- ‹ previous
- 580 of 1535
- next ›
"Tiniest of Baby Booms" A Monster
You can't miss it in today's news: US births break record, 40 percent out-of-wedlock. Frankly, my dear, who gives a shit about the wedding bands. Though that's pretty much what all the moralizing is about.
No, what's stupefying is the fact that nowhere in this much-travelled article does anyone ever talk about the real impact of more babies being born in the US in 2007 than any other year in the nation's history.
So let's talk about it. And let's start with a really interesting study just published in the journal Global Environmental Change. A couple of statisticians at Oregon State U disengaged their mechanical pencils from their pocket protectors, clicked some fresh lead onto recycled paper (we hope) and came up with this bold analysis into that sacristy of human reproduction—to have or not to have:
- A mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring and 1/4 the emissions of their grandchildren and so on forever or thereabouts
- Therefore, under current US conditions, each child adds 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of the average female
- That's 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
- Translation: one child costs nearly 6 times your own CO2 emissions
- In the pessimistic scenario, each American child adds 12,730 metric tons to your carbon legacy
- In comparison, under current Bangladeshi conditions, each child adds 56 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of the average female
The bottom line is that absolutely nothing else you can do—driving a more fuel efficient car, driving less, installing energy-efficient windows, replacing lightbulbs, replacing refrigerators, recycling—comes even close to simply not having that child. All those good things still add up to less than 500 metric tons of CO2 savings. Not having the kid saves between 10,000 and 13,000 metric tons of CO2.
So why are we still giving tax breaks for having kids? Why are we pretending that because they're cute they're harmless? Little monsters.
For more on this guilt-inducing topic...
MoJo recently put together more numbers on our planet-pummeling bundles of joy right here.
And at the risk of sounding like a self-justifying breeder, let me say that people are going to keep having kids, no matter what the tax incentives or environmental/ethical disincentives may be. It's not a very rational decision. Making fewer people would be great, but I think the more realistic question is how to make less mess. Obviously, that becomes more daunting with every new child. But if you think it's hard getting Americans to limit their carbon emissions, just try convincing them to cut back on their carbon-based lifeform emissions.
I think people can be
I think people can be persuaded to think about the planetary impact of, if not the first, the second, third, or fourteenth child. We evolve in our understanding of issues and sometimes that evolution of thinking trumps biology. It did for me. After all, the ones inheriting our 10,000-13,000 metric tons of extra emissions per child are those children. Do we love them enough to not have them?
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
Can kids be offset?
Julia: I agree that people can be persuaded to think more about the impact of having kids. I just think that many environmentally aware people will still find it hard to resist the biological/social/personal urges to procreate. But as you say, maybe they will think twice before having that second or third kid.
Which raises a question: You mention that nothing can be done to mitigate children's carbon footprints, yet can't you offset them, at least in theory? If a person without kids can buy offsets to mitigate their lifestyle, why can't a parent use offsets to dilute their kids' impact, at least partially? If I build a wind farm, can I have another kid?
Yeah! Buy a Tesla with your vasectomy receipt!
Darn it Dave you beat me to it. Yes, we should be able to trade offset futures (obtained by promising to stay childless) for cash now. We could spend it by buying a Hummer (and paying for the carbon this will be responsible for), but far better to buy something that will 'reduce' our emissions further, and get still more tradeable credits. Let's see, at $20 per ton of CO2, you'd be looking at over $180,000 for not having a kid. And if you didn't have TWO munchkins... I think I'll decide to not have ten, and retire.
Windfarms kill shitloads of
Windfarms kill an unsustainable number of birds and bats. What are you mitigating? Your guilt?
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
A Little More Research
And perhaps you would find that they've figured out a way to lessen the killing of birds & bats
k.b.
Julia,
Having anything to do with Mother Jones, you should know better than to pass on ignorant reactionary propaganda like the nonsense about windmills and birds.
