Kids are Killing the Planet!

Little did I realize, but apparently, I am on the verge of destroying Mother Earth. Yup, Seventh Generation-using, SUV-less (car-less, doggone it!), recycling-law-abiding me. I even turn off the water while I brush my teeth, and bought local produce long before locavorism became trendy.

So what's my crime? My husband and I are contemplating having a third child, as I recently documented in the Washington Post. The essay itself, a semi-facetious, semi-serious look at the rising costs of parenthood was a riff off my book, Parenting, Inc., which documents the exploding parenting market. My goal was to offer parents a kind of annotated guide through the mind-boggling shopping experience that accompanies having a kid, and to help cut down on the commercialization of childhood. Having talked to parents around the country, I found that I'm not alone in thinking that raising kids costs a fortune. But given the wasteful and unnecessary gear that I'm planning on not buying, I thought having a third kid might be financially conceivable.

Silly me wanted to have three kids out of a love of large families and the fun I had growing up with a pile of brothers. Perhaps naively, I assumed most people reading my Washington Post story would respond with personal stories about how they too long for more kids and struggle with controlling the costs. And, to be fair, I got plenty of letters to that effect.

But I wasn't prepared for a wave of attack from another corner. The charge: Killing the planet with my "overproduction" of children. The Malthusians came out in droves the day my story was published and posted on the Washington Post website. "Your column made me sick," read the subject header of one email, boding ill for what was to come.

My motivations were challenged: "Please don't tell me that you just long to once again be pregnant," one woman wrote. "Please don't tell me that you want your children to be in your own personal gene pool. You have already done those things. I wonder why you don't look past your own personal desires to be a good member of our increasingly crowded global village?" Selfish and stupid were big words with the anti-procreation crowd. One especially incensed Australian confessed, "The biggest mistake we made in our lives was having our twins. We love them dearly, but now we really fear for their future, as they do themselves." And then he lashed out: "From where I sit, if you go through with it, you're just a stupid selfish woman." Whoa! I tried to respond evenly, pointing out a number of stories I'd written about environmentalism, but got this back: "The quicker Amerika goes down in a heap the better....... good riddance," signed, "Mike. In Australia, where more of us daily hate everything Amerika stands for."

I never thought that this is what would provoke me into one of the more patriotic states I've been in since Bush II assumed power, but it certainly had that effect. And it was a peculiar position to be thrown into as someone who considers herself fairly ecologically minded. But to this contingent of correspondents, I may as well have been advocating a corporate free-for-all in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "The oceans are dying, the oil is almost gone," wrote one anti-fan. "Large families are criminally irresponsible in such a desperate time. Quick, do us all a favor and get an abortion. It's a good thing."

Golly, I'm not even pregnant yet. And to think, my theoretical third child could be the one to invent a truly efficient biofuel or to finally finagle the passage of congestion pricing in Albany. Here's to that kind of future.

Comments

[ShawnMichel]

Bringing a child into: global warming, peak oil, dwindling water supply, and mass starvation/genocide is a foolhardy idea, period, and shows an astonishing lack of clarity and wisdom.

The truth is, every American child is really 24 children, given the American propensity for overconsumption. Had you thought of this? No, you hadn't. Sad.

[hoopesaz]

You're clearly an eco-evangelical. You like to remind people of all of their irresponsible decisions, and how "sad" it is (or they are) for not thinking beyond themselves, all while sitting in the comfort of some luxurious (certainly by much of the worlds standars) location typing away are your computer powered by fossil fuels.

You are no different than the evangelical preacher, pushing his congregation to avoid the traps of sexual immorality while at the same time he has a wife, a hooker, and a boyfriend that he sleeps with regularly.

THAT is what is really sad.

[DeafMom]

Good gosh, I'm so glad I had my third kid before I read this. :) And to think I was considering a fourth...

[babybabybaby]

If we're going to go so far as condemn people who procreate can we commend homosexuals who adopt?

[Pandu]

It sounds like an experiment to find out how screwed up we can get as a society.

[kathy001]

Perhaps the problem is not so much that you are considering having a 3rd child. Perhaps the greater problem is that the media has put so much emphasis on large families in the past 10 or 20 years that the true irresponsibility is adding more emphasis to that subject in the media. Commercials, television shows, movies, books, etc., all seem to be telling young people that they just aren't a family until there are 5 or 6 or 7 or more in the family. The message seems to be that familes with only 2 children must be lonely, must not be satisfying, must not be happy.

