Blue Crab Boulevard

The Secular Shakers

The Shakers built 19 communal settlements that attracted some 200,000 converts over the next century. Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers maintained their numbers through conversion and adoption of orphans. Turnover was very high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1840, but now has only four members left.
(Wikipedia, Shakers)

The Daily Mail details the stories of two women in Britain who have decided never to have children – in order to save the planet. They hit it right on the head, obliquely, early on in the article.

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni – who works for an environmental charity – "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

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. (Emphasis added)

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

There is nothing "almost" about it – it is a religious zeal. It is very similar in nature to the zeal that drove the Shakers. Sure, it does not preach celibacy, per se, but it does deem reproduction as essentially sinful, just against a different God, so to speak. On the bright side, ideas like this tend to die out rather rapidly for obvious reasons. See, there's an upside to everything.

Others taking potshots at this (via Memeorandum): Protein Wisdom (Dan Collins): She’s [Toni Vernelli] a major figure in both PETA and VIVA! (In other words, she is much more of an extremist than the Mail reveals.)

Jawa Report (Bluto): Actually, Toni is protecting the planet – just not in the way she thinks. We already have a surplus of imbeciles.

Hot Air: The greatest gift you can give Gaia is the gift of extinction…

Don Surber: If this keeps up, over time we will rid the planet of people who think of mankind as a scourge. Darwin rocks.

Sundries Shack: At minimum, it’ll certainly be a lot quieter without all the weeping and gnashing of teeth the eco-crazies do so well.

Newsbusters: Quite the contrary, I believe successful members of a species that decline to replicate their genes are being selfish as most of them do it for their own personal interests and not those of the species.

Neptunus Lex: Still, it makes you wonder: If a tree is felled in the rain forest, and there aren’t any greens left to hear about it, are we done reading these kinds of ridiculous stories?

Classical Values: I'm glad this is just another silly idea that's not going anywhere, because I'd hate to think that the people who "voluntarily" complied with this new moral code might get sick of putting up with those who haven't.

Jules Crittenden: Good news! They’re not reproducing.

Steven Taylor: Being a father of three (and therefore an eco-criminal from Ms. Vernelli’s point of view, I guess), I have to say that only someone without children can call parenting a selfish act.

Mommy Life: More good news. This woman is not reproducing:

Colossus of Rhodey: Save the planet – self extinguish the human race.

Crunchy Con: Are children pollution?

Charlie Foxtrot: Anyone want to bet that our girl Toni has a Che T-Shirt somewhere in her wardrobe? (Ed. Note: Well, she certainly has PETA shirts.)

Stand Firm: In the meantime, we should all be having more babies…

Bits Blog: Without question in my mind this is a religious fervor that they view all this with.

Damn Yankee Infidel: "Eissfeldt further concluded that the Hebrew writings were not talking about a god Moloch at all, but about the molk or mulk sacrifice, that the abomination was not in worshipping a god Molech who demanded children be sacrificed to him, but in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk"

Environment, World news | Gaius November 23, 2007

By Americaneocon, November 23, 2007 @ 1:11 pm

Interesting interpretation. However one looks at this, it’s not a good picture for the demographic health of the industrialized democracies.

The growth of postmaterialist ideology is a well-studied phenomenon in the political science literature. According to Ronald Inglehart, following World War II, as the Western industrialized democracies recovered from material hardship and deprivation, many in the younger generations coming of age rejected the societal ethos of materialistic consumption in favor of more progressive views on environmentalism and the support for non-traditional values.

The decisions cited here, of the women to denounce childbearing as a threat to the survival of the world, is explicable according to this paradigm. Still, these views could be seen as representing the ideological demonization of childbearing. Without all those kids in tow, suburban moms won’t need those big, carbon-busting SUVs!
By sam, November 23, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

I read this article linked from Pajamas Media and left a comment on the Daily Mail website thanking Toni and the others quoted in the article for saving the planet for my children and grandchildren. I also quoted Mark Steyn: “The future belongs to those who show up for it.”
By obeatiologist, November 23, 2007 @ 2:32 pm

This story worries me. A couple of premises that I see popping up here are a) this is her right to feel this way and b) she will just be ridding the planet of people like herself who view humanity as a scourge by not reproducing. Both are problematic for me. Firstly, although it is anyones right not to reproduce what makes you think she’s going to be happy living out her life and just not reproducing? She (or someone like her) isn’t going to stop there. If that was the case, there wouldn’t be a story b/c there would be no notions of a higher calling to this woman’s decision. What would be special about a woman that doesn’t want to have a child? Thats “dog bites man”. However, this woman is saving the planet by her actions. And sooner or later she’s going to start saving the planet by affecting your actions. Its starts with lobbying groups pressuring governments to restrict the number of children you can have and it ends with things that are far worse, directly reducing the worlds population for the sake of gaia. Secondly, this is not a genetically inheritable trait that is going to die with her. How could it be? If this was an inheritable trait, her parents would’ve had it and therefore never had her. Unless of course its recessive, but you get my point. This has very little to do with genetics, and everything to do with a social mentality of apologizing to the universe for your existence. This ideas won’t die with her, they spread the same way all ideas do. I have no idea how serious people like this are or how many there are, but this sort of mentality is potentially dangerous.
By McGehee, November 23, 2007 @ 5:48 pm

In response to obeatiologist, I would merely point to the beginning of the post and ask, “How influential are the Shakers today?”
By fletch, November 23, 2007 @ 8:30 pm

Gaius-

On the bright side, ideas like this tend to die out rather rapidly for obvious reasons.

Unless they keep breeding… Reasearch the “Hapsburg lip”- (and the current rulers of England) )

I will admit my “prejudice” as a “non-breeding” hetero…

But, I stiil live -(where I live):
-”inner cities” where a 75% “graduation rate” is a cause for celebration,
-$13K/student/yr elementary schools (where 30+% will “drop out” before 10th grade),
-Almost 60% of the 35% ‘college-bound’ HS grads who attend college will be required to take at least one “remedial” (i.e.- “HS- level”) class. (Math and/or Basic English ‘Composition’),
-In 10% of all schools in the District- 99% of the 4th graders cannot pass a 4th grade skills test in Math or English… (yet, 80% of those ‘failures’ will be ‘promoted’ to 5th grade– and 10% will ‘graduate’ while still being unable to pass a 9th grade skills test after 7 attempts…)
By Gaius, November 23, 2007 @ 8:52 pm

But you’re now into a nature versus nurture argument. Is it the people or the “education” they are receiving?

I suspect the latter is lacking.