Wind generators will SAVE birds, as buildings, cars and trucks, com towers, and other artifacts of industrialism kill roughly 10,000 times as many birds in the US as windmills do, and that doesn’t even count habitat loss, by far the worst killer of birds. Those numbers are increasing, while wind generator kills are decreasing per generator, and almost none are killed by household-sized generators. Of course we should reduce it to as close to zero as possible, with careful design and siting, and reasonable, carefully-researched feedback. So would you please help with that? Getting rid of your cell phone, PDA, car, meat-eating habit, plane tickets...stop using plastic, eat only local, organic food..... those would be good ways to slow the killing of birds.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that coal, oil and nuclear corporations would try to sell this absurd lie; but it does amaze me that it has achieved the life of the Hydra--every time you cut off a head two grow back. The idea that wind power could cause any more than a tiny, miniscule fraction of a percent of the ecological damage of coal, oil and nukes is ludicrous. And the same goes for bats--habitat loss, pesticides, other toxic waste... Please do the fact checks first, then write.
Do you really have any info to back this up
I'm pretty sure you are just bull-horning information that you were downloaded from TV and you just decided it was accurate and have probably told everyone this without even putting any reasoning behind it.
Actually...
domestic cats kill a lot more birds than wind turbines.
Maybe you should all get rid of your cats.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fwt/back_issues/december98/cats.html
why do you sound like you're shilling for Big Coal/Nuclear?
Nobody who's working for MJ as an environmental correspondent has any business repeating discredited anti-wind talking points.
If your heart belongs to Big Coal, you should be working for them openly, not astroturfing here.
Huh?
Lizard
Are you suggesting that MJ turn from being an open thinking, progressive "magazine" it claims to be by hiring only one narrow minded set of automatons that parrot the party line?
Shirley, you jest... or are you just a narrow minded parrot of the wind-gospel and unwilling to suffer anyone a contrarian opinion?
You are right...
You are right, but still much more is needed, because people are not usually persuaded by facts. The factual message must be brought home, in the schools, on all the media, by preachers and priests, by scientists and the UN: the earth - our earth - is hurting. And we have to relieve the pressure. Or we are destined to 'drown', maybe even literally. Man may well be the only species that is able to withstand the implicit laws of nature and come away with it - for a while. This because we have brains and also a lot of muddled thinking. Well let's use them use now for a bit of clear thinking!
Do we love them enough not to have them.
Do we love them enough not to have them???
What kind of Orwellian-inspired memory hole doublethink is that?
I recycle nearly everything in my home. Paper, plastics, metal, glass. I plant trees. I encourage and nurture others to do the same.
This Eugenics mindset is unhealthy, unnatural, and needs to stop.
Do you seriously think a 'carbon tax' that they are going to implement is going to do anything but go to the same idiots who created this financial mess in the first place?
lol, "ConcernedMom"
If ever there were a handle warning that whiny, self-righteous bullshit was about to follow...
As for "eugenics," I do not think that word means what you think it means.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the low carbon farm?
First, the "research" upon which this article is based comes from a prof and fellow Beaver that has very liberal political leanings (check out his personal web page). That is ok, but I always consider a person's politics when they offer "facts." We all can be guilty of looking for "facts" to support our already emotionally driven decisions.
Secondly, Julia gets kudos for being the only MJ blog author I have seen that responds to readers' comments. I appreciate that, Julia.
Thirdly, Julia's commitment to her causes comes at a high cost. Parenting...good parenting...takes a lot of work. It is a full time job and requires selflessness. It is also more rewarding than any other thing I have accomplished in my life. Odds are, good parenting results in outstanding offspring. Of course, the opposite is true as well.
Fourthly, many of the comments here contain an element of truth. Our Western standard of living is based upon consumption. And for that, most of the world envies us. Given the choice, the low-carbon impact people in other countries would jump at the chance to live among our poorest, carbon be damned. Is that wrong?
