Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

One of the most significant environmental problems, and one that receives far too little attention, is human population. Many (most?) people in the world lack the knowledge or resources to practice responsible family planning, which is why I find it unconscionable as a person in my circumstances to bear a child. However, some day in the hypothetical future, if my spouse and I decide to raise a child, we will turn to adoption.

I think there should be more acceptance towards not having children. It seems that right now when a young woman states she's not having children others near by have a negative reaction and say things like "oh, you don't know that yet," or "how can you say that? Babies are wonderful." And on and on. There is something to be said for NOT having children, not only from an environmental standpoint but it also provides more freedom - freedom to travel, financial freedom, freedom from some types of worry. For me I can pretty much do what I want and at 32 am quite happy without children.

If you only have two kids, you and your spouse merely replace yourselves, thus only temporarily adding to world overpopulation. If you only have one kid, then you leave the world with one less person when you and your spouse become compost. One argument for having a child or two is the quest to pass on "green" skills to the next generation. If it's only the thoughtless polluters and environment-rapers who breed, then eco-conscious people will take themselves out of the pool--kind of like the Shakers.

George Monbiot actually said it best in his article

"to suggest that population growth is largely responsible for the ecological crisis is to blame the poor for the excesses of the rich."

Adopt.

Millions of models to choose from.

Your particular genetic pattern is nothing special, so get over yourself and adopt.

Once there are no more children to adopt, then we'll talk.

If you still chose to procreate because you just can't evolve past your basic simian instincts, you're part of the problem.

For the reasons of overpopulation/resource conservation/etc., we should go by George Carlin's rule:

One child. Enough to replace you. Not enough to replace your husband, but screw him!

Seriously, I think that a couple shouldn't have more than one child. Why one? Because everyone that wants to deserves to have at least one child that is there biological child. If you really want more than that, I guess you have to adopt.

Sure, there is something to be said for not having children. But people who are intelligent and socially/environmentally aware can't just extinct ourselves to make room for the Christian fundamentalist couples who are passing on their values to their 17 children. We can choose to adopt, have a small family, or share our values in other ways in our communities. Let's make sure that we don't leave the field wide open for the flat-earthers to educate the next generations.

It's definitely more responsible to adopt children, rather than produce your own. However, when it comes time for me to start my family, I plan to have two children of my own, mostly because adoption is very expensive and stressful. I want to have children and while that will consume more resources in the long run, those children will help care for an aging population that will include me and may come up with innovative environmental technologies!

Whether parents are smart or not doesn't take away from the fact that an extra person in the world is an extra person. He or she will consume just as much natural resources (most likely more if in a city or civilized country) as anyone else regardless of upbringing. You can split hairs on the debate and site specific instances where a person may consume slightly less than another, but that is the essential reality of the situation over the lifetime of a human being.

Lloyd Alter: Monboit has some ...eh, interesting views on the economic disparity in the world.

And even taking his quote it at face value, it's a clear argument for not having children. In Monboit's argument, it's' not total population that's the issue, it's rich population. I can assume we're all pretty well off (on a global scale) to have a computer, internet connection and time to read treehugger. We would be the rich of the world, according to him.

So then how is it excusable for us to have children, even if we eco-friendly parents buy Whole Foods brand diapers, drive the kids to pre-school in our Toyota Priuses and recycle all our Superfood and juice bottles?

Emily,
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, I don't mean this to sound like I'm attacking you.

You seem to assume a lot in saying that you can raise children who will consume responsibly in the long run. I, for one, had parents who are not very 'green', but here I am, contrary to my parent's beliefs. Recently there was a study (Pew research foundation if I remember right) that said a significant amount of Americans leave the religion of their parents. If people are so eager to leave their parent's religion, it's a bit of a leap of faith to think that your own children (and grand children etc.) will stay 'green'.

Also, you express a hope that your children may go on to invent some great green energy or generally make the world a better place. Sure, it's possible. But with -just- 2 kids? that's pretty slim odds. I think you'd have a better chance of giving birth to the next Einstein, Mozart or Al Gore with 5 kids. or 10. But, you know, 15 kids would be an even better bet. or how about 20, or...

K. has it right. The best way to reconcile the desire to start a family and the "green" mentality is to adopt. You can save a life, not contribute to additional future consumption, and impart your eco-mindedness on the next generation. Our biological urges aren't so logical, unfortunately.

Well, dont think it matters either way in the adoption vs biological child in as far as having a small being that requires you to consume more. I think adoption is the more responsible and altruistic choice, but nonetheless, a child raised in a wealthy country is a consumer.

Further, this is going to sound very judgmental, but if kind intelligent eco-conscious people stop having kids altogether, think about what we're left with as a society.

And even further still, India and China are out-birthing the US astronomically. When we don't have enough young populous to support productivity demands, our economy suffers further, which may in turn be a good thing because people will consume less but the domino effects might just make life a lot harder for everyone.

Things to think about.....

I just can't dismiss that overpopulation IS actually the biggest problem. Yes disparity exists, but no, it's not all rich people who create eco-crisis, anymore than it's all poor people.

I choose to have one child, while friends and family all around (even those who are "green" and eco-activists) have 3 or 4 kids. Three IS the new two. If everyone made more practical choices about how many kids to have, then this planet would be in much better shape, just as if everyone made more considered choices about consumption and recycling, etc.. Just because everyone does not yet do this, should I stop recycling? stop reusing? stop teaching my child how to make eco-friendly choices? start having 4 kids? No, of course not.

I can't control what anyone does except myself. Why on earth would I choose to have more than one child if I truly wanted to help the planet? The impact of one child (esp one middle class/ upper middle class child) is huge over a lifetime. Some of you may say I'm hypocritical for having any child, and maybe so. I've tried to find a balance.

But population control is the big taboo. No US politician would dare mention this - it's unAmerican.

If you don't want to have kids ... then don't. Don't worry about what other people say. They are not you, they don't have to pay your bills and walk in your shoes. My girlfriend and I are quite happy to be unhindered by the whole 'kid thing'. It's nice to play with the friends' and relatives' kids. That's enough, they can take them back and change the diapers, pay the bills, etc.

If you can't have kids for financial reasons, I think it's more than a valid reason.

****** BUT ******

Much as people used to be looked at as monsters for choosing not to have kids. People should not be viewed negatively if they chhose TO have kids of their own. It is almost worthy of a 'how dare you'. If you're having kids to boost your welfare, then shame on you. If you're having anchor babies ... go back and improve your own country, we are full. But for heaven sakes, if you want to have a child or two and you're of the means, don't let anyone talk you out of it for some sky is falling mumbo jumbo. Yes, the world is a rough and scary place. But it is still possible to be successful. And for God's sake, tell them to shut the light off when they leave the room. And tell them why. Don't preach, just inform.
vsk

Monblot's political/social view notwithstanding, having a child and being a member of an industrial country is much more enviro-ethically "bad" than having a child and being a member of a non-industrial/developing country. As an American, it's difficult for me to reduce my footprint, but one sure-fire way to increase it is to start popping babies.

Lara is correct: every one I express my desire to not have children to treats me like I just don't know any better. Surely my ovaries will start to think for themselves before I pass childbearing age and produce another drain on the environment for the good of my genes.

The thing that holds me back is the thought of my child looking me in the eyes and saying, "You knew this was going to happen".

And anybody who doesn't think that is very likely has not been reading enough science.

I've been struggling with this concept for quite some time. I'm in no way ready to have a child right now, but I've always had the desire to have a child. When I think of the ways that I can help the environment I struggle with the fact that not having a child would be very helpful. hmm

To quote John Rudmin above

"If you only have two kids, you and your spouse merely replace yourselves, thus only temporarily adding to world overpopulation."

