I decided to post this under the general social issues item as it does have to do with personal preferences in regards to child raising and the decision as to whether or not to have children. I have read this article and I'm just floored with the flawed beliefs these ladies have. I have no problem with people who choose not to have children. While my wife and I have made that choice and believe it is the best thing in the world, we realize that other people may have different priorities. I find their rationale for not having children to be laughable. "Toni" states outright that it's selfish to have children, yet she selfishly chose to end her pregnancy because of her political beliefs, and because it was an inconvenience to her. Yep, that's not selfish at all is it? "Sarah" mentiones that children pollute the planet, yet my three children do not even come close to the carbon dioxide output and other pollutants that she unquestioningly produces more of by living her life every day. Perhaps she should check out and make way for my kids, who are smaller consumers.


U.K. Daily Mirror article on Eco-activist selfish couples


Questions for debate:

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?

3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

If we have come to the point where perpetuating our own species has become selfish and destructive, I guess humans have out lived their time on earth.
I personally don't subscribe to this ideology. I guess "Toni" should be glad her mother didn't have the same viewpoints.

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environment? Why or why not?

Seeing that the environment doesn't need saving and is just going through normal cyclical changes I don't see how this question is relevant.

3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

Raising children is neither easy or cheap. You must make quite a few self sacrifices when a child enters your life. I don't think you can call it selfish to have children.

In the end I look at it like this: This kind of loopy ideology won't last long if these people are not having children to pass it down. So I say let em have at it.

Maybe we can start offering sterilization procedures with the purchase of so many carbon offsets.

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?

Hmm. Let's be honest here, **assuming** that man-made global warming is real and can be ameliorated by human actions (even if it isn't man-made), ideas like carbon neutrality, using few non-renewable resources, and creating as little non-recyclable (or re-useable) waste as possible are probably things that most of us are going to have to get used to, willingly or not.

And, as well as the "over-consumption" idea that is levelled as a criticism at people living in the West being a problem, over-population generally is even more of one. If we reduced every individual's carbon footprint to the same size as the average pre-industrial person somehow, a global population of seven or ten billion (not far away, as were currently just over six billion strong as a species) is still going to have a much bigger envronmental impact than a population a tenth of that size.

So overpopulation is a reasonable issue for anyone who claims to be environmentally aware to be concerned about.

And Westerners DO generally pollute and consume more (regardless of CO2 and the greenhouse effect - let's not get bogged down in that argument again here) so I can understand why this woman thinks the way she does.

I just don't really agree with her.

However, like any other problem of scale, it needs to be managed. Sterilisation (voluntary) is not an especially sensible response, I think, not when compared with, say, deciding to only have one or two children (which is what most people in the UK do these days anyway, if they have kids at all). A population crash (which is what we'd get if everyone did as she has) is just as dangerous and destabilising - not only sociologically but biologically and demographically - as a population explosion.


3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

Difficult to say. I don't think this woman took her decision for selfish reasons, but (like most people, to be truthful) a decision she's taken for genuine reasons but privately had second thouhts about can often, through self-justification, come to be a self-centred one.

If you've made an ideological mistake that has permanently changed you life in some way, you will get animated about it one way or the other.

Maybe you will rail against the ideas that led you to make that decision and blame someone else for giving you false information at one extreme or boast about it at the other.

For example, we've all heard of peple claiming "my religion/worldview/ideology is founded on sand" then going on to either blame the people they learned it from (making them feel better inside because it wasn't really their own fault, they were brainwashed or tricked or whatever by those bad people over there), or putting themselves forward as an example of what not to think or do (which is perhaps a more admirable stance, but still has the not unpleasant effect of making the person claiming it the centre of attention for a while).

And at the other end of the spectrum, there are people who claim "my religion/worldview/ideology is the only way forward and everyone else should admire me/agree with me for it" like this woman seems to be doing. As well as putting the individual in the limelight (which they may grumble about having to do to advance their cause to all within earshot, but secretly rather enjoy at some level anyway for centre-of-attention reasons), it also helps to quell any doubts they themselves have about their own ideas and, more especially, the actions they've taken based on them.

All that said, I don't think either option is especially selfish (in the sense of greedy). However, I do think that this particular woman is more likely to be in contention for a Darwin Award than the Nobel Prize she no seems to think she ought to get..

Questions for debate:

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

I have never heard this statement before. Creating life, sacraficing as much as a parent does being selfish. For those that are parents might view this as an oxymoron. I think those that are selfish should not have children as they would consider their own needs above their children's. I can see the basis for the concern for the environment. If there are fewer people on earth, there is less demand on the environment. However, if everyone that is fertile decides not to have children, the environment is no longer our biggest concern. Preservation of the human race is at that point. Maybe those that think this planet is overpopulated and is too much of a burden to our environment should remove themselves from the equation. That would be one less person demanding resources from our environment. Mars doesn't have too much demand on it right now.....

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?

Like I stated above, a species that does not reproduce is a bigger problem than saving the environment. If the species dies out, no one around to carry the species on, so what difference does fighting for the environment make?

