Some Parents of Large Families Strike Back at Critics

It's perfectly acceptable to have a large family if you can take care of them. However, a family being large isn't any defense against charges of neglect.

World population simply cannot afford to continue to grow at this rate. There are natural limiting mechanisms - drought, famine, social breakdown, that ALWAYS attend overpopulation. if you're having a kid and not also actively preparing to compensate for these eventualities in your kids' and grandkids' lives, youi're being irresponsible.

Social mores tend to be a better enforcer of this kind of thing than law, but it also seems that families seem to get unfair amounts of tax breaks. Just because your single or childless doesn't mean you should pay more tax.

I would much prefer five children who grow up and remain aware of their consumption and make an effort to conserve than two (1 1/2?) children who grow up with the attitude of consumerism that's inescapable here in the U.S.

It's shocking to me (having been raised by frugal, consumption-conscious parents) how many people can't even conceive of not using air conditioning or the clothes dryer...

The vast majority of families having large numbers of children are unfortunately NOT like the Corbets. This is especially the case in the US where more times than not large families are just large groups of voracious consumers. What one needs to remember is that even if these large families are environmentaly concious, people still take up space and resources. Think of when the kids grow up and move out, get jobs, and buy homes. A family of 5 is going to require 5 additional homes with services in the future. So I think to say the Corberts are having less of an impact is incorrect in the bigger picture. Most people agree that over population is truly at the root of most of our man-made environmental problems.

It's not rocket science to understand that when a species over stresses its environment it eventually will negatively impact that environment as well as itself. This is the case for every species...animal and plant.

The simple fact is, however green you live your life, your family's overall footprint will be larger with more children. Sure, you may be able to reduce your carbon footprint to zero, and keep it there if your kids share your philosophy. But, you cannot prevent them from getting 1-2 cars per child, 1 house per child, and then having 1-2 grandchildren per child. And that is assuming that those children won't grow up to be high-consumers like their neighbors.

There are lots of ways to justify having large families, and they can be very wonderful for those reasons. If, somehow, your children grew up to be advocates for green living and (like Al gore, for instance) have a greater impact in terms of influencing others than their own consumption, it might be possible to be green and be a large family. That just seems really unlikely.

My vote goes for 2 or fewer kids. The population issue isn't one of "how is this family, no matter how large, treating the environment?" The real issue comes down the road aways when (assuming constant family sizes of 5 kids) this one couple has created 25 grandkids and 125 great grandkids, all consuming.

The family size question is one of the long term and large numbers, so it can be a hard question to fathom. It's still a little confusing to hear someone that's as well versed in "green" argue for large family (or at least argue it's not as bad as we think...)

I must say that I came from a 'larger' family, and we lived very simple growing up. But when I got my first job, and this is why I worry about larger families, I started consuming consumer goods at an accelerated rate making up for the lack thereof growing up. It took a few years before this passed, and I simplified once again, but this is a constant struggle for myself.

Anyone who thinks having large families is a bad thing needs to see Idiocracy. I hate babies, but the only way we're going to preserve the species is if smart people have lots and lots of kids. Otherwise we're merely selecting against intelligence.

would you rather see the family next door have 5 kids while behaving like the Corbets in every other way, or prefer to see them have just 2 kids of their own while spending like crazy and doing nothing else to reduce their environmental footprint? It seems like an interesting dilemma to me…

It's a false dilemma, since the vast majority of people with huge families have a "screw the Earth, it's all about me and my little narcissistic projections" attitude. Regardless, it's simple physics - more bodies, more resources. Doesn't really matter how "green" one tries to make it.

Reminds me of "green" McMansions - they're still McMansions.

I would rather have the Corbet family living next to me regardless of the number of children! But it is true that a child who grows up with many siblings will be more likely to have many children. I would still rather that people have fewer children; the argument that people are having fewer children these days so she can have more falls flat when you look at the total population.

The reality is that we each live green within our means; and not just our financial means but our lifestyle means. I'm typing this comment on a computer, arguably one of the least green products I could buy. But I like the internet & I'm not about to give up my computer because it's bad for the environment. I will bike, I will bring my own bags, I will freecycle, I will buy used. But I've got to have my techno-fix. For the Corbets, their choice is clearly that they want a large family. None of us is 100% green, except perhaps Julia Butterfly. At least the Corbets are trying to mitigate the impact their choices have made. That's more than can be said for most multi-child families; or other families for that matter.

OMG, what a complete narcissist:

"She also resents the fact that
she's persona non grata in the green circles around her home in Wimborne..."

Yea, and Joe Hummer resents that fact too.

Nice that the article completely ignored very basic life cycle analysis on the impact that a new human will have on the planet, based on where they are born, and what their socio-economic circumstances are. If they had, well, there would not have been an article in the first place.

