Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.
I have a friend who always brags about how green her family is, yet she's now talking about getting pregnant with her third child. Wouldn't it be better for the planet for her to not have so many kids? Or not have any at all?
-Leni
The issue of population control is the environmental elephant in the room. We can buy hybrid cars, we can urge people to shop for organic food -- heck, we can even push elaborate carbon trading schemes through Congress -- but there's one solution that would stop climate change dead in its tracks: We could stop having children.
Or at least so many of them.
Once, mankind's dilemma was its very survival. At the time of Christ's birth, a mere 300 million people walked our planet; nearly 1,000 years later, that number had risen by only 10 million. Plagues like the Black Death in the 1300s threatened to wipe out the human race altogether, and life expectancy hovered under 30 until the Industrial Revolution.
Now, we're facing a new crisis: The improvements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care over the past couple hundred years -- including the discovery of antibiotics in the early 20th century -- have let mankind survive too well, leaving us with an exploding population and an ever-decreasing supply of natural resources.
It took millions of years of human existence to reach the 1 billion mark (that happened in 1800). Now, we're adding that amount nearly every decade.
It's projected that by the year 2050, the population will be nearly 9 billion.
Once again, the survival of mankind is at stake. Whether or not you believe in global warming, you can't argue with other types of environmental degradation occurring because there are just too darn many of us: the extinction of thousands of species due to habitat loss; widespread pollution; and dwindling access to vital natural resources like clean water.
That we may have to take steps to reduce our population is a very inconvenient truth -- who wants to be denied the right to have a family? -- but it's one we have to consider. How to accomplish this, though, is not so clear.
I personally know environmentalists who have chosen not to have children. There's even an organization to this effect, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I, however, am not a member. As I write this, I am five months pregnant with my first child.
Call me a hypocrite, but I don't think it's realistic that 7 billion people will voluntarily stop procreating. Reproduction is an impulse hardwired into our genetic code. Also, I'm selfish. Life is short, and I'd like to enjoy it to the fullest. For me, that vision includes having a family. I also like to believe that my progeny will work to better the planet, thanks to an upbringing that will emphasize respect for the natural world.
If I (an environmental advocate) feel this way, then what is the likelihood of the average person willingly agreeing to not have children?
A mandate hasn't proven viable, either. China's one-child policy may have curbed population growth in the short term, but it has also led to moral quandaries like forced abortion and infanticide. And thanks to a preference for male children, the country is now facing a serious gender imbalance that could have far-reaching implications for societal and political instability.
We could compromise by encouraging families to have no more than two children, but there's an important component to this approach that we're going to have to face unabashedly if we want to save our planet, and that's birth control.
Rather than focusing on reducing the pregnancies that people do want, we need to first focus on preventing the ones they don't want. Grist Senior Editor Lisa Hymas (who, unlike me, has decided to go childfree) wrote this week that approximately 200 million women worldwide don't have access to reliable methods of contraception. If they did, nearly 52 million unwanted pregnancies -- and the environmental footprint of those additional people -- could be avoided every year.
A lot of those women are in developing nations, where gender inequality is prevalent and opportunities for education and career, as well as the most basic reproductive health services, are scarce. But many are closer to home: The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world, thanks in part to our insistence that abstinence-only education works, despite evidence to the contrary.
Proclamations such as Pope Benedict XVI's that condoms increase the AIDS epidemic don't help, either. If the Catholic Church wants to perpetuate the survival of the human race, not just its sheer numbers, it might do well to consider reversing its edict on birth control.
It sounds ironic, but if we want to sustain human life on this planet, then it's time we put our money toward increasing access and education for reproductive rights -- including the right to not have children.
Follow Jennifer Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jennigrayson
Jennifer Grayson: Eco Etiquette: Help Tame My Trash!
Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity. I'm watching my husband schlep our two huge...
Jennifer Grayson: Eco Etiquette: How Can I Convince My Husband to Use Cloth Diapers?
Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity. My husband has been fine with the green...
By contributing to ongoing survival of humans who have no means of otherwise surviving, we perpetuate the cycle of keeping children alive until they are biologically ready to procreate. Throw the poison of religion and we have a stew where sanctimonious people can feel good about themselves because they slightly minimized a poverty cycle somewhere in the world. The West already has a negative replacement value for most of its countries.
Focus of the true causes of population growth and stop blaming the West for all the problems in the world.
Pretty harsh dude.
Our Empire, and the Western Empires that have proceeded ours, have been ripping off THEIR resources for a couple of centuries to the point they cannot feed themselves.
Combined with a worldwide birthrate that the earth can't support, and, well... nobody's future is very bright.
"stop blaming the West for all the problems in the world."
How 'bout 70% ?
The U.S. alone uses the equivalent amount of the worlds resources that 1.3 billion people could use.
If the U.S. did have 1.3 billion people , tha'd be ALL the worlds resources at our current rate of consumption!
6 billion miracles are enough.
Im so sick of seeing emails at work that announces to everyone that Mr. So and so's wife has "just given birth to a 9 pound baby"...as if that's a GOOD thing! That's a TERRIBLE thing.
Also, how do we know that that baby isn't going to grow up and become HITLER? Maybe that baby should be killed in the crib? we just dont' know what were celebrating.
