Treehugger - Latest Comments in Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Imogen — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:42:52 -0000

Are any of you aware of the huge industry adoption has become? Scandallous actions taken by s.s. for no other reason than to meet government targets? It's become ahuge money maker with many people on this bandwagon already; many children from loving families are put up for adoption under the guise of 'abuse' and 'neglect' often when parents have turned to proffessionals for help and have unwittingly exposed themselves as 'sick' or a 'problem. Had we better not lookafter the children already here and fight not only for the planet but the very systems that rob us and our children of their basic human rights. This country has become crazed with 'appearing to do the right thing' and those who are not worthy are still abusing these powers. I know. My twins were forcibly adopted to 'good christian' people. It hurts every day and the law protects them. Deemed mentally unfit to parent I struggle to understand how I have just written these words.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

CactusHeart — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:52:20 -0000

Fine, but that just adds to my point of adults adding our screw-ups and responsibilities onto the tiny little shoulders of innocent children who never even asked to BE HERE. WHY the F do you feel it's acceptable to foist OUR problems onto them?

"To no longer have children is to rob the world of great future beings!"

No, to NOT HAVE children would be to SPARE THEM from the future we have created for them! It's reprehensible to have a child just to give them a job to do. Or place your own individual expectations on them before they even become their own person! (as I read in an earlier post "I'm 'HOPING' my child will grow up to be an environmentalist, biologist, fill-in-the-blank-future-savior-of-OUR-problems)

What's more, what the HELL makes you think that they're going to grow up hugging trees and singing koombaya as you might dream they would?? That's the risk in molding a child to fit your own selfish ideals and expectations: they just might grow up and say f you to all of it. Probably become as bad a polluter as anyone else. THEN what'll your BRIGHT IDEA BE??

WHAT if your parents had placed the same expectations on you as you're placing on these poor kids?? How would you have measured up? Is THIS your best solution? Have a kid so THEY can clean up OUR mess? That was most likely OUR parent's idea....And you can clearly see how THAT'S turned out.

It's as if we all are running up an astronomical credit card bill, so large you think to yourself "I couldn't possibly pay this in my lifetime!! How will I even BEGIN to get myself out from under this debt??? Hey, I know!! I'll just keep running the tab right on to the NEXT generation, I have KIDS to pay for it when I get too old to make the minimum monthly pymnt (IF THAT!!). Would you consider doing that to your kids in the literal sense? If you happen to GIVE a rat's poop about their future, you'd probably think to yourself "God NO!! Their financial future would be ruined before it would even have a chance to begin!! How grossly irresponsible would I be???" Yet....it seems perfectly acceptable to you to do this in the environmental sense???

WHAT'S the POINT (aside from selfish biological impulses) of introducing new life to a planet that's rapidly heating up, DRYING OUT, toxifying and depleting of (NATURAL) life AS WE SPEAK???

Did I hear from one of you the solution to all this is to pack up and ship out to SPACE??? HA, aint that rich?? Even IF this was practical (even PLAUSIBLE) who'd be surprised that any establishment sustainable of human life created there would be depleted of it's resources in record time??? Same problems, different setting. And what're the chances you'd just respond "Why'd I care? I'd have lived out my life and died by that time" translation: Let my KIDS sort it out so it no longer becomes MY problem.

"To no longer have children is to rob the world of great future beings!"

No, less humans born means one less homeless wild animal due to human sprawl, one less dried up source of freshwater, one less overfished body of water. One less car to congest our over-congested streets & freeways. One LESS contribution to our over-flowing landfills...THIS is BAD???

With all the "we have kids, it's OUR RIGHT so f-u" or the "Yes, I have kids but it's OK because MINE will be DIFFERENT" attitudes I've seen displayed here does not bode well for the future. The mayans, who were legendary for their supposedly incredible intelligence, did not exempt them from thier need to breed, which is exactly what helped do them in: overpopulation, overdevelopment and self-inflicted drought.

