Save the Earth: Stop Having Kids

On a recent radio appearance, I was asked if I felt guilty for having three kids. Apparently adding another child to my brood is contributing to the rapid deterioration of this planet.

I've only briefly read varying opinions on the subject, ranging from reasonable environmentalists trying to find viable options, to full-blown extremists who think breeding is a careless act against the earth.

Dr. Guillebaud, the main guest on the above mentioned appearance (Overpopulation, if you want to download), is hardly as controversial as other environmentalists who offer strong opinions regarding "serial breeders." He maintains that an emphasis on family planning is a viable option for saving the earth, and insists that he does not support implementing a law requiring families be limited to two children.

And he rides a bike to work. So, it's not like he's some asshole white dude driving an SUV telling us all to stop having kids.

Bill McKibben, well-known environmentalist with whom I recently spoke with regarding 350.org, wrote an entire book offering an environmental rationale for families limiting themselves to one child.

The truth is that an emphasis on family planning as an environmental act makes logical sense. But I can't help but be concerned that some people are disguising their anti-kids attitude as being environmentally friendly.

And I definitely wonder why it just so happens to be men suggesting these options and not women, especially since the probability is extremely high that women are the ones who will receiving these suggestions. 

It's no secret that the earth is overpopulated, and if we can slow down the population we can probably slow down the dramatic impact we're having on the planet.

But I also wonder if there's more to it -- if we somehow think that we can better influence folks to stop having more kids than we can to get them to stop driving big huge cars. Or wasting water, electricity, and natural resources.

Is family planning actually going to be implemented concurrently with other environmental programs? How would people feel if companies required car pool programs or offered sizable incentives to folks who share rides or utilize public transportation?

I can see it now: Feel free to encourage people to breed less but don't you take away my big giant gas guzzler.

It's clear that extremes could cause huge issues for our country. I'm certain that the idea of modeling a policy after China's "One Child Law" would be a violation of human rights on a variety of levels. And I'm not even sure I support a program that would strongly encourage, or even offer benefits to, families who decided to limit themselves to two children or less or adopt instead of have their own children.

Clearly, there have been and probably always will be people who shouldn't breed and do it anyway.

But then I wouldn't have a husband. (heh).

However, I'm wondering where the line is drawn. Does not having kids allow you to consume more, or blame larger families for killing our earth faster? Or is there something to be said about being aware of our overall impact and how we can make a difference?

Maybe that's less kids for some. Or none for others.

But by no means should the earth's issues fall solely on the shoulders of today's parents or parents-to-be.    

Comments

[Linda]

I hardly think WE are the problem for overpopulation. There are many, many countries that will outproduce us in no time. I do agree with the person who posted who said Americans tend to overconsume and that's an issue. But I do believe China is a big part of global warming and they only have 1 kid per family. Great post.

[nooneimportant]

I think the problem is that the average American is a massive consumer, so having two, three, four... eighteen American children, is a serious burden on the planet.

Global warming is happening whether you want to believe it or not. It's not a patriarchal conspiracy to force women to have fewer children. It's scientests telling us we're all fucked if we don't change our ways now. That includes family planning, downsizing cars, eating less, not eating meat, taking shorter showers, etc, etc.

[Sheila (Charm School Reject)]

Wow - I wonder what these people would think of me and my family? My husband and I are each one of seven...and we plan on having four children....2 down, 2 to go.

The environmental impact never really crossed my mind. Whoops. Oh wait. I think that argument is bull.

[Liz]

All I know is that it's hardly the upper/middle-class Americans who are churning out kids by the boatload on this planet. The fact is that poor people (in this country and others) without the education about or access to contraceptives have way more kids than people who are probably already controlling their fertility and may want to have 3 or 4 children because they simply want to, not because they don't know how to prevent it. I think this guy's a moron.

[lildb]

i'll admit it. i think eight kids is insane.

but then, i'm drunk.

[dana]

The one thing I'm wondering is how does this new "family planning" idea, this method of having less children really contribute to saving the Earth?

I mean, with 3 million abortions occurring every year (just a fact, not meant to cause a stir), wouldn't that mean that those of us who have more than one or two children really aren't causing that much more harm to our planet than anybody else? I mean technically, we'd be even, right?

Sounds ridiculous, I know...but so is the theory that larger families are causing the Earth to deteriorate.

I think the fate of this planet has a lot to do with how much crap WE ALL consume. Every car on the road, every plastic bottle not recycled, every wasteful thing that every person on this Earth does contributes to our planet's demise.

Just a thought. I could totally be wrong...

