Some environmentalists claim that continuing to populate the planet by having children makes the greatest ecological impact on the environment — and that having babies is inherently bad for the earth. Thus, environmentally responsible individuals should not have kids. These viewpoints truly irk me. Because, what’s the proposed solution… Voluntary Human Extinction?
Okay, so someone will immediately chant, “Adopt!” True — adoption is a beautiful, selfless and humanitarian option. But adoption isn’t for everyone… especially in the case of reproductively healthy couples looking forward to expanding their family through procreation. And 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.
But the argument against childbearing persists…
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35 in a Daily Mail article. What? Toni uses overpopulation statistics to support her decision to abort a child and undergo a procedure that made her sterile in order to reduce her carbon footprint. Women like Toni (such as Corinne Maier, author of ‘No Kid‘) argue that kids consume way too much stuff. Cool, eco-friendly stuff (like the kind you find on this blog) along with nasty, toxic stuff (filling landfills globally). And this consumption perpetuates into adulthood.
Though this is true, I beg the radicals purporting that kids are bad for the environment to reconsider their argument. Before putting the blame on babies, let’s blame ourselves. Let’s blame our parents, our teachers and our governments. Raising kids to have total disregard for the environment as adults, the way we have been doing for centuries, is indeed environmentally irresponsible. And not educating the planet’s fertile population about contraceptive options may be one of the biggest ecological faux pas we’ve committed as citizens of the Earth since developing a reliance on fossil fuels.
But simply declaring that in order to save the future of the planet we should not have children is inherently unsound. Without children, what future are we protecting?
25 Responses to “GREEN RANT: Having a Baby is NOT Bad for the Environment”
-
-
-
more popular stories >
-
-
-
-
Inhabitots on Facebook
-
-
-
-
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
It’s intellectually dishonest and insulting in the extreme to take fringe groups like the VHE movement and use them to caricature and dismiss the entire argument that human overpopulation has a deleterious effect on the planet’s ecology. The fact that human population growth contributes to habitat loss and extinction is not in serious dispute. The fact that human biomass is biomass denied to the rest of the biosphere is self-evident.
Nobody of any repute is seriously advocating human extinction. The goal is a gradual reduction in birthrates (via access to birth control, family planning, and sexual education) to reduce the total human population to a sustainable size.
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.
Having a baby or two is not the problem. It’s when we start getting into the four, five and six kids that I can’t abide.
I don’t say “get an abortion if this is your third kid!” I say how about not going for that third baby? And if you then desperately want another, yes, why not adopt? Or get a puppy!
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?
This is not a subjective debate; it’s simple arithmetic and proven science. It’s a matter of applying simple ratio of available resources to amount of people consuming said resources over time. The Earth is overpopulated. Whether you choose to believe this fact and its obvious present day consequences (climate change, pollution, water/food scarcity,etc.) or not is up to you, but it won’t change the reality of the situation. People are people. No matter how small or how well ‘environmentally educated they are, people will consume resources, take up space, and strain the planet slightly more than if they hadn’t existed. It’s as simple as that.
Right now, the planet is overpopulated by about 1 billion people. These are populations sustained and built upon a fossil-fuel-based society. What do you think is going to happen when we run out of fossil-fuels? It has been estimated that using only clean renewable energy sources (like wind, solar, tidal, etc.) could support a global population of about 2 billion people. So solely from an energy standpoint, the world is overpopulated now anyway you slice it and we are already seeing signs of ‘stuff hitting the fan’ already around the world. When you start factoring in access to clean water, proper food, quality of life, the conclusion becomes even more indisputable.
So you people dead set on having your babies go right ahead, but don’t fool yourself into thinking he or she isn’t going to further strain the planet because he or she will, whether it’s one or six. It’s easy for people in rich countries not to be cognoscente of the real impacts of overpopulation because they will probably never experience its effects. But the more than 1 billion people in the world who don’t have access to clean drinking water can certainly attest to the growing problem of overpopulation.
http://www.sincerelysustainable.com
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.
Actually, adults who have children shift spending money and resources to kid related things. They don’t actually buy or spend more. I have just had my third child and I have only bought a few things most of which were thrift store buys and everything else has been hand me downs. He is breastfed and cloth diapered.
Secondly, adoption has its problems. There isn’t enough kids to be adopted which in worse cases can encourage kidnapping. Alot of the kids in foster care are there because their parents have not given up their parental rights. They are not available for adoption. There is also the issue of removing children from their culture which is problematic if you are talking about inter country adoption. Adoption should be considered in terms of the social impact and not a way to have a child environmentally.
People choose to have less children when they have economic security which is what is happening right now in India and which is what would have happened in China even if they didn’t have the one child policy. Anyway, one person of any sort in India leaves the smallest carbon footprint compared to someone in the US.
It is really rude to question an individual, a stranger about their choice of having children because you don’t know what other choices they are making. It isn’t as simple as if we don’t have anymore children all the environmental problems will be solved. We would have to reduce consumption anyway especially with more of us who will be getting old and unproductive.
I am personally more motivated than ever to help the environment because I have my precious three. I try everyday to change and become more environmental. My children have a better understanding of environmental issues than some adults so when they become adults I assure you, they will leave a much smaller footprint than any of us.
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.