Why must the emphasis be on volume, on quantity instead of quality? Because that seems to be your message. You seem to be saying that you aren't getting enough of what you need with just 2 children.

Or maybe, you are just so deliriously happy that you want more children to share that happiness with. In that case, why not consider being a foster parent and sharing some of that happiness with a child who desperately needs a little happiness. As a foster parent you might not be able to keep the children permanently but you could certainly remain in touch with them and develop a larger family than you ever dreamed of - and a very happy and fulfilling one. You might even be able to influence a child who might one day develop a cure for irresponsibility.

[AllenKonigsberg]

Do you really think that people wouldn't be interested in having three kids if not for the pernicious influence of, for example, "Family Ties"? Ooh -- they had four kids by the end, didn't they? I *knew* Rush Limbaugh was right about Michael J. Fox's insidious social agenda.

[kathy001]

Yes and no. I don't think one medium can have that great an affect on the population. But when young people are constantly bombarded with the image that large families are better in every medium - TV, movies, print, then, yes, I think it does have an affect. I know so many young families who can't even afford 1 child, let alone 3, but they keep having those babies because that's the "thing to do." And yes, I have talked to these people and, in essence, that's pretty much the answer they give.

[Pandu]

If these bitter people are so concerned about overpopulation and think that people can't do good, then they can do the world a favor and take themselves out. The fact that they never do reveals their bluff.

Really I don't think the anti-population zealots are that concerned about anything but themselves. They're conservationists, not environmentalists, who want a clean Earth principally for their own enjoyment; and it's they who are selfish. They don't want to share the world with your kids. Being already here, they feel entitled to as much as they can get.

Either we can improve the world by educating each other, or we can't. Those who say people should have fewer babies demonstrate with their actions that they believe we can solve our problems through education, yet their words say we cannot. They are hypocrites who live while trying to deny others the same opportunity.

My four kids' combined ecological footprint is less than mine alone when I was a kid. If I can raise children who live gently and teach others to do the same, why shouldn't I?

The alternative is that only people who don't care about the environment will have lots of kids. How will that help?

[doodlefarbe]

Pandu - very interesting comments.

[klmebane]

but why must the kids be biologically related to you when there are so many children who don't and may never have a family? u don't think you could love them just as much? and if not, why not?

[terry54]

Well adopt some of them then tell us about it.

[Pandu]

Why do people who accept the modern science tell us about survival of the fittest as essentially a competition to pass one's genes on to children and helping them to also reproduce in due time, and then act as though there isn't a powerful biological drive to make this happen?

Before having children I felt a significant debt to my ancestors. Whether it is biological or social or both, the urge to procreate is hard to resist. Modern evolutionary theory says that I should not resist this urge, but rather that giving in to that urge is an important part of winning the evolutionary game.

I can't speak for others, but my natural affection for my biological children is stronger than for other children. I don't kow if adopting someone else's children would change that. I guess what it comes down to the simple reason that adopting children is something I've never had any desire to do.

Why would people say I should adopt kids if it's something I've never wanted to do? That doesn't seem like the best way to have a family. I'm more of a traditionalist. Husband and wife producing children through their intimate relations seems like nice way to make a family.

[mamacat]

This is actually a discussion worth having. My spouse and I have three adult children, and it is a wonderful experience. On the other hand, if we don't do something about the population exploding, we will soon find that we are unable to sustain life as we are used to it. Already, there are news reports of global warming, the oceans being depleted of fish, the petroleum being used up, the forests being cut down, and not enough fresh, clean water. The likelihood of more wars of agression over depleting natural resources looms over our heads.

It may be possible to sustain life on earth the next time the population of humans doubles (it went from 3 billion to 6 billion in the last 50 years), but will we recognise the earth at that point? The quality of life that we are used to may be available to our grandchildren only if we learn how to have smaller families.
By the way, I read that there are at least 2 MILLION orphans in Afghanistan, alone. Africa has many more, due to the AIDs epidemic, and the endemic violence in the region. There is nothing shameful in adopting a child who needs parents. I know people who, after 3 children, decided to adopt instead of giving birth to more of their own.

[fightorleave2]

Did you notice on today's Daily Kos that there are food riots around the world. I know they may not necessarily be a new thing, but I believe there will be more of them, as they seem to be a problem. But, we Americans, of course are above all that, right?

[jvarga]

Who cares about all those people? We're Americans! We care so much about the environment that we're gonna see how many more people we can stuff on the planet. Hell, worst case scenario, more of those scary people on other continents will die.

