I beg to differ. Lowering your footprint from astronmically high to moderately high is not the same as having no negative impact. I enjoy treehugger, but it does sometimes buy into self-congratulatory eco-nonsense.

http://www.wired.com/animation/collection/nina_paley/stork/

http://www.ninapaley.com/NinasAdventures/NewAdv17.htm

http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#intelltest

Nina, how is it a practical solution for the people in the world who care most about conservation and sustainability to refrain from having kids? That strikes me as a sour and short-sighted way of thinking.

Oh, hey, I should mention that "realish" is me, Dave Roberts, author of the above post. (That's my TypePad moniker.) Full disclosure and all.

Nina, that comic you posted definitely rings true for alot of stuff I see. Definitely not all though, the message should definitely be for putting critical thought into the full life cycle of any product. And I suppose that includes kids as well. (Did I just say kids are products? ;)

To me, the more important argument against making more humans though, is the number that live in orphanages and such currently. I'd suggest adopting and showing your love to a child who may not recieve much through his life and what kind of adult will he be? That will almost definitely have a negative effect on our footprint.

Another consideration that I've just realized with a 5 year old coming into my life, is that, try as you might, the kid has more family than you, and unless you convince all of them to go green, your kid is still going to get crap for Christmas, birthdays and from school.

Dave, how is it a "practical solution" for anyone ostensibly committed to lowering their footprint, to increase it by at least 100 percent per child? As you say, "do the math."

And what do you mean by "practical solution"? Is this a vague concept of "saving the world"?

1. If raising children is the best way to "save the world," why do you have to breed your own? Why not reduce-reuse-recycle, and adopt? There's no shortage of needy children.
2. Raising children isn't the only way, or even the best way, to influence the next generation. Try teaching, writing, thinking, modeling behavior, etc.
3. In all our communities, there are potential world-savers who don't have an opportunity to develop into "eco warriors" due to lack of resources - they live in poverty. We can help existing children develop into responsible, thoughtful adults by addressing economic inequity, poverty, nutrition, education, etc. No need to biologically reproduce - in fact, the less our personal resources are taken up by raising our own children, the more time and energy we'll have to "save the world."
4. "My child is different - my child is going to save the world" has nothing to do with environmentalism. This statement is made by parents across the board, regardless of political leanings. Often they say their child will cure cancer.
5. "My child is an empty vessel for me to fill with my own values." From what my more experienced parent friends tell me, this is pure delusion. (Also, it conflicts logically with "my child is going to save the world." If you want to save the world, you must do it yourself. If you pass the buck on to your kid, your kid - if s/he absorbs all those fine values of yours - will do the same, and the world won't get saved.) Having more children in order to carry out your political will is common across the political spectrum. See http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#wrongpeople

I could go on. What I'd like to address now is this "practical solution" euphemism. Green living is not about literally saving the world, it is about making small choices to reduce environmental impact. It is practical on an individual level. If I must build a house, I can choose a bamboo floor and hay-bale insulation. If I must package a product, I can use recycled paperboard and reduce the amount of packaging. But building a green house and manufacturing green packaging DOES NOT HELP THE PLANET. It just hurts it a little less. All these green things we do only reduce our potential footprint, from super-high to high.

"Practical solutions" happen on an individual level. If an individual would like to reduce their footprint, over time, to zero, they can achieve this by not biologically reproducing. It's extremely practical.

If you want to reduce your footprint to zero immediately, you'll have to kill yourself in an ecologically sound manner - maybe freeze to death in the woods and become bear food. I take the idea to this extreme to make a point: that reducing our footprint isn't the most important thing in any of our lives, no matter how green we claim to be. There are so many other ways I personally could reduce my footprint that I'm not willing to do: stop upgrading my computer, stop using electricity, stop traveling, stop seeing movies, stop taking showers, stop participating in our economy by earning or spending money.... I'm not willing to go that far. Yet I don't justify every shower I take by claiming "I'm saving the world! Other people's showers are bad for the environment, but my shower is different!"

The desire to have children is no more rational than sexual orientation. Some people feel they must have biological children. Some people don't. Some people will, regardless of environmental consciousness; some people won't. If you must have children (like if you must build a house, or manufacture packaging) by all means, try to make practical green choices in raising it. But must you have a child in the first place? For many people, the answer is no.

