Just a thought, I have nothing to back this up, but if green was taken to the extreme would raising a baby in such a "clean" environment (growing up around non-toxic products) and eating non-processed organic foods result in the child being potentially sensitive/allergic to "normal" consumer foods/goods?

I'm surprised not to have seen more than a brief mention of Fuzzi Bunz diapers on TH.
For parents who are as terrified by the idea of stabbing their newborn with pins, Fuzzi Bunz snap to close. For those grossed out by handling poopy diapers, Fuzzi Bunz are darned near stain proof, even without soaking or other potentially nasty laundry pre-treatments (no bleach needed by the way). Also, the high-tech material is leak-proof, although the interior cloth pad will overflow at some point.
These diapers are expensive to start out with, but they're way cheaper than using disposables, plus they have a high resale value on eBay. Fuzzi Bunz cost around $15 USD to buy new and resell for around $10 after they've been put to thorough use. My daughter's size mediums fit for over a year.
I know, I probably sound like a commercial... "They're adjustable, stain proof, fool proof! These diapers will do everything except change themselves!" Something like that. I confess I'm fairly enthusiastic about finding a good solution.
I have heard a couple of negatives to using cloth diapers though. One is that they use a lot of water during laundering. Also, I'm not sure how green the diaper manufacturing process is.

Hmmm... interesting point. I wonder what the initial reactions to "normal" preservatives and additives were at the time they were introduced to the consumer market?
I assume most commercial foods were invented at the dawn of the space age -- by Betty Crocker and friends. My friend has a deathly reaction to red food dye, something I've heard is common and hereditary. I wonder if we have acclimated to these products or if, in fact, they really aren't a big deal for most people to consume? Personally, I could give a crap what I consume. I love nasty things like Spam, nacho "cheese" sauce, and SnoBalls (especially the limited edition holiday colors). But I buy organic and local whenever possible (and will pay a premium for it) simply because of the better agricultural practices such products promote. I won't support the fake filth that I have a soft spot for because it is divorced from good stewardship and takes us so many more degrees away from the origins of our food.
I have a theory that my kids (raised on the crunchiest granola diet possible) will rebel by sneaking off to 7-11 after school and gorging themselves. Then I'll have to admit my own penchant for the stuff, a la after-school-special.

Regarding Brian's green baby query: I hope not! I'll let you know in a few years. Thus far, however, my 16-month-old son is the picture of perfect health. He is rarely sick, and his body has very swiftly dealt with the 3 colds he has caught. He was even able to fend off 2 potential lead contaminations (paint in our old house & Dagoba Eclipse bars) without elevated lead. He doesn't appear to have any allergies, despite the fact that we have pets, he eats all the "allergenic" foods, and spring has sprung. If given the choice between steamed broccoli or cookies, he'll pick the broccoli. And frankly, if he ends up allergic to Suzy Q's...good! I hope that I'm giving him the best start possible, but your theory is certainly something to consider. Maybe I should ditch the soy cleanser for Comet ;-)

Seriously, though, I believe that his body & mind will be stronger because they don't have to deal with the onslaught of chemicals that most kids encounter. We don't live in a bubble, so I think he gets enough exposure to chemicals to ensure that he won't be overly-sensitive.

OMG! People! Stop having kids!!! The single biggest negative impact you can have on the environment is to have a kid. STOP IT. What, your DNA is so damn valuable that it must be passed on??? Or are you just a basic ape who cannot resist the base instinct to propagate: sentience takes a back seat. Adopt a kid, there are millions to choose from. You have no right to foist another consuming body upon this already overburdened planet.

A good read.

"Maybe One"
by Bill McKibben
http://www.billmckibben.com/books.html

"Green-minded parents" will choose to have only one child or simply adopt. It doesn't really matter how many cloth diapers you buy or jars of baby food you consolidate, if you're having kids, especially more than one, you are not really green minded. I know that doesn't sit well with people who want to "have it all," all the kids, the pets, the toys, the cars, the houses, the electric gadgets and still maintain their self-image as friends of the earth. They ain't. But don't take my word for it. The planet has its own way of getting its point across.

