- ‹ previous
- 574 of 1535
- next ›
Listen Up, Grown-Ups
Okay, there's been a ton of venting on my baby boom post. I still feel like people are missing the point I was trying to make. So let me try again.
Eoin O'Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor's bright green blog suggests that assigning responsibility for emissions across generations is inherently faulty since we'd have to trace it all that ways backwards to our original progenitor, "a clump of self-replicating molecules some four billion years ago."
Huh? We can't go backwards in time (well, not until the Large Hadron Collider goes online, anyway). So all we actually can do at this point in time to affect any change is to think of the future as we take actions and make choices today. So, yes, we must (not assign) but assume responsibility for emissions across generations.
Second, O'Carroll questions whether it's "a wise strategy to deploy environmental stewardship to urge people to voluntarily stop having kids?" He continues:
Even if such a strategy worked (a big if), the only people to heed this advice be those who care about the environment, while those who don’t care about the environment would continue breeding as usual. Given that children generally tend to share the social beliefs of their parents, this starts to looks like a recipe for eliminating environmentalism from the gene pool.
Okay, so those of us who know having more kids will screw up the world faster than it already is getting screwed up should go ahead and have those kids anyway because the screwed-up anti-greenies are going to take over the world? Sounds like a South Park episode to me. This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons approach akin to burying our heads in the diapers. The truth is we all own equal shares in the future of our planet and each one of us needs to protect the shares in any way we can.
Third, O'Carroll's cites Alex Steffen's "alternative" vision of how we can protect the climate by curbing population growth: that is, by empowering women.
That means increasing their access to reproductive health choices, education, jobs, loans, and protection against violence. Everywhere this has happened, the birthrate has declined.
This is hardly a new approach to population control and is clearly the only one that has worked so far. So we're in agreement here. But I would add that part of the education that empowers women is providing access to scientific studies buried in obscure journals. Even telling them things they may not want to hear. In my case, I wanted to let women and men know that the cost of their next child is 10,000 to 13,000 extra metric tons of CO2. Is that not educational?
Deploying environmental stewardship is educational.
As for the photo I posted—and a lot of the readers took umbrage at it—apparently I violated a secret social contract that requires we publish only pictures of cute happy babies.
What's wrong with angry babies?
Which leads me to my final point. I do not hate babies, even when they're little monsters.
I'm just trying to talk about their future.
SOME SENSE!
Yeah, its all about making responsible choices. The commenters don't seem to realize that there was a Supreme Court Case (the name escapes me now) where the justices came to the conclusion that the Constitution implies that our government cannot adhere to any kind of orthodox thinking (I believe the case didn't have to do with freedom of religious exprression). That's why we don't have population control unlike China where the state can do whatever the hell it wants. Yeah, its frustrates me to see people having large families. Its not that they have a right to have kids, they have a right to choose how to live their lives. Like all freedoms, its a double-edged sword.
By the way, its very very cool of you that you engage with your readers in the comments section. I haven't seen any of the other writers who contribute to this site leave that many comments.
Is reproduction a Commons?
You mention Professor Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. Under that article's reasoning, eventually human overpopulation will require the privatization of reproduction - essentially Cap and Trade for baby rights. I don't think that is the direction for a free society to take, but I agree that something must be done do slow down population growth.
Empowering women is an essential first step, but I believe that at least one major other factors must be addressed: cultural influences towards large families. Religious and cultural taboos on contraception work against the societal reforms that empower women.
Additionally, more education will hopefully translate to increased environmental consciousness among groups that currently have high fertility rates. Surely the groups that tend to support environmental causes are upper-middle class people with college educations. These "elitists" already have the lowest fertility rates.
Lil Monsters of your own
I wonder, does the author have any children of her own?
Julia Whitty, I got your back . . .
You're never gonna make friends by suggesting people shouldn't have kids, no matter how rational the argument is. They immediately take offense and accuse you of being a monster. Especially if it's for something that at first blush might seem like another limp-wristed enviro issue. 'Did you hear the latest crazy shit from that bitch Whitty? She hates you're kids cause they'll grow up to wear fur!' Or what-the-fuck-ever. Your last post got people frothing at the mouth so much you would have thought it was 'A Modest Proposal'. At least people got that one. You walked into a huge minefield and I respect you for that. You'll be fighting an uphill battle on this one but please don't stop. Someone needs to say this stuff.
