A Precious Burden
by nate carr
Since the classic reaction upon hearing "sponsored sterilizations" is to begin convulsing uncontrollably while frothing nazi eugenic accusations from the mouth, I just want to set the record straight from the beginning. Yes, I am a proud participant of the nazi party (both old and neo), david duke is my hero, and Lord of the Rings is my favorite movie. As a card carrying member of the Master Race, my intention is to finally solve our ethnic contamination problems by forcing the lesser races to be thoroughly sterilized and sent back from whence they came. Now that I've fully disclosed my agenda, I'll proceed.
There's a fundamental flaw in many individuals' beliefs about procreation. At least eighty percent of Americans assume that there's nothing wrong with bringing a child into this world.[1] Such an assumption is simply not true. The blind assertion of such an irrational assumption adds evidence to the theory that the vast majority of people on this planet lack even the most rudimentary level of rationality and self-awareness. They are blinded by their innate biological drive to procreate at all costs. This behaviorally motivated view is not based upon logical reasoning; it's merely a cultural manifestation of an underlying biological drive to procreate. Settling down to start a family isn't a conscious goal; it's an unconscious drive to fulfill one's genetic predisposition to breed. It's the same drive that rabbits, lemmings, and roaches have (No, I'm not calling everyone who has a biological child a breeding roach...I am merely implying it).
Sometimes biological motivations run parallel with logical reasonings. The first step is to examine whether there are any logical reasons for intentionally bringing a new life into this world.
As I already mentioned, my goal in life is to propagate the Master Race. One part of propagation is preventing other inferior races/ethnicities from procreating. The other part is to increase the procreation rates of the genetically superior individuals living on our planet. Continuously impregnating fertile adolescent girls is a very risky proposition, which will likely lead to ephebophilitis, which is an insidious, incurable, degenerative disease. Sometimes, however, one has to make sacrifices for the greater good; therefore, my propagation of the Master Race is not only a logical reason to procreate, it is also a selfless one.
Looking for other logical, selfless reasons for procreation, I searched on the internet because there was a small chance that someone out there knew of at least one legitimate reason that I hadn't thought of; there were none to be found. Of course, there were numerous "reasons", but practically all of them focused on how a child would make a parent's life more enjoyable and fulfilling. Not only were these reasons devoid of selflessness, they were actually completely self serving. Children were reduced to commodities that would make life more fulfilling for the parents.
The only reason that even came close to being selfless is: Children will force you to think about the future of the world they'll inherit. On the surface, this reason may seem selfless; however, this newly created child will make the future worse by syphoning a whole diaper-load of finite resources, not to mention the lost opportunity costs, which will be discussed later.
Other than the perpetuation of the Master Race, I haven't come across any other selfless reasons whatsoever to bring a child into this world, especially given the current global circumstances. Let us examine in more detail just how much of an impact one child has on the environment.
An article published this year in Mother Jones, a popular liberal magazine, examined the current state of the world's population.[2] One segment discussed the environmental impact that a new citizen will have on the planet. Although they make the disappointingly simpleminded fallacy of measuring environmental impact using a carbon footprint model, their data can help assist us in imagining just how much of an environmental burden children are (especially ones from America).
According to the data in the article, an average American child and it's descendants will produce 6.5 times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions than an average American adult. What does this statistic mean? If someone drove a Hummer H2 for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week for their entire life, this individual would still have a smaller carbon footprint than a parent who chooses to bring just one child into this world.[3]
When considering environmental impact, it's important to identify the location of the newborn child. For example, the article states that an American child and descendants will produce 55 times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions than the average child born in India.
What follows is that even though their birth rates are significantly higher, you can hardly blame environmental destruction on the illiterate, impoverished people in Asia, Africa, and Central America. It was the Americans, Europeans, Japanese and the rest of their decadent cohorts who have pushed this planet to the brink of capitulation, and it's these same decadent, irresponsible individuals who continue to be the biggest offenders.
Now that the environmental costs have been introduced, let us explore an estimate of the actual financial costs of a typical American child. Using a calculator from babycenter.com, the average out-of-pocket expenses for an American child are approximately $200,000.[4] That's just until age eighteen. College tuition and living expenses for the next half decade or more would increase this number by many tens of thousands of dollars.
Let's not forget that those who selfishly create more strain on the planet's resources are rewarded with handouts disguised as tax deductions and credits. Americans are given an extra deduction for an additional household member totalling about $9,800.[5] A tax credit for simply having a minor in your household amounts to $16,000.[6] A tax credit for child care (including summer camp[7]) amounts to about $7,000.[8] These government handouts reduce out-of-pocket expenses to about $170,000.