[Karen]

yes, somehow we are making global warming the fault of 2nd & 3rd children everywhere. that makes no sense to me. Most of them are too young to have caused this problem...they are too busy climbing out of their cribs and cutting molars. Grown-ups need to take responsibility and mow their lawns less frequently.

[Kait]

And after I posted my comment, I saw that you already acknowledged and apologized for the adoption wording.

Sorry about that!

[Kait]

First of all, I do want to say that adopting IS having our own children. And I consider people like the Duggar's serial breeders - not someone like you with three kids.

Although, there is a certain logic to the whole one or two children thing. With one or two, it's still reasonable to drive a car or smaller vehicle. You have more than that and a van or SUV because a necessity if you like doing things as a family.

But I have my doubts that encouraging people to have less children is going to make the same impact as other environmentally friendly options like recycling.

[Christina]

I think it's a total bullshit argument. First, the US birth rate is not that high, so if they want to restrict children they should look at promoting birth control programs in countries where women have no access to birth control, but very likely would like to have it!

Second, people who live together in groups use fewer resources than those living on their own. Those with larger families tend to conserve resources more, if only because they need to budget and make a dollar stretch for their family.

So maybe the government should set up tax breaks to encourage singles to live with roommates in an effort to reduce resource usage? I know a lot of singles living in large, 2-3 bedroom homes on their own. Think of how much energy is being spent on heating/cooling that house - if some of them lived together, we could reduce the energy load, right?

Truthfully, I think the only way to do anything regarding our resource use is to educate and promote. Government legislation over our basic rights, like limiting the number of children we have, won't do much to help the situation.

[JustBreatheMom]

Don't these people know that "3 is the new 2?"

[Lisa V]

I have 4 kids, but we've stuck with the whole zero population growth by adopting two of them. And actually those to children are the only two children of their birth fathers. So none of us are over populating here.

I have a ten year old mini-van that sits in the drive way 70% of the time. Our smaller more economical Mazda is really our primary car. We take the bus, we ride bikes, we don't go a lot of the time. We work hard at consuming less energy. We recycle, we buy used clothing and furniture. There are all sorts of things larger families (I consider us large) can do. I would never presume to tell people how many children they can have, but I do think there is a matter of societal obligation that trumps personal "rights."

I think we all have a huge obligation to wake up and realize it's all of us that are responsible, and we are all "sinners" against the environment. We just have different sins.

[jaelithe]

My theory on this is: If everyone who didn't want children didn't have children, and if everyone who wanted children had only the number of children they want to have, we would most likely drop to at-replacement or below-replacement reproductive rate. This is already happening in Japan, Italy, Russia, and many other industrialized nations. The real key to reducing overpopulation is to give every woman in the world access to education, health care, employment and birth control. And this is what we should be discussing right now.

I do think about the environment when I think about family planning. And for that reason my husband and I have agreed that if we want three children, we'll adopt the third. But I certainly don't think everyone else should adhere to that plan.

I've been accused by some of being selfish for having ONE child, by the way. Which I find ridiculous.

[abbyjess]

Your comment "But then I wouldn't have a husband. (heh)," totally cracked me up.

[linda]

1st we are not an over populated world- 2nd Global Warming is bunch of boloney. 3rd- everyone is to take care of resources. I would have said to this man--- if you think it is having children that ruins the earth or whatever---don't have any. I am with the lady who said how many kids I have isn't anyone's business. The Duggard's are a wonderful family- I think those children will do a lot in life- So are Mary Pride's kids and many others who have a lot of children. I say to these people who believe this way ---get over it!!!!!!!!!!!

[jonniker]

I've read Bill's book, and I honestly really enjoyed it. In fairness, while he's a man, yes, what I liked about his approach was that it in no way judges those who have more than one child. He simply offers his perspective as an alternative, and coaches those who DO have only one child about mitigating the stereotypes of only children. For those who might want only one child, for whatever reason, this book is a great resource. I really did love it.

Bill also took his own advice -- he has one daughter, and that's all he plans to have -- and he's really not the misogynistic type (quite the opposite, in fact). I'm not saying you said he was, I would just hate for people to read between the lines incorrectly. He and his (incredibly brilliant) wife live rather close to me, and he speaks locally quite often.

I like the discussion, actually, and think it's valuable -- at the very least, it's got people looking at their environmental impact, regardless of family size, which is critical. I don't think by having it -- even with the extremists among us -- we're in any danger of limiting people's reproductive rights in any direction.