3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

I don't think either is selfish. Both are doing something that they think is bigger than themselves. Creating a life and sacraficing everything that parents sacrafice is the opposite of selfishness. Making a decision such as to not have children to help save the environment, as absurd as I think that notion is, is also doing something for a grander issue than oneself.

Exactly.



Have any of you ever read the Birth Dearth by Ben Wattenberg? It is subtitled What Happens When People in Free Countries Don't Have Enough Babies. I read this years ago and took it to heart.

I just found this review from Publishers Weekly on his newest book Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future Wattenberg (The Real America; The Birth Dearth), expanding on previous work, offers a detailed breakdown of trends toward global depopulation. The previous population projections, he considers, grossly overestimated peak population numbers, and even current U.N. projections, he says, tend toward the high side. The discrepancies are due to dramatically decreasing fertility rates throughout the world, he argues, making population growth rate much slower than anticipated. He predicts that after peaking in the next decades, the rate will drop sharply. Wattenberg’s book examines these numbers, their causes and their ramifications. Keeping his statistics comprehensible to the demographic novice, he makes a strong case against environmentalist praise of depopulation and skillfully analyzes the economic and social situations that might occur if his predictions play out.

My 10 well-educated children will help pay your Social Security, provide stability for the economy, and leadership for the future.

1: Currently yes but it does not have to remain that way.

2: Currently yes but again it does not have to remain that way.

3: People with kids.


Its simple math for the most part, if human population at today’s standard was one fourth in size, the impact ecologically speaking is beyond imagination in benefit. Anything from concentrations of greenhouse gases to sheer volume of ecology ruined in any sense really would simply be in far more better health then it is today. These current ecologically negative trends unchecked will only deal out more damage along with a higher density of the species causing it. Such seems black and white almost to the point of knowing you need molecular oxygen. I would have to say on a side note that war also would have occurred a lot less and would continue such a trend if global human populations numbers stood at one fourth of what they are today. The ability to have a better future while being green at the same time exists, certain people just like to refuse such and be pessimists

Questions for debate:

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
As far as any individual child, that answer would play out over the life of that child. Taken as a whole the answer would be yes, obviously; more folks despoiling a diminishing wilderness.

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?
That's hard to say. If one less child born by one woman opens up the opportunity and choice by another woman to have a child then the effect would be neutral. Of course if the childless choice leads to a greater sensitivity to the effects on the environment of having children and encouraged either a no child choice or a low child choice then it would a positive. The down side could be that a major selection for folks who are inclined to have children regardless of wider consequences could take place leading to a culture of breeding without regard to considering broader responsibilities.

From readings in the anthropology of early people's it appears that our early ancestors, paleolithic hunters, gatherers, fishermen, were more active practitioners of population control than we are. Since they lived in small communities that had to derive all their sustenance from their immediate environment plus try to live in harmony with neighboring tribes, population size was an intimate critical matter. All the feedbacks were in place.

One of the reasons I somewhat despair of the human race avoiding extinction is there is nothing really to stand in for the responsibility of the self-sustaining community. Even when people decide to have no children they commonly decide to utilize their greater accumulated wealth to, for instance, travel more and collect more "toys" which escalates their contribution to the deterioration of the environment. I really think when we look at these matters of population and pollution and crowding leading to conflict and exploitation and ill health and environmental deterioration we have to consider building in place some kind of communities that are communities in more than name. Certainly drastically lowering the population would facilitate this but I don't see that on the horizon. Even countries that have a lower than replacement level among their citizens seem to need to import folks from abroad to stoke the economy and sustain the high level of services that the citizens expect.

3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?
That's too subjective a question to answer. Having children and caring for them is a very self-sacrificing way of life. Objectively though lowering population is a positive in the long run whatever the motives of the various practitioners or nonpractitioners in population restraint.

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environmetn? Why or why not?

3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

All of these questions hinge on our obligations to future generations. We don't want to deplete the earth's resources, for the sake of future generations. But the future generations have to actually show up, in order to enjoy the resources we've left for them. I feel like I almost have something useful to say in answering these questions, but it's not fully baked. In the meantime:


I'm reminded of something I saw on The Daily Show a couple years back. "What Went Wrong: The Shakers." (3:00 minutes into this clip.)


Haven't read that one, but I can recommend Mark Steyn's work if you're interested in this topic. America Alone is the most entertaining demographic pessimism you'll find between two covers.


I'm not sure if you're engaging in euphemism here ("population control," "all of the feedbacks"), or if you actually have a Romantic view of early peoples. I'm guessing there's at least some of the latter, based on the bit about living in harmony with neighboring tribes. I haven't read extensively in anthropology, but I think it's been established that our recent ancestors were at least as warlike as humans today, and that they were much more likely to die violently. So I'd agree with the above statement if by "population control" and "all of the feedbacks," you include war, famine, and disease. I don't understand the nostalgia for that state, though.

That's kind of wild. Do you really think the human race is going to stop having children altogether?