For what it's worth, I know you don't think my children are ugly and stupid (any that I might accidentally have). I don't think you want to cut off my penis or start carving out uteri. I don't think that the only problem you would have with burning infants is it's carbon footprint. I understand that the the quality of life I can provide for a child is inversely proportional to the number I have. I understand that there is only so much to go around. And I want my kids to have some, even if it means I can only make one child happy. Julia Whitty, from one person to another, I get it.
Thanks, I know there are
Thanks, I know there are plenty out there who get it. We need to shed the fatalism that accompanies getting it & get to work fixing it.
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
Angry babies
I love the angry baby pictures.
And I love that you are actually continuing this conversation after all the BS you got in the original post that had NOTHING to do with the carbon footprint per baby issue laid out.
Please people - if you have children (fantastic), teach them to reduce their carbon footprint. That's the whole point. If it's 12,000 now, work to lower not only your own current impact, but the impact of each successive generation in your line.
I like angry baby photos
I like angry baby photos too. I think they're honest.
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
Humans = Environmental Destruction
I am not offended by the topic but I really do not see how awareness that a baby has a high carbon footprint is going to change anything?
Unless I am not aware of what being human means but the last time I checked everything I do has a high carbon footprint. Being a human is bad for the environment-PERIOD!! You can sugar coat things any way you like but the bottom line is we are in the best of scenario's at least having some negative impact on the environment or changing it in some way that is not "Natural". So I have a hard time when self righteous people tell me I need to lower my carbon footprint or need to postpone or not have a child because of the carbon .......
I am very upset with the current state of our environment but think that there are better ways to increase environmental awareness.
Upsetting people gets attention but after that where are you? Have you made a change in anyones mind? Have you influenced anything?
If there is anything we need in is a new generation of people on this earth who are environmentally concerned. Involving kids and educating them on issues and getting them involved in helping changes things. We need to start with ourselves, our friends and our families.
We can't go in the past and we can't stop the future from becoming but we can change our own awareness.
As an American I look at our society and environmentally everything is backwards. We are driving cars on congested freeways??? What is the need for cars?? We should have short range solar/electric vehicles for local trips and trips to the train or plane station. Get rid of our freeways and replace with a solar powered electric rail line. We are bottling water and shipping it all over just to drink a clean(with leached plastic chemicals) glass of water. Talk about a carbon footprint? How many environmentalists do I see with small bottles of water!!??
Of course if we did not have industrial pollution and pollution from the petro chemical industry we would not need bottled water!!
I think instead telling people, "Hey, your baby the greatest gift in your life ever has a huge carbon footprint and is destroying our world." That maybe a better thing to say would be "Hey, your baby has a chance to change the world with the right education and attitude about the environment."
We as a society around the world need to look at our priorities. What is most important in life? Why do we compete instead of share? Why do we have borders? Can land actually be owned? The American Indians thought the whites were crazy when they had treaties because the notion of owning land was laughable. When you die where is that land going? In the end, are you taking that car, business, home, etc with you when you die? No it all gets left behind.
So maybe we should look at why we are doing things and how we can do them differently.
Like Einstein said, "We can't solve problems with the same logic that created them." We can't empower people through fear. We can't change society for the better with negative re-enforcement.
As well meaning as the original article was meant to be it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I want to see environmental concerns taken for what they really are and not ways to shock people to change. People will initially be moved by shock or fear but then fall back into bad habits.
It is a long and hard winding road to change peoples perceptions. It will happen as the world has to change. It is the only constant!
Rob
The gist of the first
The gist of the first article, as I understood it, was that the government should not give credits to people who have children because their children are going to put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There was also an implied premise that if people don't have children, this will be better for the environment, and that perhaps it is even selfish to have children.
Most people who read MoJo are not going to disagree that fewer people is better for the environment. However, if people want to have children, it is unreasonable to try to guilt them into not being parents by offering up (weak) figures on the CO2 a new human being produces through their life.
Reading through comments on that and other articles, it seems that some people feel that the best solution to our environmental problems would be if humans weren't on the planet. While that may be 'a' solution, it isn't 'the' solution, and smacks of a peculiar self-hatred that is difficult for many people to understand.
People should be able to have as many children as they wish, or none at all. It is a basic human right. The truth is that economic constraints (vehicles, day care, home size, food bill) are going to limit the amount of offspring much more than environmental concerns. And as a parent, I think if someone is not having children predominantly because they believe that it will help the earth, that not only have they been suckered, but they also lack the intelligence and adaptability that would make them good parents.