Look up the sad fate of the island Rapanui aka Easter Island. Rapanui is merely a petri dish of what's happening on this planet now. Long story short (too late, ha!): Before it was populated or "settled" it was a lush island paradise, teeming with life, with an infintitely diverse ecosystem. It had a vast supply of palm trees perfect for cutting into canoes which were used to hunt porpoise, an important staple in their diet. It was estimated the population peaked at 20,000 (which if you're aware of the size of the island, is an extremely sizable number). Several thousand years later, when Dutch explorers discovered the island (which is the very reason you can find it on a map today), palm trees were extinct, no flora over 10 feet high was to be found, soil was considerably eroded (no doubt due to over-farming & deforestation), no indigenous animal were found to exist (only domestic chickens...and yecch RATS....which were ALSO eaten), potable water was scarce, and there was evidence CANNIBALISM was practiced among these islanders (whether famine induced, or from it's decline of "civilization" as a result of it's resource depletion....probably both....is still debated). I invite you to look it up and see for yourself.

I'll bring up a quote in response to an article written about this very island:

"Lord May, the President of Britain's Royal Society, recently condensed Diamond's

theory of environmental suicide in this way: "In a lecture at the Royal Society last

week, Jared Diamond drew attention to populations, such as those on Easter Island,

who denied they were having a catastrophic impact on the environment and were

eventually wiped out, a phenomenon he called 'ecocide'" (May, 2005).

One can only imagine the small fringe of concerned islanders, seeing the destruction and having the foresight of what might come (why are you having kids when there are no trees to make canoes for them when they grow up?). Probably treated as kooky, misguided, pessimistic, doom-loving chicken littles as I have....They were probably just as admonished for their ideas....and probably the 1st to be eaten in the breakdown of their society.

You want to talk about "robbing"?? Look at what we've done to our plants, animals, water, air and soil??? What the F do YOU call THAT???

Aside from living within one's means and raising awareness about conservation, abstaining from breeding is the greatest contribution to the environment a human being can possibly do. Look at the resources (land, water, etc.) that would be SAVED....compared to the few piddly cans you recycle to make yourself feel better about yourself while you litter the planet with people.

How arrogant are we simians to forget the planet DOESN'T NEED US....WE NEED the PLANET!

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Janet Cuthbertson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:34:05 -0000

Children are the future and it will be them who will have to heal our earth!

We are already relying on them. In our area, in the environs of the Isimangaliso Wetland park, a world natural heritage site, in South Africa, we train Tribal Zulu children to become Young Environmental Ambassadors. Children from first world countries support this and thereby make a difference in the world of those less privilidged than themselves. Children are our present and future Tree Huggers! To no longer have children is to rob the world of great future beings!

We would love to hear from any young Tree huggers or their parent's who may be also interested in becoming part of the solution by assisting from abroad, their fellow youth in South Africa. Become a partner to a Young Environmental Ambassador in a Tribal Area. You may visit us and see how you can be involved at:

http://www.suni-ridge.org.z....

also see :

http://www.suni-ridge.org.za/

We look forward to hearing from you.

Janet Cuthbertson

Zululand

South Africa

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

CactusHeart — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:52:36 -0000

Emily said: "It's definitely more responsible to adopt children, rather than produce your own. However, when it comes time for me to start my family, I plan to have two children of my own, mostly because adoption is very expensive and stressful I want to have children and while that will consume more resources in the long run, those children will help care for an aging population that will include me and may come up with innovative environmental technologies!

"

WHAT the hell kind of CRAP is THAT??? Did I read correctly? If so....you're essentially saying: yes, breeding IS irresponsible and adding to an already overwhelming problem BUT...in regards to MY OWN simian impulses, I'll make myself an exception...who knows...MY progeny JUST MIGHT grow up to discover a magic CURE for all these problems.

No, first of all, with that kind of logic you're exhibiting I can assure you no Einstein will be coming out of YOUR loins (you have much better odds w/ a lottery ticket) and secondly it's this kind of "pay it forward" mentality that GOT humanity in this mess in the 1st place!!! Odds are YOUR OWN parents had the same idea when they had YOU...so, please do tell us...how'd THAT turn out? How many Nobel prizes are on YOUR mantle?

Why are you consciouly choosing to sentence an innocent life to conditions that you're just beginning to realize are dire for yourself>?AND WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS OK?? Don't you know that all you have to offer your progeny for an inheritance is a rapidly dilapidating TENEMENT? AND THIS IS ACCEPTABLE to you???

"Environmental technology" you say? We already HAVE a solution to overpopulation. We have for YEARS. Two words:BIRTH CONTROL. But of course this interferres with indulging in your self-based, short-sighted biological "needs", so I'm sure that's WAY off YOUR radar screen.