I don't think we'd ever -- EVER -- reach that point. I really don't. I know people say it's a slippery slope, but the value system in this country would never allow it, even in the mildest form of a tax break. I know, never say never, but really, I'm saying never. No.

[Alexandra]

I'm astounded by those accusations! I have 2 children and I know that because of how we educate them they will be globally responsible citizens.

From websites like the Dapper Baby (http://www.thedapperbaby.com/SUSTAINABLELIVING/Sustainableliving.aspx?categoryid=4arents) to books like Horn's Living Green, parents have so many resources nowadays that what matters is how we raise our children not how MANY children we have. 10 environmentally educated children definitely beat 1 irresponsible litterer!

[Morahmommy]

First, If there was a law of only 2 per family...I wouldn't have a husband because he is the youngest of 3,

Second, although our life is chaotic being a family with 3 children, I would have it no other way. Our family wasn't complete until we had our third. When I was pregnant with our youngest...I can't tell you how many people asked me if he was an accident. a) how rude!! & b) he was definitely not an accident...I actually had a miscarriage 2 months before I became pregnant with him.

Last, it's what you teach your children that make the difference. It's the examples that you set.

[Mary]

Being a European who grew up in the States (having gotten to this blog through the blogroll of an old friend from the US), I am simply amazed that ppl in the US are seriously debating having less children to be eco-friendly. All statistics ever made prove that the US - while having a lower birthrate than 3rd world countries - produce the most carbon, garbage, etc - you name it.

The reasons are obvious: Ppl in Europe mostly don't own a car, and if, small ones (of course, there are exceptions), driving them only for grocery shopping and vacation, otherwise walking, taking the bike, and mostly, public transportation. Due to the distances, this is not even possible in the US. Then, most food is in some sort artificial, also veggies and stuff that Americans consider "healthy", packed in layers and layers of plastic.

Up to now, Americans used gas, electricty, oil etc. w/o ever thinking about it, because it was cheap, land was readily available etc. So I am not saying Europeans are better, they just have different prices, less land and a different history of going about the environment

All that said, it is simply amazing that some Americans consider themselves eco-friendly b/c they try not to run the engine of their car while playing basketball, turning down the AC a few degrees (no such thing as AC even in southern European countries) etc - and think the next step is having less children. Having less children has NO impact - everything else has. Great, intelligent American moms have pretty much already said what I thought, I just wanted to put it in perspective. If a country does only have 1-2 children (the case in Europe) you have so many problems - retirement pay, lacking workforce, etc., but NOT more "carbon". Ppl have said it before - in the West, big families usually produce less waste and use less energy than small ones or childless ppl.

Overpopulation is a problem - in the third world. That's why we need birth control, social stability etc there (so they don't have 10 children so that at least 2 survive that will take care of them) - OUR problem (US and Euroope) and OUR chore is to waste less and use less energy.

[Beenthere]

I'm still hurt by a comment made 10 years ago when I was pregnant with our 4th son. We were riding the ferry from Tiburon to hike on Angel Island, and a woman told her husband to sit down next to the "Baby Machine" in a really nasty tone. It still hurts - we're kind people and our kids are conscientious. Yes, I'm defensive about having four. But darn I'm glad we followed our hearts -- and I'm thankful to live in a country where that is allowed.

[Arwen]

I am an advocate of smart people having more children and idiots having less. I count you in the smart party so go for it.
Third world families have lots of children and still use a lot less than we do.
We have due to maternal health issues, not environmental issues.

[Jamie E]

wow. I think it is between the parents how many kids they have, totally.
If you accept the unproven theory that carbon itself is a pollutant, I could see where some people think that more kids=more pollution......hmmmm call me ungreen if you will.
I will teach my kids to recycle, plant trees and for petesake, put garbage in the proper receptacles!! But I refuse to buy into the new craze of carbon footprint offsetting and the guilt that precedes it, I think it is just either a money making scam or an excuse to raise taxes(which is just a money making scam, really too:)).

[Asianmommy.com]

I agree with Sheri--as long as you're a responsible parent, it's no one else's business how many kids you choose to have.

[Melisa]

What an interesting post and I can see both sides of it. Thanks for giving me a topic to discuss with the husband tonight...should make for good conversation.

[Heather]

Also, China's one child policy is only in effect in the cities. In the suburban areas they can have as many children as they want.

[Heather]

I think this is only brought up as an environmental issue because it's most likely WOMEN who want more kids. The men would rather pick on something like this (a women's issue) than suggest a solution that would impact something they find important or fulfilling.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

Haha Julianne -- welcome to the club, my friend.