[terry54]

A lot of the food problems come from the U.S. SEED COMPANYS that sold Seeds in India and other countries and the crops failed.

Inidan Famers who have never been in debt are killing themselves because their scrops failed. Cotten, corn, rice.
The geneticly altered seed are also causing a problem as their pollen provides DNA changes to weeds and other problem plants on farms that become harder to kill and require more labor to get rid of them.
The "ROUND UP READY SEEDS" are creating a problem world wide as the plants pollen from these seeds spreads with the wind.

MILLIONS PLANTS ARE EXPERIENCING DNA CHANGES BECAUSE OF THAT POLLEN .
It is even hurting Honey Bees.
These plants are becoming agressive to actually killing crops human need for food.

[NoCorporatePersonhood]

Having a big family sounds like a beautiful experience. Please adopt as many children as you want. There are so many neglected children on the earth right now that have no one to love them.

If you say or think that it would not be the same because they are not "yours" then I would argue that there is much more to your desire than simply "the joy of having a big family"

[greymen]

THIS SHOULD BE LETTER OF THE DAY!

[Ajita]

Hear Hear

[babybabybaby]

Beautifully put.

[AllenKonigsberg]

How many have you adopted?

[terry54]

The more you have the cheaper it is. Atfer the are teenagers it begins to get costly if you have not trainthem to earn their own money by then.

We have 6 kids and don't regret one moment of it. Women are constantly cooming up and asking why we had so many kids. I tell them we like sex and just didn;t notice the kids adding up.
Some tell stories of how their only 1 child was killed in a car wreck or doing something stupid. They come out of nowhere hurting and lonely. I almost said several times "you should have had more kids."

Without kids what are you doing anyway? Collecting money and stinking up the place. We need more nativwe born Americans who will protect our country not those we will cut and run at the first sign of trouble.

[doodlefarbe]

terry54 writes, "We have 6 kids and don't regret one moment of it. Women are constantly cooming up and asking why we had so many kids. I tell them we like sex and just didn;t notice the kids adding up. "

Dang, that was funny - snorted my coffee!

[terry54]

:)~

[MajorKong]

"We need more nativwe born Americans who will protect our country not those we will cut and run at the first sign of trouble."

So we need to make babies for the fatherland? I think I've heard that one somewhere before.

[overtheedge]

Well Paula, I certainly didn't expect you to get any sympathy from HuffPo readers on this subject. I think many here are in favor of limiting the number of children a woman can have. Hell, I'm sure some are in favor of forced sterilizations or forced abortions.

[overtheedge]

Ack,,,I mean Pamela, not Paula!

[fightorleave2]

over the hedge, why would you presume that liberals as opposed to conservatives would favor forced sterilization. The only ones I know who do that are conservative fascists like Hitler, Mussolini, etc. and Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell.

[fcsakes]

Wake up lady, anybody's little egg could be the next great hope of the planet - we are all pretty sick of that justification, aren't you? Do you have any idea of how many babies one woman can produce in a lifetime? and you're suggesting we all keep doing it just in case we miss that one terrific scientist who is going to come up with a cure for cancer? Just send the ones we've got to college - all of them, not just the ones who are rich or *entitled.*

Why don't you keep it at two and if you really need more kids, there are thousands out there digging in garbage cans, why don't you go get one of those, mz. earth saver.

[MerlinJames]

You go girl.

I love it when these self righteous idiots come out of the woodwork to claim the YOU are somehow responsible for endangering the planet by bringing a third child in this world. Gimme a break. These are the same clowns that tell everyone to back off when Britney is criticized as a bad mother to the TWO she endangers on a regular basis. These are the same folks that when they buy their ba-zillion acres of remote land, fight to keep everyone else at bay....like Ted Turner, who just recently blasted all of us carbon emitting serfs for our selfish ways while accumulating millions of acres in the name of conservation. Who is he to determine what is best for the planet?

And the ridiculous statement that the planet is maxed out with 6 billion occupants that if congregated would fit into an area the size of the UP of Michigan...is well, sad. Again the mantra is, "I'm here and no one else is welcome to my space" makes one want to puke...especially to someone as responsible, loving and caring as you. These are the same folks that are mandating biofuels that is driving the cost of food through the roof and starving the poor in countries that deserve our help, not our "flavor of the month" causes.

Have three, four, five. Based on who you are, they will probably discover a cure for cancer and world peace.