This is actually an argument I was battling with for a while. As a person who loves the environment and admits that sooner than later; food, clean water, and basic amenities are going to be very scarce I hated the idea of having children. My main argument: what will I have to do in order for my child to be healthy in the future? Steal, fight, kill? Obviously I hope these ideas are extreme and never come to fruition. It wasn’t until I met my current girlfriend and hopefully fiance (if the US ever pulls out of the slump its in and I am able get a job) that I slowly changed my mind. So I have settled on a maximum of two children with birth control (maybe even the reversible male surgery) after, along with responsible sex education for my children (we have discussed how to talk about it with our future kids).
I support a maximum of two children per couple globally. Sure, people who want 4 or 5 kids will be upset, and I have yet to figure out a form of reassurance, if it’s even necessary. Let’s also not mention religious pressures. However you must admit that if we as a race continue down our current path, our extinction seems almost certain…. what would happen if nuclear weapons were used to secure future inhabitable land?
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?
What an even more dangerous world this will be when people look upon babies more as a problem, rather than as a means to helping us overcome our greatest flaws as human beings. Babies help us to overcome our self-centered natures, and for that alone, we should welcome them gratefully onto this planet.
“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.
Funny, but most of the people at work who’s first instinct is the garbage can – not the recycling bin, leave lights on, automatically print every email received, suburban single occupant auto commute and worship outlet malls have children.
The ones that don’t are generally childless.
Of course there are some enlightened parents but it’s become obvious to me that the vast majority of parents have bought into the myth of the suburban house, green lawn, retail therapy and SUVs so, subsequently, they medicate themselves with television and serious prescription meds. Now they are dosing their kids with both.
They are the ones that never question anything. It’s just what you do with your life. Well, no.
Children are amazing and beautiful and pure, too bad they are wasted on such a ridiculous culture.
What future? You do realize that this planet can function quite well without humans on it? It’s increasingly obvious that it would be much better off without us. There are many fantastic things that I marvel at that humans have created but in the end, all the art and architecture in the world is only for our own eyes. Those things have no relevance in, say, a frog’s eyes. These masterpieces, no matter how magnificent, start to pale in comparison to the damage we create. How many paintings from Michelangelo equal the loss of the Western Black Rhino? Of course, the more accurate question would be how many $4.99 children’s toys from walmart equal the extinction of the Baiji?
It is only our ego as “masters of the planet” that has magnified those things into having an importance that, on a longer time scale, will have no relevance whatsoever. No matter how much we value them.
In the end, voluntary human extinction is probably the best fate this planet can hope for. The reality is likely to be much more destructive, violent and sad.
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.
I will say that freedom to have children is a fundamental human right, since for most people, it’s a genetic and emotional imperative that is probably far more powerful to them than any social contract they may enter into. Any attempts to regulate that right immediately get into some very sticky issues of personal freedom that I would rather never see abused or controlled.
That said, while I believe it is a right, I think having children is tremendously bad choice on an intellectual level, and one that I hope I will never make. The world is better off with fewer people.
Basically, if you’re clever enough to be having this debate, chances are you shouldn’t be having kids, because the other 95% of people in the world really don’t care in the slightest, and will be having too many babies whether you like it or not.
I suspect the world as a whole will have some very difficult decisions to make as the true ramifications of climate change become apparent over the next 20-50 years. Unfortunately, by that time the decisions will probably be moot, anyway. So it goes.
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.
Sorry Desmond, I’m not buying your argument. More babies = more diapers, toys, cars, houses, shopping malls, food, water and all kinds of useless stuff … period. And generally, parents are not raising their kids anymore – nannies, main-stream media, video games and our government are. So even the most enlightened parents don’t have that much influence over their own children. Besides, what is there to leave to them anyway? Debt? Tainted food? A trashed planet? A broken justice system? Unprecedented rates of disease and poor health? Corrupt public servants? Corporate America? Hateful people who can’t even wave thanks when you let them in front of you in traffic? We totally screwed this place up and we want our children to bathe in our gluttony and decadence? Forget it. There are still families who continue to steward the farmland that their ancestors left behind. They are self-sufficient and practical. They co-create with nature and heal the land. And they will leave a little piece of heaven for their children. Unless we’re at this point, I don’t believe it’s fair that our children are a victim of our innate biological desire to procreate.
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 really don’t mean for this to sound personally insulting but. with all due respect this article is absurd. At no point in the article does the author offer even one piece of evidence that having children doesn’t hurt the environment.
Having children DOES hurt the environment. I wish it was not true, but it is.
Instead of supporting his argument, the author implies we should not blame babies for being born and should promote contraception. I’ll agree with those two points, but the fact remains that having babies is not good for the environment. (Humans born into western society where consumption and pollution have a disproportionately massive impact on the environment. Even “green” westerners have a tremendous negative impact on the world environment. They’re only slight less worse than “regular” westerners.) No matter how much you wish it weren’t so you can’t change reality. Even if the thought of negative population growth is bleak, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Please don’t confuse the way you wish the world was with the way it is.
Do the editors of this site even read the articles posted?
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.
FudeytheWhale- evidently the editors of this site read the articles posted, as well as every comment, including yours. As far as confusing the way we wish the world was, with the way it is… without hope, there is really no point to anything- human life or life without humans.
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)?
Adoption is great, except it doesn’t always work our. I tried adopting 5 years ago, spent a decent amount of money getting everything in order and had two birth mothers change their mind near the end of their pregnancies. It was heart breaking and I finally put that idea on the back burner. I was perfectly able to get pregnant, but I wanted to adopt because there are kids out there that need homes. It can end up so discouraging though. Kudos to those who have difficulties with adoption, yet continue to travel that path!!
It is selfless not to have children.