My own Thoughts on Climate Parenthood - Part 3

Warning, I think these are musings on population ethics without really reading or listening to so much as a primer on the subject. Please pardon any orally ingested feet.

---

Last September, Bernie Sanders got in some hot water answering a debate question on family planning in the developing world. For the most part, I think the opprobrium only came from those who were already harsh critics of his, and was pretty unfair. As such, it's about par for the course, and adds an interesting aspect to this discussion.

The fertility rate in Canada is already below replacement, meaning our population would be declining if not for immigration. This is the case in most developed countries, as you're probably aware. Nothing new here.

The economic and ethical benefits of immigration are clear, albeit not simple, and at heart I'm pretty radical on this point. My utopia is clearly a world of open borders and free movement. I think many good things would come of moving closer to that reality. As climate change driven predominantly by consumption in developed countries makes conditions in at-risk nations more perilous, this call becomes harder and harder to ignore. This includes many countries we don't normally think of being high on the immigration scale (Russia, China, Japan, Argentina, etc.)

Nevertheless, immigration to developed countries has a significant, negative effect on climate change. There is one small, obvious reason for this, and one large, hidden truth. A family living in Malaysia consumes and emits much less than one living in Canada. Other environmental impacts may be mixed, but are irrelevant to the point. If anyone is worried about having a Canadian child, you should be at least as worried about welcoming in a new Canadian family.

The second way immigration deteriorates climate change is by activating right wing political groups. This was a point recently made by Peter Singer which struck me. Immigration seems to have clearly fueled the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, and many other victories for reactionary groups, who are adamantly opposed to addressing climate change for deep reasons that I can't go into and sometimes can't fathom. Defining a low entropy thought, if you know someone's thoughts on solar panels you can probably guess their thoughts on refugees, go figure.

Does this mean I'm against immigration, of course not. If the format here makes it sound like anything more than thoughts bouncing around in my head, I apologize. Still, this isn't a case of "can't we walk and chew gum at the same time". To some extent, immigration justice and climate justice are chewing gum while brushing your teeth.

Climate change is an all-of-the-above issue, but some old ideas are clearly in the way of moving forward. The racial undertones are clearly there to frighten progressives, and religion's long shadow of condomphobia has much to answer for. However, calls for universal access to abortion and contraception should not be controversial, and searingly aren't eugenics.

I still hear an echo of it in my final thoughts on this issue, however, and it worries me of course. Nonetheless, a voluntary system of "Anyone worried about the environment, don't reproduce" seems counterproductive. We want ethical people worried about this issue for decades and centuries to come, with a proud lineage of passing on this passion. I worry that the line "the world is going to end in 12 years" doesn't help people on this point. This line from AOC is a gross simplification (read, lie) which I fear hasn't helped the movement, but we'll see.

For my part, I think I would really benefit from raising children. Do they need to be biologically related? No, I don't think so. Might they be? They might. I'm not answering THAT question right now. But I reject the premise that it's the job of concerned citizens of earth to quietly die out in protest, a glacial self-immolation. I'll leave that to the glaciers, for now.