[Julianne]

If you have kids, regardless of the number, and you raise them to be responsible, environmentally conscious, productive members of society then there is no issue.

This is coming from a woman who is fraught with liberal guilt and attempting to justify her recent surprise knocked-upedness with #3.

[GIRLS GONE CHILD]

I come from a CRAZY environmentally correct family where my mother was criticized to no end for having three children and although its totally extreme, I do see (and understand) both sides. More kids means more consumption, bigger house, larger car, etc, so it is true that the more children we conceive the worse off our planet is. BUT! I really think it depends on the family, the people having children.

I firmly believe that good, intelligent people should breed far more often than they do.

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

That movie was FRIGHTENING! It also hit on a pretty just point: The issue isn't overpopulation... It's that a great majority of people who ARE procreating are irresponsible idiots.

You, my dear are not one of them.

I will take this opportunity to preach vegetarianism. Because high beef consumption is far more environmentally irresponsible than driving an SUV or having five kids. And that aint no lie.

[Amanda Daybyday]

I'm glad you posted about this issue. I have 3 kids and live in an oil town (not the most environmental place, I'd say). We can't even recycle most plastics here. gack. Even if we wanted to.

All that to say, this issue has figured into us stopping at 3 even though we'd always thought we wanted 4 (not the only reason). We'll adopt if we really need our 4th. But I do believe it has a lot to do with how we raise our children. The issue is way more complicated that simply how many kids we pop out.

[Brighton]

I'm a breeder- yes, four happy healthy kids all from my uterus, and I drive a VOLVO SUV.

I do recycle though...

[Meagan Francis]

I have definitely heard this as a mom of four, but as was stated above, the fertility rate in the US still hovers right around replacement rates (I think it's currently at 2.1). We all have a responsibility to do what we can to protect the environment, and not having kids, or having the acceptable one or two, doesn't let somebody off the hook any more than my having four means I'm raping resources at an "unfair" rate. Besides, I think of my children as resources. Human beings are definitely more valuable than all the stuff we seem to "need" that's also taxing our planet.

[ben]

I think overpopulation IS a big problem.

But I don't think it is America that is driving the problem.

I may not be popular for saying this, but it's how I feel. Our planet is groaning under the weight of 6 1/2 billion souls, and it is growing exponentially worse.

I agree, the birth rate here in the US seems ok.

Do I have a solution? Hell no. But just because I don't have a new light bulb doesn't mean I can't point out that it's dark in the room. Perhaps discussion and awareness is a first step.

[Katie]

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Please. How about reducing the ridiculous pet population or the dependance on oil or the incredible waste of food (billions of dollars) that goes on or all the stupid fucking junkmail that is stuffed into my mailbox or have people stop replacing their computers every two months or cell phones or whatever or how about live in smaller houses or stop watering your little patch of grass obsessively or how about WALKING somewhere once in awhile or maybe not having the air conditioner running or not letting the toilet run or how about not standing in the shower every single day? WHATEVER. The whole "limit the amount of kids you have for the environment" is stupid and I won't hear of it. Having children that you can responsibly take care of in a thoughtful manner, yes. Limiting the amount for the "environment"? NO.

[Her Bad Mother]

Total bullshit. I've written about this before, and here's my line on it - if we take overpopulation as a necessary target of immediate action, then we have to consider more than just birth control in the west (where birth rates are lowest in the world). We'd have to talk about birth control and sterilization in areas of the world where the birth rate is high. We'd have to talk about euthanasia more seriously, and the ethics of putting resources into sustaining human life into advanced old age (how much carbon does an AARP member produce, anyway?) And we're just not going to do that. Instead, some just take the easy path of picking on families and children because, deep down, I am convinced, they just hate children.

/rant

[Mom101]

How about for every child that one of us has, one asshat of the world is not allowed to procreate. That should not only keep the planet in balance, it will make it a far nicer place to live.

[Erin]

I am one of those people really resent the arrogance of people who believe that it's God's imperative that they reproduce until they're no longer able (like the Duggars, who another commenter mentioned).

That said, I am Pro-Choice enough to want the opportunity determine my own reproductive fate, and to control my own body. We are currently expecting our first child, and I am beyond excited about it. I don't know if we'll have another, I suppose it depends on how we do with the first.

I DO think that you should be able to have as many children as you can sustain responsibly. To that end, you seem to be doing a great job. Ignore the haters.

I don't want the government involved in my reproduction (or lack thereof) on any level. Let's face it, they fuck everything else up - am I to trust them with my health and wellbeing? I think not.