One might want to consider economic equilibrium as opposed to perpetual growth. My guess is a lot of the fear of a lower population is attached to the lowered growth. Cancer grows ceaseless, healthy systems prefer homeostasis.



No, I'm not Rousseau pushing the somewhat romantic myth of the "Noble Savage." However he got many of his ideas from Europeans who traveled to the Americas and reported back that the Indians they met in their native habitats were often of higher and more humane caliber than the European invaders. Not particularly surprising.

My readings tell me that for the most part Indians did live in harmony with their neighbors, at least during preColumbian times. I wasn't talking about recent ancestors who had imbibed European ways. One way you can tell that is the rich variety of groups with different languages and cultures that lived side by side. As far as I know the last major invasion of my area before the Spanish came was about two thousand years ago. It was incremental and bit by bit and the offended Indians moved their operations north and south of here. No bloody Genghis Kahn conquest here. The stability is really remarkable; the same shell mounds being used generation after generation for two thousand years. You don't have that kind of stability unless you have some means of restricting population growth given the bow and arrow culture they lived in. Yes disease and material hardships took their toll but I don't believe warfare was a big factor. I believe conscious birth control played a much bigger role but of course that probably included infanticide and gerocide. Still my point is the issue of too many people was definitely something they were sensitive to and dealt with due to their sense of what was appropriate to their environment. Living in small self-sustaining communities made them more aware of the need for population stability in my view.

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
With the world population at unsustainable levels, having large families itself would be ecologically-destructive since the planet only has a finite amount of resources to support the current population. Having 1 or 2 children itself is not selfish, given that people need families.

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environment? Why or why not?
I think the answer lies in people having only 1 or 2 children and raising those children with good values. Just as we know that humans have done a lot of harm to the planet through wars and blind-materialistic values, humans also have the capacity to do equal good to the planet as well. Instead of cutting down the rainforests to build furniture, medical researchers could explore every part of that place and find cures for medical diseases. And instead of debating Global Warming and using the remaining fossil fuels to drive cars, we could instead devise a way to pump the water from the melting icecaps over to drought stricken areas like Georgia and Australia.

One of the remarkable things about the human species is that we not only are clever at exploiting the World's resources for our own desires, we also have the intellectual capacity to think beyond our own carnal desires and our own stomachs. I personally wish that more people would use their bigger brain more often rather than the smaller one so to speak. With 2 billion people living on less than 2 dollars a day, maybe we have to start taking better care of the people we have before we start bringing new people onboard.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry191947

Having seen the effects a child can have on the state of their immediate surroundings, I have to conclude that they are bad for the environment as a whole.

Wouldn't you and those that think similarly believe that if you raise a child to be friendly to the earth and to save it from "Man Made Global Warming", that having children would be better for the environment in the long run?

Those that take the belief that not having children will save the planet will be the only ones that decide not to have children for that purpose, and those that do have children will not teach their children to be what many consider to be tree huggers. I guess I am all for it!

Just so we are clear, my original post was a joke.

That being said, if someone wants to go childless, I doubt that the environmental impact is ever the real reason, no matter what they claim. So of course it is neither a practical nor a realistic way to save the environment. But it's hard to argue with the premise that, all else being equal, fewer people = less environmental impact. In fact, I doubt that the most environmentally active person on the planet has a net positive effect on things. They may be living at a pace that doesn't tax the Earth's regenerative powers too much, but they are still using resources that otherwise would not be spent.

I will not try to put forth any evidence from an empirical nature as it seems your mind is made up with the use of terms like tree huggers but I would like to make a point. Do you know what primary session is by chance? I mean its an entry level term actually used in I think middle schools these days to be honest. What I am getting at is I meet and discuss environmental issues on the web with a large series of "conservative" types. What I have noticed is they are basically more or less full of hot air. Its like a person talking about chemistry when they cant even tell you what an amino acid is, and then you have to repeat this almost brainwashed view in hundreds of thousands of voters and pretty soon you get a very scary picture.

Bottom line tim is our species and many others exist via evolution because for instance plants where successful. I don’t know if you understand anything about evolution or biology or anything really, you might just be another religious whackjob in some secret facility protecting your young from books, I have no idea really. What I do know is that you really have no idea at all what you are talking about, and in that I have for the sake of survival turned such into comedy in my head. You see life goes extinct and evolves in accordance with something called natural selection. Now this is empirically verified with nothing short then an amount of factual evidence to large for any one person to know. With that being said such is a reality of nature, like death. So when you go and change the environment on a global scale what do you think will happen?

Personally I am all for it in a certain extent. I see current cultural means of survival established almost to the point of being an ESS and I view global warming and climate change as a means that will change such and with any hope for our species survival user in change really. Sure it will only be a mass extinction event that could even claim people, but then again its just all hype and tree hugging.

Personally at this point is where I have to make it comedy, because you have grown up supposedly intelligent people acting like yourself tim, and that’s far more dreary in my book then anything GW brings to bear. You basically in my opinion have to deny knowledge and live in a cave to deny GW and human induced ecological change and devastation on a global scale. Again giving the reality of life we are also at that same time increasing the likelihood of our own extinction.