I can't begin to understand how condoms/birth control are considered "inconvenient" a "hassle" and an "un-needed expense" yet feel free to get shackled down for the next 20+ years (as some recent articles reveal, even LONGER, as grown adults college-age to as old as FREAKING 50 return to move BACK IN WITH YOU) thus kissing whatever free time, money & sanity you have goodbye. As if it's even in question as to which trade-off is WORSE...

Adoption is expensive and stressful??? And what, bearing your own child is all rainbows, coos and talcum powder puffs??? My god, have YOU been watching WAY too many diaper commercials!

If you consider adoption 'too expensive and stressful' what makes you think you can handle the stress and difficulty and EXPENSE of rearing any child YOU might squeeze out? I see (the adoption process) as the perfect test of parenthood. If you think it's too much to handle, you (and society) will be much better off with you starting a cat collection instead *lol*

And having children as some kind of "elderly insurance" ?? Here your child isn't even BORN yet and you're already giving them A JOB? In my not-so-long life I've met TOO MANY neglected, lonely and discarded GRANDPARENTS to take your idea seriously, so good luck with THAT.

40,000 children dying of malnutrition each day, 5 BILLION + people ALREADY here are living in physical, spiritual, psychological suffering, a staggering 99.2% of all species that has ever existed on this planet is, as of this moment, extinct.....So...uh, tell me again WHY this world so DESPERATELY needs YOUR offspring? Oh that's right, your "need" to have kids is all about you....thereby making you part of the problem....

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Liza — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:31:57 -0000

lara, are you serious? Maybe you haven't noticed that people usually don't die as soon as they have children. When you and your spouse have two kids, they grow up and often ... have kids. While you're alive. If they each get married and "replace" themselves, already the lives of SIX smudges on the environment will be your fault.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Niki — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:18:55 -0000

SO what if your kid doesnt use a car until its 16? What about when that kid is 40? And no not everyone is like their parents, I am the polar opposite of my parents. I have evolved past my "basic instincs" to breed. All the people who dont have kids will inevitably be more responsible and beneficial to the world than those that to. I think I am over this topic, because the arguing with parents is like arguing with a buncha monkeys. There was some really good logic pointed out by other contributers to this thread and if some of you over-emotional breeders would just look at things logically you would see our (and by our I mean the non-breeders) points.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

ENROB — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:13:17 -0000

It's not the HAVING of children that is the problem.

It's raising them to be indiscriminate consumers that is.

I was raised by BabyBoomers who, as children, had lived through the War through frugality, ingenuity and hard work. They wanted 'better' for their kids and so thought (and were convinced by companies and marketing) that this meant being able to buy things not fix them or make them. Gods forbid we had hand-me-downs! We need a mentality shift. Adoption or not, consumption and waste are the real problems here. Food demand exceeds production? BULL! Portion sizes are too big, and dumpsters are piled high with leftovers. Obesity rates are on the exponential increase. The first world is a greedy and wasteful place. Instead of arguing about what sort of band aid population solution will or won't work, fix the problem. Consumption and distribution.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:57:03 -0000

Breeding for a better future:

Assuming your children will worship your advice and not rebel against it, criticizing your generation for screwing them over. No, that'll never happen with my kids. They will be perfect and be just like me. GAG!

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Candice — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:57:58 -0000

Here's an idea... instead of arguing over wether to have your own children or not - why dont we come up with ideas to help feed the children who are already here on our globe suffering and dying because we as a population have not taken the responsibility to take care of eachother?

Once we have the means to take care of human beings as a whole, then maybe this thread would be an issue.

I personally cannot justify bringing another human being into this world to be raised in a "1st world country" totally blind to the reality of poverty in this world. If I do have my own children I want to raise them somewhere that will allow me to help existing 3rd world communities and raise them with an awareness of the ability to help people and change the world. My kids - if I choose to have them - will not be surrounded by meaningless material things and hopefully will grow to appreciate nature and community and making small differences instead of learning the misinformed and corrupt values of western society.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

K. Kirk — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:30:53 -0000

Niki :

First point. Until they are 16 years old, they will not be using many resources that aren't already in use by others. Bus (School), Car (Family), the amount of food they eat is negligible on the carbon scale. By the time they are 16, some will get a car, some won't.

The "educate the little buggers" statement isn't remotely possible. For those of you who don't deal with children, don't have children, or don't teach children, I will point out something extremely obvious to the rest of us.

Children learn almost all their habits, good and bad, from their parents, very young. Procrastination, laziness, foul mouthiness, apathy, cruelness. They are lessons learned by children, by either watching, or interacting...

