Want To Go Green? Have Fewer Children

[sparky]

There are dozens of ways to go green; however, one study proposes a controversial option for families to minimize their carbon footprint.

Scientists: Save the planet—have fewer kids -- chicagotribune.com

[August]

are we bacteria or primates? « Trinifar

The pattern of human population growth in the 20th century was more bacterial than primate. — E. O. Wilson

Population modeling with respect to Earth’s human carrying capacity is not highly evolved. It is in its infancy, not especially well-funded, and practiced by relatively few. Like most interesting and important problems, population and carrying capacity dynamics are hellishly complex.

[imp]

Originally Posted by sparky

There are dozens of ways to go green; however, one study proposes a controversial option for families to minimize their carbon footprint.

Scientists: Save the planet—have fewer kids -- chicagotribune.com

Absolute bunk. Higher populations, on a global level, has always led to a higher quality of life due to economies of scale.

[include]

Interesting that the issue of overpopulation in an environmental context is hitting the mainstream press. Pretty sure it doesn't happen often.

[krystof]

Originally Posted by imp

Absolute bunk. Higher populations, on a global level, has always led to a higher quality of life due to economies of scale.

I really think that ample economies of scale are achieved by selling 10 million Cokes per day, not 400 million.

Also Imp, I hope you were simply not alive in 1965. The USA population was 100 million and we proudly did not have visible homeless people in every major city. Also as often as not only one parent had to work regularly. If however you were alive in 1965, then I can imagine no reason for your opinion.

In my opinion, the advantages of having only one child, both to a family economy and to the global environment, should be self evident. The fact that this is not considered self evident, even in a forum about the environment, is utterly dismaying.

[GreenRewards]

Originally Posted by sparky

There are dozens of ways to go green; however, one study proposes a controversial option for families to minimize their carbon footprint.

Scientists: Save the planet—have fewer kids -- chicagotribune.com

that's a good point - anyway it's obvious, that is more common sense in raising one or two children instead of dozen, because quantity doesn't replace quality. Apart from 'eco issue' and overpolulation problem, it's more reasonable from the very personal and individual point of view. You can commit more time, more money and more feelings in raising one child, instead of bunch of them.

[altyfc]

We should perhaps bear in mind also that there are lots of non-environmental counter-arguments that suggest it's good for a child to have at least one sibling.

[imp]

Originally Posted by krystof

I really think that ample economies of scale are achieved by selling 10 million Cokes per day, not 400 million.

Also Imp, I hope you were simply not alive in 1965. The USA population was 100 million and we proudly did not have visible homeless people in every major city. Also as often as not only one parent had to work regularly. If however you were alive in 1965, then I can imagine no reason for your opinion.

In my opinion, the advantages of having only one child, both to a family economy and to the global environment, should be self evident. The fact that this is not considered self evident, even in a forum about the environment, is utterly dismaying.

Quality of life is higher now than in 1965 in the US. Life expectancy is up and that is a somewhat objective measure. Homeless per capita higher now than in 1965? - prove it.

Economies of scale relate to medical advances and technological advances and even lowering the per unit cost of Coke. A critical mass of people is required for the private (or public) sector to afford a massive undertaking.

[August]

AFP: Philippines' first family planning programme faces church hurdles

National surveys by pollsters Pulse Asia and the Social Weather Station have repeatedly shown that more than 80 percent of Filipinos want to have control over their fertility.

The Roman Catholic Church is traditionally opposed to any form of birth control, a position reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI.

The Philippines has one of the highest birthrates in Asia, with the population growing at around two percent annually and expected to hit 100 million within the next five years, according to the National Statistics Office.

The Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country, but with 40 percent of the country's 90 million people living on less than two dollars a day, the high birthrate has been described by former president Fidel Ramos as a "ticking time bomb".

He said with inflation at a 17-year high, economic growth slowing and people starting to slip back into poverty, the need for a comprehensive family planning programme has become "a matter of national survival".

[August]

Global over-population is the real issue - Telegraph

It is a tragic measure of how far the world has changed — and the infinite capacity of modern man for taking offence — that there are no two subjects that can get you more swiftly into political trouble than motherhood and apple pie.

As for motherhood — the fertility of the human race — we are getting to the point where you simply can't discuss it, and we are thereby refusing to say anything sensible about the biggest single challenge facing the Earth; and no, whatever it may now be conventional to say, that single biggest challenge is not global warming. That is a secondary challenge. The primary challenge facing our species is the reproduction of our species itself.

The world's population is now 6.7 billion, roughly double what it was when I was born. If I live to be in my mid-eighties, then it will have trebled in my lifetime.

The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves.

How the hell can we witter on about tackling global warming, and reducing consumption, when we are continuing to add so relentlessly to the number of consumers? The answer is politics, and political cowardice.

I think you should click into the link and read the whole article. It really is a good one.