Lastly, the cries of "the end is near" are pretty much emotional hysteria. We humans are adaptable, if nothing else. We have conquered most of the virulent diseases that kept the world's population in check prior to the 20th century. We can certainly be wiser in our decisions as individuals, but we can also be wiser in our national priorities, which I believe can maintain a good standard of living while minimizing environmental impact.
Absolutely right - people
Absolutely right - people aren't going to stop breeding. Being aware is one thing, wishing for our extinction is, well unhealthy no matter what way you look at it.
Who's talking about extinction?
A Dutch astronomer once made the observation that we should be tolerant about opinions, but not about facts. And the facts all lead to the inevitable admission that this small planet of ours already has become too crowded by far. So like it or not we have to do something about it. Because if we don't then our extinction really is near, starting with worldwide famines and local wars about water and food and very soon resulting in total chaos. One of the lengthy crimes of the Bush-administration has been the ban on anti-conception and the like and a lot of innocent children are going to pay the price for that. But in the end we all do!
Unfortunately, to say that
Unfortunately, to say that having children is "not a rational decision" hits the nail on the head of those selfish enough to breed. Having children should be the *most* rational decision made. Aargh!!!!
Here's a thought
You obviously have little value for human life. Your religion of Carbonology, whose High Priests include Al Gore and a host of others seeking to make their fortunes on this band wagon, is shaping your values.
Is this hate and distaste for new human life just for North Americans? Or does it include Latinos, Africans, Europeans, and Asians?
Do you chastise your mothers for bearing you and your siblings?
Here's a thought... Each of you that share the author’s views might want to get together for a "mass extinction party" and eliminate your personal carbon footprints. That is much better than living with the guilt of having worn Pampers when you were babies and the huge carbon impact your life has thus far created. Why continue breathing and exhaling CO2?
Or does your haughty and arrogant view apply only to others?
This is just plain silly.
Barry speaks, and removes all doubt
Barry wrote: "Your religion of Carbonology, whose High Priests include Al Gore and a host of others seeking to make their fortunes on this band wagon, is shaping your values."
With all due respect, sir, you are an idiot.
SecAnim
Thanks... from someone of your reason and judgement, that is a compliment.... as well as expected. You tend to make a lot of statements without facts or basis. It always adds so little to the dialogue.
btw... you have not yet answered my postings in "King Coal." Perhaps you have not read or studied the actual numbers regarding land mass, etc. required for wind and solar generating technologies. I encourage you to parse and vett statements made to you by those fully imersed in Sciento...er, Carbonology.
Again, that said... I am all for eliminating/reducing the numbers of coal-fired generating plants. We have a proven technology already providing 20% of this nation's electrical needs, 24/7... and no carbon emissions! Can I hear a big WooHoo from all the Carbonologists (I would never expect them to say Amen.)
"Carbon" is shorthand
Its unfortunate that the environmental movement has gotten stuck on "global warming".
Anytime you here "carbon" understand that it is an easy way of saying "the impact of an unsustainable level of human environmental degradation via consumption and pollution of natural resources which are at levels beyond which the ecosystem is capable of recovering from fast enough to meet our demand."
If we had enough wind farms, enough bio-fuel,or enough nuclear power (which produces waste that will be unsafe for as long into the future as the earth has existed) to power the US at even our current rates of population and consumption per person (both of which are growing) it would cause massive degradation to the biosphere which all living things - including humans - are dependent on.
There are only two possible ways to mitigate this problem:
1) The US lowers its lifestyle to match that of the 3rd world (which despite its population still consumes less total energy and materials the we do)
or
2)Produce fewer new people.
The third option ends in WWIII over the few remaining natural resources, energy, water, wood, land, whatever, within our children's lifetimes if not within our own.
Well done.
Thank you for writing this article. Overpopulation does not receive enough media attention as an environmental issue.
