Contrasting such claims with relevant facts can avoid the hiding of liability for mounting deaths as the climate crisis escalates, and can incentivize life-saving changes in messaging and behavior. It can avoid misinformation that drives the fantasy world of accurate costs and benefits that ensured the crisis and now minimizes climate reparations.
Many involved in the Fair Start movement had to, in prior employments at nonprofits, governments, media corporations, and universities, omit crucial facts about inequitable growth impacts that were actually undoing the public benefits the organizations claimed to create, and as such helped illegally enrich mostly white children at deadly cost to millions of children of color – hiding massive liability and skewing the baseline for crucial climate reparations.
In one case a member of a prominent and wealthy family funding animal and environmental law projects insisted on omitting the role inequity and growth on their charitable impacts claims, knowing these omissions were hiding drivers doing more harm to animals than the funder’s work has done good. They feared how full-spectrum evaluations of claims, costs and benefits, around the climate and related crises, would impact the family’s wealth.
These organizations show prioritization of growth over equity, exploiting children’s birth positionality – including race positionality – in ways that are killing millions, and could kill hundreds of millions of persons and untold numbers of animals.
There is a difference between those who choose a system of inequitable and exploitative birth and developmental positionality, which is the largest driver of nonhuman suffering, and those who do not. Those who choose the former, often oblivious rich kids who want to performatively help animals while ignoring that on balance they harm them, is the nonsense that created the climate crisis.
Why It Matters
How can we ask those like Exxon to admit full impacts, back true liberty via degrowth, and change course towards restoration and measurable legitimacy/equity, if the most key social justice movements – the ethos of which demands the change – does not?
How is it not racist to back a system of birth entitlements where children of color get a tenth or less of the wealth as white kids, are largely excluded from the political system, and bear the deadly cost of an ecocide they did not create? We would and should ostracize anyone who refused to hire black people. Why not identify, reform or if they cannot be reformed, ostracize anyone backing largely old white make billionaires whose wealth is being made at deadly cost to millions of black children, wealth that could be moved to still save lives? There is a bright line test for this sort of racist, based on whether one supports universal birth equity or not, now pending before the United Nations.
Take action: Ensure the organizations you work with specifically account for the impact of growth, and growth-over-equity policies, on animals and the environment, wherever making claims about specific beneficial impacts achieved through targeted interventions, and in claims using the term “sustainable” or comparable standards.
Leaders and organizations either support accurate claims that include the key contexts and standards, as well as fundamental fairness where we we all move towards not benefitting at cost to the welfare and self-determination of others, or they do not.
Decoy nonprofits do this by making claims that hide key factors, like inequity and growth.
Greenwashing is generally when someone conveys a false impression or misleading information about how a company’s products or services are environmentally sound. Often it involves using terms like green, sustainable, humane, safe, or regenerative, etc. when those making the claim are on balance harming the environment.
One of the worst forms of greenwashing is called growthwashing, or hiding the impact of population growth when making a claim. When a company or nonprofit makes any claim related to the environment, check to see if they are accounting for the way outdated family policy, and the growth it creates, is undoing that progress. The claims usually omit the fact that population growth is undoing the what is being claimed, increasing demand and consumption in a way that is causing ecocide.
That means those making the claims chose family policies that put more animals in factory farms, research labs, and puppy mills, ensured more children would be born and raised in conditions of abuse, suffering and deprivation, and policies that also ensured each person had less of a voice in their political systems – the systems many groups point to as the best source of change.
The growth many claims hid (and sometimes promoted) undid roughly three-quarters of the reductions in carbon emissions achieved since 1990 by increased efficiency and alternative energy production.
Many involved in the Fair Start movement had to, in prior employments at nonprofits, governments, media corporations, and universities, omit crucial facts about inequitable growth impacts that were actually undoing the public benefits the organizations claimed to create, and as such helped illegally enrich mostly white children at deadly cost to millions of children of color – hiding massive liability and skewing the baseline for crucial climate reparations.
In one case a member of a prominent and wealthy family funding animal law projects insisted on omitting the role inequity and growth on their charitable impacts claims, knowing these omissions were hiding drivers doing more harm to animals than the funder’s work has done good. They feared how full-spectrum evaluations of claims, costs and benefits, around the climate and related crises, would impact the family’s wealth.
Grist is a nonprofit media organization that makes this claim:
Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to highlighting climate solutions and uncovering environmental injustices.