The article is frustrating because while it suggests punishing people who do have children (through eliminating tax breaks, which is ultimately punishing the children as well), it makes no suggestion that other people should share the burden. It singled out children as the problem.
I personally think we should be punishing people like Al Gore who live in houses that take up 20 times the energy of a regular home (or at least guilt him into living like the rest of us before he lectures everybody).
I get it
Juila Whitty however, does not. I would like to make the following points below:
1. Global Warming is a hoax. Climate changes are normal and have been going long before humans got here. Julia, humans are not powerful enough to destroy the planet.
2. It is physically impossible for humans (or any other life form) to exist and not impact the environment.
3. Human life has value, more value than say a polar bear or a bat.
4. Half-ass aplogizing for a stupid blog post, and then turning around and trying to defend it, is insulting.
5. If Julia's critics "don't get it", either the logic is flawed, or Julia's writing skills suck. Personally, I would go with a third choice, Both.
6. We need to fix the environment and take better care of it, not through eugenics, but through intelligence, hard work, and the understanding that we are all in this together.
7. If Julia and Les U Knight are really concerned about human impact, then let them blaze the trail by reducing their own carbon footprints to zero. Really, this is the same mentallity that justified human sacrifice centuries ago "for the good of the villiage/clan/etc." Gotta appease the gods/enviroment. Notice the high priest/priestess doesn't throw themselves into the volcano.
1. While there is an ongoing
1. While there is an ongoing scientific debate, the current consensus is that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I think that you are oversimplifying the issue: the claim is not that all climate change is caused by people, but that changes in addition to normal fluctuations are caused by human activity.
2. I've never heard anyone suggest that we should have zero impact. This is hyperbole.
3. Many would dispute this.
4. You may be too sensitive for internet use if you are so easily offended by a follow-up blog post.
5. That's just being mean.
6. Nobody has mentioned eugenics, unless you refer to her oblique reference to Tragedy of the Commons, an article that advocates the privatization of scarce resources. Fertility rationing could certainly be applied in an unfair manner.
7. Human sacrifice? I don't see the reasoning here. Either your logic is flawed, or your writing skills suck.
Well, clarence45, I suppose
Well, clarence45, I suppose I should be offended. But irrationality bounces right off me and and hysteria makes me yawn.
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
you and your offspring are
you and your offspring are significantly less valuable to me than a polar bear no matter how important you may think you are, you are not.
Why authors don't comment more
Debra J. Dickerson
Wow. Julia. Hope you own a flak jacket. I have two kids and there was nothing rational at any point in my decision to have them. I never thought about the planet, but even if I had, I'd have said "screw the planet." So, first, I'm glad I never thought past my selfish desire. Dodged a bullet there. Ignorance turns out to be really blissful. Guess I could smother them now...but I digress.
Second: reread most of the comments. Perhaps you think we don't comment much because we think we're too good for that. Well, that's not why. But Julia has inspired me. Now where's that darned flak jacket?
Like an internal flak jacket.
I know I'm basically an extremist outlier here, but myself and at least a few of my friends have gotten "fixed" at our young ages. I know they all have their reasons, but as with many of my decisions in life, my primary reason for doing so was environmental.
I know lots of people get a case of the babies. It's natural and good and makes our species go on. I want our species to go on. We're the only sentient beings we know of. We do awful things, but we do awesome things as well.
But even if people made a conscious decision to have just *one* child, or adopt. People can still make smarter and greener decisions and it applies to every one of your decisions. Do you walk? Bike? Bus? Train? Drive a hybrid? Drive a hybrid SUV, or drive a truck? That's just on how you get to one place to another but for your life it has a different solution. I care enough about my impact that I bike or walk almost everywhere. If it's over 20 miles and not a lovely day, that means I'm busing. I've never had a driver's license. I eat vegetarian and "recover" much of my food.
Had I made different decisions in my life I couldn't live like I do. But my priorities puts limitations on my life that I think marginally increase our species' and this world's environments' chance of survival.
Do I think everyone should be somewhere near as conscientious? Yes. Do I think you people with 2 or more kids should be guilty? Hells yes. Am I going to push it on you or try to make it required? No.
nice topic
thanks. you are the most intelligent person i ever met...Well, clarence45, I suppose I should be offended. But irrationality bounces right off me and and hysteria makes me yawn.