This is NOT TRUE. China has been on a "one child" program for many years, yet their population continues to increase, NOT temporarily. Not what you expect? A good mathematics professor can explain why this happens.

Todays news shows that in 7 of the past 8 years, demand for wheat exceeded production. How long can we increase our population and inrease our food production to match? The question is not whether we can or not, the true question is how long. Sooner or later, our human population will exceed our food production capability. It could be because of too many people, or it could be our ecosystems collapse.

But that is not the point. When we increase the population, to increase the food supply requires more land, and/or more energy, to produce human food. We have land in reserve, but to use it for food for humans means it will not be used for food for other life forms, this is already happening. On the present course, we will eventually feed nothing but humans. There will be no birds, no horses, no cattle, no pigs, no fish, no whales, no deer, and no trees. Only humans, and only vegetarians.

Questions: Is a planet with only humans really what we want, even if it IS possible? What is the ideal human population for Earth? Have we exceeded it already? What is it we REALLY want?

You can be "green" all you want, and it helps, but it is not the solution.

A hundred years ago, people like me didn't tend to live long. A ton of resources were poured into me to keep me alive and I've been very lucky to be one the minority who have been able to go on and live productive lives without huge ongoing "maintenance costs".. so far.

That left me with a dilemma though, the weakness in me could be passed on to my offspring - an undesirable genetic trait that in the past, natural selection may have weeded out relatively early on.

I chose to ensure that couldn't happen.

Aside from other points mentioned in this thread, I feel that potential parents need to look at their own family history and weigh the risks - will we be bringing an asset into the world or a potential heavy liability - i.e. yet another human taking far more than their fair share?

3rd world countries are often criticized for their tendency to crank out kids - but in many ways, they have better reasons to. One is mortality rates (which is catch 22), the other is to have children look after them when they get older, to assist on farms etc. etc.

In the developed world, asking parents why they are having children will often meet with a blank stare. When you get down to it, most don't even know why they are having kids aside from it being just something we do. I really like how often adoption has been mentioned in this thread. It helps deal with a symptom while we try try to address the major causes of overpopulation - poverty and some religions.

It's quite ironic - here in Australia, our governments are worried about our population not growing fast enough and offering substantial "baby bonuses"; yet we lock up refugees in the desert and adoption is certainly not heavily pushed. Our population "worries" are just another example of how the idea of the current system of infinite growth just can't work - we acknowledge our environmental woes on one hand, but pay people to crank out more consumers on the other.

Of course there's a possibility that a "Green" parent will raise a child without "Green" values. That shouldn't discourage anyone. There's no accounting for parenting skills and individual differences. It's important to know why that might happen. In the case of the child in the article, it's probably because of her level of maturity. It's not like she's a teenager or even a "preteen".

I'm a Vegan, as well as a Libertarian Socialist, raised by meat eating moderate-Conservatives. I diverted from their paths not only because I question authority but because I recognized their paths as wrong.

I see the arguments against bearing children as having some ground in reality. In fact, if we continue consuming at ever increasing rates, it'll be spot on. However, mathematically, there is an alternative. If the footprint of the species is the product of the number of individuals and the average footprint, we could achieve the same affect by lowering average footprint as lowering or stagnating population. Human beings are not inherently detrimental to the environment. It's the habits human beings form that determine that.

Besides, the more people who share our ideas, the better off the movement will be. We're outnumbered as is.

Anyway, I plan on having at least one child, barring twins or something. However, the arguments against that, while wrong, are not without merit. What's more adoption itself is just a great idea. I also plan on adopting several children.

I invite anyone who thinks it's "unconscionable" to have children to try watching the movie Idiocracy, and see how long you continue to feel that way.

I recognize that comments like Emily's above may be overly optimistic about raising children to be future eco-warriors, but on the other hand letting the people who hurt the environment do all the breeding & child-rearing is not exactly going to solve the problem either.

A high school AP biology teacher once told my class that we had a reproductive duty to carry out for the world's sake. She told us that there are many people indiscriminately having children in the world, and many people who would be having and rearing children responsibly choose not to.

That, she told us, from an evolutionary perspective could end up leaving our species in a bad situation. She even went so far as to encourage us to donate our eggs and sperm if we did decide to abstain from having children, just so that we would give the world a fighting chance.

Maybe that is a bit Classist of her to tell us that, but it was still an interesting point to make. Defiantly something that has made me reconsider my choice to not have children.

I believe that to enter the green age, we will need children who deeply understand the history, economics, and technology of the agricultural, industrial, and information age so that they can bring together all of that knowledge to form solutions that help the world transition. I don't feel guilty about teaching my son about Newton's laws of motion or airfoils and Bernoulli's principle, he is fascinated with robots and is always coming up with new ideas for what they could do. That type of imagination coupled with a grounding in agriculture, science, physics, engineering, chemistry, etc. may be an essential part of being able to come up with the solutions we need to actually solve some of the open problems we have. I believe we can invent new technologies that help free the planet from things like our deadly addiction to oil, and while I won't live long enough to see it all in my lifetime, I believe my children could actually be a part of that if they're raised properly.

I am amazed and disappointed at so many comments that endorse the "don't have children" idea. Frankly if all you see in a child is pollution and environmental degradation then I feel sorry for you.
I believe the solution is not to have no children but to continously reduce your environmental impact. There will come a time when we truly live sustainably and then the argument becomes moot.
Anyway, a few first world ecosingles expressing angst about the impact that children will have on the planet isn't going to make much difference. The world population is projected to grow another 50% or so from third world growth and then start to decline as living standards increase. This is already happening in many rich countries. I bet that when the world population does start to decrease there will be a lot of people worried about that!
I say have children, love them and cuddle them and bring them up to be good people who care about others and about the world.
Benjamin

i agree with the sentiment that the poor are blamed for the rich people's exceeses...

i have three children; i'm hoping that one will be a plumber, one an electrictian and another a mechanic/product engineer!

If we all stopped having kids, what would be the point of saving the earth for future generations?

OK kiddies, time for math class.

Current life expectancy for happy first world parents: mid-upper 70's.

So right now, you and your spouse have 2 children, they each have their own 2 children, you are easily alive to see your grandchildren grow.

So you are directly responsible for multiplying you by 3 and the planet must bear you X 3 for a longer and longer period

With the ever accelerating advance of biomedical science, and the now no longer nascent science of nanotechnology, you very well may realize a healthy age of 100.

In that case, you can easily watch you X 4 for a good period before you die.

So, even having one child is a BAD IDEA. Simple math, simple enough for the most self deluded and infantilized amongst you.

Adopt.

Oh, and if adopting us just too "stressful" for you, GET THE HELL OVER IT YOU INFANT, or maybe having a child of any source is not for you, since raising that child is a hell of a lot more stressful and expensive. Yikes, its amazing some of you have enough brain power to remember to breath.

"If you still chose to procreate because you just can't evolve past your basic simian instincts, you're part of the problem."

Willy Bio you are just %*&%*^ bizarre. How did you get here?

And to those who don't feel it's fair to have a child, I say there's been a lot of worse times to bring a child into the world. Human's won't be suffering for a long time, it's all the other species who will be most affected by our industrial actions.

Like any other creature our populations expand depending on what resources we can get, and the industrial revolution has expanded what we can get massively. That's what's put us out of balance with nature. So hopefully the green movement can help humanity to act with a bit more foresight, and reduce our impact to something more sustainable. That is the only way forward to me, not some of the frankly sickening comments above.

MY,

Care to elaborate?

You might not like my presentation, find it harsh, or even offensive, but how about examining the underlying logic?