[MF]

You must have gotten lucky to hear it only coming from men. I am a member of BabyFit.com and this site is moms and moms-to-be and these pregnant women on my board were drilling that family that has 16 kids I think it is. Saying they were terrible people and bad parents because they wouldn't be able to give their kids things other smaller families could. It made me really sick. First, when you live on a budget (as most with large families do) you tend to be more waste conscious for financial reasons. Not only that how is having a big family going to make a kid miss out on things. The only thing I could think of was maybe having new school clothes every year instead of hand-me-downs, which even small families can't afford, or maybe trips to Disney Land, which this large family did do. I think it's those fairly wealthy families with 0-1 children that are leaving the biggest carbon footprint. They are totally unaware of how they live and what they throw away. It was just too ironic to hear women who were pregnant with their first up to their 4th child talking about how awful this family was. I told them if they wanted to start saving the planet then maybe they should rethink having the babies that they were carrying. Of course they got offended but hey, they deserved it.

[caramama]

IMO, it would help the environment at lot more if big businesses practiced more environmentally-friendly policies. The size of any family's carbon footprint is so small compared to the damage large corporations can make.

Aren't the concerns and activism better spent aimed at larger problems then how many are going to be in our next generation?

[Manic Mommy]

I can see the bumper sticker now: Think Globally; Fuck Locally.

Maybe we're done because we've 'replaced ourselves' but that's a personal choice for my husband on me based primarily on mental and economical bandwidth.

There is no good way to protect people's civil liberties and still restrict procreation to those who really should. If someone has an idea, I'm all ears. Cause I'm pretty sick of paying for them.

[Nicole/wksocmom]

I'm of the mindset the more people, the more chance the next generation will find innovative solutions. And have you seen Idiocracy - please oh smart and savvy and environmenttal people - keep having kids :)

I agree about free and available birth control for those who want it is a much better solution than arbitrarily limiting kids or bashing people with big families.

[Robin]

Do these extremists realize the impact that China's one child policy is having? Girls sent to over-populated orphanages, an over population of males resulting in a dramatic increase in violence..How about focusing on alternative fuel so we can decrease our dependency on foreign oil? Yes, we have serious issues facing our planet but I don't think the solution of limiting X number of children per family is the solution. I could go on and on but you catch my drift..Great post!

[Tara L.]

I think this topic is a hugely difficult one to figure out ... and also intantly causes my heart-rate to increase. As a mom of 7 (3 adopted) living in the poorest country in the western hemisphere I have a hard time not wanting to scream "there are waaaay bigger problems than this to deal with FIRST" -- but at the same time I get that the long-range concern makes sense.

There are things we can all do ... But I totally disagree with the gov't ever telling people how to live their lives in a way that is downright oppressive. There is a reason Cubans head for the USA.

If it is okay to say "only two kids per family" -- then it would also have to be okay for me to impose my values on others too -

and that is a slippery slope for sure.

[Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah]

I think as long as we all make the effort to only have as many children as we can personally handle we are all doing the right thing.

Yes, we are overpopulated, but the China laws seem so cruel. Maybe we should give tax breaks to the childless.

Because, Dude. I NEED a big car. For now anyway.

[b]

Big families are usually more apt to conserve than small ones because money is usually tight. Mom and Dad figure college is more important than having many things, and thus cut their budget in order to save. They are more likely to carpool b/c having only two adult to drive everyone around gets to be too much, and eating out just doesn't happen like it does in families with just a couple kids.

As the eighth of eight kids this argument gets under my skin. My mom dealt with this attitude in the 70s, only she was the only one of her friends that breastfed.

As for China, do you know what happens to the not so pretty girls and boys? If they are lucky, they are sent here to die. http://chinalittleflower.org/
If not, they often starve to death.

[Lou]

"Respect other families' rights to have none, one, or a few kids."

YES! I'm a Catholic with ... *gasp" only 1 kid! Quick, take a picture. LOL

We try to be as Green as possible but that is not why we're stopping with 1. Although I have heard this argument, I doubt it ever becomes popular. What is sad is that we're a country full of people that like to judge each other on our choices. So I'm making the 'pro-1 kid environmentalists' happy while making the "only children are from Satan" crowd p-od. Oh well ... I guess I'll just keep on pleasing myself! :)

[BOSSY]

Does family planning have environmental repercussions? Hmm - Bossy didn't PLAN her family, does that count?

[kat]

I'm breeding environmentalists.

[Wendy]

Great. Just *great.* Because now I also have to worry that I, as a person, am not green enough because I have 3 kids. Do said people think I should choose one to kill? Or maybe I should just off myself in order to make the world a better place. Actually, I've been told that, so it's not that funny.