To also validate something I have had no children, and I plan to have no children biologically. Why would I do that to something I love, as in give them a planet slowly heading for such with a bunch of blind idiots making sure we get there faster. Then again those WMD's are somewhere north, west, south, or east of Baghdad and that’s good enough for me. I mean we cant change the environment right? Its just solar forcing or any of the other debunked and thoroughly *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** statements still brought to bear long after being proved false, scientifically, which anymore is code for liberal because it does not agree with big oil, AKA evangelical Christians who voted for a president that would declare war based on something he thinks god told him. Its planet of the apes and well you have to have a sense of humor. So yes, I don’t think some people who are ecologically minded not having children will change any message, it’s a future everyone is going to have to live in, regardless if they believe in it or not, so I hope your offspring have fun, then again it might be a good idea to have kids so they can die in war. I mean that’s how I would treat something I loved also, talk about raving lunacy, but again whats the blind watch maker?

No, I'm sure other people will keep having children. It's just the environmentalists who are morally committed to childlessness who won't be represented in future generations.


Interesting. Did native Americans actually have birth control technology? I couldn't find anything about it in a bit of searching.

If you're not Rousseau, I'm not quite Hobbes on this. (Hobbes was surely wrong about early man living in a solitary state of war of all against all. Humans have always been a social species.) Native peoples of the California coast may well have been peaceful, but there were other parts of the Americas that experienced a great deal of violence. The Aztec empire engaged in expansionist war before 1492, and the grave sites of Norris Farms and Crow Creek are full of skeletons of pre-Columbian people who died violently (scalping marks on skulls, etc.) On the other hand, this study of over 4,000 skeletons collected across North, Central, and South America shows a low incidence of violent death overall.

In the larger, global view, the current rate of violence is probably at or near an all-time low.

Yep, conservatives are full of hot air and liberals are all knowing. Good point, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I feel more enlightened now!


How did you know I was just "another religious whackjob in some secret facility protecting your young from books"? I am glad that since you said I have no idea what I am talking about, the air is much clearer and we are much more informed as to who the all knowing is here at . You have helped us all immensly. By the way, it seems more scientists are coming out against the "consensus", but I am sure they are all funded by big oil, right!?!? Click here! I am sure you can just write that site and that person off with some off excuse such as he is tied in with big oil and that the site is only a conservative conspiracy site, right?


See my above reference for the big oil neocon racist bastard's view on man made GW. By the way, since you know me so well, what is my opinion on the existance of GW? Please share with the class since you portray yourself as all knowing, at least more knowing than me...


This statement pertains to this thread how?


I don't know what theory you think has been debunked except for the misinformation in Nobel Gore's movie. I am not an expert, as I am sure you are, but here is a list of some of the websites that point out the flaws in the claims that GW is man made:
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
And this site lists a number of scientists that used to be proponents of man made GW, but have jumped off the wagon, but I am sure they are on the Bush family payroll, right?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id=

But what would this "religious whackjob in some secret facility protecting your young from books", as you put it, know anyway?

Did you notice that I did all of this post without calling you names? Amazing!

JohnfrmCleveland:


Excellent response, and very accurate. It may appear that arguing for population restriction might be a good thing, but it's too general. Quite frankly, once you get down to the nitty-gritty details, you find that the argument is definitely overstated, much like the contention about population and poverty being intrinsically tied together. That myth was thoroughly refuted. You can find a ton of sites like this one which purport to show the problems that are associated with overpopulation-burning of trees, water runoff, more pollution, etc. However, that is true in areas of the world where technology and progress don't have a chance to mitigate man's impact upon the environment. Soil erosion and water runoff are problems in Angola, not so much in the U.S. where farmers are very judicious when it comes to land usage and runoff. Concerns about the food supply are also a bit of a stretch at the moment, as technology continues to increase crop yields and the amount of food produced. We are hardly to a point where population is outstripping food supply. Malthus wouldn't be able to beleive it if he were alive today. Yes, people starve, but that has more to do with distribution, political instability, and other human issues, as opposed to environmetal/ecological ones.

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?
In a broad sense, having children is certainly ecologically destructive. This is particularly true in resource intensive countries, such as the United States, where one persons life can have a rather large environmental impact. It should be noted that in most first world countries, the natural population growth is actually declining. Far and away, third world countries contribute the most to the worlds population growth.

Selfish child rearing is a complex topic that can be approached from many interesting angles. Never having had a child myself, I have not experienced the motivation for children.

What is evident, however, are the large number of people who shouldn't have children that do. In the United States, where abortions and birth control are widely available, having children is a choice. As such, one should, before having a child, have the resources necessary to sustain its life. Its amazing how many people fail even this exceedingly low standard. Those are the selfish ones.

So, as long as I personally don't have to pay extra taxes to support other peoples children, I don't mind how many children they have. Some might argue that not wanting to pay for another's children makes me the selfish one. I politely disagree (though public education gets a little tricky).