Let's keep in mind that the
Let's keep in mind that the real reason for sustainable development and good environmental practices is for the well-being of future generations-Julia, I hope your post is at least a little tounge-in-cheek; otherwise I think you're missing the big picture.
New Religion
All hail the one true organic deity! Join us in Carbonianity! Cast aside the oppresive chains of oxygen, nitrogen, and yes, even hydrogen. Worship the Carbon!!! Double bond yourself to the verdidant, loving Carbon. Blessed are the Carbonians and our prophet Al the Gore. We have seen the future, and it shines like a diamond!
Graphite detail
Ribbit
You waxed on, too... in graphite detail! Bless your double-carbon bonds, benzene rings, and polyunstaturated chains, too!
adoption? foster care?
tagged as:- solution
does anybody else find it a little strange that nowhere in this conversation does adoption or foster care enter the picture? putting aside the environmental component for a minute, there are currently over a HALF MILLION kids in foster care in the U.S. alone, most of them looking for stable families with stable parents. seems to me that any self-respecting leftist would take this into account as part of examining the issue of the "cost" of having kids . . .
adoption is the best
adoption is the best mitigation. prefab isn't just for houses.
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
sure, adoption is great for
sure, adoption is great for those who can afford it, for those who meet all criteria, and for those who have the time and resources to travel far and wide to various countries that may have children available for adoption, given the long, long waits in the US for babies (yes, some people just want a baby. let's not scorn them for not taking in a twelve-year old foster child w/possible behavioral and emotional issues that most people, even the most high-minded, can cope with). adoption isn't an option for EVERYone, and whitty must know this. to the casual observer, she could almost come across as bitter. maybe she can't have children of her own, or lacks a partner who wants to share this sort of journey with her. maybe she secretly desires a baby, but won't admit it out of some strange sort of stubborn pridefulness. maybe she feels as though she'd be a terrible parent, and as such, has decided to take the overly rightous approach. she's the only one who knows the real reason for her little diatribe. I'm wondering if we should be feeling badly for her.
Wow.
"whitty must know this. to the casual observer, she could almost come across as bitter. maybe she can't have children of her own, or lacks a partner who wants to share this sort of journey with her. maybe she secretly desires a baby, but won't admit it out of some strange sort of stubborn pridefulness. maybe she feels as though she'd be a terrible parent, and as such, has decided to take the overly rightous approach. she's the only one who knows the real reason for her little diatribe. I'm wondering if we should be feeling badly for her. "
I'm going to run that comment through my Special Childfree Converter:
"To the casual observer, (anonymous commenter) could come across as smug and sanctimonious. Maybe s/he as a partner that s/he realized along time ago wasn't a compatible mate but thought that having children would "bring them closer". Maybe s/he secretly wishes s/he never had the children and longs for the freedom and privacy that s/he used to enjoy, but won't admit it because to do so would be to lose face. Also, let's face it, it'd be a really shitty thing to come right out and say to the kids. But hey, there are still a plethora of sly, passive-agressive ways for the commenter to take his/her bitterness and regret out on them. Maybe s/he resents childfree-by-choice people so much - how dare they make such a non-mainstream life choice! - that s/he has decided to take the judgmental and presumptious approach. S/he will convince herself she must be morally and socially superior to her childfree counterparts and act accordingly. I guess I should feel bad for him/her. But then I remember that s/he is basically a selfish asshole who brought children into the world to satisfy some personal need."
Move beyond treating humans as machines
It seems a little too reductionist to consider each new baby as a carbon emissions machine. Each new human also has the potential to be a budding change agent. To grow up into a morally mature earth citizen. One who understands at his or her core the interconnected nature of our planet and takes responsibility for real stewardship to the earth community. The real issue is not simply (though important) the quantity of people on our planet, but the quality of the people. To me, as a father, it is my moral imperative to raise my children with the values, love and intellect needed to co-create a world that is healthy and respectful of all life on this planet.
