Inhabitots

This is such an absurd argument. Adults are bigger than babies, require more food, and use more natural resources. Babies don’t drive cars, for example. Therefore, we should kill the majority of adults and have a world comprised mostly of babies. Ummm.

The other ridiculous aspect of this argument is that most first world birth rates are much much lower than in developing countries. If we reduced births in the US or UK, we wouldn’t make a dent. And adoption doesn’t make sense because the whole reason we have a lower birth rate is because we don’t want more children than we’re having. According to the UN, the US has the 139th birth rate in the world, out of 195, at 14 births per 1000. Reducing our birth rate to 13 or 12 will not do much, not when the leading countries are near 50 per 1000, and even some very big countries have high birth rates. Focusing on India might be a good idea… It’s clear that the answer to the population boom is birth control in such countries. But of course forcing our beliefs to such countries is a form of imperialism and I in no way advocate such things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

I think it’s fine for people to choose personally to not have babies for environmental reasons, but to get up in someone’s face about having a baby because it’s bad for the environment doesn’t seem too appropriate to me, whether or not the argument could be construed as truthful.

That being said, I don’t think it’s particularly environmentally friendly, among other things, to have a boatload of kids. If you want to have a TON of children, I think you should seriously consider adoption. What would you say to the child who spends their entire life in and out of foster care to justify the fact that you had 10 of your own kids? “Sorry, you’re just not *good* enough because you’re not made with my DNA”? I mean, does that really make you feel good about yourself?

I understand that some people feel a deep drive to carry on their genetic material. It’s understandable; I’m willing to concede that we’re programmed that way biologically and emotionally. However, I also feel rather terrible thinking about the amount of money that is spent on fertility treatments when many (admittedly not all) couples in such situations could, instead of suffering emotionally and financially, enjoy adding a child who already needs a home to their family.

Hi nomadinthecity, there was definitely no intention to insult… but I’m happy to see that we agree on the core argument: “birth control, family planning, and sexual education” is the answer. To everyone else, How many is too many?

Actually, HUMANS are bad for the environment. We’ve been choking the earth for centuries now and the world probably would be better off without us. At least for the billions of other living things on this planet.

And if you want to have your third or fourth or eighteenth baby, don’t. And don’t get a puppy either, because that will get me started on breeding farms and that’s a whole other ranty topic.

I made the choice to NOT have children for the very reasons stated. I do NOT think its a “person’s right” to produce and have children. No I do not. I believe its a choice…and a bad one often.

I do NOT understand what the author means with this statement.:
“if every couple wishing to have a child adopted one instead of giving birth, the act in and of itself would lead to new anthropological and indeed, environmental problems.”
Wish some example could have been given.

We all complain about urban sprawl, the ever growing exurbs, shopping malls, and land being gobbled up. But what is doing all this? Its the baby boomers who had children, who have children on and on. I have seen the farmlands all around my city (3rd largest in USA), in a matter of a few decades be turned in town homes, suburbs, and shopping malls. PEOPLE do this. the need for housing, and infrastructiure…due to the ever growing amount of people.

Wildlife habitat is being lost at an alarming rat because people need farms to feed people and so clear the land.. People need wood to build homes so rain forests are destroyed. People have children who drive cars, and need plastics, and need foods and clothing grown with pesticides, and or hormones. Its the never ending amount of people destroying the earth. Not to mention all the toxic crap we pollute the earth with…no matter how eco friendly some of us are, we are a very small minority .

And yet, should anything else become too populated…we shoot and kill it..be it elephants in western S Africa, or white tail deer in USA suburbs.

We have brains but we all think with our sexual parts. Hey, I love little cute babies…and I love children…but thinking of the big picture folks….I made a wise decision not to have any children. I wish others would do the same.

I don’t have a problem with the extinctioninsts (or whatever they’re called). Since it’s voluntary, they can be the first. Less is better and dingbats fall under Darwin’s theory.

I have a question: do voluntary extinction proponents require that I buy white Nikes and have $5 in my pocket too?

“Voluntary human extinction” is extreme, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with population reduction. The fact that people like us in the developed world consume disproportionately. While it’s true that our birth rates are already lower than poorer countries, if an American uses 10x as much natural resources, not producing one American is as good as not producing 10 children in undeveloped countries.

Right now, it seems a little preachy and rude to suggest that other people should produce no offspring, but some others say the same about promoting vegetarianism or driving a hybrid. It’s a personal decision, but there are significant shared cultural consequences. If you’re truly dedicated to this line of thinking, it’s perfectly reasonable to see it as a moral-environmental choice.