Dogs can give birth. It's not a big accomplishment. As a matter of fact, dogs are more "Miraculus"because they do it 6 at a time!
Humans are disgusting.
"Greens" are essentially middle-class racists who wish to impose the burdens of the over-consumption of the wealthy on to the backs of the world and America's poorest in the illusion they can maintain their lavish lifestyle for a while longer. It is sick and immoral for rich hypocrites like Gore advising people living on a dollar a day to cut back on the little they consume "for the sake of the planet", but that is the "Green" movement in a nutshell - utterly devoid of any notion of justice.
Has it ever occurred to you that the interests of privileged middle class white "Greens" like yourself are irreconcilably opposed of those of 90 percent of humanity? It is hard to avoid chuckling when people like you use "We" in your article - you have NO clue.
Aside from accusing people of racism, it was a good comment with painfully truthful words.
Your comment makes for an ironic handle there- goodwill.
You obviously have seen Dr. Albert Bartletts lecture on U-tube called "The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See".
If you have not seen it-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
it is in (8) 9 minute clips.- just click the next one below each time you finish to see the next one.
He talks about exactly what you mentioned.
And it's no secret that exploding populations in developing countries like India place a tremendous strain on the resources in those countries, which is why China imposed its "one-child" policy to begin with.
My interests include making sure that I do my part to tread as lightly as I can on this earth so that resources remain for future generations to enjoy. I don't see how anyone could be opposed to that.
You are not treading as lightly as you can on the earth. If that were true you would not choose to have a child. It is a fact that an additional human on the earth will cause more resources than would otherwise be used if that person were not added to the overall population.
Survival of the fittest is so old hat.
**(and not pass on their genes or nurturing capacities (though they can adopt))
In fact, the United Nations Population Division estimates that by 2030 the world will be below replacement-fertility rates - it's true there will be a lot of people mid-century, but the elderly will outnumber children over 2 to 1. The social and economic implications of that imbalance, along with the continued global urbanization that will go with it, will have its negative environmental implications.
It's a complicated issue, but consider getting caught up with the 21st century before offering advice, mmmkay?
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6038
Will mankind develop miraculous technological breakthroughs that will allow us to sustain human life on such a massive scale? Maybe. But it's a giant crapshoot.
By the way, Professor Paul Erlich's theories on unchecked population growth are still valid enough that Stanford University is willing to employ him.
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
Obviously, better education for women, allowing them better options for family planning, these are all good things, and I'm glad you mention them. But looking at the population trends of the 21st century as a whole, there are much worse things than a family having a 2nd or 3rd child.
And Ehrlich has tenure - it would take a lot more than a record of failed predictions to get him fired.
we started with a 6yo who was angry, depressed, ostracized by peers, combative and failing first grade, now we have an 11yo who is happy, productive, makes good grades, has lots of positive friendships and is emerging as a leader among her classmates. she gets the credit for her achievements, they are hers, she does all the work, but now she doesn't have to fight so hard to see a future that includes happiness for herself. and a mom and dad who are always there to show her the benefits of honesty, hard work and simple perseverance.
i cannot overstate how gratifying it is to make a difference for another person just by offering consistent loving guidance, nutrition and support to someone who wasn't getting it. watching this kid who had been dying on the vine, instead blossom into a curious and optimistic young woman is AMAZING.
it's not all sweetness and light- preteens are frustrating, kids are annoying, noisy, expensive and demanding, adopting is still parenting! =)
btw, even when you have your "own" you don't know what you're going to get, so there isn't any more risk than there is with a pregnancy, plus you save a kid already living instead of making a new one.
the path that brings a child to become adopted is rocky. what you begin with is, essentially, a special needs kid. ours was insecure, constantly testing boundaries. from an alcoholic single mother and herself addicted to sugar, needing 6 root canals and 3 fillings right away, 3 more teeth were rotten, but ready to fall out on their own. she would scream, pout, cry, throw/break things and behave anti-socially. much changed with diet- no more juice, crackers, chips, sugary or processed foods. milk or water to drink, fresh veg, meats uncured, grains whole, no junk. she also had a problem with chronic lying, which has gone as she's learned to trust us.
i've panicked, wondering wth i thought i was doing, adopting a child, whatever made me think i could do this, what was the state doing giving me this kid, etc.... but i have a biological child as well, same age as my adopted child, and i experience those thoughts as a "natural" parent too, so i think it's just really challenging to parent.
telling this kid we're proud of her makes her day, bringing home an A on a math test puts a sparkle in her eye, the kids dance down the hall when they get to have a "drawing sleepover" on a school night... SO WORTH IT!!! ;)
I think a lot of women who don't have the desire to either have or carry their own children are often pressured into thinking that their feelings are somehow "not normal," and this is wrong. There is nothing written that says you have to give birth to a child to have a full, rich life as a woman, and I think we need to encourage more women who would rather adopt (or not have children) to follow their instincts.
Re this subject, check out this great piece from Marie Claire:
http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/articles/childfree-by-choice
you are right, it really should be okay and no reflection on a person's womanhood if we don't feel the urge to become pregnant. nurturing takes many fulfilling forms and can be lavished on plants, animals, spouses, homes and careers, among other things- all of which benefit enormously and from loving attention and make the world a better place.