I'd like to see our social environment improve to support and encourage those who are disinclined not to have children, not to have them. Currently we live in a "pronatalist" society, where making babies is aggressively promoted. I don't expect to convince someone who "must" have children to not have them. But even people who don't "need" to breed are encouraged to. Exhorting treehuggers to "Design a new and better generation. The world needs eco-warriors. Get thee to thine boudoir and create them" is just more pollution.

Sorry, first sentence of last paragraph should read:
"I'd like to see our social environment improve to support and encourage those who are disinclined to have children, not to have them." Please omit accidental double-negative.

I agree that not having children is the ideal. I hocked up with a single mother and adopted a family. But for those who are still going to, may I offer the following info about at least avoiding the horror of diapers (landfill waste or energy and water for cleaning).

Diapers aren't necessary at all!
You just need to practice something called Natural Infant Hygiene. See http://www.natural-wisdom.com/index.htm also see http://www.mamaroobabysling.com/newsite/Diaper-Free.html
And it has ancient roots in Asia, Africa, and parts of South America, and was traditionally practiced among the Inuit and Native North American peoples.

This is the biggest load of self-serving, self-justifying crap I've ever read. I'd expect it from the Bush campaign, but from someone who professes to be an environmentalist?

If you gotta have a kid, have a kid. Don't pretend to us that you're doing it for the planet. Every human being added to the planet, vegan or not, will put wild land under the plow...unless you plan not to feed your kid? Every human being generates more sewage that is disposed of in concentrated areas. Unless, of course, your unfed kid won't shit? And are you planning to load him into the car and take him to see the doctor? Will he go to Gymboree and Daddy and me? Or will you stay home all the time, in your unheated house, so as not to contribute to the accelerating damage caused to the environment by fossil fuel burning? Or will you just walk everywhere? Or just walk sometimes? Like weekends? Do you believe a little less is the same as a nothing at all?

Not only will your child, without question, damage the earth, no matter what eco-pieties you coax forth from his lips as repayment, but that child will live in a world of horrifying, rapid environmental change. Pretty cruel to subject a child to that.

"Hey! I bought an SUV, but it's not like those EEEVIL SUV's that the Republican's have! No! My SUV is covered with pro-environment stickers! And I only take it for a drive once in a while! Or when the weather is really bad, cuz, you know, you can't expect me to take the Prius ALL the time, or when things get really hectic at home, you know how that is. But MY SUV models True Environmentalism for everyone else, because it's got a whale mural on the side and it says "Save the Whales" in big letters, which, if enough people read it, will instantly cause whales to be saved! So everyone buy an SUV and do like I did if you want to really save the planet!"

The most important way you can *model* environmental concern is by NOT PRODUCING MORE HUMANS and by letting others know that they DON'T have to blindly follow the marching orders of the right wing, who want everyone to breed for the cause! (well...or whoever it is that wants us to breed for the cause. I used to think it was the right wing, but I guess I was wrong.) Every environmental problem we have is caused or exacerbated by human population, which already exceeds the planet's sustainable capacity, and we just keep making more because so few will stand up and say "There are too many humans, so I will be the first to deny my own urge to reproduce, because it is the best thing I can do to preserve this planet for the future and for other living things."

You seem to think, on the other pole, that your shit doesn't stink. Apparently neither does your kid's. Dunno about that, but something here smells. Someone is sour and short-sighted, that's for sure.

Current evidence in the media may cause us to believe that celebrities may raise their children a certain way (which does not happen to be eco-friendly). HOWEVER, I felt let down by this post that we would judge what we presume would be actions of celebrities if they had children. (P. 8: The spawn of Lopez will no doubt be laden with enough bling to raise its footprint over even the extravagant 24 acres.) Celebrities may not be winning awards currently for conservation, etc. but they are such a minute percentage of the population that seemingly has no idea or concern for the environment.
Shouldn't we be focused on the middle and upper classes and their disposable attitudes? Ex. flushable/disposable toilet brushes/wands?
Some celebrities have taken steps and become aware of how much they consume. Ashley Judd has made a plan to live on 2/3 of her income and send the rest to people in other countries. While we may look at that and say, "certainly she could live on less than that, and what about the types of products she buys, blah, blah, blah..." Hey, she's taking steps. I have to applaud any effort because one step will lead to another, which will lead to another.