Goodness. So because MAYBE
Goodness. So because MAYBE one or two of these kids will be ecologically aware and perhaps active in the effort for the human race to be less destructive, the GUARANTEED environmental damage is fine? I'm not actually anti-kids, but this is faulty logic. The slim chance of slim benefit hardly outweighs the certainty of harm.
Commenters are missing the point
All lot of people have commented along the lines of the author not valuing human life, or there being no point to conserving if there are no future generations.
As was pointed out, more babies were born last year than ever before in all of history.
Humans are in no danger of going extinct. It may not be realistic nor desirable to expect that no one will have any kids, but that is no reason not to encourage them to have fewer. If every couple had a maximum of 2 children, the population would stabilize (at it's already unsustainable level). Since the population is growing, obviously we are still averaging more than 2 kids each.
As to the comment about foreign birth rates, this was already addressed (though apparently not clearly enough) in the article: no other society in the world uses as many resources per person as we do. Which means in terms of impact, each person here counts as several people in the third world (very roughly 20x), making the US by far the most overpopulated country in the world.
We have gone beyond our primitive instincts in many areas of life, and experiencing parenthood through adoption needs to be the next area.
I was working on a blog on this exact topic this week, and you beat me to it! On the plus side, it gives me some ideas to add, and some motivation to get back to writing. Thanks
We don't have to commit
We don't have to commit ourselves to mass self-extinctions. The unraveling web of life -- the unfolding of mass extinctions of other species -- could doom our own, whether physically or psychically (a psychic pall already affects those who don't get outside and really use their senses to observe what's there). Of course, various species are always arising and passing, but the pace of the change is what's alarming. Who's surprised by overpopulation? As a species we've evolved in the last 10,000 years into believing that we can get something for nothing -- whether that means more grain for storage, more people, more autos, more interest, more bubbles. That mindset, too, is changing, though it may not change quickly enough to help us or any other species. If I had to bet, the mycelia will probably inherit the earth. I won't be passing along my genes and that is partly by choice and partly by circumstance. Occasionally, that saddens me, but mostly it's OK. I can find plenty of other ways to express myself.
Um, Idiocracy?
Um, Idiocracy?
tiniest of baby booms
I thought maybe Ms. Whitty's piece was tongue-in-cheek in the great tradition of writers like Jonathan Swift, but after seeing a comment that is presumably from her, now I'm wondering if maybe she isn't really just being a callous rhymes-with-itch.
If we take her argument to its logical conclusion, we should simply distribute a few billion swords and ritually extinct ourselves. Or if we want to be sure we remove even the most incalcitrant, a good old-fashioned all-out nuclear war should pretty much do the trick. It may take awhile, but the planet will eventually right itself.
Ms. Whitty's piece, moreover, does not address the importance of children in any other context than climate change, and offers nothing at all by way of a solution other than not having children. And how realistic is it to expect that low-carbon Bangladeshi child - who probably grew up in abject poverty - to turn down an opportunity to migrate to a first-world country, work like hell (and probably at an environmentally unfriendly profession like medicine - have you seen all the waste that industry generates in the name of minimizing bio-hazards?), take a spouse and pop out a brood that would make the Octo-Mom jealous???
Another option - how about capping human lifespan, Logan's Run style? We'll have our insurance folks crunch the numbers and come up with an optimum age at which the allocation of resources for the care and maintenance of a declining human body no longer justify the expense, in dollars and in environmental damage. I'm guessing, given the greater burden the average woman places on the medical system, that men would be Soylent-Greened around age 62 and women at about 58. And yes, I referenced the movie in which the dead are processed to feed the living. From a carbon footprint standpoint, that's far more efficient after all.
Or how about this as a personal solution for Ms. Whitty as her evolution of thinking trumps biology - take your brood to Bangladesh, live just like the current average Bangladeshi lives, and that way you can bring your carbon footprint down to current Bangladeshi levels. Of course, as the average Bangladeshi probably doesn't have 24/7 high-speed Internet access, we'll only hear about your noble self-sacrifice in sporadic spurts.