Look at all the posts here. Most of them concern the "urge" to have children. That is what I choose to call a "basic simian instinct". How is that inaccurate? Most humans experience the "urge" to do harm to others. But thankfully we usually overcome that urge with our intellect. Why is it so that overcoming the urge to procreate is not the same? Because our first world culture has been so infantilized that almost all urges are indulged in and rationalized away.

Here's another very appropriate analogy, though harsh: of course the human brain re-wires itself to accept the newborn child. So much so, that's why you get the pod people reaction when you tell them you don't want children. Its only natural.

If you try cocaine or heroin even once, there is a high probability that you will become instantly addicted. Your brain rewiring itself. From there it makes perfect sense to you to use cocaine or heroin.

Thing is, you are blessed with sentience. So you have no excuse not to avoid things which you know will change your frame of reference for the worse.

All that aside, what say you to my basic math lesson?

Thank you Benjamin!
I have 2, a nice responsible number for me! The majority of people know that in Industrialized nations the birth rate decreases. The countries that have really large populations are the poorer ones. My family lives environmentally friendly, probably a lot friendlier than many people my husband and I know who don't have any children. Get over yourselves! I teach my children responsiblity because I am educated about these issues that faces everyone today.
Oh and it's not just christian fundamentalists who have a mass number of kids. That is a really ignorant statement. Some people just like large families. Unfortunately not everyone has the environment as priority number one. Even then how do you know that large families don't care about the environment? Yeah, no hybrid vans! Instead of putting the blame on others why don't you help educate your community on how important preserving our environment is.

My husbdand and I didn't choose to have children, but they chose us. The first child was a complete surprise and (nearly) a statistical impossibility. But she came anyway, and I'm so glad she did. Now I'm pregnant again (another (nearly) statistical impossibility), and our hope is that we will teach our children principles that they will act upon and that we, as a family, will help create a sustainable planet. If not, we're creating our own sustainable community so we can ride out the end of the rest of human-kind!

For those of you who absolutely do not want children, you'd better get a vasectomy or tubal ligation. In my experience, nothing else works.

Well, without that 'urge', none of us would be here today.

Serious question: were you adopted?

Yes your maths seem fine, so your point is that having a child in the rich world leaves a bigger legacy. But what if those children & grandchildren learned to live lives with a much lower impact? That's where we should apply the 'sentience' we have. Yes there are a lot of urges we should try to resist. But to get so analytical on the most important process in the world? I think you need help.

MY,

So my being analytical somehow means that "I need help"???? Logical information and facts are somehow unacceptable? Get a grip. You sound like a religious zealot.

Sorry if the math tweaks your sensibilities and preconceived base simian notions. Either adapt to the facts in a rational and logical fashion, or suffer the consequences. That's call "life".

Here's another thing your type seems to be ignoring: formerly third world populations acquiring first world status withing the blink of an eye. 10 years ago, nobody could have thought China would be anything close to what it is now.

Over half the world's population now lives in cities:

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0227-population.html

The decreased birth rate of older first world countries will be far overcome by the continued high birthrate of the "new rich" countries, since cultural changes take much longer than the new found ability to buy a car.

In my short life I've seen the world pop go from 3B to almost 7B. That's beyond bad, that's a catastrophe coming at us like a freight train.

We all need help, figure it out already.

Oh, and no, I was not adopted. I just am able to use my intellect to realize that adopting is the only viable thing to do.

"...preconceived base simian notions..." ...sorry....I've got this image of Comic Book Guy in my head now and I can't shake it.

I'm an atheist anyway mate, no zealot. So I have no problem embracing my inner-monkey. You're right about many facts there, but I just cannot agree with your solution. We've managed to live sustainably on this planet for many years, so we need to relearn that. And teach future generations.

I can see where you're coming from, but your idea is almost as unworkable as packing up and moving to another planet.

I wish I could convince my girlfriend of 9 years to not want a child. This (and the fact she wants a diamond, an industry I refuse to support) is preventing us from getting married.

It's weird how tradition and biological curiosity can overpower rationality even in highly educated persons.

Maybe I should secretly get snipped?

We’re still not resolving the impact the human population has on the environment. In order to maximize our compassion toward our environment and to the future of out planet we must take a less emotional, more practical approach. We must reduce the world’s population.

I recommend that we implement policies and practices that promote a natural population decline. Here’s how we can do this:

Stop treating illness: Treating illness only promotes the lives of unhealthy people. These unhealthy people cost a lot in terms of energy and infrastructure to sustain. If we stop treating illnesses then the natural course of the illness will be allowed to move forward. The strong will recover and the weak will expire in a natural way. We need to stop fighting nature.

Stop feeding the hungry, especially children: Studies show that malnourished children lag in their development. As a result, these children are less likely to become positive contributors to society. These children are also more likely to be sickly and we shouldn’t be sustaining sickly children. If they’re already starving, we should allow the natural course of events to take place. If they turn out to be strong enough to survive on their own without assistance, they have proven themselves to be valuable to society.

Stop supporting children: We shouldn’t have any to begin with. Supporting those born to people who are not as wise as us is just perpetuating the human problem. Just say no to children.

Stop supporting the elderly: Lets face it; they’ve had a lifetime to prepare to be old. If they haven’t been able to get ready for it they’ve only got themselves to blame. It’s the law of the harvest. Nature will again prove to know best here as well.

By adhering to these few policies and practices we can effectively and naturally reduce the population and the Earth will be restored to it’s natural state. It will be a beautiful future for our childr… I mean, for our natural ideology.

I too became pregnant on Birth Control, so did my sister in law who is married to my husband twin brother. I love my children, I know they will grow up with values that will help the environment. As a Biologist I too am concerned with how our ecosystems are being destroyed. There needs to be a development in higher states of consciousness to understand that everything is connected. What's the likelyhood of that?

Oh, to you who think Adoption is the answer, not always the case. My mother in law adopted 3 babies- 2 twin boys and a girl. She flat out refused to recycle, bring reusable shopping bags to the market, doesn't care if her kitchen appliances are energy saving, so on, you get the point. Here my family is the exact opposite. So it doesn't matter if you birth your own or adopt. It really depends on the parent.

Every human on this planet consumes resources and produces pollution -- some more than others.

A true environmentalist would have no children because even one child uses 5,000 to 8,000 diapers in its diaper-life.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of their toys will find their way to the landfills, as well. And clothes, shoes (many with toxic batteries), furniture, computers, etc. Millions of litres of gasoline will be burned driving each of those children to and from school, sports activities, friends' homes, etc. And most of those children will grow up to be consuming polluters, just like you and me.

Since the inception of Earth Day in 1970, we have added 3 billion people to our planet (increasing it from 3.5 billion to 6.5 billion people), almost doubling its population.

I have asked numerous environmental organizations how many children someone concerned about our environment should have. I'm still waiting for an answer.

I ask you: Which is more damaging to our planet—six and a half billion humans flushing toilets, driving cars, and consuming natural resources, or twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four billion humans flushing toilets, driving cars, and consuming natural resources?

It's not just the environment—if you take a closer look, you'll become convinced that almost every problem in the world is due to overpopulation. If you consider local problems such as noise, stress, healthcare, pollution, education, crime, and depletion of natural resources, a reduction in population would relieve much of each of them. How much noise would there be if we had one half the traffic, one half the lawnmowers, etc.? How much stress would we be feeling if there were one half the traffic, one half the noise? Don't you feel stressed when the duration of your commute gets longer every year? How do you think future generations will feel about commutes that are twice as long? Three times? Hospitals wouldn't be overcrowded, waiting lists would be halved if there were one half the patients. With half the number of cars, trucks and buses, there would be one half the amount of pollution we are forced to breathe every day. Schools wouldn't need so many portables—or any at all—if there were one half the number of students.