It would be helpful if taken en masse, but just one person probably makes a drop in the bucket. Its vain, but certainly not selfish, as the last question seems to suggest.

Whoa! Loaded question. I would say most of the time, neither of them are selfish.

No I have no religious convictions, I don’t believe in them. I think religion is a human made thing much like global warming. Yes, conservatives that are anti environmentalists are full of hot air, they are so full of hot air that its become a cornerstone of conservative philosophy regarding the environment to be full of hot air. There is no money in it and worse its a global issue that does not involve making money and or war, hallmarks of conservative thinking by the way.

Look, I think Jesus the ceo can work in the modern world, but the reality is environmental science has come about due to the reality of natural selection. So, if you want to live in fantasy land, that is fine by me. IN reality though we are capable and are currently leading ourselves to our own extinction via issues like GW. You don’t want to believe in the ever growing body of science behind it because it does not click up with what you agree is right, so you would ignore factual reality for a fantasy, that means you are a lunatic at that point.

So, if having more children is a plus because they can fight in wars so you can use more oil and resources to kill yourself is a good thing, well then count me out because I am not insane. As soon as something disagrees with the holy GOP its obviously liberal, and thus wrong. This is a pattern that exists with everything.

So here is the facts. Global warming is real, its man made, and its very very bad. To deny this is like denying gravity anymore, and if you do such that makes you insane because you no longer care to live in reality. So see its simple. I am not going to have any children to hand over to such insanity, for that’s what it is, insanity. DO you understand that you are insane? I can understand how how bush got into office without being an actor.

Having children in itself is not selfish, and sounds almost like a silly thing to debate.

What would be selfish however, is having more children than 1 can support and then expecting society to pick up all the costs for feeding and supporting those extra children. When people in 3rd World Countries willingly have large families, and then cry out to the rich countries for help when their countries become afflicted with drought, that is selfish and ecologically destructive.

I am not sure who you are refering to in your response, so since we disagree on the cause of GW, I will respond.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that secret meeting that all conservatives attended that concluded with us agreeing that unless we can go to war over it, it isn't important. Very valid point. Any facts that you would like to share with us that relates to this thread? I love it when GW bandwagoners point out that those that disagree with the "science" of man made GW are full of "hot air" and don't refute facts that are presented disputing man made GW. A whole lot of validity with you!!


Actually, if you look at my previous post, I provide a lot of science that refutes man made GW, do you not call that science? I bet all of those people and websites are either on the Bush payroll, or in with big oil. Dispute those facts without writing your opponents off as "full of hot air" and "you are a lunatic".


Yep, that is exactly why people have kids. We want to use more oil and fight in wars. WOW! Your insightfullness is very refreshing! Do you honestly think these are valid arguments? You also point out that conservatives think that things that don't agree with our beliefs are wrong. Hmm... If I don't agree with something, I think it is wrong. Pretty much makes sense to me. Do you think things that you don't agree with are right? You must have serious conflict within yourself. Since you don't agree with those that dispute man made GW, are they right or wrong? Help me understand this.


Well, I would disagree that GW is as much a law as gravity, but that argument really gets your point accross, doesn't it. Those that dispute man made GW are as idiotic as those that thought the world was flat, that the Holocaust didn't happen and now that there is no argument that GW is man made. You make your emotional arguments without disputing science that has been provided disputing Nobel Gore and man made GW with facts. Keep up the good work!

You know, I have some pretty radical and extreme opinions, compared the mainstream of American culture. And yet there are only three statements I make that tend to send "normal" people into an absolute frenzy.

1. "I don't eat meat."
2. "I don't like Christmas."
3. "I am child-free by choice."

If they find out I support same-sex marriage, and group marriage, and incestuous marriage, they just think I'm crazy. If they find out that I have a completely materialistic view of the universe, they just feel sorry for me. But let me turn down a hamburger, or a Christmas tree, or reveal that I became permanently sterilized as soon as I became sexually active, and they grow livid.

The linked article is full of this sort of thing. The authors can hardly contain their hatred for the child-free.



How wicked of me to acknowledge that the prospect of taking care of a child terrifies me!



How evil of me to ensure that I will never be responsible for an abortion!



How noble of the physician to force her to wait eight years before she could be sterilized!

How immoral for me to do something with my life other than reproduce!



How nasty of her boyfriend to acknowledge the fact that she took responsibility for her own fertility!

What a perverted reversal of nature it is for me to avoiding making myself miserable!

This nonsense just goes on and on, in this article and in many other things I read and hear about the decision to remain child-free.


Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

Not necessarily. Having children and not being able to properly take care of them is destructive. (Rather than "selfish," I'd say "foolish." More on "selfish" later.)

Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environment? Why or why not?

It will have very little impact one way or another. Children who do not exist cannot cause harm, but that is overwhelmingly outweighed by the harm done by people who exist.

Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

People with children can be anything from insanely self-sacrificing (if they ruin their lives for their children) to insanely selfish (if they rape, torture, and murder their children.) Most are probably pretty decent, with a mixture of self-interest and interest in others.

People without children might be called "selfish," in the sense that people who choose not to cut off their fingers might be called "selfish" -- a wish to avoid extreme misery is what motivates the many child-free persons I have heard from. I suppose the desire to avoid terrible unhappiness could be called "selfish."

If I dare to suggest that the "full quiver" people who have fourteen/fifteen/sixteen children may not be acting in an entirely rational manner, I'm considered a wet blanket.

Why is it always open season on me?

Because essentially your challenging the most fundamental basis for most people's sense of self. I know that I can agree with you on almost every opinion you've ever declared (though I'm not too sure about the incestuous marriage thing, I assume your not refering to parents marrying their own offspring) but even I get a stab of annoyance when you mention your decision not to have children.

In my defence, I would add that this is mostly because you are echoing my brother and not because I am presumptuously concerned with how you live your life. My brother Peter decided long ago that he was not going to have children and the reason he quotes is because he doesn't want the responsibility. For a long time I didn't believe him, or didn't mind that much, but after I've become a parent, and seen how he is with my daughter, then resentment has taken hold in my heart. I keep this emotion hidden from view as much as possible, but its difficult to conceal the bitterness for I know that I will never have the joy of seeing his children, even as he takes great joy in mine. My only hope is that my youngest brother will soon have children so my daughter (and her eventual sibling/s) will not be alone in a family of barren uncles and aunts.

Choosing to not have children affects more than just ourselves. My mother recently died of cancer and her great lament was never to have seen more than one grandchild. She made her peace towards the end, but I know she was disapointed to the core that she never got to see her own children become parents except for one exception at the end. In such a situation, one must dispair that life has no meaning what so ever.

I know, in my heart that my life has a meaning, but also that I give my life meaning, not my daughter. I can't use her or any one else as a crutch. But love is important too. Love is the one pure thing and without the context of 'family' (and I use that word loosely) love cannot exist. My brother and his wife are happy togather, but it has not gone past my notice that my brother obsesses over his off road car. He even describes it as his 'baby' and on more than one occaision has jokingly refered to it as a surrogate child.

I made him my daughters 'god father' however. He may end up with the responsibility he doesn't want, after all... life is fickle.






No. The purpose of life is to have children. Our wishes and desires do not constitiute a meaning of life, nor do political opinions. Without children there is no future.


It helps that people who don't care about the future because of their own political perspective don't have children I suppose, but this would imply that the children will have the same sense of their own importance that the parents had.

One thing is certain. Europes population is in decline and this is how it should be. Europe needs to regain equilibrium. Unfortuntely most of the rest of the world, is busy pushing out babies faster than Europeans are dying off so all we are really doing is allowing ourselves to be replaced by the uneducated, superstitious and indifferent populations of the third world.


Any one in this modern age who has more than two children is showing a distinct disregard for their surroundings. This planet cannot maintain so heavy a population as it must do now.

People who go without children are actually doing the rest of us a big favour since they're taxes will still go to supporting the next generation and by not having children thay are easing the burden of over population. As much as it smarts my sensibilities, I have to accept the logic in choosing to not have children in the 21st century.

It won't make any difference however for as long as third world families have fertilty rates as these shown below:

Link.

The decision to have children (or not to have children) is a very personal one; but nevertheless one that directly affects society as a whole, and thus it is a decision laden with responsibilities that far outweigh our selfish desires either way. Not all persons should have children. Many have children for all the wrong reasons, and as many make for poor parents that treat their children as no more than personal possessions. Indeed, most people give more thought to buying a puppy than they do to bringing a child into the world. As Darwin observed: “Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when it comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. . . .” Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Ch. XXI, “General Summary and Conclusion” (1871). The principal distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is the ability to reason; and yet how little consideration is given to such an important matter as rearing a child. One would think that we had but small brains for the lack of foresight as to the consequences of our decisions.

So very rational, moif! Much like Hitler detailing to his jewish pals (and i use it only in the loosest sense of the word) that the Holocaust would actually be a jolly good spot of fun, and that logistically speaking, it was better for the country, by weeding out the impurely bred, and opening the path for perfect aryan eugenics.

On paper, your theory works out just fine. But how would you like to tell these people, that their taxes will support children they've never even seen, or heard of? How do you tell hopeful wanna-be-parents that they should really just "not have babies, because it offers the rest of us better tax breaks?

If it was in any way practical in the real world, i would be inclined to agree with your viewpoint. as it stands...

And Nemo! I'm having trouble understanding your general viewpoint on this site. Are you a didactic misanthropist, or a spirited philosopher? More posts, that I may better analyze your inner workings, please.

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

I think more people make it harder on the environment, but I don't know if I would call having children "selfish." I have always thought that parents should limit their production to no more children than they can support – seems logical enough. That, however, is not reality. Parents do have kids they can’t support. To argue should rather than is gives us more "Blakstonian logic."