Facts:
On any given day Grist made claims about someone or some action creating benefits in terms of ecological protection, those claims were being undone as children entered the world under without entitlements to minimum levels of welfare, share equity in their democracies (equity, like equity in a company, where you have a measurably equal and influential role in outcomes) or entitlements to the legitimate political systems that derive from the share equity of their members.
To further values like ecological protection, entities like Grist would need to include those values in the first premise of who humans should be and become in terms of the creation of basic power relations, and entities undo the values if they do not include them. While including those values in the premise is not popular with funders or seemingly progressive media whose wealth derives from inequity, that does not change the reality of the impacts – including suffering and death – and the justice owed for those impacts.
An entity either starts with a measurably inclusive and thus liberating system that accounts for the birth, developmental and emancipatory positionality of its members, and relative costs and benefits, or they do not.
There is no evidence Grist factors in equity in its coverage, and much evidence that they omit the impacts of inequity.
Many involved in the Fair Start movement had to, in prior employments at nonprofits, governments, media corporations, and universities, omit crucial facts about inequitable growth impacts that were actually undoing the public benefits the organizations claimed to create, and as such helped illegally enrich mostly white children at deadly cost to millions of children of color – hiding massive liability and skewing the baseline for crucial climate reparations.
In one case a member of a prominent and wealthy family funding animal law projects insisted on omitting the role inequity and growth on their charitable impacts claims, knowing these omissions were hiding drivers doing more harm to animals than the funder’s work has done good. They feared how full-spectrum evaluations of claims, costs and benefits, around the climate and related crises, would impact the family’s wealth.
Not orienting from equity risks millions of lives as well as trillions of dollars in climate reparations, and illegitimates political systems by treating subjects as means bound in inequity, rather than empowered ends from whom governance derives. If one wanted to decolonize wealth and the future, one would have to start from a position of not punching down on children and animals – and that requires a constitutive threshold.
Many involved in the Fair Start movement had to, in prior employments at nonprofits, governments, media corporations, and universities, omit crucial facts about inequitable growth impacts that were actually undoing the public benefits the organizations claimed to create, and as such helped illegally enrich mostly white children at deadly cost to millions of children of color – hiding massive liability and skewing the baseline for crucial climate reparations.
In one case a member of a prominent and wealthy family funding animal rights projects insisted on omitting the role inequity and growth on their charitable impacts claims, knowing these omissions were hiding drivers doing more harm to animals than the funder’s work has done good. They feared how full-spectrum evaluations of claims, costs and benefits, around the climate and related crises, would impact the family’s wealth.
TAKE ACTION: URGE THE LEAD AT GRIST TO COVER ISSUES AND STORIES IN A WAY THAT INCLUDES EQUITY AND ITS ROLE IN DETERMINING OUTCOMES.
Fraud Includes Omitting Facts Regarding the Largest Drivers of the Issue Being Discussed, Facts Which Matter Most to the Most Vulnerable
The claims many of these entities make to creating benefits are cancelled out every day as children enter the world in ways that degrade their ecologies, and without the resources they need. For example, wealthy families will often fund animal protection organizations that choose low-impact policies that avoid revealing the impacts of children entering the world on animals, even if that process does more harm to animals than the organizations are doing good.
These are the entitlements that comprise a measurable capacity to engage in democracy (which as the climate crisis unfolds is better understood as physically baselined share equity – equity, like equity in a company, where you have a measurably equal and influential role in outcome) and beneath minimum rights-based thresholds of wellbeing, thereby degrading their own environment and the legitimacy of their political systems, and exacerbating the climate and other crises we see today.
This is the fundamental driver of the crises we see today.
An editor at a major U.S. media outlet told Fair Start activists that the outlet would never cover the full impacts of growth on animals, while simultaneously covering sensational but low-impact animal rights campaigns. The campaigns are funded by a wealthy family that made money on growth-based food investments which, on balance, did more harm to animals than the family’s philanthropy has done good. The outlet routinely published media urging women to have children, with no safeguards, during the climate crisis, and misleading articles criticizing the idea of equality of opportunity and minimizing the role of family wealth in controlling United States politics. Environmental and animal protection funders, nonprofits, and their media did more to empower the industries they claimed to oppose than the victims they claimed to represent.
Would it not be better to actually benefit nonhumans, and humans, on balance?
