I don't know if it's my computer or what but I can't hear anything.

If anyone else can't hear it, go to the video on Youtube. For someone reason I couldn't hear it on Treehugger but I could hear it on Youtube.

There are other, non-surgical ways to control your number of offspring. They work pretty well, too. I'd say most of us should hold off on the vasectomies.

I'm all for smaller families, but the world needs some children. Otherwise, who are we saving the planet for, anyway?

What is the right number of children to have? That is a question I can't answer because I don't know what the world's population "should" be- and neither do the rest of us, despite what some may like to think. But in the long run, if we wanted to keep the population constant, the "right" number of children is 2 on average, plus extra to counteract those who tragically do not make it to adulthood and those who do not have children of their own.

Look at the world's countries. As nations become developed and people become more educated, more wealthy, and safer, family sizes shrink naturally; it no longer is necessary to have many children, and as women gain more control of their own lives it ceases to be desirable to have so many. Investing more resources into a smaller number of children is a better strategy when those children are likely to grow up healthy and safe, with good opportunities.

For a shrewd look at the population problem, look no farther than the under-appreciated Mike Judge comedy, Idiocracy.

Long story short... the poor and uneducated will keep reproducing much faster than the rest of us who put off starting families to go to college, start careers, etc. It's a sad reality. One that has been ignored by most media, politics, etc. Probably because nobody knows how to touch the subject.

For a shrewd look at the population problem, look no farther than the under-appreciated Mike Judge comedy, Idiocracy.

Long story short... the poor and uneducated will keep reproducing much faster than the rest of us who put off starting families to go to college, start careers, etc. It's a sad reality. One that has been ignored by most media, politics, etc. Probably because nobody knows how to touch the subject.

Anthony: I am not saving the planet for children. I am saving the planet for every creature except children.

Also, we do not want to keep the population constant. The goal is to reduce it to a sustainable amount, probably less than 500 million at western consumption levels. Maybe 2 billion if everyone is living as eco-friendly as possible.

Fortunately, famine, wars, and disease should help out by the end of the century.

I agree. TOO MANY PEOPLE. You can't blame my extended family. Out of 14 people (seven plus spouses), we had five adult children. Our ages range from 48 to 62; five children range from 20 to 40. China has a one child policy and if might be the answer for all of us.

ADOPTION

I am fully in favor of adoption of the hundreds of thousands of children world wide who do not have families.

If people are so desperate to have a family they should only be allowed one biological child and should adopt any others that they should want.

Personally I would love to get my tubes tied to ward off accidental pregnancy

I wonder if Mr. Thomas considers himself to be one of the few enlightened people who "deserve" to be here or one of the excess population? I think I know the answer to that one. Apparently his mother and father thought that there was some value in procreation, however.

My wife and I have three children. We are both college-educated and waited for several years before starting our family. Personally, I feel that children and family bonds are what make life on this miserable rock worth living. What are we here for, after all, if not to pass on our knowledge and values to the generations that follow? Why bother trying to save the planet if we're only interested in our own brief, shallow lives?

The problem is not the number of people on the planet. No, the problem is the attitude and behavior of the people on the planet. People are largely interested in their own prosperity and well-being, which is why environmentally responsible behavior (which requires a certain amount of personal discipline) has been non-existant for so long. The worst offenders are, in fact, the wealthy, highly-educated, western cultures. Who, I ask you, are the largest consumers of oil, the largest emitters of pollution, the largest consumers of all natural resources? It's not the "poor, uneducated" breeders, as one poster puts it.

Population control is not the answer. The planet could support many, many times more people than currently reside here if resources were managed properly and with environmental sustainability in mind. It's rampant consumerism and wasteful behavior that have taxed our natural resources....not overpopulation.

Population control should involve birthing licenses, because too many people, my sister included, have children when they can't afford them, can't educate them, can't spare time to keep them out of criminal activity, can't even house them independently (in their own home, not their parents' home), etcetera. But more liberal approaches to population control exist- educate the women, provide free birth control and family planning services as well as free and anonymous abortions (because a great amount of births are actually unwanted), and use public education systems to educate on the ecological reasons to have 0-1 child. Also, the media play a significant role in influencing family size. TV, radio, and internet shows should show the truth about having a large family- the huge amount of work involved, often mainly for the female partner; the enormous stress, not being able to keep up with them or their schoolwork, not being able to show each child enough attention, not having time to one's self, not being able to afford their care, becoming so overweight from childbirth after childbirth, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Having a large family is no where near as fun as the media portray it. It MUST be discussed HONESTLY.

brennan...

You've certainly got a lot of compassion for your fellow man. I guess by your reasoning, Hitler was the ultimate environmentalist.

I'm also not trying to save the planet for children. the thought of a world without humans is endlessly fascinating.

check out vhemt.org. It's great!

I have recently been hankering for young company, but thankfully, there are enough day cares hiring, children who need babysitting, and kids floundering in America's foster care system, that I can do the selfless thing and stop bringing another first world overconsumer into the world.

But Flahooler, what about the countless starving, orphaned children already here? Is their collective misery less important than your right to reproduce yourself? Are you shallow enough to love only those that you've produced? You're neglecting an entire "generation" badly in need of the very bonds and knowledge you speak of. Adding more people to the world and loving and educating them will not, in any way, make up for this.

Seems pretty selfish to invoke the need to nurture without even considering this, though calling our gorgeous planet a miserable rock gives us some idea as to your overall attitude...

Matty,

No need to throw around personal insults....I am neither 'selfish' nor 'shallow'. I simply have a different point of view on the positive benefits of raising children. I prefer to focus on the good things that a child brings into the world and into the lives of his or her parents, rather than on their ecological impact.

It seems to me that most of the comments to this article take a fairly cold view of humanity. Perhaps that's a side-effect of the over-zealous environmental movement portraying people as nothing more than a collection of 'carbon footprints'. Unfortunately, they've also succeeded in providing yet another social metric by which we can nurture our own egos....our 'green' status. As a result, environmentalism has become one more source of division and disagreement rather than a source of unity.

You're absolutely right that there are many, many disadvantaged children in the world in need of love and care. Personally, I have nothing but respect for those who choose to adopt, but that was not the right path for my wife and I. The fact that we chose to raise our own children does not demonstrate a lack of concern for those less fortunate. There are many ways to help children besides adoption. Through our church, we participate in several programs designed to benefit needy children. We hope that by teaching our own children that people matter, they will grow up with a desire to help others as well. Likewise, we hope to teach them to be environmentally conscious and respectful of what's been given to them. That's what it's all about....passing on values.

And, yes, this planet is indeed a miserable rock. Don't misunderstand me....it's a beautiful rock and I enjoy spending time in the great outdoors. However, the trees and flowers, hills and streams take no notice of our lives. The do not lift us up in bad times, they do not rejoice with us in good times, the do not remember us when we're gone. Only our friends and family do that, and they are therefore, in my opinion, the only things worth living for. Save the earth....absolutely. But save it out of care and concern for the people we leave behind us, not in spite of them.

@Flahooler Bravo.