This problem is bigger than almost every answer on here. Because the U.S. (or any other first world country) is considered by many to be an example to follow (of prosperity and all the privileges it affords) it seems unfair to every other country for us to say “don’t have too many kids or use too much fossil fuel”…etc. It’s also unrealistic to tell people to have only 1 or 2 children because, no matter what anyone else thinks (and I happen to be an atheist) the vast majority of the world does have some form of religious belief and many of those beliefs include the right to “go forth and multiply”. You are not going to get through to any of those people by taking a hard line approach. Realistically, the solution to this problem will probably come too late… but in the meantime, I’m teaching my own 2 (and only two) children to honor the wonderful place they live and to lead by example.

macacanadian, if you follow your argument, what does it matter if we destroy our planet? In the grand scheme of the universe, it all doesn’t matter. Our sun is going to swallow up earth anyway.

I respect people who have decided not to have children greatly but what is it with all these generalisations about how wasteful families are and if you are intelligent you will choose this and that. I have been an environmental activist for a long time, this line of argument does not win people over. It is easy to say how great you are and be self rightous but how effective are you being? How do you view people? Do you see the human or are they your enemy ?

It is too late for alot of species on earth but humans are able to change things very quickly when there is a critical mass of people who are convinced a particular idea is worth it. And even if the worst case occurs environmentally, we in the first world will still survive. This is an extremely sad thought but there is opportunity to improve the outcome. We need to have some faith in people and work together. Parents have a lot invested in the future of the planet afterall.

I think it’s a very bleak viewpoint to ascertain that we’re bringing children into such a negative world, laced with problems. Since the dawn of time, mankind has dealt with seemingly insurmountable issues, both ecological and cultural, and human beings have continued to overcome and keep existing. It’s easy to blanket statement either side of this argument, but the beauty of humanity lies in the individual ways that people choose to view the world. There are indeed thoughtful, good people in the world who will bring their own children up to be wise, benevolent adults who perhaps may have the answers to the problems previous generations have created. There are too many subtleties for any kind of generalizations to be made with regard to continuing to populating the planet.

I don’t choose not to have kids because of the environtment, I just don’t want any. And Yes adoption is a great option. I don’t care to much about this idea of continue the family name or just our basic genetic scripts that physically makes our bodies want to procreate. I don’t believe in any religion that would instruct me to procreate. I just don’t see a point in doing such, at least for me. I’m simply choosing not to. I have brothers, they’ll have kids, so I have nothing to worry about continuing a family legacy. At the same time the arguement that have kids is green make somewhat of a bit of sense. You can’t deny that. And any counter-arguement is pretty redundant, because for one thing there is now way in hell that everyone will stop having babies, so babies will always be born – no doubt. If more people choose not to have babies it will mitigate over-population. But you can look it either way, one hand you have the option to stop making kids and prevent over-population, thus stabilizing the population or on the other hand 6.6 Billion people can continue to have 2 or 3 kids, while healthcare improves, and we can witness for ourselves over-population, which will result in mass-starvation, conflict over resources, strained societal demands, yada-yada-yada, and a lot of people will die (unfortunately) thus the population will be stabilized. Either we get the same result, one way is a bit boring and cold, and the other way, although filled with the love and joy (I guess you’re supposed to feel love and joy when bring life into this world), with ultimately be backlashed by nature’s wrath and extermination.

In the end, I think I’d rather see no one die, and certainly not from starvation.

As always, it is interesting to see how people react to, and debate about, such interesting issues. From reading the comments above it seems to me that many factors are being talked about at cross purposes. The old maxim “the more you think about it the hard it gets’ springs to mind too. So first of all thanks to all the contributors, you have helped me look at the issue in news ways. secondly here is my 10 cents worth.

As an ecologist I am acutely aware of the dire environmental issues stacking up against us maintaining our current oil lubricated western lifestyles for much longer. I am also aware that our present ways are seriously depleting this planets ecosystems. I do not see this as a humans versus other animals issue – if you think about it humans must always be part of the solution and how can we step outside ourselves or the system anyway? I love people, I love our cultural diversity and our amazing creative talents just for starters. I also enjoy interacting with wildlife and wild places. I am under no illusion that the world revolves around me, or humans, or even that life itself on this planet is necessary – My simple understanding of astronomy and the universe puts paid to any such notions. But here’s the rub, our current way of life is massively impacting on the other living things on this planet in a way that I really don’t feel comfortable with. And one of the largest problems is the sheer number of us and the way we live. I would rather that there were fewer of us so that our impacts less dramatic and we lived within a sustainable ecosystem. Not one based on such rampant exploitation. I accept that this is a egocentric argument, in as much as, I would get pleasure if we somehow did this. I have no way of knowing if the other organisms on this planet would be happier with this suggested change (clearly some people couldn’t care less). I am no advocate of extreme measures but would suggest that basic ecological theory indicates that one way or another the massive explosion in human population we are seeing will be regulated in some way – exactly how and when is up for debate, but I would put money on it being sooner rather than later. Surely the preferable way would be with some form of informed and proactive action, rather than some of the alternatives we are staring down the barrel (pun intended)?

It is selfless not to have children.