Why the Entry of Children Into the World Matters Most
Systems ensuring children entering the world as such – without share equity entitlements – degraded your ecological and social self-determination, and that of the children born, because the systems are using the children for economic growth rather than treating them as the constituents of democracy.
Nations cannot legitimately assign entitlements without continuously constituting themselves in way the measurably empowers each citizen. It’s called share equity – which again is like equity in a company, where you have a measurably equal and influential role in outcomes.But right now most nations treat their constituents as economic inputs, consumers and workers designed for growth, rather than citizens with an equal and effective voice in their political systems. Governments take a share of wealth in the form of taxes, rather than justly entitling it first to ensuring the entry threshold for children.
Many involved in Fair Start work were paid by their employers to omit from public statements how growth was undoing the claimed benefits for animals, and other EA favored outcomes, and enriching mostly white children at deadly cost to black children. These employers were often funded by interests that benefitted from growth, e.g., vegan food investors.
TAKE ACTION AND KNOW HOW TO MEASURE AND COLLECT THE THE DAMAGES CORRECTLY FOR WHAT YOU ARE OWED:
All policy starts with who we should be, or children’s rights and the line or threshold of true self-determination below which children should not be born, and above which children may be born. You either agree to that line as a primary obligation or not.
That line is set to a threshold of zero based on hard metrics linked to physical conditions in the world, and it is much is easier to see and achieve in a collective setting like care modeling than a nuclear family. This is a binary choice between acting obligated towards bottom-up systems of investment and inclusion, or top-down systems of governmental violence that exploit low levels of child welfare to create growth that kills animals and destroys nature.
For truly free persons who wish to orient their lives based on a system of being empowered with share equity rather than living under extreme wealth entitlements made via inequity, backed by state violence that cannot be justified, there is no obligation that comes before ensuring the thresholds for being and development, described below. Doing so constitutes freedom at the first border of power, a border that overrides and precedes national borders.
We owe our first obligations to the governed, and the future majority, and never the government which has no inherent authority – especially not to protect concentrations of wealth and power, and those that lie for them. Why focus on Singer? Animal liberation, and the legal system necessary to achieve it, is perhaps the highest ideal of human progress to date. Defining that idea in a way that evades critical protections for nonhumans, and enables today’s catastrophic state of affairs, causes harm by decoying efforts away from effective work.
Here are eight metrics, and how then can be used to assure share equity entitlements, including reparations for climate harms.
Again, they set line, linked to physical conditions in the world, that creates a binary choice between acting obligated towards bottom-up systems of investment and inclusion, or top-down systems of governmental violence that exploit low levels of child welfare to create growth that kills animals and destroys nature.
We cannot evade impacting all these values when we have children. For those who made fraudulent claims that are being undone relative to these metrics, and who choose to benefit at deadly cost to others, consider the horror stories at the end of each values when engaging to hold them accountable for choosing fundamental injustice.
This is not intersectionality. Think of the values below all together as different sides of what it means to be free. Many children die every day because they are born without these entitlements, and all are inseparable and determined when we have children above or below the specific line of ecosocial inclusivity.
Welfare – ensuring things like health, nutritional and educational outcomes that are measured based on the world as it would have been had the United Nations in1948 actually used self-determination – rather than reproductive isolation of families – as the standard for who we should be. Google terms like “conviction” with terms “child abuse” and “child torture.” Those refusing a threshold benefitted from the suffering your are reading about to make money on things like growth-driven investments.
Nature/environment (e.g., measurable emissions) – limiting emissions to levels that would not have caused the crisis, generally less than 280 ppm, and requiring the restoration of full biodiversity towards optimal ranges consistent with low-end UN growth projections. Current growth and wealth-based high emissions standards have already dilled millions. How should we treat those willing to choose a standard from which they benefit, but that kills others?
Having an equal and influential share to determine all laws, including constitutional provisions – limiting representative ratios to those fitting with low-end UN growth projections. When some choose to other-determine rather than self-determine, by choosing economic families over democratic ones, it robs you of your freedom. How do free persons deal with such threats, and how have they in the past?
Self-determination, or share equity, to limit the influence others have over you – Whether you are free requires an amalgamation of the other metrics above. How could your self-determination not be limited by those entering the world? In this value, It would not seem to be limited if the average person were not really being empowered at birth, but being exploited by others. Many died defending notions of freedom that were less clear than what has been laid out here.
