Leftists proclaim kids and pets are bad for the environment

In a bizarre essay this week, Vogue UK pretended to ask this question in earnest: "Is Having a Baby In 2021 Pure Environmental Vandalism?" The author writes about having a baby with the flippancy of filling an Amazon cart and the gloom of looming credit card debt, "Can I get away with it if I just never learn to drive, never get a dog and keep wearing the same three pairs of jeans for the rest of my life?"

The author pulls a classic bait and switch and admits her lede is meant to be simple when the answer is anything but singular. The only redeeming factor in the essay is that she winds up talking herself out of the dangerous, misleading, stupid headline and lands somewhere between nuance, common sense, and goodwill about bringing new people into a world that's not always so healthy:

"But I also believe that when it comes to the future health of the planet, the question is not one of whether or not we continue to have babies. People will always have babies. Here, there and everywhere. Instead, it is a question of how we raise those babies, of learning to live within our environmental means, of turning away from the fever of consumerism and overturning a political system that rewards a tiny rich minority at the expense of everyone else."

In "The Highlight," Vox takes humans to task for enjoying their fur babies, "Are Our Pets Gobbling Up the Planet?" The answer is yes of course, and The Highlight spends most of its space convincing humans how bad their cats and dogs are for the environment because of their "meat-based meals" and "plastic poop bags." Those pesky carnivores and their love for meat. The piece actually suggests humans make their dogs go vegan. Uh, you first, guys.

All this preening about the environment is cute, but full of pretense and empty yearning: Having babies and owning dogs are the least of our problems, for starters. According to a range of sources and statistics, other issues are far more pressing—like deforestation, air pollution, and water pollution—that's if you even believe the hype. Even if having kids is not eco-friendly, like researchers in Sweden claimed a few years ago, would we really stop bringing children into the world or would we stop polluting the earth with garbage first?

There are two reasons leftists cite kids and pets as catalysts to environmental destruction: First, Leftists want to be seen as caring about the planet because it makes them feel and look good—and they don't really have to do anything to actually resolve this dilemma because it's so complex—nearly insurmountable.

Furthermore, and more importantly, kids and pets—especially for those who don't have kids—are an eternal source of work, productivity, commitment, and ultimately joy. Pets and kids can be fun, but that's not why we have them—they're way too much work for that. If they were just fun, leftists would love them. Have you raised toddlers? Teenagers? Taught a puppy to pee outside? No, taking care of kids and even pets requires dedication, resourcefulness, and resolve. Leftists cannot have this—they thrive off unhappiness, misery, and whining, maybe a hint of the superficiality of fun.

Statistics have always shown conservatives find more meaning in life: Purpose and joy are some of the many reasons why. Kids and pets, for all their other definitions, provide these things. This is why leftists are constantly trying to condemn them using whatever means: lately it's the environment, next year it will be something else.

In his famous poem, "The Character of the Happy Warrior," William Wordsworth wrote, "The happy Warrior... is the generous Spirit, who, when brought among the tasks of real life, hath wrought upon the plan that pleased his boyish thought: whose high endeavors are an inward light that makes the path before him always bright." Sounds a bit like the joy one finds in taking your dog and your kids for a walk doesn't it?