If we had a smaller population (and if more of us reduced, reused and recycled more) we wouldn't have to ship our garbage hundreds of kilometers to be disposed of. If there were fewer of us, the east coast of North America would still have lots of cod and turbot, and wild salmon would still be plentiful on the west coast; not to mention all the other species that are on the brink of extinction or have already been wiped out. Every tree we cut down is another habitat destroyed.

Cast your gaze farther afield and it is just as clear that overpopulation is the cause of most of the problems there, too. Overcrowding in cities causes increases in crime. Air, water and land pollution is caused by too many people dumping their waste into the air and water, and onto the land. Too many people producing too much carbon dioxide destroys the ozone layer and contributes to global warming. Since trees have a cooling effect (not to mention their air-cleaning function), cities are much hotter than forests.

Farm land is being sold for development all over the world. Billions of trees are cut down (and burned) to make room for more housing. How many houses have ever been razed so more trees could be planted? Vinyl siding isn't nearly as nourishing as corn or tomatoes. Disease epidemics run rampant through crowded cities. Many floods and landslides are due to land clearing and development; asphalt and concrete don't hold land together nearly as well as roots do, and they don't absorb water nearly as well as open ground and living trees do.

The habitable land on planet Earth is finite. The population of the planet increases by 250,000 (net) every day - that's three new babies to house and feed every second. Even if we could increase food production to accommodate all of these new hungry people, where will we find enough potable water to keep them alive and healthy? If you think overcrowding is not a problem, imagine sharing the room you are currently in with one other person, then two, then three, then...

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

Wow. And I bet that you all are fiercely pro-choice, right?!?! I have 4 kids, and maybe I will have more. My children eat organic and local, recycle, freecycle, and turn off electrics when they aren't using them. They conserve water, know the benefits of reusing, and this summer will be learning to compost and grow their own vegetables. My son is in cloth diapers. My oldest daughter is an animal activist in training, who is currently looking for an organization that helps endangered animals to donate half of her allowance to. Now, try and tell me that my children are harming the environment! There's nothing wrong with not having kids, but there is nothing wrong with HAVING kids,either. You'd be surprised how much they can actually benefit the earth!

To the Icelander that thinks that "replacement rate" equates to "multiplier effect":

If I have 2 children all by myself (no partner involved) and each of my 2 children have 2 children (again all by themselves, no partner involved) and each of my 4 grandchildren bear 2 children each (again, without a partner), then yes, there's a multiplier effect. A much more typical scenario, however, is procreation that involves 2 people. If 2 people together yield 2 offspring, they are simply replacing their own numbers. Sure, there can still be some expansion in the population if life expectancies are increasing, but I think most people will agree that there's an upper limit to life expectancy, and so a "2 begets 2" scenario will ultimately yield a stable population.

My fifth-grader understands this math; I hope you do, too.

Willy Bio-

One Word: Brilliant

Well I am really quite interested in the comments in this thread I never knew that people had such divergent views on having children. I guess I was blinded by my simian urges.
While I do try to reduce my and my familys environmental impact and eventually want to live truly sustainably, in the end I actually value people more than I value the environment. I value both highly but people do win out if I had to make a choice.
I have a practical suggestion to those who have expressed a strong desire to reduce world population and who are very concerned about the impact of people on the planet: suicide. If it's really that important to you, perhaps the only logical or ethical thing to do is to remove your own devastating impact from the world.
Benjamin

OK, let's actually DO the math instead of merely throwing around some examples of it.

Willy Bio, your math sucks. Your math only works because you stop before the original population dies off, and it doesn't account for the fact that only one third of the population is reproducing to begin with. YOU, personally, may have produced 1.5 times your number (it takes two, not one, to reproduce; 3/2 = 1.5, not 3), but only one third of the population is reproducing.

We can formalize it this way. Population one generation hence is equal to sum of the current population, the number of children born to the reproducing portion of the population, and the number of people who die. Assuming a constant lifespan,

FP = NP + NP(1/g)c + NP(1/g)

or more simply,

FP = NP (1+[1/g][c-1]),

and over n generations,

FP = NP (1+[1/g][c-1])^n,

where FP is the future population, NP is the current population (since the form won't let me use subscript), g is the number of generations that people live, and c is the number of children that each reproducing individual has.

Now notice something here: if c = 1 (each person reproduces herself only in a generation,

NP [1+(1/g)(c-1)]^n = NP [1+0(1/g)]^n = NP,

and therefore

FP = NP. In other words, two people having two children between them produces an exactly stable population. Since we never specified a value for g, this holds regardless of how many generations people live.

Another error is in your reasoning about the effects of longer lifespans. Assuming that we have more than one child per person, living more generations actually reduces the population growth rate, as 1/g becomes a smaller number as g gets larger. This reflects the fact that the more generations that we live, the smaller the portion of the population that is reproducing. For example, if we have two children per person,

FP = FP = NP (1+[1/g][2-1])^n = NP(1+1/g)^n.

If we live three generations, population grows at a rate of 33% per generation, but if we live five generations (the 100 years that you suggest), we grow by only 20% per generation. If we start from the same population base, longer lives entail a slower rate of growth. Moreover, a longer lifespan probably also increases the length of a generation, as people wait to reproduce.

If we assume an increasing lifespan (rather than a constant longer one) we will get population growth, but that has nothing to do with the rate of reproduction, and having fewer than one child per person will reduce that accordingly.

If you're gonna tell us to do the math, do the math first.

OK, Mr. Smartypants, let me dumb it down for you:

If person A chooses to have a child today, and they are in their mid-20's, here's what happens:

The child (person B) does nothing to either positively or negatively effect that, so also has a child in their mid-20's.

Same for the child's child (person C).

So when A is 50 years old, there is adult B and infant C.

When A is 80 years old, there is A, B, C, and infant D.

For every year A lives past 80, there are 4 humans inhabiting the planet due to the choice A made in his/her mid 20's.

See, this is looking at it from the microcosm of one person and their personal choice. Its the hard and unbending way of looking at it, not allowing for wiggle room by considering what the rest of the population of the planet chooses to do.

Get it?

In regards to Benjamin:

How is it that the lunatic fringe always comes out in these strings about population?

To take the premise that adopting a child who would otherwise go unwanted and probably live a miserable existence, arguable one of the most altruistic things a person can do, and absolutely desecrate it with the idea that people should kill themselves.

These people are truly sick individuals. They are incapable of shame, and therefore should be locked up for good. Sick, truly sick.

jajohnson : very eloquent!

i prefer to think of it this way - we use more resources than (per person) than those in India, Sub-saharah and in the east, we live the longest and have the most promisous sex (more partners, with more children)...

so who exploiting the planets resources?

the rich people who pray on the poors natural resources and exploits them.

to the chap who thought we should stop giving aid to women, children and the infirm, i guess your a healthy male without children... you need compassion in you life!

who will look after you when your old and infirm? if peak oil stops food/water/people travelling, then money *does not* matter. then your literally on your own! go and reproduce man!

Why do we do the things we do? Why do we make an effort to protect, preserve and restore our world? Is it to feel good about ourselves? Is it to impress others (get chicks)? Is it to minimize or repair damage we (the royal we) have done? (They thank you I’m sure.) Are we making it better for the sake of leaving it better? That’s just another way of saying for our own gratification. Are we making it better for the plants? The animals (not us apparently because we’ll be gone without kids)? The planet as a whole?