2.)Is going childless for the environment a practical and realistic way to save the environment? Why or why not?

No. This is the equivalent of, to quote the song, an "impossible dream." Couples are going to produce children, even if the better course may be not having them.

3.)Who is more selfish-people with children, or the eco-childless activists?

I don't think either of them are selfish. It's a case of what is as opposed to what someone thinks it would be - reality vs. theory.

I think you need to re read my post akalae. You seem to have completely missed the mark.

I'm not sure how it is 'rational', or 'like Hitler' to note that childless couples still pay taxes, or that those taxes go to the upkeep of the state and its infrastructure... in other words, schools, hospitals and all the other things that children enjoy at the expense of tax payers. I'm not even sure what voluntary childlessness even has to do with 'logistics'.

I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt in your direction, and assume there is some reason in your reasoning, but I can't see what it might be. I'm not even sure what you think my 'theory' might be, on paper or otherwise. What theory pray tell?

And as for telling 'hopeful wanna-be-parents that they should really just "not have babies, because it offers the rest of us better tax breaks', well I am at a loss as to where you read any such claim because I most certainly never it!

I shall repeat my point, briefly, so that you might better grasp it.

I do not much care for the fact that people choose not to have children, but I respect that decision regardless because it is their decision to make, and in effect, that decision, being freely given by a person who pays taxes (just as every one does) will actually still benefit my child.

In that case, let me pose a slightly tangential, yet relevant question; is it fair for them to pay the same taxes, when the children of strangers reap the benefits? Why must the childless demographic pay, no matter how indirectly, for your child's upbringing and education?

I understand your point. I am making my own. Childless couples, despite this planet's desperate need for them, are simply not prevalent in this country, because they are always at a disadvantage when compared to couples with children.

Everyone wants to talk about children in terms of “love”; but when you put it in terms of “money,” the question for every married couple is: Will we be responsible parents? Most people get married for love, which is a mistake because love never lasts, and is all to soon replaced with the drudgery of domestic life. Marital bliss becomes sacrificed to material obligation - mortgages, car payments and an endless series of bills - that takes all the joy out the relationship. Even the children end up being more burden than blessing. It all boils down to responsibility - financial responsibility - which is to say money, or the lack thereof - the debits and credits of a bankrupt estate.

For the same reason, many marriages nowadays end in divorce. It is primarily because they are ill-fated from the start; like undercapitalized business ventures, they are bound to fail. How foolish people can be when they are in love. How stupidly they behave without a care for the consequences. Did they really think that they could live on love? How absurd. Where did their love go? How could two persons who loved one another so passionately end up hating each other? Is love and hate but two sides of the same emotion? And what is to be done with the detritus of a marriage foundered on the rocks? The law is an inadequate remedy for what amounts to people’s personal problems. Divorce is a losing proposition: the husband loses, the wife loses, and the children - the ones who ought to be entitled to two loving and responsible parents - they are the big losers.

So now Mother nature wants our help? After years of tsunamis, cyclones, poisoned flying monkeys! Well hard cheese I say. Too bad for you old Mother Nature-it is WE who are in control now! Damn you! Damn you Mother Nature to HELL!

But no seriously... If you're so brain-dead that you think not having children will save the world then please do us all a favor and don't. When it's all said and done even if you care about the environment enough to stave off the urge to reproduce ask yourself this; does the volcano spurt hot liquid magma into the atmosphere and destroying the forest care about the environment? No it does not becuase only YOU can care about the environment. You are human, only humans care about things.

However, seriously, you Tina (from the article) should not have children. You're too stupid, too self centered too nihilistic and if I had to guess still too angry about Billy standing you up at the prom for Jenny (that tramp) from the cheer-leading squad!

I think his point is valid, a bit aggressive, but he simple points out facts. You want a simpler version of it? I give you one based on his argument;

The World is Flat:

Religion is made by man, but people persists saying 'God exist' without evidence, Religious people (everyone back then) believed the world To be flat (because of ignorance). When it was shown it was not (and atheism, science and knowledge came about), The Church, especially in the western world continued to claim it was flat. The Bible said so, so it must be true. The Bible also stated that woman are inferior, anyone wanting to debate about it on the Bibles Side?

This was believed because of Ignorance.

Next Point, GW is 'not true';

Stated by people who are ignorant of the facts, and/or do not want to accept their responsobility. Similar to religion, they simple are uneducated and are trying to hold their limited worldview 'true', whiles the educated intelligent man, knows the facts.

The list goes on. Basically, people who care for other people and the world (atheist, 'liberals', etcetera) are WRONG even if the evidence is on their side according to the nay-sayers, these are the same people that are against abortion and no-war and other human rights. People that show hate and ignorance (theist, poorly educated people, low intellect etcetera) says that Global Warming is 'Not True', and that the world is a sphere even when their bible says its flat.


Its all about ignorance. Basically, anyone saying that GW is not true, is ignorant OR pretending its not true for whatever reason. There is no gods, the world is not flat, and Global Warming is a fact, as evolution and gravity. But they dont want it to be true. I guess reality is something you can fight.