See, it does not matter how "green" they are, they live in the first world, hence the amount of goods they will consume, and GHG's they will be responsible for will be IMMENSE. IMMENSE. Did I say... IMMENSE?

Oh, I love the wacky logic:

"And since that means some people in our society are choosing to have fewer than two per couple, that means there's the scope for some people to have more."

Just like those who say, well, since some people drive a Prius, I should be able to drive a Hummer, 'cause, like, it all equals out. Yea, that's it.

This is so insane, it should be criminal.

The Corbets are unique. Most large families(more than 2 kids) in the US are poor or lower middle class. They are unable to afford to go green at this time. I'm single, no kids and don't want any. I live in a 600 sq ft house but I drive approx 3000 miles/yr on my 1970 Hemi. It puts out 30 times the pollution of Toyota Pruis. I'm thinking my carbon footrpint is still smaller than most, just as the Corbets believe. Just because someone says their green doesn't mean they are 100% green. 100% green means ...you're dead.

Yes, if there was a way to guarentee these children will grow up and have 1 or no kids, and only take public transportation, and that they won't react to their green childhood by rebeling (cause kids never do that...) then I might think this was ok I don't think it is though.

Here is a thought, why don't you not have kids so other people can have larger families if they wish?

Here is a thought, why don't you not have kids so other people can have larger families if they wish?

Great. Let's cap and trade population. I'd make a fortune.

Let's also eliminate all government subsidies for having children.

Here Icelander has expressed a sentiment that I think is deeply troubling, and equally flawed:
"Otherwise we're merely selecting against intelligence."

This type of belief, that the unwashed, uneducated, lower class is outbreeding the obviously better people in the upper classes is disturbingly widely held. I've talked to many people including family, friends, coworkers, and complete strangers (and I'm from the midwest, I can only imagine that coastal sentiments may be even more extreme), and many if not most believe this.

I think the logic goes like this: 1) lower socioeconomic class families typically have less-educated children, 2) those children will then remain in the lower socioeconomic classes, 3) therefore, this is bad for the country/world/environment.

First off, it's classist BS to assume that those in the lower socioeconomic classes are somehow less deserving of children than those above. Second, believing that this is an issue of "Darwinism" is ridiculous. The lower classes are not any less fit humans, simply because they don't earn as much and haven't been as well educated. Third, this belief assumes that there is no upward class mobility in the US, which is certainly news to me.

A strong public education is all that's needed to boost many lower class children into the middle classes. That, combined with sound progressive taxation and social programs that encourage early childhood education are two of the most powerful means of encouraging upward mobility.

We aren't somehow in danger of being turned into an Idiocracy because the lower classes are breeding more prolifically. We are in danger of becoming an Idiocracy because the media--largely run and controlled by upper classes--is churning out heaps of worthless garbage.

Anthonares, BRAVO!

Icelander had the phrase "Sieg Heil" ringing in my ear.

Imagine this: less new litters of children, more opportunity and better living conditions for those already here.

I think the saying goes: 6.5 Billion miracles is enough.

Now, the big answer for all of you "interesting personalities" who need to be raising litters: ADOPT you selfish (insert expletive here). Not like there aren't millions of models to choose from.

This type of belief, that the unwashed, uneducated, lower class is outbreeding the obviously better people in the upper classes is disturbingly widely held.

It's widely held because it's true. For live births in the US, the two most prevalent educational attainment levels are high school (29.0%) and no high school degree (20.0%). By comparison, the two most prevalent age categories are 30-34 (25.2%) and 25-29 (25.0%).

The leading occupation among women giving live birth in the US is "not in labor force" (45.4%).

Also, 35.5% of children in the US are born to women who have no husband in the household.

Personally, I don't feel right about bringing ANOTHER child into the world. I am at child-bearing age, and have no desire for children. There are so many children needing adoption all over the world. This is becomming a "trend" in hollywood, but maybe it's a good trend?

We can't get away from the fact that having children is a basic human right, denied only in places like China, and we must also understand that China has been wracked by famine and misery for a century, and that wouldn't have happened but for amazing population growth.

I'm not saying that China's approach is correct or necessary, but people who recklessly advocate in favor of overpopulation will likely only be able to blame themselves when their governments go wild like with those kinds of laws.

Icelander was talking about intelligence, not social or economic class nor ethnicity. Furthermore, they were making a joke. Furtherfurthermore, why are you assuming intelligent people coalesce in the upper classes? What if the upper classes are actually assemblages of the most ambitious and unprincipled?

"Here is a thought, why don't you not have kids so other people can have larger families if they wish?"

If I am not having children (and I am not) it is because I want to reduce the strain on the world from another first world baby. I do not want someone else to use my fantastic birth controling abilities as an excuse for them to have an additional child.

"Here is a thought, why don't you not have kids so other people can have larger families if they wish?"

