| Society’s Two Greatest Insanities May Cure Themselves |
Two news stories caught my attention recently, and in a strange way, I think they’re connected.
Consider, first, the distraught words of Jia Tolento, writing in the New Yorker, 7/10/23.
It may be impossible to seriously consider the reality of climate change for longer than ninety seconds without feeling depressed, angry, guilty, grief-stricken, or simply insane. . . .
Reading a climate report on my phone in the early hours of the morning, I went into a standard-issue emotional spiral thinking about it all. The next morning, [my boyfriend and I] drew up a list of thirty action items for us to consider, ranging from phone banking to ceasing international travel to committing eco-sabotage.
We had recently had a baby, whose carbon footprint likely already exceeded that of entire villages in Burundi. I was playing whack-a-mole with my consumer desires. Every day, I felt like a self-serving piece of s—.
. . . I also spoke with psychologists, activists, and others about what are sometimes called “climate emotions,” in an effort to consider the principles of climate therapy. I was drawn to the idea that the right kind of therapist could channel such emotions in a way that prompted serious and sustained efforts to combat climate change. I was also wary of the possibility that a therapist would simply dispel those feelings, helping me to feel more calm about a world on fire. If the goal is for the planet to remain habitable into the next century, what is the right degree of panic, and how do you bear it?
Now before you dismiss these as merely the ravings of an angst-ridden eco-loon most likely living on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, consider the broader picture. We have a rapidly increasing class of low-information intellectuals (oxymoron intended), who are working themselves up into a fever over climate change. These folks increasingly talk about not reproducing, because (a) any kids they have would contribute to “a planet on fire,” and (b) what kind of parent would bring children into such a world in the first place?
From CNBC: Analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note to investors last month that the “movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline.”
Well how ‘bout that?
Now, in what may look like shifting subjects but maybe isn’t, consider these remarks from Congressman Dan Crenshaw, to his Democratic colleagues in a House hearing, Friday, blasting them for defending sex change surgery for children.
“I am not the one who is cruel. Doing a double mastectomy on a 12-year-old girl. That’s cruel. Castrating a ten-year-old boy. That’s cruel. Putting them on permanent hormone therapy and puberty blockers that could prevent them from ever having children permanently changing their physiology. There’s a cruelty to that for sure. We are not the crazy ones here.”
Crenshaw cited a 45,000% increase in transition surgeries at hospitals that conduct the procedures.
Think that’s a scary statistic? How about this one? 40% of the student body these days, at Liberal Arts colleges, now identify as LGBT+ according to a recent study. 40% is a lot, but that includes 61% at Wellesley, and 70% at Smith.
Can you imagine being an incoming freshman at either of those institutions, knowing roughly 2/3rds of your classmates are either gay or trans? Nice dating pool, huh? Actually, that’s not quite fair. Both of those colleges are women-only or at least were, so enrollees are likely not going there to find dates. That said, these days both Wellesley and Smith admit dudes who are pretending to be women. Now those lucky bastards might have some interesting romantic opportunities given the utter lack of competition on campus. Although would a “trans-woman” (i.e. a man) have to pretend to be a gay trans-woman to attract a mate at Wellesley? As I’ve noted before, it must get very confusing.
Anyway, how are these two stories connected?
Well, on the one hand we have climate fears causing a rapid decline in fertility, and on the other we have a 45,000% increase in young people cutting off their reproductive organs. What do both groups have in common? Neither is going to be passing on their genetic material. They’re proactively removing themselves from the gene pool.
In an odd way, you can make the case that this is the best possible news. Think about it. Those people who’ve fallen victim to the greatest hoax in human history (“climate change is destroying the Earth and we’re all going to die”) and those who’ve somehow convinced themselves they were born with the wrong genitalia, can both be presumed to have mental issues that probably extend down to a DNA level. Put another way, are these not precisely the people a rational society would prefer not to see reproduce?
Or put yet another way, might it be possible that the two greatest societal insanities of modern times, climaphobia and sex-change surgeries, are actually SELF CORRECTING?
Rather than try to fight these trends, might it make more sense to sit back and let them play out benignly? Jump ahead a generation or two, and the gene pool will consist almost exclusively of people not genetically susceptible to either affliction.
My goal is not to get in touch with my inner-eugenicist. Only someone with a heart of stone would not feel compassion towards those who feel they must remove their reproductive organs, or forego children because of carbon footprints. But what we’re talking about here is simply recognizing that what these people want to do is perhaps not something we should discourage–let alone prohibit.
If we’re patient, simple biology may solve both gender dysphoria and climaphobia in future generations.
Jacques Voorhees 