The true cost of an American child is more than the out-of-pocket expenses paid by the parents or guardians. The free education a child receives is not really free. It is subsidized by the taxpayers. I calculated a very crude cost per student by simply averaging the cost per student in Ohio with a cost per student referenced by the governor of California in a radio address.[9],[10] Thirteen years of subsidized education costs the taxpayers at least $110,000 per student.[11]
The total financial cost of raising one American child is at least $310,000, with the local and federal government picking up almost half of the tab. Given a few assumptions, American parents commit at least 1.3 Trillion dollars a year,[12] half of which isn't even their money, to create a massive planetary burden, which, ironically, doesn't even make them happier.[13]
Some individuals might accuse the previous statements as being anti-child or, if they wanted to be completely absurd, anti-life. While many individuals who are anti-child might use the facts to further their agenda, sterilization is one of the most pro-child, pro-life acts that someone can do.
The simple fact is thousands of innocent, insightful, inspiring, precious, playful, precocious children die everyday. The absolute tragedy is that their deaths are completely preventable. People who care about children take responsibility for the ones that are real, that are actually existing right here, right now. People who don't care about the suffering, abused, impoverished children of the world turn their back on the living so they can selfishly create children of "their own".
The three hundred thousand dollars that it's going to take to raise that American child could be used to save at least two children throughout world. I'm not talking about simple food handouts and vaccines, I'm referring to living expenses, a quality education and quality health care, which would create a contributing, responsible member of the planet. How unethically anti-life are you when you value the non-existent life of a sperm and ovum over the lives of two living, breathing, destitute children?
The truly insulting thing is that half of the money that these parents are committing isn't even theirs, it's money forcefully stolen from everyone's paychecks. So now the few Americans who work hard and contribute to society have to watch the children of the world suffer miserable, deplorable deaths because their hard earned money, which could have saved some of the now dead children was given to the octomoms of their society.
It's quite ironic that many biological parents would accuse people like Barbara Harris[14] as being a eugenics enabler, when they are the ones actually participating in a government program that is designed to systematically encourage reproduction for certain members of society. The difference is that the ones rewarded in the American eugenic systems are the least successful, least responsible members of society.
It's likely that most Americans already agree that procreation is not necessarily a right; they just lack the self-awareness to realize it.
I ask the reader to sit right back and ponder upon the following analogy. This analogy is about a fateful trip that caused a group of strangers to be cast away on an uninhabited island. As time progressed, romantic relationships began to sprout.
One such relationship was between the former first mate, let's call him Mulligan, and a sweet girl from Kansas, let's call her Miranda May. Now, Miranda May was the sweetest of girls, but when the lights went out, she was insatiable in the hammock. Even though they were notified by the professor that the carrying capacity of the island was already maxed out, Miranda May and Mulligan chose to forgo the use of the coconut prophylactics because Mulligan complained that, "It just doesn't feel the same."
Ten Months later, Miranda May squirted out a new child.
Do Mulligan and Miranda May have the right to negligently create a new life whose existence will at the very least inconvenience, and at the very most endanger, the lives of everyone else on the island?
In a system of limited resources, those that currently exist have a right to the resources. Each step towards a maxed out carrying capacity, means that those violating the resource rights of others are more and more in the wrong. If individuals' resource right's become infringed, then these individuals have a right to peacefully prevent their resources from being syphoned away.
Given the undeniable ethical, financial, environmental, and societal reasons against procreation, what are some of the things that a society can do to discourage the Mulligans from procreating?
The very first act of legislation should be the elimination of all eugenic type tax credits and subsidies including the free education. Parents should be expected to bear the entire financial burden for the irresponsible choice that they made.
Sterilization, which will now be referred to as defertilization, should be the official stance of all local and national governments, at least until the world population has stabilized and children no longer die of preventable ailments.
Since taxpayer money is already used for family planning, the most effective planning practices should be supported. The return on investment(ROI) should be calculated for programs that give defertilization incentives to drug users and other individuals who are statistically guaranteed to be failed parents. If the ROI is substantial, then organizations like Project Prevention should be encouraged to apply for government grant money. Ostracizing and stigmatizing government representatives for rationally considering investing in incentivized defertilizations must immediately come to an end.[15]
The benefits of sterilization should be thoroughly impressed upon citizens of all ages, especially high school students. If these young adults have the capacities to consider joining the military, a decision which encompasses all the potential long-term psychological effects of blowing someone else's brains away,[16] then certainly they have the capacities to consider tubal ligation or a simple vasectomy.
It's unconscionable that individuals today still allow their biological predispositions to dictate their lives without rationally evaluating the ramifications of their behaviors. Voluntary defertilization, which might be the best single act that a world citizen can do to make the planet a better place, must be brought to the forefront when considering global solutions. As time marches on, if individuals continue to refuse to have the defertilization procedures performed voluntarily, then procedures may have to be done in an involuntary manner starting with those that are the most unethical.