The plants, animals and planet don’t care. In fact, if we use up and destroy the world we don’t do much permanent harm to anyone but ourselves. If we destroy the planet, and drive ourselves to extinction, we’ll only kill ourselves. Life will go on, and after a few thousand years, it will be hard to tell we even screwed it up so badly. In the long-term scheme of this planet’s life, we’re only a blip in time. So why do we do it? What’s the purpose? Is it just an exercise of our own sense of self-importance? Are we so arrogant to think we can destroy a world that has existed for millions of years — in a few 100 years?

Does the last animal of a species know it’s the last? Does it mourn the others? Does it care? Does the last tree in a forest care? Or do they all know that they will outlast us? Why do we do what we do? Who cares about what we do? Who will care when we’re gone? If we’re trying to leave the world better than we received it — for who or what are we leaving it — if not for our kids, for other people’s kids? Do those other people’s kids care about what they do? Do you need them to care for what you do to matter? Do you do it so that when the world is on the brink of destruction from the others who don’t care you can say, “I told you so?”

I don’t do it for your kids; I don’t do it for the plants, the animals or for my own peace of mind. I don’t care about any of that. The planet will right itself long after we’re gone, new species will replace what we destroy. 10 thousand years after we are all gone we’ll hardly notice we were here. I do it because I want MY kids to have a better world to live in. Why do you do it if not for those who are here after you’re gone?

I asked my doctor about choices for getting sterilized. I was met with skepticism and even hostility. Why would a young woman ever want a -permanent- procedure? It's unnatural to not want children. You're too young to know.

Honestly I didn't just find it annoying but slightly offensive. Is it sexist to believe women are programmed to desire children? That childrearing is the only unalienable role for women? That a woman in her twenties is incapable of long-term decision-making? I always say the same thing and I mean it - if I change my mind, I'll adopt. I don't see how wading through paperwork for years is "more difficult" than having and raising a child. If anything, I'd consider it a prep-course for stress management. I'm always so frustrated with the dismissal and denial. It's my body and I'll stand by my decision even if I live to regret it.

Benjamin said, "I actually value people more than I value the environment. I value both highly but people do win out if I had to make a choice."

But, Benjamin, people and the environment are inextricably interwoven. People affect the environment, and the environment affects people. If you don't believe me, just try inhaling deeply behind a smoky bus, truck or car; or try drinking heavily polluted water; or eat a carrot or hamburger full of pesticides -- you'll soon be painfully aware of how the environment affects you.

Besides, do you really want to condemn future generations (including your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.) to breathing heavily polluted air, drinking heavily polluted water, and eating heavily polluted food? Their life expectancy would be half of ours -- if not even less. Do you want them literally fighting other humans for land? Or food? Or water?

Think about it.

Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net

It cracks me up that people worry about "who will be left" if eco-people don't have kids. Is that really their motivation to make children? If so, you should focus on educating the litter-bugs rather than out-populating them.

I've turned dozens of people onto sustainable living; without having babies. So I am not worried about environment-haters taking over. All the extra time and money is nice too. : }

I am the youngest person in my family at 38. I do not have any children. There is a strange feeling when I think about the family "ending." But, really, no big deal. There's really nothing to be afraid of. I would raise children - I'm not against it - but adoption seems the best. It's not always easy being a gorgeous genius, and I'd hate to pass that burden onto my offspring.

This makes me sad.

My sister and her husband have chosen not to have children (and yes, there was voluntary snipping involved). While she is the local poster-child for the sierra club, her decision had nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with the fact that she already feels like she's raised children (our younger brothers) and is now a teacher so she helps raise children every day.

I, on the other hand, want to have 2 of my own. I want them to have my husbands eyes. I want to conceive them and raise them to be smart, responsible citizens. If I can't conceive (a possibility that looks more real every day) then we will adopt rather than use modern medical interference (IVF, etc).

Do not condemn me because of what we have decided. Do not condemn my sister.

Who cares about the math - that's like trying to heal a broken heart with a lecture of biology. Sure, it's got truth ringing through it, but it doesn't change the nature of the issue: we are biologically evolved to want to procreate.

If we all make an INFORMED decision based on the best knowledge we have then it will all even out.

Willy Bio -my biggest complaint about your posts is that you are so judgemental and angry. Your comments are supposed to be civil but I don't see it. Name calling is not the way to sway people to your side. In fact, it often just riles people up. If you're looking for a fight, try a different website.

Emily, I have been posting her for years. My basic tone and presentation has not changed. I am not going to temper my posts simply because it might rustle a few feathers.

Yes, it angers me when people say things like "Who cares about the math - that's like trying to heal a broken heart with a lecture of biology. Sure, it's got truth ringing through it, but it doesn't change the nature of the issue: we are biologically evolved to want to procreate."

Why? You can substitute all manor of uncivil and selfish behaviors in that statement. We are biologically evolved to fight each other for dominance. We are biologically evolved to procreate like rats. But we are also, somewhat recently in evolutionary terms, biologically evolved to utilize intellect to overcome many of those things which served us well in the jungle. With the gift of sentience comes great responsibility and selflessness, if the species is to survive and prosper.

Rationalizing your choice to indulge a biological impulse, the long-term viability of the species be dammed, is reprehensible. Sorry, just calling it like I see it.

there is a serious reason why women don't choose (mainly) to be sterilised and that's because the proceedure can mean months of pain and agony and even then, you can still get pregnant.

for a male it is a small proceedure, requiring days, not months of recovery.

@Willy Bio: You are still not paying attention to the long-term resolution of your calculations versus jajohnson's calculations. jajohnson included a variable to account for an unlimited number of generations. Even in your latest post, you stopped at 4 generations. Take it one step further. By the fifth generation ("E" in your notation), the original procreator ("A") will most likely have reached the end of his or her life expectancy and died. At the end of the sixth generation, "B" dies, and so on. In this fashion, each new generation brings in 2 babies that replace the 2 great-great-grandparents that have died. Your argument of four-fold growth is looking at population from a blank slate point of view, as if generation A was the first generation of humans on the earth, but the fact is, when A had generation B, A's great-grandparents died. When generation B had generation C, their great-grandparents died, etc.

Simply speaking, if everyone in the world only had two children, ad infinitum, the population would remain exactly the same (barring lifespan extension, which would bring back population growth only for the initial duration of that extension).

@Truespeak: China's "one-child program" exists in the realm of unenforced law. The authorities allow exemptions for farming families, and I'm positive they don't have 100% enforcement. I'm sure there are non-Han ethnic groups far from the centers of power--I'm thinking Uighurs, Hui, etc.--that don't cotton to that policy, either. That is why China's population is still growing.

Brian,

Of course I get that. Did you miss the part where I said:

"See, this is looking at it from the microcosm of one person and their personal choice. Its the hard and unbending way of looking at it, not allowing for wiggle room by considering what the rest of the population of the planet chooses to do."

Looks like you did.

Each person is starting from a blank slate as far as their own particular existence is concerned.

If the planet were not already heavily (4-5X) overburdened, then your more macro look at it would be reasonable. Problem is, we now need 4-5 earths to sustain the current population at current consumption rates.

Get it now?

Willy Bio,

You can't look at population from a microcosmic point of view. It doesn't work that way; it is unscientific and unmathematical. Deaths, births, and the entire rest of the world (i.e. the "population" being discussed here) all must be factored in. The choices of everyone matter. Your personal choice to not have any children can be utterly negated by someone having 8 children.

I do understand your angle from the earth already being overpopulated, and therefore needing to move toward a less-than-replacement rate, but your microcosmic point of view would exclude this argument as well, seeing as it only considers your personal choice, not the choices of the rest of the world.

I am inclined to agree with your views on a lot of this argument--my only sticking point being the micro vs. macro view--except that I believe a couple can have 2 children without incurring ecological guilt. Simple replacement-rate procreation doesn't alleviate overpopulation, but it doesn't add to the damage, either.

