Strollerderby

As controversial as I know this is, I actually have to agree. It's purely practical from a mathematical standpoint - if we REALLY want to create a world in which there are enough resources for everyone, there is simply no option but to stop the runaway train of population growth. If the world's resources were distributed equally just among those alive at this moment, standards of living would be DRASTICALLY lower than most Americans would be willing to accept - even with the best will in the world and effort into reducing carbon footprints, the Earth's resources are simply being depleted at a rate that is incompatible with population growth at anything even approaching the current rate. Myself, I want a big family, but I plan to adopt or foster rather than having more biological children. I wish there were a better solution, but unless the Earth's life supporting capabilities drastically expand, population control is the key, regardless of how counter intuitive it is to a country that, legitimately, prides itself on freedom.

The "magic number" is 2 because that represents, for a couple, a replacement for each. That would allow for a stable population. Less would be a decline of the human race, more would mean over-population.

I would make a statement that nobody with more than 2 kids can consider themselves an environmentalist. The far reaching impact of your children and your children's children through broadening of the family tree would negate any environmental measures you have implemented.

For a saner take on the issue, check this book out:

www.worldchanging.com/.../008014.html

Engelman argues that providing the resources women need to make their own decisions about reproduction will end up with most of them deciding to have less children (and he uses a lot of studies to back up this assertion). Women's rights are good for the Earth. Who knew?

No one has a right to tell me how many kids I can have. No one. It's my body, my marriage, my family, my choice. If I want 10 kids, it's my business and no one else's. I do not live in communist China, thank you very much.

Personal rights trumps anything "green" or "environmentally friendly." That's all there is to it.

Laura is probably best friends with Nadya Suleman.

Personally, I'm with G.K. Chesterton when he wrote (on abortion) "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like." (TIC)

Jeanne, I like your wrap-up.

"No one has a right to tell me how many kids I can have. No one. It's my body, my marriage, my family, my choice. If I want 10 kids, it's my business and no one else's. I do not live in communist China, thank you very much.'

Well, this thinking is kind of problem with our society. It's not capitalist, it's self-righteous greed. We all can't waste, consume, procreate and tear down land in the name of urban sprawl as much as we want. Can you imagine  what the world would look like if everyone had as many kids as they wanted, without thinking of the resources those people are going to consume and where those resources are going to come from? We really can't go around thinking we can have as many babies we want, and consuming as much as want; we actually do have to take some personal responsibility for ourselves, and we are lucky our government doesn't do it for us, but that is only because our founding fathers actually thought we were capable of being given personal freedoms, that we were capable of taking on our own personal responsibility. That does seem to working out so well in our favor anymore.

"Personal rights trumps anything "green" or "environmentally friendly." That's all there is to it."

Well, not really. Personal rights aren't always ethical. As a member of a society, we need to make sure our actions can benefit the greater good of our society as much as possible. Our society can always exist without us, but we could never exist without our society.  

Of course we should all have less children. I think the first two posters summed up the arguments nicely.

Laura - yes, it is your body and your family - this is not communist China.

BUT.... our legal system is based on the concept that one person's rights end where the next person's begins. That is to say, we have a great deal of freedom to do as we like, as long as it does not infringe on the abilities of others to do as they like. That is why we have things like speed limits and drunk-driving laws (and many many other laws -but for some reason I am stuck on driving regulations....)

Therefore, it could be argued that, by having more than two children, one is infringing on the rights of the rest of the world to the precious resources that those children will suck up in their lifetime.

There is no way around it - the earth's resources are finite. We either need to stop making so many people or suffer the consequences.

Jennifer, two children per couple actually isn't enough to keep the human population stable.  People die before they have children, or they are infertile, or they choose not to procreate, or they chose to have only one child.  If people were actually interested in keeping the human population stable, most people with children would have to limit themselves to two, but others would have to have three or more.

Apparently no one here is a libertarian...

Why it is my body and my choice when I want to have an abortion, but it is no longer my body and my choice if I want to have more than two children? To me, that is simply not logical.

"Why it is my body and my choice when I want to have an abortion, but it is no longer my body and my choice if I want to have more than two children? To me, that is simply not logical."

I think we're not supposed to question what the "experts" say.  Be a good little soldier and just accept ;)

"Why it is my body and my choice when I want to have an abortion"

An abortion only effects the person having it, and the fetus. Putting human beings out into the world effects everything. It is your body and your choice to have an abortion as long as they remain legal and safe. It is like smoking in your home, and smoking in public, one only effects you, and the other effects those around you, and we need to think about the world at large in our actions and choices.

Sam said exactly what I was thinking. An abortion really only affects you and your family. Having tons of kids does affect your community.

Libertarians are supposed to believe in personal rights as long as it does not affect someone else. Having a lot of kids does affect others, so this is not a libertarian issue.

