Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 03. 9.08
Parents are good at dropping subtle hints. When this TreeHugger’s dear mother sent him an article by Angharad Penrhyn Jones about how eco-activists “spend their lives agonising over the planet’s future – but that doesn’t stop them having children”, it didn’t take a genius to figure out she may be ready for grandchildren. Actually, putting Grover-family politics aside for a moment, the article, entitled I Threw My Fears to the Wind, makes for interesting reading. Penrhyn Jones, who is married to the ever controversial George Monbiot, says there was a time when she thought she’d never have kids because she was worried about the “terrible things the world would do to them”, not to mention the terrible things that they would do to the world. Eventually she was convinced by similarly green-minded friends, however, that having a few children and bringing them up responsibly was no bad thing. Penhryn Jones’ daughter, Hanna, is now two, and it seems she is not yet the treehugging activist-in-waiting one might expect:
“More than anything, she loves to look out of her bedroom window at the A489. There are the timber lorries to admire, the tractors, the boy racers’ overpowered hatchbacks. Military aircraft, ripping through the skies on their training exercises are a delight. Hanna adores anything that burns fossil fuels. When do we tell her the nasty truth about climate change.”
The article goes on to point out that most preceding generations had their worries too, from disease to hunger to nuclear war, but that, for the last 150 years, there has been a general optimism that the next generation was going to have it better. It is, Penhryn Jones argues, “much harder to be optimistic now.” She discusses the predicament with fellow environmental activists, climate campaigners and parents, and while it is clear she does not see much hope for a rosy future, she says that parents can’t indulge in pessimism. Author and activist Mark Lynas agrees, noting that the future is anything but decided:
“In a sense we're returning to the uncertainties of our evolutionary past. But many of the situations I've written about are avoidable. I genuinely think we can do something about climate change.”
We’d be fascinated to hear our readers views on the subject. And for those greenies who do decide to have kids, remember to take a look at our guide on How to Green Your Baby, remembering of course that no amount of organic reusable diapers are going to fix the future by themselves, so do take time out from your parenting duties to vote, protest, petition and generally shout like hell for a saner future for all our children.
Thanks Mum for the tip – let’s talk about those grandkids later…
::The Guardian::via Mum::
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.