How can I answer this and stay on topic...?

Of course its fair! I don't drive a car but I'm still paying the same level of taxes towards maintaining the traffic network as those who do. People who don't have children still grow old. They still require a younger generation to take care of them when they grow old and need a younger hand to keep them clean and well fed.

Its all about balancing responsibilities between all people (and here comes the on topic bit). Without an equlibrium between the size of a society and the resources it requires to function, then the society will fail. Too many children is just as dangerous as not enough, in fact I'd say more so, because whilst our modern society with its oil driven industry couldn't survive a free falling population, society as a whole can, as demonstrated by the black death which cut Europe's population by half over a very short period of time.

What we face in Europe today is something vaguely similar. German population numbers are dropping faster than they can be replaced, that is to say that according to German statistics, not even immigration is stalling the fall in population brought about by the demise of the post war baby boomers. This is largely considered a bad thing by several parties for several reasons. Not least by the German government because a fall in fertility rates means fewer tax payers in future and a dimished economy. It also means the Muslim immigrants who have flooded into Germany in recent decades, and who are largely immune to the fall in fertility rates due to their own cultural tendencies face a bright future where they become a larger and larger minority until one day (said to be around 2050) when they become the majority. Auf weidersen Deutschland, gutentag EU.

Germany's population could do with being smaller though, because the worlds population could do with being smaller but the big problem is, only pampered children of the western world think in terms of their 'enviromental impact'. The teeming billions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, just don't give a toss. They're more concerned with the reality of living in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The most sensible course of action for Europeans would be to have 1.8 children per woman and stop importing Muslims. This means some women will automatically not have children and its no great shake of the donkeys tail to accept that fact and appreciate that these women are still making a contribution to society, simply by paying taxes.

Not only is this post completely off topic - but it makes absolutely no sense.

Your basic argument is that GW is true because you have scientists? Well then buck down for the next Ice Age! They said that was coming too. And duct tape your windows DDT is coming to get you.

By the way how do you feel about people who choose not to have children in order to save the environment? Personally I think they're self centered idiots who shouldn't reproduce so their idiotic ideas can die with them. ...but what do you think?

I don't think you are on the same page as the lady in the article. She didn't get herself sterilized for the reason of not wanting children, she got herself sterilized for the purpose of saving the planet. From what I can see from your post, you are adament about not having children because the thought of raising a child terrifies you. "How wicked of me to acknowledge that the prospect of taking care of a child terrifies me!". If you did it solely for the purpose of saving mother earth, than yes, I would think you had a few wires crossed. I think it is very responsible of you to make the decision you did. As it pertains to this thread, sterilizing oneself to be "green" is rediculous. Sterilizing oneself because he or she knows they don't want to have kids ever is being responsible. A huge difference.


The Bible says that the world is flat? I admit I haven't read the entire Bible cover to cover, so please share with the class where it says that...if you can. It is also interesting that anyone that believes in God or is religious is uneducated. That seems to be an intelligent statement.


Who said GW is not true? Did you read my post, or are you jumping to conclusions?


Ok Mr. Facts, please share some once in a while! I have yet to see any sort of reference to anything you have posted. Simply stating that those that disagree with you are ignorant and do not want to accept their responsibility and uneducated is ignorant on your part.


Again you bring up the word evidence, yet you provide none....



Another list of unsupported claims. Also known as opinions. Since I believe in God, I don't believe in man-made GW, and I believe in providing sources for my claims. I must be the most ignorant person alive!


You know, the thought of people that come up with ideas to save the world such as this should go ahead and run with their ideas. In fact, eveyone that wants to control how everyone lives so that we can stop mother earth from doing what she is going to do, should jump on board that bandwagon and ride into the sunset. Let them bring extinction to themselves so the rest of us can continue on in life.

No...baphomet's advocate has a point. If all the environmentalists in the world stopped having children, where would we all be in fifty years?

The very thought of it sends shivers down my spine. After all you've got those catholics, and mormons, with those big-old extanded families, and eye-popping numbers of offspring, and then you have the scientists. How many kids do climatologists have? Do men of science even have children?

Well, I suppose I must be proof of that, since my father was a man of science. Still, i suspect he was an exception, or at the very least, a closet christian. (How often do you hear that said, eh?)

Nerdy guys with coke-bottle glasses don't get girls. The big linebackers with their die-hard conservative fathers get girls. Ergo; Conservatives make babies. Many babies. Liberals sterilize themselves.

As a liberal, it pains me to say this, but if things continue this way, there won't be a single one of us left by 2070

Though you overgeneralize, I am ok with it, really!

When people begin opting out of procreation because of procreation in and of itself, natural selection has done its job. I cannot think of a better example.

1.)Is having children ecologically-destructive and selfish?

No. Reproduction is a natural aspect of nature and necessary for the survival of the species. We were created (by a higher power or otherwise) with the mechanics necessary to reproduce. The Earth has existed for a couple