Woo! voting for myself. :-)

I think it's kinda disappointing that more people are not voting for adoption. If you want a large family, why not have one kid and adopt as many as you can manage. Why not help the existing population rather than adding to it?

I didn't really know how to answer this one. For myself, we went with the adoption route. I see no problem having children so long as you can take care of them if that is something that is important to you, but I would encourage everyone to consider adoption before they go with the status quo. This goes double for someone who wants a large family.

When I tell someone my wife and I adopted, I get a lot of interesting responses. Most people are very positive about the idea and curious about how it works. While it is a small minority, I am still surprised at how many men tell me they "couldn't raise another man's child". I always wonder how many children are born because of this strange idea that a child is never "your child" unless they share genetic material.

I'll reiterate what I said before. Chidren are a basic human right, but excercising most basic human rights in an irresponsible manner makes the world a very unpleasant place for our progeny.

I'd adopt if I could afford it, but, at least around here, it's too expensive.

Lloyd, you know as well as I do that population is the core of the environmental problem. But I hope you know what you're doing. Fireworks are one thing ... this is a human right.

I would hate to see "voluntary, temporary" programs that were based on a compulsory and permanent agenda. When you mess with reproduction, you mess with people's sense of meaning in life. And you don't want a world full of people with nothing to live for.

... or by assuming that what you propose would be volutary and temporary, do I extend you too much credit?

LA: Don't attack the messenger, I am just running a poll.

Just a question, Mr. Alter. Forgive me for making assumptions about your opinions here.

Fireworks are one thing ... this is a human right.

It's a stretch to consider unfettered procreation a human right. Governments everywhere put restrictions and conditions upon parenthood and even the ability to procreate.

It seems pretty odd that (one of) the most consequential actions a human being can undertake would have no regulation/limits set on it by human society.

I already adopted.My now deceased wife had two kids.Her son and daughter now living with me.They were not my kids.But from a prior relationship.We married before her death.Adoption papers were done at the same time.Their father is a major alcoholic.And unfit parent.

Tough survey, there should be an "other" option.

Education about what our environment is enduring with a growing homosapian population is key. Educating everyone about how to live locally and sustainably is also key.

Beyond the education, we are all a basic part of nature, one that has an instinct to procreate.

I think that if adoption was made easier and less expensive, and that education be made available to everyone globally, this will not be an issue.

All things in moderation, and remember to take small steps. The family with two spoiked children hooked into electronics 24/7 driving them around in twin Suburbans uses a bit more energy than the seven passenger Highlander hybrid with seven passengers enjoying the scenery.