Tonight, look out into space. Ask yourself if overpopulation is really a problem? Look at the stars and ask if energy is really a problem? Look at the planets, the moon and even the international space station - now the size of a football field, and ask if we are really lacking 'other places' to do things... from producing food and material items to extending environments for All forms of life.

As the only species able to extend life beyond the planetary realm its unethical, inhumane, and evolutionaryily irresponsible to now say... after life 'over populated' the oceans and evolved onto land... that the land is now over populated so we should give up and stop producing life.

No, my fellow human beings, I will not eat our evolutionary young. Space is the place to continue the evolution of life. If you are not up to the challenge, as many pre-historic fish were not up to the challenge of life on land, my descendants will build museums in space for your end-of-the-line fossils.

BTW, I am an Eco-Activist who had children.(former Greenpeace media director, producer, spokesperson... I coined the phrase NO BLOOD FOR OIL, created & produced ACTIONLINE for GP's Activist Network. I also am a former Outreach Director for Citizens for a Better Environment and so on). I made a difference so I'm sure glad I was born and now have grown children -who matter.

The life issue is not just about quanity and limited space its really about quality and what we do with that space. Literally.

Tonight, look out into space. Ask yourself if overpopulation is really a problem? Look at the stars and ask if energy is really a problem? Look at the planets, the moon and even the international space station - now the size of a football field, and ask if we are really lacking 'other places' to do things... from producing food and material items to extending environments for All forms of life.

As the only species able to extend life beyond the planetary realm its unethical, inhumane, and evolutionaryily irresponsible to now say... after life 'over populated' the oceans and evolved onto land... that the land is now over populated so we should give up and stop producing life.

No, my fellow human beings, I will not eat our evolutionary young. Space is the place to continue the evolution of life. If you are not up to the challenge, as many pre-historic fish were not up to the challenge of life on land, my descendants will build museums in space for your end-of-the-line fossils.

BTW, I am an Eco-Activist who had children.(former Greenpeace media director, producer, spokesperson... I coined the phrase NO BLOOD FOR OIL, created & produced ACTIONLINE for GP's Activist Network. I also am a former Outreach Director for Citizens for a Better Environment and so on). I made a difference so I'm sure glad I was born and now have grown children -who matter.

The life issue is not just about quanity and limited space its really about quality and what we do with that space. Literally.

Here I sit, 8 months pregnant with my first child, and incredibly disappointed at how many of you think I'm only contributing to 'the problem'. You don't know me, you don't know my husband, but you are judging us because we happened to create a child. We don't have the money to adopt, but before we were even married we talked about adopting one day, and hopefully provide a home for as many biological children as we have. (And at that note, I really think something should be done to quicken and ease the adoption process while still making sure that ALL adopted children go to good homes and even better parents).

But don't worry, dig around in your numbers and then rejoice in all the abortions that take place in our country every year.

My husband and I choose to rejoice in the life that is still growing inside of me, and do not feel guilty that we do what we can to live an ecologically responsible life. We have plans to one day build our home from recycled goods. We are hoping to be able to convert both of our old (but with good gas mileage) vehicles to water to fuel. We plan on using cloth diapers and cutting up old t-shirts to fold as liners for those diapers. We are having the baby shower AFTER the baby is born, and are requesting hand-me-downs or items from a consignment shop ONLY. We line dry when possible. We keep lights turned off and unplug unused appliances. We recycle anything we can, including taking old crap to scrap yards. We wear something much more than once or twice before we wash it (except for underwear). We compost. This is not the extent of our efforts, as we continually try to green ourselves further. According to many of you, however, all of our efforts are in vain since we are having a baby.

I was raised to think for myself and make my own decisions, and I plan to do the same with my children. The best I can do is hope and pray that they will understand WHY we do things a certain way in our house, and the difference that it makes. Perhaps they will be educating their peers at a young age WITHOUT being self-righteous.

I would think that more of you who love all of the life on the planet would be more accepting of the fact that some of us environmentalists have a great love for human life, too. If we can all teach a simple fact with a kind word, we can all make a difference. And isn't that what it's REALLY about?

Amy,

At least you explored adoption in a serious manor. That puts you ahead of 90%+ of the pod people.

Don't worry yourself about abortions. Too much real stuff to worry about in this world than telling other people what to do with their bodies. Maybe if we got real about education in this third world excuse for a supposed first world nation, the abortion rate would drop precipitously.

But I'm straying off topic.

According to James Lovelock there will be 80% population decline by2100 due to climate change. I hope to live to see that happen and I will hopefully be able to contribute to the remaining 20% by leaving behind children who can be responsible and moral in a time of extreme unrest.

Declining healthcare is unfortunately inevitable, not a political decision. Healthcare will never again be as good as in this decade due to dwindling resources, declining interest in healthcare professions and research and develoment funding moving toward survival. Inevitably, healthcare will again start focusing on prevetion rather than cure, and it will become a personal decision.

More and more advanced illnesses will be treated conservatively because family and patients themselves choose to do so and because the resources to treat won't be as abundant anymore.

A person's best chance to live until 100 is probably within the next 10-20 years, or maybe this year? But to predict age and population growth on today's models without taking the changing world into account will prove false in years to come.

We are living in interesting times. Judging each other's decisions on childbearing is removing our focus from the real issues. Future generations will never again be such heavy consumers. Peak oil, economic recession and climate change will ensure that.

Yay AMY!

A responsible way to create your own family. We'll be using the alternative registry when we have children so we can ask for things like babysitting time and used clothing. (alternativegiftregistry.org)

And Willy Bio -- your tone might not have changed, but knowing that you approach everything this way without regard to the emotions on the other side of the computers means that I will skip any posts you might make from now on. We will have to agree to disagree. Although I must say that I agree with whomever it was that said your decision to have zero children is negated by someone else's decision to have 8.

Shouldn't people like the Duggers (who have 17? and counting) be the ones all of this ire is pointed at, and not people like myself and Amy who are having one or two and being responsible about it?

I can find good in most people that I meet, but I know there's a lot of bad people out there.

If you're responsible, smart and honest, have more kids. We need more of those than the jerks.

If you let the morons and creeps out-reproduce you, soon that's all that will be left of the human species.

It amazes me, that people can in all honesty be espousing freedom, freedom of choice, the ability to self-govern and self regulate. The sustaining of a green eco-balanced lifestyle, self-sustaining farming, low impact living, all the things that this website extols.

Then, turn around and begin trying to dictate to others that if they do not adopt, they are bad people. That if they have more than one child, they're "adding to the problem", this is ridiculous and juvenile.

As a parent, and an activist, I have to say, it appalls me for people to be this hypocritical in the low-impact/green movement.

A commenter near the top said something about people saying things negatively about those who choose not to have children. Then, the commenters below began to say negative things about those who do choose to have children.

I'm shamed by the majority of people in this thread, not because I feel guilty about having children. But, because they would ever, even consider mandating their chosen lifestyle on another person. I find that at the heart of this matter to be the most disturbing, self-absorbed, childish thing I've unfortunately dealt with on this tremendous, and well intentioned website.

Move forward with the attempt to live *your* life, and try to help others live in a green manner. But, if you dare to try to tell me, or others that we are bad because we've had children, or want children? You have a lot of growing up to do.

As a father, I can tell you that my wife bearing my two children was a unifying moment. A moment of spiritual clarity for us both, where she was communed with our infants, and she was able to gain a deeper connection to them because she held them inside herself. I watched them be born, I held them, and cut the cord.

I am an advocate of adoption, but I believe that there is a connection to children that were born from the mother and father that cannot be facsimiled by adoption. I've known women who had children, and had adopted children, and they were fantastic to their adopted children. I've also known women who were infertile and adopted children...

