At least Bernie Sanders is an equal opportunity misanthrope. He doesn’t like rich people, and it turns out he doesn’t necessarily like poor people, either.

At the CNN town hall on climate change, a questioner asked the socialist senator if he’d be “courageous” enough to endorse population control to save the planet. Sanders answered “yes,” and then, after referring to abortion rights, endorsed curtailing population growth, “especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies.”

He’s looking at you, sub-Saharan Africa.

Rich Lowry mug

Rich Lowry

The Sanders riff is the latest instance of a rising anti-natalism on the left, which has gone from arguing that carbon emissions are a problem to arguing that human beings are a problem. They release carbon emissions, don’t they?

When a proposition has the support of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who questions the morality of having children, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, who has discussed punishing people for having children, it’s on the way to universal assent among a certain segment of soi-disant thoughtful progressives.

A headline in The New York Times even asked, “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?” Thus proving that, whatever our other virtues, we are at times the most ridiculous and self-loathing species.

Undergirding the anti-natalist position is the belief that we are facing a global catastrophe, such that additional babies will tip the planet into uninhabitability for everyone. This goes beyond the best evidence, and discounts the human capacity for adaptation that is one of our chief attributes.

You have free articles remaining.

Become a Member

The view that human beings are an unsustainable drain on limited resources goes back to the 18th-century thinker Thomas Malthus and, more recently, the Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich. In his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” Ehrlich thunderously pronounced, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.”

In the event, we figured out how to make agriculture more efficient and have been feeding people just fine (when not prevented from doing so by wars and other man-made calamities). Nonetheless, Ehrlich hasn’t stopped predicting the explosion of his population bomb ever since, telling The Guardian recently that the collapse of civilization is “a near certainty.”

In his original work, Ehrlich put an emphasis on overly fertile Third World countries, just as Bernie Sanders did the other night. But if consumption and carbon emissions are the concern, it’s rich people in developed countries who are the bigger problem and should be dealt with accordingly (a task for which Sanders is dismayingly well-suited).

What are we to make of an agenda that seeks to diminish the number of human beings overall and to make those who enjoy material prosperity less wealthy?

Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute notes how rising incomes — considered an unalloyed good by anyone who experiences them — invariably increase energy consumption. Insofar as a sweeping anti-development, anti-consumption program like the Green New Deal is “diametrically opposed to the aspirations of nearly all individuals,” he writes, it is “antihuman.”

At a more fundamental level, the anti-natalists have a gross materialistic view of humanity. For them, we are a series of inputs and outputs, and if one particular output is considered undesirable (in this case, carbon emissions), it reduces the value of human beings altogether. No one who isn’t a cracked ideological extremist or perversely blinkered economist actually looks at people this way. It doesn’t account for relationships or for joy, for the wondrous distinctiveness of every person, no matter how poor or humble.

People aren’t a burden; they are a resource and a gift. Any movement that regards them any other way is profoundly misguided and deeply anti-humane. Build windmills if you must, but don’t try to scare people out of having children — or much worse, facilitate abortions — in your zeal to shave some fraction of a degree off the global temperature 80 years from now.

Get News Alerts delivered directly to you.

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.


(5) comments


I'll take forum troll. Any friggin' day.

Over selfish corporate goon, out for themselves, screw local farmers, the environment and the safety of the water of our community?

Hands down. Troll I can handle. Soulless exploiting tyrants of the community? I pity you ld..

lemon drop

Once again your words mean nothing. Obviously your medication hasn't kicked in yet also there are help lines available for people with your specific conditions

lemon drop



Lowry is an idiot.

"This goes beyond the best evidence, and discounts the human capacity for adaptation that is one of our chief attributes."

We don't adapt. We infest, we pollute, we plunder and we destroy anything in our path to fulfill an unsustainable capitalist nightmare. This author is not only equally incapable of understanding the damage we do to the world around us, but also the lines of thought to try to curb the destruction to our planet.

People like Lowry are the soulless ones, like Easy and Teach. It's these typical 'business as usual' attitudes. People that could care less about a building a sustainable world. When ironically and hypocritically they want to bring more people alive to live impoverished existences on this planet, so they can bank on the debt slavery their capitalist systems are exploiting, all to make them and their cronies richer.

Think they care about children or saving lives? Tell that to our school children, the people living in poverty in Africa, the countless billions of others that will have to drink polluted water, food, live in extreme climate change, deal with blighted land, plasticated oceans and wiped ecosystems.

The big business model? And especially the right? They don't care about people, planet, friend, family, nothing. Just banking on the lives of the people around them, at the expense of the entire world's health and safety.

And they show it every time when they right drively idiotic articles like this, demonstrating how fake, how incapable of empathy and understanding they are in hiding behind a facade like, 'We need to save the children'. Yeah right u care about the children.


correction, ld and Teach, dunno why said easy, he passed on years ago...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.