Maybe if said people would take their collective heads out of their collective asses they could come up with a feasible alternative to fossil fuels. Which *would* make the world a better place.

[heather]

Limiting who or how many children someone can have is such a slippery slope. I do not think the government should ever dictate family size. For all of the people who have one, two, three or more children there are people who never have children, it all evens out. I am not even sure I really believe that the world is truly overpopulated, Italy is so worried about a decreasing population that they are paying people to have children. I will agree that certain parts of the world are overpopulated but I do not think that limiting the number of children people have will make the world a more "green" place. There are things that we do to this planet that are far more detrimental than having too many children (which I do not think we do).

[Motherhood Uncensored]

No flame rc'd, Sheri -- My apologies for misuse of language.

My use of "their own" was intended to express what people have said in that instead of biologically birthing our children, we should adopt instead.

--

Please don't get me started on the Chinese law. It's done nothing but fill orphanages with BEAUTIFUL girls -- thankfully, many make it to the orphanages. It used to be (and sadly, still is all to often) that they meet a different fate.

[Karen (Submommy)]

Everyone's comments here are really thoughtful and well-stated.

With that said....

We, oh 2 child household, have an SUV for sale.

Anyone? Anyone?

[Hippy Habibi]

As a Catholic and environmentalist, this is an issue I struggle with. I'm currently expecting my first child and I wonder, "how many more?" Yes, overpopulation is a significant environmental concern. Therefore, I advocate teaching natural family planning to women in third world countries so they may have better control of their family size. (In those areas, a large quantity of children can be very harmful to the family and community.) Yet, I do not believe it is acceptable for any government to regulate family size. Another point to consider: there are way too many orphans and unwanted children in our world that need homes. The (imperfect) way that I am planning to handle this dilemma in my own family is:
1. Agree that overpopulation is a significant environmental problem and look for ways to solve it without creating laws or restrictions on people.
2. Think seriously about my own family size and plan accordingly.
3. Teach my children to live green and sustainable lifestyles.
4. Adopt or foster "unwanted" children, especially older or special-needs kids.
5. Volunteer to educate poor families (especially third world) about natural family planning techniques so they may have more choices about their family size.
6. Respect other families' rights to have none, one, or a few kids.

[laura]

oh yes, face it, you are going to hell for your contribution to the overpopulation of the earth! of course i will be saving a seat for you since i am the mother of FIVE (4 birthed and 1 adopted). i was bemused while gestating baby #3 to hear folks pose similar questions/comments in my general direction. even my father asked me that. of course he expressed his zero population values and beliefs to me AFTER he successfully fathered four children.
i tend to agree with your final observation about who is the biggest mass consumer. perhaps we all just need to focus more on ourselves.

[Meg]

I spent 2 years in China, and I do respect the 1-child policy and what it's intended to do in terms of sharing China's resources better. But I think the jury's still out on the long-term environment and social effects until the little emperor generation is in political power.

[Breeder]

People who have many children are superior to those who don't. It's called the law of natural selection. The best fit to survive propogate their genetic material into the next generation and those who don't are eliminated from the gene people. If the eviro-nazis really wanted to save the planet they can all voluntarily kill themselves now and leave more resources for the breeders. In the future, there will be nothing but Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims.

[TheFeministBreeder]

It's NOT just the men suggesting this... there are plenty of crazy women whose crazy version of feminism is hating the very thing that makes us women...the ability to grow humans in our body. You'd be surprised just how many women hate other women for doing this. Visit the Feminism board on Ivillage sometime and you'll meet them. They don't want women to breastfeed, or have maternity leave... all because they think it makes us look "weak." I got into so many arguments there they finally kicked me off.

Having said that, using the logic that everyone should only have 1 child means that civilization would die out. Think about it... 2 people die leaving only 1 behind... and so on, and so on. You could argue that we all should only replace ourselves (i.e. have only two kids per couple/partnership) but that would still dwindle the population over time because it doesn't leave any room for premature death or infertility of those children. So, to truly continue the human race, each of us should plan to have at least 3 children with a partner. You're good.

Besides that... what's killing the planet is not the large quantity of people, it's the CONCENTRATION of people into urban areas. If the 6 billion were spread out, our problems wouldn't be nearly what they are.

[LiteralDan]

There's no way the government would ever encourage smaller families, because most Western countries are panicked about declining birthrates, whether they're currently experiencing them or afraid they soon will.