My point is this, adopt if you desire. Advocate adoption if you desire. But, don't you ever make another person feel guilty for choosing to bring a life into this world.

The future depends on those who raise their children in a manner of openness, sustainability, and compassion. THAT is what matters...

I don't understand what is even left to debate about when you consider all the children that are in desperate need of homes. It's as self-centered and makes as much sense as going to a dog breeder to get a "purebred" dog when there are millions in the shelters and on the streets - just like the kids.

We caused this environmental crisis, so why do we think we shouldn't have to endure any consequences of that - though I don't know why adopting a child rather than bearing one has to be seen as a consequence - it certainly is not for that child!

Sure, there have been other hard times when people continued to have children, but when having children is the biggest cause of our "hard times", isn't it time to stop for awhile?

Kirk,

Sorry, but if YOU are feeling guilty about anything, that is YOUR problem. I'm simply pointing out the facts, without emotion. If you take emotional umbrage with simple and clear facts, just because they make YOU feel guilty about a choice YOU have made, not my problem.

Tao gets it. You, Kirk, do not. The consequences of our actions are that we live in a reality where my position is simple logical fact. You, sir, need to grow up enough to come to that realization.

Firstly :

Tao, where is it that we having children is the biggest problem, say ahead of NASCAR, Shipping Fuels, etc?

Secondly :

Willy, you fail to read thoroughly enough through my comment. I never said I felt guilty, I said I felt shame that people who are supposed to be representing a movement of Freedom, are in turn trying to burden others with their belief's.

Logic is great, a very fine rational thing. However, one must temper Logic, for if you want to get into the semantics of it; logic can be an excuse for any belief. Spend enough time in a semantics class, or a debate group, even pre-law and you realize that the only difference between Right, and Wrong in a logical point of view is the outcome.

I dont see what all the fuss is about. Simple logic will tell you that your child, no matter how "green", will use up resources and cause more pollution. Now unless you popped out the next Al Gore your child will only contribute to the problem.

I agree with the person who said that we should "Educate the little buggers" rather than trying to outpopulate with eco-friendly children.

But for those who do have one of two kids and are raising them to be eco-friendly, good for you. I can't deny we need a young population, but really I think one child is enough, and why not adopt? Are your genes superior? Sometimes Im amazed at all the ugly dumb people that are breeding.

Niki :

First point. Until they are 16 years old, they will not be using many resources that aren't already in use by others. Bus (School), Car (Family), the amount of food they eat is negligible on the carbon scale. By the time they are 16, some will get a car, some won't.

The "educate the little buggers" statement isn't remotely possible. For those of you who don't deal with children, don't have children, or don't teach children, I will point out something extremely obvious to the rest of us.

Children learn almost all their habits, good and bad, from their parents, very young. Procrastination, laziness, foul mouthiness, apathy, cruelness. They are lessons learned by children, by either watching, or interacting...

The base of this argument is "Logic", well, Humans are in large part spiritual creatures. Whether or not the people in this thread are, that isn't what I'm saying.

Adoption is a wonderful thing, and I'm a huge advocate of it. If the system weren't so flawed in the US that it punishes those who want to adopt.

Until any of the females here get pregnant, you won't understand. Until any of the males here hold their child, right after birth... You won't understand.

If you try to approach anything from a half-whole position of simply logic. You will have no understanding, only raw data.

Logically, if we want to stop the imbalancing of our environment, the thing to do would be to kill 2/3rds of the population. To understand that, it would probably mean half the globe would starve to death. A great majority of those deaths would be Children, slowly starving to death, or being murdered by adults for their ration of food and water.

But, by purely logic numbers driven intellect, we should stimulate that. Because it will help the environment, right?

Logic cannot be trusted, without it being tempered by compassion. If a person cannot practice compassion, then why are they even apart of the Green, or Eco friendly trend?

Here's an idea... instead of arguing over wether to have your own children or not - why dont we come up with ideas to help feed the children who are already here on our globe suffering and dying because we as a population have not taken the responsibility to take care of eachother?
Once we have the means to take care of human beings as a whole, then maybe this thread would be an issue.
I personally cannot justify bringing another human being into this world to be raised in a "1st world country" totally blind to the reality of poverty in this world. If I do have my own children I want to raise them somewhere that will allow me to help existing 3rd world communities and raise them with an awareness of the ability to help people and change the world. My kids - if I choose to have them - will not be surrounded by meaningless material things and hopefully will grow to appreciate nature and community and making small differences instead of learning the misinformed and corrupt values of western society.

Breeding for a better future:

Assuming your children will worship your advice and not rebel against it, criticizing your generation for screwing them over. No, that'll never happen with my kids. They will be perfect and be just like me. GAG!

It's not the HAVING of children that is the problem.
It's raising them to be indiscriminate consumers that is.

I was raised by BabyBoomers who, as children, had lived through the War through frugality, ingenuity and hard work. They wanted 'better' for their kids and so thought (and were convinced by companies and marketing) that this meant being able to buy things not fix them or make them. Gods forbid we had hand-me-downs! We need a mentality shift. Adoption or not, consumption and waste are the real problems here. Food demand exceeds production? BULL! Portion sizes are too big, and dumpsters are piled high with leftovers. Obesity rates are on the exponential increase. The first world is a greedy and wasteful place. Instead of arguing about what sort of band aid population solution will or won't work, fix the problem. Consumption and distribution.

SO what if your kid doesnt use a car until its 16? What about when that kid is 40? And no not everyone is like their parents, I am the polar opposite of my parents. I have evolved past my "basic instincs" to breed. All the people who dont have kids will inevitably be more responsible and beneficial to the world than those that to. I think I am over this topic, because the arguing with parents is like arguing with a buncha monkeys. There was some really good logic pointed out by other contributers to this thread and if some of you over-emotional breeders would just look at things logically you would see our (and by our I mean the non-breeders) points.

lara, are you serious? Maybe you haven't noticed that people usually don't die as soon as they have children. When you and your spouse have two kids, they grow up and often ... have kids. While you're alive. If they each get married and "replace" themselves, already the lives of SIX smudges on the environment will be your fault.

Emily said: "It's definitely more responsible to adopt children, rather than produce your own. However, when it comes time for me to start my family, I plan to have two children of my own, mostly because adoption is very expensive and stressful I want to have children and while that will consume more resources in the long run, those children will help care for an aging population that will include me and may come up with innovative environmental technologies!
"

WHAT the hell kind of CRAP is THAT??? Did I read correctly? If so....you're essentially saying: yes, breeding IS irresponsible and adding to an already overwhelming problem BUT...in regards to MY OWN simian impulses, I'll make myself an exception...who knows...MY progeny JUST MIGHT grow up to discover a magic CURE for all these problems.

No, first of all, with that kind of logic you're exhibiting I can assure you no Einstein will be coming out of YOUR loins (you have much better odds w/ a lottery ticket) and secondly it's this kind of "pay it forward" mentality that GOT humanity in this mess in the 1st place!!! Odds are YOUR OWN parents had the same idea when they had YOU...so, please do tell us...how'd THAT turn out? How many Nobel prizes are on YOUR mantle?

Why are you consciouly choosing to sentence an innocent life to conditions that you're just beginning to realize are dire for yourself>?AND WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS OK?? Don't you know that all you have to offer your progeny for an inheritance is a rapidly dilapidating TENEMENT? AND THIS IS ACCEPTABLE to you???

"Environmental technology" you say? We already HAVE a solution to overpopulation. We have for YEARS. Two words:BIRTH CONTROL. But of course this interferres with indulging in your self-based, short-sighted biological "needs", so I'm sure that's WAY off YOUR radar screen.