The base of this argument is "Logic", well, Humans are in large part spiritual creatures. Whether or not the people in this thread are, that isn't what I'm saying.

Adoption is a wonderful thing, and I'm a huge advocate of it. If the system weren't so flawed in the US that it punishes those who want to adopt.

Until any of the females here get pregnant, you won't understand. Until any of the males here hold their child, right after birth... You won't understand.

If you try to approach anything from a half-whole position of simply logic. You will have no understanding, only raw data.

Logically, if we want to stop the imbalancing of our environment, the thing to do would be to kill 2/3rds of the population. To understand that, it would probably mean half the globe would starve to death. A great majority of those deaths would be Children, slowly starving to death, or being murdered by adults for their ration of food and water.

But, by purely logic numbers driven intellect, we should stimulate that. Because it will help the environment, right?

Logic cannot be trusted, without it being tempered by compassion. If a person cannot practice compassion, then why are they even apart of the Green, or Eco friendly trend?

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Niki — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:48:54 -0000

I dont see what all the fuss is about. Simple logic will tell you that your child, no matter how "green", will use up resources and cause more pollution. Now unless you popped out the next Al Gore your child will only contribute to the problem.

I agree with the person who said that we should "Educate the little buggers" rather than trying to outpopulate with eco-friendly children.

But for those who do have one of two kids and are raising them to be eco-friendly, good for you. I can't deny we need a young population, but really I think one child is enough, and why not adopt? Are your genes superior? Sometimes Im amazed at all the ugly dumb people that are breeding.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

K. Kirk — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:20:25 -0000

Firstly :

Tao, where is it that we having children is the biggest problem, say ahead of NASCAR, Shipping Fuels, etc?

Secondly :

Willy, you fail to read thoroughly enough through my comment. I never said I felt guilty, I said I felt shame that people who are supposed to be representing a movement of Freedom, are in turn trying to burden others with their belief's.

Logic is great, a very fine rational thing. However, one must temper Logic, for if you want to get into the semantics of it; logic can be an excuse for any belief. Spend enough time in a semantics class, or a debate group, even pre-law and you realize that the only difference between Right, and Wrong in a logical point of view is the outcome.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Willy Bio — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:50:48 -0000

Kirk,

Sorry, but if YOU are feeling guilty about anything, that is YOUR problem. I'm simply pointing out the facts, without emotion. If you take emotional umbrage with simple and clear facts, just because they make YOU feel guilty about a choice YOU have made, not my problem.

Tao gets it. You, Kirk, do not. The consequences of our actions are that we live in a reality where my position is simple logical fact. You, sir, need to grow up enough to come to that realization.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Tao — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:04:09 -0000

I don't understand what is even left to debate about when you consider all the children that are in desperate need of homes. It's as self-centered and makes as much sense as going to a dog breeder to get a "purebred" dog when there are millions in the shelters and on the streets - just like the kids.

We caused this environmental crisis, so why do we think we shouldn't have to endure any consequences of that - though I don't know why adopting a child rather than bearing one has to be seen as a consequence - it certainly is not for that child!

Sure, there have been other hard times when people continued to have children, but when having children is the biggest cause of our "hard times", isn't it time to stop for awhile?

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

K. Kirk — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:25:50 -0000

It amazes me, that people can in all honesty be espousing freedom, freedom of choice, the ability to self-govern and self regulate. The sustaining of a green eco-balanced lifestyle, self-sustaining farming, low impact living, all the things that this website extols.

Then, turn around and begin trying to dictate to others that if they do not adopt, they are bad people. That if they have more than one child, they're "adding to the problem", this is ridiculous and juvenile.

As a parent, and an activist, I have to say, it appalls me for people to be this hypocritical in the low-impact/green movement.

A commenter near the top said something about people saying things negatively about those who choose not to have children. Then, the commenters below began to say negative things about those who do choose to have children.

I'm shamed by the majority of people in this thread, not because I feel guilty about having children. But, because they would ever, even consider mandating their chosen lifestyle on another person. I find that at the heart of this matter to be the most disturbing, self-absorbed, childish thing I've unfortunately dealt with on this tremendous, and well intentioned website.

Move forward with the attempt to live *your* life, and try to help others live in a green manner. But, if you dare to try to tell me, or others that we are bad because we've had children, or want children? You have a lot of growing up to do.