Our whole economy and way of life are built around youth. For example, we need a constant influx of new workers to keep Social Security going the way it was designed, and with people living longer, we need more and more workers than ever.

So even while environmentalists may frown at you, know that the government is smiling.

[canape]

My brother's family with five children uses considerably fewer resources of five different families with only one child each.

So following this logic, we should just choose one out of every ten couples to have ten children and the other nine remain childless in order to save the planet.

Spin it any way you like . . .

[mandy]

Although I've heard that a Thai's 5 child family has less of an environmental impact than a North American's 2 child family, I somehow doubt that if all of NA was held to two kids or less, we would be an environmentally friendly continent. Can we talk about the couple (no kids) who live in a huge house? Or the golf courses that get watered daily throughout summer droughts and watering bans.

Give me a break. (And SO true that these comments get directed at women. What is with that?)

[amy]

As a family of four (two adults, two children) and no chance at more, I can guarantee there are families with more that do better environmentally than we do. To put the blame soley on the amount of children you have? Ridiculous.

[Kamrin]

I think the big difference should be seen in providing people in 3rd world countries safe and reliable options for birth control. Many of these folks are "having" to destroy their environment to survive (clear cutting to farm or over grazing of animals for milk/food).
I agree the the way we raise our kids will make a big difference too! Just like was said here already, if I can teach my kids to compost (we do) use cloth (we do) and recycle (we do) and mainly, buy less (!) then we are teaching them to tread lightly on the planet! So, have your kids, but teach them well!

[Issa]

I'm having trouble getting past the word breed. I'm not sure why, but it bugs me so freaking much. Not so much that you used it, just the word in itself. To me it makes me feel like I'm a dog, not a woman carrying a child.

I think that three kids isn't too many, nor is it our place to tell people how many they can have. To me it's more about the things we do and use (and major companies being way worse than most individuals), than the amount of kids we have. I know a childless couple with Hummers; multiple Hummers. In the long run, are they any better on the environment than me and my kids? It's a hard argument with no easy answers. But I don't believe that it can be blamed on parents with multiple kids; that's just an easy out. Also three kids isn't a lot. Not when there are people having 18 like the Duggars.

[Sheri]

Call me pro choice, but unless you are paying for them, I don't think that the number of children I choose to have is any of your business.

And Kristen, this isn't meant to flame you or anything, but when you adopt, you have your own children, you just don't give birth to them.

[mothergoosemouse]

Given how I feel about individual rights in all other respects, it's no wonder that the idea of the government telling me how to plan my family sets my blood boiling.

[Candace]

This was one of my main concerns when I decided to get pregnant this year but I knew I wanted a child and that urge was stronger than anything else.

I also think that consumerism is forced upon us when we become pregnant and have kids. I haven't signed up for one baby mag and yet everyday I come home and find baby shit in my mailbox. These mags are just one big ad for baby crap I don't need.

When we decided to tell people we were expecting me made sure to tell them that we wanted all used and hand made baby stuff. I would say that 95% of all that we have for the baby is used.

I think that if one is deciding to have kids they should try to make decisions that would have the least amount of impact on the environment. Besides the used baby stuff we have decided to use glass bottles, wooden toys and cloth diapers. We don't own a car and are vegan. There are so many options out there and yes they are more work but I think worth it.

I would be totally against the gov. ever suggesting a limit on how many children we have.

[Amelia Sprout]

I certainly think that number of kids is part of your impact, but it certainly doesn't have to be your only impact. I definitely agree that some larger families do better being green (and hopefully all of their kids will continue that). My parents limited to two for green reasons, and I may stick to one, two at the most, but that is for entirely economic reasons (which is green in its own right).
I think you're right on. If having less kids is part of your choices to be green, then good, but if not, oh well. The best is changing overall behaviors and trying to lessen your impact in all ways, just not reproductively.
And oh yeah, down with SUV's! hehe.

[Rebecca]

In the past I've written several times on this topic and it never fails that I get far too defensive than I should so I try not to touch on it :P
I think of our family as a somewhat special circumstance and don't figure ourselves into the equation. We're extremely "green" and sustainable(grow our own food,buy local,make everything our can ourselves,blah blah blah) . My children are being raised in such a way that they have learned how to live their lives without leaving a damaging carbon footprint and hopefully will carry on those practices.I'm fond of pointing out that our family of NINE puts out less than 1 bag of garbage per week and the childless couple down the street puts out 3 HUGE garbage cans every single week. Chances are when they do have children, they will raise them to be just as wasteful, whereas my kids think it's just plain weird that people throw banana peels in the garbage instead of a compost heap and that people actually buy diapers for their babies instead of using cloth.It is not impossible to have a large family and still practice eco-responsibility.