I can't begin to understand how condoms/birth control are considered "inconvenient" a "hassle" and an "un-needed expense" yet feel free to get shackled down for the next 20+ years (as some recent articles reveal, even LONGER, as grown adults college-age to as old as FREAKING 50 return to move BACK IN WITH YOU) thus kissing whatever free time, money & sanity you have goodbye. As if it's even in question as to which trade-off is WORSE...

Adoption is expensive and stressful??? And what, bearing your own child is all rainbows, coos and talcum powder puffs??? My god, have YOU been watching WAY too many diaper commercials!

If you consider adoption 'too expensive and stressful' what makes you think you can handle the stress and difficulty and EXPENSE of rearing any child YOU might squeeze out? I see (the adoption process) as the perfect test of parenthood. If you think it's too much to handle, you (and society) will be much better off with you starting a cat collection instead *lol*

And having children as some kind of "elderly insurance" ?? Here your child isn't even BORN yet and you're already giving them A JOB? In my not-so-long life I've met TOO MANY neglected, lonely and discarded GRANDPARENTS to take your idea seriously, so good luck with THAT.

40,000 children dying of malnutrition each day, 5 BILLION + people ALREADY here are living in physical, spiritual, psychological suffering, a staggering 99.2% of all species that has ever existed on this planet is, as of this moment, extinct.....So...uh, tell me again WHY this world so DESPERATELY needs YOUR offspring? Oh that's right, your "need" to have kids is all about you....thereby making you part of the problem....

Children are the future and it will be them who will have to heal our earth!

We are already relying on them. In our area, in the environs of the Isimangaliso Wetland park, a world natural heritage site, in South Africa, we train Tribal Zulu children to become Young Environmental Ambassadors. Children from first world countries support this and thereby make a difference in the world of those less privilidged than themselves. Children are our present and future Tree Huggers! To no longer have children is to rob the world of great future beings!

We would love to hear from any young Tree huggers or their parent's who may be also interested in becoming part of the solution by assisting from abroad, their fellow youth in South Africa. Become a partner to a Young Environmental Ambassador in a Tribal Area. You may visit us and see how you can be involved at:

http://www.suni-ridge.org.za/young-environmental-ambassador-course.htm.

also see :

http://www.suni-ridge.org.za/

We look forward to hearing from you.

Janet Cuthbertson
Zululand
South Africa

Fine, but that just adds to my point of adults adding our screw-ups and responsibilities onto the tiny little shoulders of innocent children who never even asked to BE HERE. WHY the F do you feel it's acceptable to foist OUR problems onto them?

"To no longer have children is to rob the world of great future beings!"

No, to NOT HAVE children would be to SPARE THEM from the future we have created for them! It's reprehensible to have a child just to give them a job to do. Or place your own individual expectations on them before they even become their own person! (as I read in an earlier post "I'm 'HOPING' my child will grow up to be an environmentalist, biologist, fill-in-the-blank-future-savior-of-OUR-problems)

What's more, what the HELL makes you think that they're going to grow up hugging trees and singing koombaya as you might dream they would?? That's the risk in molding a child to fit your own selfish ideals and expectations: they just might grow up and say f you to all of it. Probably become as bad a polluter as anyone else. THEN what'll your BRIGHT IDEA BE??

WHAT if your parents had placed the same expectations on you as you're placing on these poor kids?? How would you have measured up? Is THIS your best solution? Have a kid so THEY can clean up OUR mess? That was most likely OUR parent's idea....And you can clearly see how THAT'S turned out.

It's as if we all are running up an astronomical credit card bill, so large you think to yourself "I couldn't possibly pay this in my lifetime!! How will I even BEGIN to get myself out from under this debt??? Hey, I know!! I'll just keep running the tab right on to the NEXT generation, I have KIDS to pay for it when I get too old to make the minimum monthly pymnt (IF THAT!!). Would you consider doing that to your kids in the literal sense? If you happen to GIVE a rat's poop about their future, you'd probably think to yourself "God NO!! Their financial future would be ruined before it would even have a chance to begin!! How grossly irresponsible would I be???" Yet....it seems perfectly acceptable to you to do this in the environmental sense???

WHAT'S the POINT (aside from selfish biological impulses) of introducing new life to a planet that's rapidly heating up, DRYING OUT, toxifying and depleting of (NATURAL) life AS WE SPEAK???

Did I hear from one of you the solution to all this is to pack up and ship out to SPACE??? HA, aint that rich?? Even IF this was practical (even PLAUSIBLE) who'd be surprised that any establishment sustainable of human life created there would be depleted of it's resources in record time??? Same problems, different setting. And what're the chances you'd just respond "Why'd I care? I'd have lived out my life and died by that time" translation: Let my KIDS sort it out so it no longer becomes MY problem.

"To no longer have children is to rob the world of great future beings!"

No, less humans born means one less homeless wild animal due to human sprawl, one less dried up source of freshwater, one less overfished body of water. One less car to congest our over-congested streets & freeways. One LESS contribution to our over-flowing landfills...THIS is BAD???

With all the "we have kids, it's OUR RIGHT so f-u" or the "Yes, I have kids but it's OK because MINE will be DIFFERENT" attitudes I've seen displayed here does not bode well for the future. The mayans, who were legendary for their supposedly incredible intelligence, did not exempt them from thier need to breed, which is exactly what helped do them in: overpopulation, overdevelopment and self-inflicted drought.

Look up the sad fate of the island Rapanui aka Easter Island. Rapanui is merely a petri dish of what's happening on this planet now. Long story short (too late, ha!): Before it was populated or "settled" it was a lush island paradise, teeming with life, with an infintitely diverse ecosystem. It had a vast supply of palm trees perfect for cutting into canoes which were used to hunt porpoise, an important staple in their diet. It was estimated the population peaked at 20,000 (which if you're aware of the size of the island, is an extremely sizable number). Several thousand years later, when Dutch explorers discovered the island (which is the very reason you can find it on a map today), palm trees were extinct, no flora over 10 feet high was to be found, soil was considerably eroded (no doubt due to over-farming & deforestation), no indigenous animal were found to exist (only domestic chickens...and yecch RATS....which were ALSO eaten), potable water was scarce, and there was evidence CANNIBALISM was practiced among these islanders (whether famine induced, or from it's decline of "civilization" as a result of it's resource depletion....probably both....is still debated). I invite you to look it up and see for yourself.

I'll bring up a quote in response to an article written about this very island:
"Lord May, the President of Britain's Royal Society, recently condensed Diamond's
theory of environmental suicide in this way: "In a lecture at the Royal Society last
week, Jared Diamond drew attention to populations, such as those on Easter Island,
who denied they were having a catastrophic impact on the environment and were
eventually wiped out, a phenomenon he called 'ecocide'" (May, 2005).

One can only imagine the small fringe of concerned islanders, seeing the destruction and having the foresight of what might come (why are you having kids when there are no trees to make canoes for them when they grow up?). Probably treated as kooky, misguided, pessimistic, doom-loving chicken littles as I have....They were probably just as admonished for their ideas....and probably the 1st to be eaten in the breakdown of their society.

You want to talk about "robbing"?? Look at what we've done to our plants, animals, water, air and soil??? What the F do YOU call THAT???

Aside from living within one's means and raising awareness about conservation, abstaining from breeding is the greatest contribution to the environment a human being can possibly do. Look at the resources (land, water, etc.) that would be SAVED....compared to the few piddly cans you recycle to make yourself feel better about yourself while you litter the planet with people.

How arrogant are we simians to forget the planet DOESN'T NEED US....WE NEED the PLANET!