[andhakari]

Yeah, go ahead and procreate. If you think your unconceived child's invention of a practical bio-fuel can save the world, you are clearly out of touch. In twenty or thirty years it will be over. Population controls twenty or thirty years ago would have bought us the time we needed, but the earth's population has just about doubled in my adult life, and global warming is here now. Fisheries and other food sources will be collapsing at an ever increasing rate. Species extinction will accellerate.
Go ahead and do what you can to doom your first two children to a miserable life of squalor, without hope. Babies are SOOO cute! Good luck with that.

[Pandu]

Maybe we shouldn't think of fish and other animals as food sources. The Earth is strained to feed 6 billion people now, but that's because most crops go to feed farmed animals at about 10% efficiency. The world could probably support 35 billion vegetarians without much trouble, and it would be a much nicer place.

If the earth is doomed, it's because of meat-eaters' cruel greed, not because of too many babies being born to gentle environmentalists in loving families. I would have given up trying to help a world filled with animal-killers, but the natural affection for my children makes me keep working.

[Quaoar]

Yes, your third child could cure cancer or invent a truly efficient biofuel. He/she is just as likely to become the next Karl Rove or Jeffrey Dahmer. Realistically though, the child will most likely become a middle-class American consumer who will begat more middle-class American consumers and further contribute not to a better society but to global overpopulation and resource depletion. Make no mistake, no matter how much you try to justify it, having a third child is an extremely selfish and environmentally negligent act.

[JScott]

And I just read the bio. You still have NOT experienced the teen/young adult years yet-I'll bet you would think TWICE about that 3rd child after one of your current ones reach puberty (I bet you'd say 'whew am I glad I didn't have that 3rd one, just having these 2 go thru puberty is enough for me').

[JScott]

Jeez you still don't get the connection (and unfortunately a lotta other humans don't get it either) between too many people on the planet and the problems it causes. And just because you follow good 'green practices' and write about them and say well maybe the 3rd one might find the cure to cancer are total BS.
You don't build up any credits for those 'green practices' and your 2nd and 1st child could as easily find the cure for cancer as well as the 3rd.
If the world declines we can specifically blame YOU and your 3rd child for contributing to it.
YOU are being selfish!!!!!
If you want a 3rd child why don't you adopt one of those poor children in 3rd world countries, in fact if you want even more, ADOPT even more of them, you could do far MORE good for the planet that way.

[Pandu]

What if there is a genetic component to environmental concern?

If so, and if that concern is acted upon by forgoing procreation in favor of adoption, then the next generation will be dominated by people who don't care about the environment.

Perhaps envionmental concern is correlated with intelligence. It seems reasonable. There is undoubtedly a genetic component to intelligence. There is also a correlation between intelligence and advanced education, and advanced education usually means fewer children. If intelligent, environmentally responsible people forgo procreation in favor of adoption, then the human species will have selected favorably for genes of stupidity and irresponsiblity. How's that for a plan?

[kathy001]

Pandu, you appear to be saying that none of the children in the world who desperately need a loving family are genetically worthy of being adopted and raised by intelligent, environmentally responsible people.

Frankly, I have more faith in human beings than that. Children of normal intelligence who are given access to education, whose parents (adoptive or otherwise) nurture their normal intelligence and normal creativity, can be expected to do wonderful things as well as mundane, run-of-the-mill things.

Children who are raised to squander will squander. Children who are raised to respect resources will do so. It's not all in the genes, it's in the parenting.

[badnfluence]

Sorry, but you ARE selfish. You're having a third child because "a family with just two kids seems minimalist, and even a bit sad" (from your WashPo article). I grew up in a family with "just" two kids, and it was neither sad nor minimalist. Your entire article was about how having a third kid would affect YOUR finances and YOUR feelings. Never did it cross your mind how irresponsible it is to have another child in a vastly overpopulated world. Never did it cross your mind how many orphans there are who don't have the luxury of having selfish, egotistical, and frivolous upper middle classers as parents.

You want a third little nose-miner? ADOPT.

[AllenKonigsberg]

That's a great idea -- people who are responsible and have resources raise the offspring of those who are irresponsible and have more kids than they can afford.

[babybabybaby]

How is that the child's fault? How about trying the better the future and stop blaming hte past.

[terry54]

Your parents were lucky. Some familys with only 2 kids lose both of them in a car wreck and are left lost and miserable for years often wishing they had more kids.
Well lucky is pushing it since your "selffish" remark make you judgemental and overbearing.
It is thier life you have no right to judge them.