As a father, I can tell you that my wife bearing my two children was a unifying moment. A moment of spiritual clarity for us both, where she was communed with our infants, and she was able to gain a deeper connection to them because she held them inside herself. I watched them be born, I held them, and cut the cord.

I am an advocate of adoption, but I believe that there is a connection to children that were born from the mother and father that cannot be facsimiled by adoption. I've known women who had children, and had adopted children, and they were fantastic to their adopted children. I've also known women who were infertile and adopted children...

My point is this, adopt if you desire. Advocate adoption if you desire. But, don't you ever make another person feel guilty for choosing to bring a life into this world.

The future depends on those who raise their children in a manner of openness, sustainability, and compassion. THAT is what matters...

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

athloi — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:50:50 -0000

I can find good in most people that I meet, but I know there's a lot of bad people out there.

If you're responsible, smart and honest, have more kids. We need more of those than the jerks.

If you let the morons and creeps out-reproduce you, soon that's all that will be left of the human species.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Emily — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:49:23 -0000

Yay AMY!

A responsible way to create your own family. We'll be using the alternative registry when we have children so we can ask for things like babysitting time and used clothing. (alternativegiftregistry.org)

And Willy Bio -- your tone might not have changed, but knowing that you approach everything this way without regard to the emotions on the other side of the computers means that I will skip any posts you might make from now on. We will have to agree to disagree. Although I must say that I agree with whomever it was that said your decision to have zero children is negated by someone else's decision to have 8.

Shouldn't people like the Duggers (who have 17? and counting) be the ones all of this ire is pointed at, and not people like myself and Amy who are having one or two and being responsible about it?

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

zilla — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:53:14 -0000

According to James Lovelock there will be 80% population decline by2100 due to climate change. I hope to live to see that happen and I will hopefully be able to contribute to the remaining 20% by leaving behind children who can be responsible and moral in a time of extreme unrest.

Declining healthcare is unfortunately inevitable, not a political decision. Healthcare will never again be as good as in this decade due to dwindling resources, declining interest in healthcare professions and research and develoment funding moving toward survival. Inevitably, healthcare will again start focusing on prevetion rather than cure, and it will become a personal decision.

More and more advanced illnesses will be treated conservatively because family and patients themselves choose to do so and because the resources to treat won't be as abundant anymore.

A person's best chance to live until 100 is probably within the next 10-20 years, or maybe this year? But to predict age and population growth on today's models without taking the changing world into account will prove false in years to come.

We are living in interesting times. Judging each other's decisions on childbearing is removing our focus from the real issues. Future generations will never again be such heavy consumers. Peak oil, economic recession and climate change will ensure that.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Willy Bio — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:50:41 -0000

Amy,

At least you explored adoption in a serious manor. That puts you ahead of 90%+ of the pod people.

Don't worry yourself about abortions. Too much real stuff to worry about in this world than telling other people what to do with their bodies. Maybe if we got real about education in this third world excuse for a supposed first world nation, the abortion rate would drop precipitously.

But I'm straying off topic.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

amy steele — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:49:58 -0000

Here I sit, 8 months pregnant with my first child, and incredibly disappointed at how many of you think I'm only contributing to 'the problem'. You don't know me, you don't know my husband, but you are judging us because we happened to create a child. We don't have the money to adopt, but before we were even married we talked about adopting one day, and hopefully provide a home for as many biological children as we have. (And at that note, I really think something should be done to quicken and ease the adoption process while still making sure that ALL adopted children go to good homes and even better parents).

But don't worry, dig around in your numbers and then rejoice in all the abortions that take place in our country every year.

My husband and I choose to rejoice in the life that is still growing inside of me, and do not feel guilty that we do what we can to live an ecologically responsible life. We have plans to one day build our home from recycled goods. We are hoping to be able to convert both of our old (but with good gas mileage) vehicles to water to fuel. We plan on using cloth diapers and cutting up old t-shirts to fold as liners for those diapers. We are having the baby shower AFTER the baby is born, and are requesting hand-me-downs or items from a consignment shop ONLY. We line dry when possible. We keep lights turned off and unplug unused appliances. We recycle anything we can, including taking old crap to scrap yards. We wear something much more than once or twice before we wash it (except for underwear). We compost. This is not the extent of our efforts, as we continually try to green ourselves further. According to many of you, however, all of our efforts are in vain since we are having a baby.