Anyone who would say this is so out of touch with real life that they're likely to seriously alienate their own families.

It's so absurd to go around demonizing people who have more than two kids. In developed countries, population is dropping or will be very soon (drastically in the case of Japan). There is an extreme disincentive to have 'too many' children in developed countries (despite the hateful stereotypes some people here are spewing about welfare) because they are extremely expensive and inconvenient. In the places where population is increasing, its simply a matter of getting education, equality and contraception to women and affluence to the society. Having 5 kids is absolutely not what most women would do if the incentive of extra labor was taken away (better technology) and if there were opportunities to have a job and to prevent pregnancy.

Attacking the increasingly small numbers of Western families who decide to have more than two children makes the environmental movement look like fascists and turns the people who have a proportionally greater impact on the future (parents of large families) away from environmental causes. It also makes the environmental movement look ineffective, by focusing on pissing off their friends and neighbors instead of on sustainable development and raising female education and living standards in developing countries, which would prevent far more children from being born.

This dilemma is fascinating because it is one that all (successful) species face periodically, but that humans are actually aware of.

Furthermore, this dilemma has been faced by human populations many times before (usually island communities) but that is only being faced at a global scale for the first time.

Obviously the thought of lowering our population growth does not jive with human morality, or we never would have gotten here. It is clear that the planet cannot sustain the current population(let alone grow) at the current standard of living. The only question is how to reconcile this reality and our morality.

Personally, I would give up children for the good of the planet, but not if I thought someone else would just have their own instead; my selfish evolutionary desire to propagate my genes rejects that possibility.

Furtherfurthermore, why are you assuming intelligent people coalesce in the upper classes?

Intelligence and earning capacity directly correlate.

Wow, so many insulting and/or contradicting comments targeted at those who wish to have more children. some of the comments made are those that drive many people away from the circles that try and advance environmental concerns.

Intelligence: Yes, there is a genetic factor to intelligence. No, not everyone in the lower classes is inherently dumber than those in the classes above them. That being said, if you think the wiser/smarter people will have fewer children as a result of the arguments advanced here, you will most likely end up reducing some of those traits from the gene pool.

Taxation: People with more family members should pay less in taxes under the current tax structure as the money they earn is spread out amongst more people. If that is not fair, than neither is a progressive tax system as we should not be paying a different tax rate based on the situation we put/find ourselves in. Also, if you want fewer children to be born, be prepared to say goodbye to those social security checks. Hope you have been saving extensively for retirement.

Childbirth v. Adoption. Bless you if you adopt, and damn you if you curse those who would choose tho bring children into this world. It has been a tradition in my wife's family to do both, and I hope to continue that tradition.

I am not arguing that having more children does not put more demand on the environment. But I rather focus on solutions that are not anti-people. We try to become more energy independent as we go. I used to commute more than 100 miles a day, now it is less than 7, and I am workign towards doing that by bike. Solar panels, and grey water system further reduce impact, got rid of the gas lawnmower for an electric (not as good as a manual). I have 2 children, and we might have or adopt more. Luckily I do not let the attacks of many on this issue dissuade me from trying to be a better steward of this world and the resources I have been blessed with, but many people I talk to do. They see those who hate them for the children they choose to have, and decide that the rest of what you say is as worthless as the venom you spew at them. I guess what I am trying to say in my longwinded manner is that this is a deeply personal issue, much more so than coming here for advice on green gardening and lawn care, or advice one what car will have the least impact on the environment possible. You attack people on this point and they will forever dismiss you as a loony, and each person you loose is a net loss for the environment.

Old Wolf, your argument is unfortunately completely wrong.

No amount of techno-fixes, giant rock concerts, purchasing of hemp cloths, turning off the lights, or corporate green initiatives will save the planet we know and the lifestyle we enjoy. That is simple math. Right now it would take 4 earths to support TODAY'S population.

Anyone who adds to that already glaring problem is irresponsible and subconsciously could give a damn about the future their kid will have to grow up in.

Simple math.

As for you calling people "loonies", I can't but read your post in amazement. You talk about driving less and using an electric mower as reason why you should have more children. You talk about being a "better steward of this world" in the same breath as explaining that you plan to possibly create more children. There is no way to reconcile the two.

Simple math.

At least Joe Hummer is honest with himself and everyone else that he's going to conspicuously consume and he could give a damn about anyone else.

Wake up, or leave the planet to those of us who are willing to do what it takes. I think Branson will be selling tickets into orbit soon.

