" Anti-natalism," or the radically utilitarian opposition to having children, has broken into the mainstream thanks to everybody's favorite economist, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

In an Instagram livestream from her luxury Navy Yard apartment, the new Democratic #FreshFace entertained the ethics of having children in light of climate change. (Remember: " like, the world is gonna end in 12 years" if we fail to pass a nonbinding resolution, including a federal jobs guarantee, to combat greenhouse gas emissions.)

"There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said. And it does lead young people to the legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children? We had time when I was born, but — tick-tock — nothing got done. As the youngest member of Congress, I wish we didn’t have 12 years. It’s our lungs that are going to get choked with wildfire smoke."

I'm going to preface this with what ought to preface every policy discussion about the matter: despite the president's trolling on Twitter, few serious people deny that anthropogenic climate change is both happening and will incur long-term environmental damage if not dealt with in the near future.

What most conservatives contest is the notion that it's going to kill us all in 12 years and whether we have to nationalize a third of the American economy to fight it. I'm more than willing to entertain the argument that we need to spend more on expanding nuclear power or strong-arming countries with much larger carbon footprints into decreasing their emissions. But no serious person actually believes that the planet will become literally unlivable in the next decade and a half. ("Wildfire smoke" indeed.)

But to AOC, I say, if you actually believe this, if you honest-to-God think that the climate crisis is impending in a matter of years rather than a century, then don't have kids. In fact, please don't have kids. Studies overwhelmingly point to IQ being hereditary.

The conversation of ethics I would rather have is whether of not I'm forced to pay for your hypothetical children.

She would have you pay for her kid's healthcare, college, energy infrastructure overhaul, federal jobs guarantee, and who knows what else. While a moral society provides charity and even a conservative government provides welfare, you're not entitled to other people's cash in a truly just society. There's a reason the government limits the length of unemployment insurance for those able to work. And we don't hand out welfare like Halloween candy.

Americans have an obvious vested interest in helping those who temporarily or permanently cannot help themselves. But to expect other people to pay for those " unwilling to work" and the children they put in this world isn't just idiotic. It's unethical.