Today children are being born in a way that harms their environment and deprives them of the resources they need to deal with that as well as crushing social inequity, a fact that reverses the impacts claimed by almost anyone claiming to do good.
With a billion deaths forecast from the climate crisis, its clear nations have failed to comply – fundamentally because they flouted human rights in the laws and policies surrounding child welfare, exploiting children for economic growth rather than investing in them heavily to make them self-determining citizens in functional democracies – measurable on simple equity metrics.
Nations have no legitimate authority to defend concentrations of wealth and power built at deadly cost to others when demands are made to use portions of the wealth and power to save the lives they threaten.
That not only set environmental catastrophe in motion, but in ensured the mostly white, rich children of investors benefitting at deadly cost to millions of black children. It also prevented changing things through democratic processes – which again is like equity in a company, where you have a measurably equal and influential role in outcomes – because each person’s share was reduced and their capacity for impact diluted. And even in the last few decades, when the crisis was unfolding, those families funded dishonest charities to lie about what was going on.
Why is this not commonly understood? In part because concentrations of wealth and power used the money to fund charities that greenwashed, creating a false sense of progress.
The animal rights movement in the United States was one of the worst sectors, in this regard – with organizations lying about animal liberation that was being undone by growth from which they were profiting. Many now working with the Fair Start Movement, under reassure from their employers, omitted crucial facts while claiming to create public benefit. This helped illegally enrich mostly white children at deadly cost to millions of children of color.
This is a level of disgusting cynicism justifying direct action.
Whether individuals back that ask and admit their own greenwashing and benefitting at deadly cost to others, or not, is a litmus test for which side of this fight they are on. Knowing and acting on that is the most just and effective work anyone can do.
To start with legitimacy, or the inclusion of all as political equals in a measurable way, is to be free. Work to free you and your children by peacefully engaging those harming you.
If they claimed to further human rights and democracy, or the racial and other forms of equity on which those ideals derive, they will have omitted the fact that the horrific child welfare standards they accepted would have reversed the progress claimed, using simple measures like representative ratios, than their after-the fact-policies would have saved. You will also find they benefited, at deadly cost to oethers, from omitting that fact.
Would those being protected have wanted to the full story to be told?
Note that there is no specification of a concrete ecological baseline that would have prevented the climate crisis, or an equity standard that would have avoided those least responsible for the crisis absorbing most of its deadly costs. That is a very material omission, one that hides the primary obligations – based on equity – we owe would-be parents.
Freedom, or self-determination, by definition first flows from the restoration of nature (a baseline defined by the relative absence of human influence) achieved via delayed parenting, which is entitled through birth and developmental equity funding pegged inverse to wealth. This is owed as the first and overriding human right, and it allows each to be relatively free – from the ecological and social influence of others – and thus capable of constituting a system of legitimate governance. Ignoring this fact created the state of affairs we see today, and the inevitable death of millions. One of the leading political philosophers in the nation has backed this truth.
The omissions make the baselines in the summary static, inverted relative to the environment humans need, and dangerously abstract. Legal theorists generally debate whether something is law or the supreme authority/obligation, based on whether it derives from 1) social sources and processes, 2) particular values, and/or 3) values specific to law (or what many call the rule of law). All of these are evidently problematic without accounting for how children enter the world and are raised. This assessment should be unique to issues of birth equity because it alone requires dealing with the creation of legal relations – generally occurring at birth.
And this is clear: That omission benefitted mostly wealthy white families at deadly cost to countless children of color. We constitute ourselves as free persons by changing the way we speak, and through that how we see the world.
Here is the fix, and start by demanding those claiming to do good in the world not make deadly omissions.
A mistake in mid-20th century environmental policymaking allowed extreme wealth to be made at deadly cost to others, and according to a growing body of peer-reviewed research, in violation of the most fundamental human right. As the climate worsens we can move that extreme wealth into reparations and save lives or let many, who did not caused the crisis, die. No legitimate nation will choose the latter.
In the wake of the horrors of World War II the United Nations limited state sovereignty with human rights obligations that protect inherent rights to self-determination for each person.