Is that heavy handed?

No.

Twelve billion people murdering each other over food and water is heavy handed. And that's where we are going. End of story.

Soylent green babies?

Speaking of not having kids, I've been mulling over a question:

What is a good (i.e. practical) reason to have a child (other than if you're a farmer)?

There is no good reason to have children. There are already too many people in the world, doing too much harm.

Human population is the single most detrimental factor and the single easiest 'fix' for social/environmental impact we could embrace. It basically requires us to do, well, nothing.

But it's a tricky problem right now. The people in western nations are already reducing their numbers, while the people in 'developing' nations are increasing ever more quickly. The problem is that the lands where the population is booming most, is not the lands where our ideals can be found. The people who share our ideals are greatly outnumbered.

this kind of reductivist demagoguery is as infuriating as it is wrongheaded.

Such micro/personal-level application of macro/global-level phenomena ignores every other possible benefit (or cost) that might accrue from giving birth to a child.

Carl hints at one example: what the world needs now is more ecologically responsible people/ citizens/ consumers/ workers, not fewer.

And while the advantages/imperatives of adoption are pretty obvious, to reduce the individual and cultural elements underpinning biological reproduction to mere dna propagation seems disingenuous at best.

It's certainly alienating to people who might otherwise share a green-minded pov.

I'm not sure if that was an insult or compliment, but I'll just clarify, that what world needs most right now, is fewer people, period.

Of course, I feel anyone who wants to bear their own children should simply consider a reasonable number. We no longer need to bear giant broods, expecting 1/2 to die before reaching puberty anymore.
Even if you grew up in a large family, and loved having lots of siblings, then ADOPT as many as you can afford to raise.

We're not talking about instituting draconian anti-child measures, just asking people to be more aware of the impact of overpopulation. What kind of world do you want those children to inherit? The more crowded it gets, the more unpleasant and dangerous their world will be.

The world isin't so overpopulated as it is consentrated in certaint places. In most population maps I've seen, there is over population in the cities, but few people outside them. I definatly agree with a lot of the points made, but an additional thought is to move to a more rural area. Keeping your non-impact life also seems to make more of a difference in thoughs places, compared to a person without thoughs values moving to that same property. In addition, it's easier to grow your own food, or produce yourself the other things you consume. I feel that providing for myself in a much more direct way with my family makes me, my family, and the enviroment much happier and conected.

Finally! Some like-minded folks that realize the very easiest and cheapest way to "go green" is to STOP BREEDING.

No matter how many organic baby foods you grow in your own garden and organic cotton diapers you hand wash in grey water each night...you need to STOP BREEDING. These efforts are cute attempts at a "green lifestyle," but please don't ever call yourself an environmentalist. And please don't tell me that your little miracle is a messenger of the environmental movment and is going to change the world. You haven't, and don't little ones learn by example?

Do you have a pure bred dog? Most likely it's a rescue. Why? Perhaps it's because there are already too many homeless dogs in shelters? So do you care more about homeless dogs than homeless KIDS???? Why not ADOPT?

Or perhaps you prefer the weak argument that the birth rate is dropping in developed nations and that the real overpopulation problem lies in the developing world? Well, one U.S. born baby will consume and emit more than 200 babies combined from the developing world.

Bottom line- ADOPT. Your genes aren't that valuable. I promise, the world will continue without them.

Just to comment briefly on Chingy's comment..."You have no right to foist another consuming body upon this already overburdened planet." Who do you think you are stating what rights other people have? The problem is not with reproduction, but with too many people making too many misinformed decisions. Comments like the one you made are ludicrous, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Well I have 4 kids and I am raising them to take care of the planet and to be wise about the choices they make. I dont think anyone has a right to tell me or anyone else how many children we should have PERIOD. As for adoption, well I hate to tell you all but its not that easy...dont believe me? look into it , yeah I have and I know. I dont really care what people think of me for having so many children, honestly. I do think its a sad world we live in where people dont want to have children. If you teach your children to do better ,they will be better and respect the earth and resources. They will make a positive difference for the planet.