Murder = birth control?
"If we take her argument to its logical conclusion, we should simply distribute a few billion swords and ritually extinct ourselves."
Score a big one for the pro-lifers; apparently not only is abortion equal to murder, not only is birth control a form of murder, but even abstinence is on par, because hypothetical, potential humans aren't born.
The birth rate isn't going to go to zero, ever. That doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to reduce it.
Zero population growth is very different from extinction.
It is people like you, Ms
It is people like you, Ms Whitty that give people like me (who do care about the environment very dearly) a wrong image.
I dont know where you are getting your numbers from, but the numbers of us 850 million "western/european" people are already dwindling at an average of 1.65 children per woman. So why should we start with us? I would rather start with the 1.2 billion Indians, the 1.3 billion Chinese, the 2 billion african and middle eastern people and all the others that are actually showing climbing (some alarmingly!!! climbing) population numbers. They also care rather little about the environment compared to us. Just look at the polution in China. Plus the rice fields there produce huge amounts of green house gasses (e.g. methane).
Anyway once they get their birth rates down to ours, I am willing to revisit your ideas. Otherwise I think they are very unfair und also not beneficial for the environment. Currently, we (850 million western european people) are the ones that care about the environment the most. Have us replaced by the others and you have a world full of non carers. I dont think that that would do any good.
Further, you can easily compensate for your children by driving a car half as big as the one you currently own. By doing or financing or lobbying for research that will replace carbon emitting energy production with clean methods. Maybe the child you are not having will find the break through in fusion energy, or will develop the perfect solar cell? By living responsibly and passing on your ideals to your children that will then help you spread the word, you can contribute more than by not having children at all.
As a sidenote: If you dont have children, you play dinosaur and die out. It is that simple. You end a continuous line that started with the first cell that decided to divide. Up to you, all your ancestors fought hard and did their best to make sure they would survive long enough to pass on their genes and some of them also fought for their offspring and died for it.
I am not sure whether a idea like yours is fair to them.
So why should we start with
So why should we start with us? I would rather start with the 1.2 billion Indians, the 1.3 billion Chinese, the 2 billion african and middle eastern people and all the others that are actually showing climbing (some alarmingly!!! climbing) population numbers.
the Chinese already have Population Control: remember one child per family?? They've already realised they have too many people and have taken that step to address it. There are just so many chinese people already that even if they only procreate one at a time there will still be a billion of them for a long, long time.
I'm not saying everyone should emulate the Chinese, but I am saying that you shouldn't tell the chinese to do something about it when it appears they've done something more than what we have.
I do believe that this should be addressed. Publicly. "Why are people choosing to have numerous kids (Numerous here being greater than 2-3) -- why are people ignoring the thousands upon thousands (millions?) of children already in existence without homes or families -- and why do we really need to have 8+ billion people on this planet?"
The 300 million Americans
The 300 million Americans use more total resources, more energy, and produce more pollution, than all 850 million Chinese.
Thats why we need to focus on our population before trying to place blame elsewhere.
We like to say we care, but as the environmental movement has grown, our rate of consumption has grown even faster.
Turning human beings into
Turning human beings into carbon emission calculations is callous, gross and disturbing. It was very kind of you not to reproduce, perhaps you might do the planet a favor and reduce your own carbon footprint to zero.
hypothetical people
If the unborn - in fact the unconvinced, are considered "human" then not only is abortion murder, so is birth control. In fact, every month that goes by that a woman isn't pregnant, potential people aren't being born.
maybe I should recycle my baby!
you know, before giving birth to my son (in 2008 btw) I may have agreed w/whitty's somewhat self-rightous attitude towards breeding. but having a child changes one's viewpoint, and I know that despite the extra strain he might be putting on this great earth of ours, he has just as much value as whitty...maybe even more, should he aspire to do something more productive than spin fluffy rhetoric (a little nuance wouldn't hurt your case, julia). what I find amusing, is that the folks that bemoan the existence of new children seem content to keep driving, eating, breathing, and consuming goods that may or may not be headed for the compost bin. if my son is a little monster, whitty must be a demon. a big one.