Self-determination or freedom, among equals, begins by definition with birth and development conditions that empower each person with a role in making the law and thus protecting the fundamental capacity for each to choose who has influence or power over them. That includes climatological influence by fossil fuel companies. That is the value of birth equity – being included with an equal and influential share of control and thus freedom from and with others. We are empowered by a first principle that empowers all. By almost every theory of legitimacy, we are obligated to follow the law, as opposed to the rules of religion for example, because we are supposed to be included in the processes that create the law, offsetting each other’s voice equally as we grow because we are politically equal. That is why the law is allowed to be dominant and we are obligated to follow it. This legal equity is not meant to be abstract, but reflected in how – because we were emancipated by our childhoods – we interact with each other every day and the specific sense of empowerment and freedom we should feel.
But rather than meet this standard and the handful of concrete benchmarks that measure it – like investing heavily in young women inverse to their wealth, as well as ensuring the human right to a natural (or nonhuman/self-determining) environment – between 1948 and 1968 world leaders opted for less expensive interventions that protected existing concentrations of wealth. They also chose legal systems that evaded inclusion and participation, instead using violence and other forms of coercion. They hid the crucial importance of birth positionality and equity behind parental (which often meant patriarchal) autonomy, religion, and the state sovereignty that should have been contingent upon it. The family planning system they used wasn’t even sustainable of its own values for more than a handful of generations, with many would-be parents today feeling their choices limited (climatologically, for example) by the choices of those who came before. That growth, enabled by a lack of obligation to ensure children their rights, alone caused a significant amount of deadly climate emissions.
These men made fundamental decisions, in international agreements, about costs, benefits and valuation without meaningfully including those who would be affected – which would have been the first logical move. To be clear: This meant legally enforceable entitlements, like the being born with a million-dollar trust fund while other children died in infancy from lack of resources, were premised on a standard for legitimacy the nations responsible never had to meet. If there is meritocracy today, it is because some use birth positionality to exclude others, and on their own define merit with arbitrary criteria like gross domestic product, that have now created an ecological crisis killing millions.
This mistake fundamentally drives – on many levels – the climate crisis today, in terms of emissions, how we experience their impacts, how our legal systems are able to respond to the crisis, etc.
Most crucially, the extreme wealth that could otherwise save lives in the form of family planning reparations is amassed, held and often backing the industries causing the crisis, despite this illegitimacy.
Many who benefited from this mistake and amassed significant wealth and power will go far to avoid this discussion and reduce their climate liability,using their money to offer decoy alternatives and fake forms of social justice, create noise, and fearmonger around the idea that equity is a threat to economic growth, or autonomy (when it actually must precede autonomy, as is implied by the equal “we” premise we find in all constitutions). They will ignore the necessary first premise, that of consensual collective action, missing from almost all population ethics of the past, the ethics that enabled the crisis. Remember that their influence, including the valuation used to decide who is influential, was derived from a coercive system of entitlements that never sufficiently included others in the process to obtain the legitimacy those in power pretended it had. Many of those not included will suffer and die in heat waves as a result.
We can force the illegitimacy discussion by asking one question, for ourselves and others: What are we doing to assure the conditions in which children born and raised, including their environment and resources, are being improved so as not to undo the benefits of the work we otherwise do? Legitimacy, or including others, is fundamental. This is not like other work. We are all obligated to it because it comes first: It’s about who we should be in terms of our most fundamental, or dominant, relations. To the extent we personally are not doing this work, we remain part of unjust systems of benefit because the first move in governance – choosing who has power over us – should derive from the people, not the government.
Any lesser standard robs those harmed of what justice entitles them, and hides the primacy of their right/obligation to physically constitute just nations and legitimate power relations – a right that logically comes before any justification of the state to use violence to protect extreme wealth made at deadly cost to others.
But we cannot wait for the same governments who enabled the crisis, and other concentrations of wealth and power who benefit from illegitimacy and have conflicts of interest, to act. Many millions of lives are at stake. Also, because the first move in governance should derive from the people, not the government, we should act first.
Relate these things to the basic values they will have pursued throughout their lives, e.g., seeking minimum thresholds of personal welfare, expecting equal access to opportunities, participating in and adhering to political/legal systems that purported to represent the governed, using and enjoying an environment relatively conducive to human and nonhuman health, enjoying a right to have a child in relatively safe conditions, etc. Urge them to see their role in a system robbing others of these things and to change course in the ways they can.