Overpopulation is the fundamental problem this planet faces - it is the root cause or one of the root causes of virtually all of the 'big' problems in this world. Cut the world's population to one-tenth its current level and virtually all of those problems would simply disappear - all by themselves. The long-term solution to virtually all of the world's significant problems comes through stabilization and eventual REDUCTION of global population numbers. It is counterproductive to encourage in anyway families ANYWHERE having more than two children per family (replacement rate being 2.1) unless those children are adopted. Societies everywhere should be attempting to bring about REDUCTIONS in their populations. Yes, I know some governments, institutions and people advocate INCREASING birth rates for any number of reasons - all of them short-sighted and selfish. I heard one of those reasons here: if numbers don't go up, whose gonna pay my pension. I am in that situation too of worrying about who will pay my pension, but I will NOT advocate or excuse propagating the root cause of most of our world's problems to ensure my personal SELFISH need of securing an decent income when I retire. I'll find my own way of securing my own needs without relying on a solution that propogates and encourages the greatest threat to this planet, our societies, and our species. Societies should be putting incentives to LIMIT birth rates rather than increase them. This is what is in the best long-term interest for our societies.

Technology will NOT 'fix' the overpopulation problem. Technology will only ameliorate it. Neither will all of us returning to pre-historic hunter-gatherer lifestyles 'fix' the overpopulation problem. Neither will a strong combination of technology and material ascetism. In the long-term, global population has to come down from CURRENT levels - and the more the better. Technology and living simpler only buys us TIME (hopefully the time we need) to bring global population numbers down. We are destroying this planet with our numbers. In so doing we are damaging and destroying societies. At the rate we are going, a point will come when we break this planet in two, and we won't be able to superglue it back together. It will cease to function in the way we need it to function. How long we have before that point comes is unknown. Every year we damage the planet more and it functions less and less to our needs - we cause desertification, biodiversity loss, fisheries collapses, deaths of river, pond, lake, delta and coastal and sea-bottom ecosystems, contamination of ground water supplies, destruction of mountain ranges and forests, destruction of arable farmland - we all know this list goes on and on. Mankind needs to reach a sustainable balance between its numbers, its lifestyles and its technology BEFORE we reach that breaking point. Better technology means more humans can live sustainably on this planet. Simpler lifestyles mean more humans can live sustainably on this planet. But there are currently way too many people on this planet - numbers have to come down. I don't know how far down or how quickly - that will all depend on how far and quick our technology advances and how simply (and quickly) we decide to collectively live. But the sooner we stablize and then start decreasing global population, the less likely we are to cross that point of no return. INCREASES in population only make things worse on this planet.

We need to stress these points firmly to EVERYONE. It is extremely difficult to stabilize and then reduce population if an important segment of the population thinks responsibility for population control is other people's responsibility - not theirs - or if they believe they have some special right to exclude themselves from that responsibility. We are all part of society, of this planet. We ALL have a responsibility to ensure that our societies and environments don't degrade and collapse. Nobody is exempt from the responsibility to treat their fellow man how they would wish to be treated. Or the responsibility to obey the laws. Or the responsibility to minimize one's negative impact on the environment. Or their responsibility to be a part of the solution to global overpopulation. Some people irresponsibly steal. Maybe they think their responsibility to not steal doesn't apply to the rich neighbor because he is a selfish capitalist. Or because they come from a neighborhood where theft is the norm. Or maybe one is poor and desperate, so one does desperate things. But theft if theft and shouldn't be excused - much less defended. We do not turn a blind eye. Do we show mercy - yes. But that responsibility is always there for all to follow and no one gets to be an exception. Just like we all have a responsibility to try to solve overpopulation by not having more than two biological children. No one gets to exempt themselves from this responsibility. And much less does anyone have a right to exempt themselves from this responsibility by saying that they can be irresponsible because others are being responsible.

I will not personally stigmatize people who have five children. I do not know their situation. Maybe they were unaware of the overpopulation problem and therefore didn't fully realize their responsibility. Or maybe they were simply careless and ended up with five without really meaning to. Or maybe they feel they need five children because they think some of them will die from AIDS or malaria. Or whatever. I can't know the reasons and situations that led to five kids, so I will not try to ostracize them. I will even be willing to defend them from such. But I will NOT defend the fact that they have five kids or the choice to have five kids. And if they try to give rationalizations that justify why it was okay to have five kids, I will tell them why it is not and will beseech them not to go around telling other people that it is ok to have five kids. Two biological children is responsible, more is not. And is people want to do as much as possible to solve overpopulation, then they should have no biological children and just adopt - as me and my wife are considering. You can adopt five or fifteen of fifty kids if you want. You can have the biggest family on the planet if you want and be fulfilling both a your responsibility be part of the solution to overpopulation and your responsibility to help your fellow man. Furthermore, limiting biological children to two is not a great imposition when you consider that zero children is best and that you can adopt as many as you want. For those thinking this is extremism, it is not. Extremism is advocating genocide as a solution - such as has happened in the past. Advocating a maximum of two-children policy is moderation and responsibility. The other extremist end of the spectrum is saying that people have the right to have as many as they want.