Anonymous wrote: "Maybe the
Anonymous wrote: "Maybe the child you are not having will find the break through in fusion energy, or will develop the perfect solar cell? By living responsibly and passing on your ideals to your children that will then help you spread the word, you can contribute more than by not having children at all.
"As a sidenote: If you dont have children, you play dinosaur and die out. It is that simple. You end a continuous line that started with the first cell that decided to divide. Up to you, all your ancestors fought hard and did their best to make sure they would survive long enough to pass on their genes and some of them also fought for their offspring and died for it.
"I am not sure whether a idea like yours is fair to them."
I have given much thought to just this sort of thing...having children really is like rolling dice. If you grow up in poor emotional/mental circumstances, you could end up the next Hitler or Stalin. Or in good circumstances, but with spiritually cold parents and relatives, maybe you'll just be an even-keeled contributor. Or maybe you have the best of the world and you still end up a white-collar crook who steals people's life savings. I've been told in years past (by men) that I should have children to ensure that my intellect and whatever else, not just ideals, get passed along. I don't like the idea; it smacks of a certain sort of tyranny. No one should feel compelled to bring a child into this world just to pass along ideals. What about a nihilist? Should he or she pass along his/her ideals? My point is, it's really not up to anyone else to choose for anyone else. But the veneer of plenty that we in the States live with is just that, a veneer. So, we DO need to think about what we and the earth can support. And I don't just mean what can support Homo sapiens, but all others whose home is Earth.
And I don't believe that when we die, that's it. If I have my way, I will become food for all the carrion eaters and the worms and then, as Edward Hoagland wrote about recently in Harper's, the "I" that's no longer an "I" will be carried back to the sea whence those first cells that decided to divide came. So, the cycle does NOT end just because I am not passing along my genes.
Yes, I've marveled at all it took to bring me to this particular point in time and place, but guess what? I exist and am aware of that. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know any better. And that's what people, especially, don't seem to get. I don't bemoan the loss of the dinosaurs. I do bemoan the loss of the Dusky Seaside sparrows, because they went extinct in my lifetime and the space program -- about which there are many things to admire -- helped to cause that extinction. It's our psychic loss that I'm talking about...a real grief that, the more we lose, if we're aware of it, the more keenly we'll feel it.
By the way, much as I see
By the way, much as I see human overpopulation as an issue, I would not presume to tell anyone not to have a child. I WOULD presume to tell them to think long and hard and make sure they've lived some and that they have good support, to surround themselves with people they respect, whose ideals they care about, and, by all means, to get their child or their children out of doors, to spend time in the woods, in the mountains, by the streams, on the beach, on and in the sea, in the meadows, in the valleys (assuming the valleys haven't been covered over with "valley fill" from "mountaintop removal mining" to provide coal for electricity)...to instill in them a sense of awe for all that's here, and to get them to question every single thing -- even those ideals they want to instill in them -- and to think critically and examine their assumptions, both theirs (that is, their parent's or parents') and their own.
Great recent posts!
What a nice display of right-headed thinking the past 24 hours! Kudos to Anonymous above that actually did some research to find that North American women are producing at a rate less than 2.0. What does that mean? There is not a one-for-one replacement being created, and all other things being equal, the population will decrease.
So why is the US population growing? One, immigration. Two, existing people are living longer. The same goes for Europe. They have encouraged immigration in order to gain cheap labor (well, I guess the US has done that too).
Depending upon whose data you review, world birth rates will slow over the next 50 years to near ZPG (Zero Population Growth) rates.