I was raised to think for myself and make my own decisions, and I plan to do the same with my children. The best I can do is hope and pray that they will understand WHY we do things a certain way in our house, and the difference that it makes. Perhaps they will be educating their peers at a young age WITHOUT being self-righteous.

I would think that more of you who love all of the life on the planet would be more accepting of the fact that some of us environmentalists have a great love for human life, too. If we can all teach a simple fact with a kind word, we can all make a difference. And isn't that what it's REALLY about?

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

EarthEcho — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:59:24 -0000

Tonight, look out into space. Ask yourself if overpopulation is really a problem? Look at the stars and ask if energy is really a problem? Look at the planets, the moon and even the international space station - now the size of a football field, and ask if we are really lacking 'other places' to do things... from producing food and material items to extending environments for All forms of life.

As the only species able to extend life beyond the planetary realm its unethical, inhumane, and evolutionaryily irresponsible to now say... after life 'over populated' the oceans and evolved onto land... that the land is now over populated so we should give up and stop producing life.

No, my fellow human beings, I will not eat our evolutionary young. Space is the place to continue the evolution of life. If you are not up to the challenge, as many pre-historic fish were not up to the challenge of life on land, my descendants will build museums in space for your end-of-the-line fossils.

BTW, I am an Eco-Activist who had children.(former Greenpeace media director, producer, spokesperson... I coined the phrase NO BLOOD FOR OIL, created & produced ACTIONLINE for GP's Activist Network. I also am a former Outreach Director for Citizens for a Better Environment and so on). I made a difference so I'm sure glad I was born and now have grown children -who matter.

The life issue is not just about quanity and limited space its really about quality and what we do with that space. Literally.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

EarthEcho — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:54 -0000

The life issue is not just about quanity and limited space its really about quality and what we do with that space. Literally.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Brian — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:34:19 -0000

Willy Bio,

You can't look at population from a microcosmic point of view. It doesn't work that way; it is unscientific and unmathematical. Deaths, births, and the entire rest of the world (i.e. the "population" being discussed here) all must be factored in. The choices of everyone matter. Your personal choice to not have any children can be utterly negated by someone having 8 children.

I do understand your angle from the earth already being overpopulated, and therefore needing to move toward a less-than-replacement rate, but your microcosmic point of view would exclude this argument as well, seeing as it only considers your personal choice, not the choices of the rest of the world.

I am inclined to agree with your views on a lot of this argument--my only sticking point being the micro vs. macro view--except that I believe a couple can have 2 children without incurring ecological guilt. Simple replacement-rate procreation doesn't alleviate overpopulation, but it doesn't add to the damage, either.

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Willy Bio — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:41:17 -0000

Brian,

Of course I get that. Did you miss the part where I said:

"See, this is looking at it from the microcosm of one person and their personal choice. Its the hard and unbending way of looking at it, not allowing for wiggle room by considering what the rest of the population of the planet chooses to do."

Looks like you did.

Each person is starting from a blank slate as far as their own particular existence is concerned.

If the planet were not already heavily (4-5X) overburdened, then your more macro look at it would be reasonable. Problem is, we now need 4-5 earths to sustain the current population at current consumption rates.

Get it now?

Re: Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children

Brian — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:22:37 -0000

@Willy Bio: You are still not paying attention to the long-term resolution of your calculations versus jajohnson's calculations. jajohnson included a variable to account for an unlimited number of generations. Even in your latest post, you stopped at 4 generations. Take it one step further. By the fifth generation ("E" in your notation), the original procreator ("A") will most likely have reached the end of his or her life expectancy and died. At the end of the sixth generation, "B" dies, and so on. In this fashion, each new generation brings in 2 babies that replace the 2 great-great-grandparents that have died. Your argument of four-fold growth is looking at population from a blank slate point of view, as if generation A was the first generation of humans on the earth, but the fact is, when A had generation B, A's great-grandparents died. When generation B had generation C, their great-grandparents died, etc.

Simply speaking, if everyone in the world only had two children, ad infinitum, the population would remain exactly the same (barring lifespan extension, which would bring back population growth only for the initial duration of that extension).

@Truespeak: China's "one-child program" exists in the realm of unenforced law. The authorities allow exemptions for farming families, and I'm positive they don't have 100% enforcement. I'm sure there are non-Han ethnic groups far from the centers of power--I'm thinking Uighurs, Hui, etc.--that don't cotton to that policy, either. That is why China's population is still growing.