We live in an area that is very eco-conscience and I've caught lots of flack for having more than one child, let alone 7. I've even known women who have had abortions for the sheer sake of "saving the planet". I've had people try to make me feel guilty for having so many kids. They're pretty annoyed that I don't feel guilty at all. Plus,it really pisses me off that people suggest feelings of resentment toward my spawn for taking up resources,air,space on the planet.

Ironically, most of these people I've met face-to-face who preach the No Child/One Child philosophy are also adamantly Pro-Choice. That's always amusing to me...

[MrsWaltz]

HOW TIMELY! I just read an online article about this that might interest you, then (if you don't mind it being on a Libertarian website):
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/080724-williams-ultimate-resource.php
You can tell them you're providing resources the next time someone thinks it's okay to question your reproductive choices!

[Suebob]

I am both anti-kids (anti-people, actually - who needs 'em?) and environmentally friendly LOL.

I would not have had kids in any case, but I do think reducing the amount of kids you have is a reasonable option, given the state of the planet (half the coral reefs are in danger of dying - and that is just ONE sad statistic). We are living unsustainably, which means we are living in a way that is sooner or later going to kill ourselves and other species. Famine, drought, etc - because of our stubborn unwillingness to do the right thing.

I hesitate to talk about these things because it seems so mean and awful to tell people "Have fewer children" when they really want them. So I don't tell people because, really, what good am I going to do? People make up their own minds for their own reasons and my nagging probably isn't going to help.

I try to be as conscious as possible. I drive a tiny car, compost, eat vegetarian, combine trips, do all that stuff - but I do feel that not having kids allows me one pass - I take long, long hot showers.

Instead of trying to control the fertility of people who don't want to be controlled, how about supplying free birth control to those who DO want it? There are plenty of families in the world who would love to have fewer children, but who are too poor or who don't have access to birth control. Why don't we start THERE?

[Windex]

I agree that larger families obviously consume a lot of stuff...but would a larger family probably not be better at conserving and be more concious of that stuff and waste less for the simple reason of cutting back expenses? I know we did (I was from a family of 4 kids) and I am currently pregnant with my 4th.
I do not believe it can be as simple as that in blaming large families of causing the deterioration of the planet. But maybe I am biased.

[Mama O' 4]

Funny this comes after yesterday that the lady in Canada gives birth to her 18th child. I have four and we try our best to be "green". Maybe if we raise our children in a "green" enviroment then they will make the world better, rather than leaving it up to us. Plus maybe number 18 will be the one to stop global warming.

[Liz]

Well, my husband and I were accused of being selfish for having 4 kids (by a family member, no less) but, THIS is news to me.

Wanting to share our love...damn we suck!

[Amy]

I used to be more along the lines of a two kid limit for everyone, but since then I've met some larger families who make a much smaller carbon footprint than some of us with smaller families. I think it's more about being aware, and making our children aware, of our environmental impact and how we can change it more than having two kids instead of three.

[McMama]

I think it's just one more thing to consider. We seriously tossed about the idea of sticking with one (thanks in part to "Maybe One"). But in the end we decided Q needed a sibling.

To be fair, more children does increase the likelihood of needing a bigger vehicle, in addition to consuming more resources for food, clothing, etc.

But our considerations were part of our overall personal efforts at doing something about saving this planet. SO... Take that as you will?

[veep veep]

well color me whatever color is the opposite of green. because i popped out three and i have not one regret. :)

[Amanda]

I can see how having fewer kids would reduce the number of larger vehicles on the road. However, since I live in a 99% redneck area, and I don't see Jim Bob giving up his diesel guzzling hugeass truck anytime soon either. Damned if you do, damned if you don't just like any other issue. I just do what I can so that I can look myself in the mirror every day and feel OK with myself.

[NG]

Um... three kids? THREE kids is too many? Maybe I've just been spending too much time around Mormons and Catholics... THREE kids seems like a rather small family to me.

[Bloggymommer]

::: blink, blink, blink:::

Wow!? Ok, so I get the whole babies= 200,000 trees cut down to manufacutre diapers every year...

I can even listen patiently to an argument about having kids you can't afford to raise...

But can we even have a discussion about limiting automobile purchases?
"you can only have one car per household" ? Legally reqire people to take pubic transportation to work? YEAH RIGHT, that would go over really well in this country?

I always find it funny when people come up with global solutions that *someone else* can implement by changing their behaviour.