Long before many of you were born, the concept of ZPG was in vogue. Each married couple was encouraged to have only two children - as replacements. So the jist of Julia's treatise is not new, by any means.
Children are a blessing and I am so glad I had one... note... one. My wife already had her one, so I adopted her as well. So we have balanced the flow of human caboninsm. ooooooooommmmmmmmmmm.
Right, but for every one of
Right, but for every one of ME (who never wants to have children, ever), there's at least one Nadya Suleman or that obnoxious Kate witch or MICHELLE DUGGAR, popping out six, ten, fourteen - eighteen, twenty kids. It completely undermines one of my primary reasons (among so, so, sooooooo many others) for not having kids, which is not putting any more demands on the environment (which is already stretched wafer thin), on the country (let's face it - there aren't many parents who actually parent anymore) and on the world.
Children are a burden - not just to the parents that get saddled with them, but also to the country, the government and the world. I find it extremely questionable to have people like Octomom shooting 'em out like she's got a cannon up her skirt having been inseminated AFTER she'd already had six kids. It's completely irresponsible - not to mention the best example of modern-day American entitlement: ohhh, who cares if the house is being foreclosed and I've already got six kids I'm getting $500+ in benefits from the government for? The eggs are just *sitting there* in storage! Can't have all those going to WASTE! My gawd! Gotta use 'em all up and have eight more mouths I will never be able to afford to feed, bodies I won't be able to clothe, psyches I won't really have a whole lot of a role in shaping and health/emotional issues I'll be too busy to bother with. There - problem solved!
My housemate's granddaughter is 24, has no life skills but managed to pop out two kids. She's on welfare and living at home again, sucking on the original teat of her progenitor and the metaphorical government one and is getting a free ride through college, plus free childcare. I'm 30, living independently - never married, no kids or plans for them and yet if I were to lose my job, I would starve and be homeless within two months. That sound fair to you?
Oh, but right - 'babies are blessings'. If, by 'blessing' you mean 'constant drain on society'.
I understand...
I understand your obvious intolerance for the described slothfullness...
"My housemate's granddaughter is 24, has no life skills but managed to pop out two kids. She's on welfare and living at home again, sucking on the original teat of her progenitor and the metaphorical government one and is getting a free ride through college, plus free childcare."
I too dislike supporting people's poor choices and selfish behavior. Our welfare system encourages such behavior and you should be outraged.
That said, certainly you know people with values with which you more closely align. I often observe well-behaved children or children with "their act together" and I walk right up to their parents and congratulate them on the job they have done.
That said, we had one child that put us through our paces for a couple of years. They were tough times for all of us but we knew she would grow through it. We worked very hard to ensure that she didn't hurt herself and we did nothing to permanently harm our relationship... no small task.
Today she is a great person, has her own business, married, and just had her first...a beautiful little girl...at age 35. This little human being knows nothing of carbon, evil, monsters, or those that wish her ill because she now exists and will have some imagined impact on 7 billion other people.
that obnoxious Kate witch or
that obnoxious Kate witch or MICHELLE DUGGAR
Funny how you don't mention Kate's husband Jon. Or Michelle's husband Jim-Bob. Or the father(s) of your housemate's granddaughter's children. I guess, in your world, men don't have any responsibility in reproduction.
Oh, and nice misogynist reference there, "witch" (with which my pagan friends would undoubtedly take issue).
Note: If you're a woman, that doesn't mean your comment wasn't misogynist.
Wait a minute; Barry!
If you personally decided to adopt rather than create a new child, why all the antagonism earlier?
Anyway, in the 50 years ot take to get to ZPG the population is projected to have increased from 6 billion to 9 billion, including a 49% increase of the US population
From the US census population projections:
"-- During 2005-2050, eight countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth."
Notice that only one first world country is listed: the US. Considering the consumption per person, there is no doubt that our increase will have the greatest total impact on the sustainability and quality of life for everything that lives on this planet.