According to a growing body of peer-reviewed research, systems that provide no minimum protections for the most vulnerable, protections like equitable birth and development conditions for children and thus protections for the environment they will need, lead to the supporters of such systems contradicting themselves, are inherently illegitimate because they are not inclusive and reflective of their subjects, and thus cannot generate an obligation to follow their laws. By definition, freedom among equals means birth and development against ecocentric or natural ecologies in conditions that ensure equity of opportunity and an influential voice in deciding – and thus legitimating – the rules under which one must live.
What is power? How we think about freedom depends on the answer. For many years political theorists defined power in terms of governments, who have exclusive authority to use violence to enforce their will. The powerful could thus be the government, or those who could invoke the power of the government through the legal system – the wealthy, for example. Freedom was thus defined as resistance to such power, the right to bear arms against an oppressive state, for example. One sees this notion – of resistance to the edicts of others and to do what one wishes – in the way many discuss and practice freedom, especially conservatives or libertarians.
But the climate catastrophe has shown that definition of power to be a failure. Expected changes in world temperature are likely to kill more people than those killed in the history of oppressive governments. The crisis has taught us that power is any form of human influence. That, in turn, must change our view of what freedom means. Freedom – or to be specific, self-determination, derives from conditions of birth and development that ensure the capacity for us to choose who has influence, including climatologically, or power over us.
Freedom may now best be conceived as the conditions of influence (cask or other incentives, entitlements, coercion, renown, group belonging, the inclination of humans to imitate one another to ensure group safety, etc.), and polarity, where organizations of free and equal persons can form, dissolve, and reform — more like bubbles than an extended organizational chart. What would it take in the creation and development of persons to ensure they acted as free and equal persons and were able to look each other in the eye without fear or deference – in the formation of groups, the state of affairs implied by the “We” at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.
A growing body of peer-reviewed research has shown the basis of deadly climate greenwashing – which is killing millions – and originates with child welfare policies that illegitimate political systems because they ensure no minimum threshold of self-determination or freedom. These policies literally set inequitable standards killing millions of those least responsible for the crisis. And those backing them are choosing to benefit at deadly cost to others, when there are clear alternatives – like moving wealth through externalizing deadly costs into the hands of young women able to save many lives. Who we should be, the “ought” of Children’s Rights and the hard metrics of being a legal person as opposed to an economic person, logically always comes first – before what we should do, and the allocation of other entitlements.
These policies are illegitimate governance because our generations can’t get the benefit of future generations’ political obligation, not to violently target us for reparations required by the deadly climate catastrophe for example, because we never met our obligations to them. At the very least young women demanding birth equity reparations would have greater right to use coercion to protect their children than the state would have to defend existing property rights that harm their children. That said, nonviolence is more effective in achieving justice, and there are dozens of ways to make the transition to true freedom.
Despite the many reasons to understand power and freedom in a fully comprehensive way, you will notice concentrations of wealth and power pushing the old view – usually because it benefits them. As a prosecutor I defined power as the authority of government because that was the form of power I wielded. Look at how the New York Times has of late dedicated its reporting to covering governmental officials who hardly represent their constituents in a serious way as the locus of power. To the extent it covers parents – the fundamental sources of authority if government derives from the people, its focus has been on reduced fertility as a threat to the growth-based state.
Instead, the transition towards real freedom means choosing not to back illegitimate political systems that benefit some at the deadly cost to others, and we can test who is making which choice with these easy questions:
What are you doing to ensure the conditions in which children are born and raised, including their environment and role models, are being improved so as not to undo the benefits of the work you discuss? Does the entity you are asking have any minimum protections for children and animals when you look at their actual approach to family planning policy? Will they admit that their failure to ensure such minimums through a correct system of entitlements, historically, is now killing millions of those least responsible for the climate catastrophe?
This divided social justice / public interest movements into less effective silos – like misperceptions of animal rights – that did not threaten the status quo the way birth-equity (equally empowering shares in your democratic system of voting) would have. This in turn undercut democracy, leading to the oligarchic threats the United States faces today.
This now means they – the disenfranchised – will suffer the brunt of a crisis for which they were least responsible, including violations of their right to have even one child in healthy and safe conditions. And because of basic vote dilution, voter suppression, and other factors, they will be unable to use democratic processes to protect themselves, and may rationally choose other measures. And in the face of all of this, many governments driven by industry are paying women to have more children with no easy safeguards like “survive and thrive” baby bonds in place, while wealthy families and foundations reliant on growth fund charities engaged in distractivism.
