siler describes his vasectomy: “I found a colleague’s brother here in Bozeman who performs vasectomies and made an appointment. I was afraid of getting my scrotum operated on, but the procedure ended up being quicker and less invasive than most dental appointments. I took off my pants, laid on a bed, received a local anesthetic, chatted with the doctor while he made a few incisions, then got a ride home. Once the anesthetic wore off, it felt like someone had kicked me in the balls pretty good, a feeling that dissipated over the next seven days.”
He concludes, “It might not be enough to save the polar bear, and it might not prevent the next Camp Fire, but this is the absolute biggest difference we can make.We need fewer humans, and getting there voluntarily will be an awful lot less painful than doing it with war, famine, and natural disaster.
The Daily Wire reported last March:
A women’s group in the United Kingdom called Birthstrike, apparently intimidated by reports from climate change activists that the world their children will inherit will be too terrible in which to exist, is championing women not having children at all.
Appearing on the BBC with host Victoria Derbyshire, Blythe Pepino, 33, the founder of Birthstrike and a former singer with the electronic band Vaults, stated, “There are people out there who are so scared about this that they feel they actually can’t have a family. … Our planet is in a kind of collapse; the natural world is collapsing around us and that’s actually happening right now. And I’m so disappointed by the response by authorities to this crisis and so freaked out by it, everything I’ve read, that basically last year I came to the decision that I couldn’t bring a child into that.”
Around the same time, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) pontificated, “Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, 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, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?’”