Kelmendi, yes you are correct. I believe the ideal birth rate, to keep the population stable, is 2.2 children per woman.

So, who gets to decide which women have no children, or one, or two, or 2.2?  

I think the idea is that everyone would decide for themselves. Nobody is talking about making a law prohibiting larger families. Just as people are trying to use their cars less, recycle, consume less, avoid disposables, and so on and so on, some people are choosing to be responsible in one particular way (by not having many kids). Someone is saying people should "think twice" before having any more babies. What is wrong with that? People should be mindful of the effect they are having on each other and the earth. Porritt is suggesting a shift in funding (not one I personally agree with), but not an enforcement of small families.

Laura,

I agree. It is frightening how many of our freedoms the "environmentalists" want to take away.

First it is hypocritical and pointless to blather on about this to the 1.8 child/women Brits or anyone else in below replacement level Europe. Some European ethnic groups (Ukraine, Russian and Greek) are set on a course to breed them selves out of existence within a few centuries. Japan in headed for 3 workers/1 retiree with in the next decade. This upside down pyramid will lead to sad results for the elderly.

Outside of the West/developed world, good luck convincing those in the Middle East, central Asia and Africa to stop having so many kids. Iran did this through state intervention but the rest of the region has no interest.

Second, If the greens really cared about honest science, they would be alarmed at how Hansen, Gore, Cullen and their buddies want to censor or arrest(!) any scientists whose  studies that contradict the party line "Human emitted CO2 is making the world hotter and we have the power to stop it." There are plenty of studies that contradict the "green" party line but they can't be used to advance the march of government control into every aspect of our lives. This is not science - science supports contrary viewpoints in a search for evidence.

The science in this case is certainly not settled as there are several, not just two, views on the long term climate outlook (mathematical models are inherently flawed, warming is happening and caused by humans but we can't stop it, climate is warming but is not much affected by humans, climate is not actually warming that much, solar activity is more powerful than earthly factors ect. take your pick, all have scientific support if not political.)

Ehrlich also has been largely proved wrong but the Marxists still prattle on about "overpopulation" as an excuse to take away the most basic of human rights. Malthus was just promoting sugar coated eugenics.

Third, there is the freedom of religion angle. Some believe the womb is the domain of the Lord and that they would be sinning to interfere. The new American(and in the UK) religion is quickly becoming old fashioned Gaea worship disguised as "environmentalism." When the government gets involved it becomes state sponsored religion. Note the appeals to morality, supposed what we are not allowed to legislate except in these cases?

One could argue it is natural selection to allow those who believe such folly to breed themselves off the planet. Enforcing it via the government is frightening!

One more point, Googling Jonathon Porritt yielded his educational background in law. How does that qualify him as an "environmental expert?" Generally speaking, if you are going to label someone an expert, they ought to have an educational background in that field.

Has anyone here actually advocated outlawing having more kids? As far as I can tell, the environmentalist point of view is: yes, you have the legal right to squeeze out as many precious little genetic copies of yourself as you please. We, in this lovely free country, also have the right to guilt-trip you and call you a selfish jerk.

Isn't freedom rad?

Sue, WHERE is that Chesterton quote from? That sounds highly suspect, unless he was being facetious (as, I assume, you were).

I lean libertarian,Laura. =) I hate bullshit "ideas" like this. I can't be the only one who is aware of the fact that Americans are living in houses much larger than years ago, driving more cars than years ago, buying more products, etc. I babysat for a family who had a 3 story graystone, plus 4th-floor lounge, and ONE kid. And of course, all the cars and tech-toys to go along with this. Granted, not everyone with one child lives like this, but how many one- or two-kid families aspire to? More than a few. I can't stand this sort of hypocrisy and blindness. When Americans (and others in developed nations, as it applies) start to downsize their over-sized homes, drive around town less, drive for vacation instead of flying -- if we're still having environmental problems, let's talk then. Telling people that only two kids are "ethical" treats the symptom, not the underlying disease.

And, yes, if families are only having two kids? Hello, population collapse.

Bunny

Selfish? Talk to me about that when you are elderly and dependent on the socialist state for SS and health care. Who will be the doctors and nurses? Who will pay the taxes to support the system? Upside down pyramids collapse.

Socialism + low birth rate = societal collapse. You need more people paying in than taking out money.

Mandy: if people keep breeding at the rate they are and polluting the earth and using resources at the rate they are, I won't have to worry about getting old and needing Social Security, as the human race will have polluted itself into extinction.

First things first, my dear. Humanity did without Social Security for most of history - I'm sure if necessary, we can find another way to support the old folks. But we don't have another planet available at the moment, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider that one top priority.

i want 6 kids. I only have one now, but my goal is at least six. And my little sister has said the same thing to me, about having only 2 kids or whatever because of my carbon footprint. and some other stuff i didnt exactly pay attention to.

i think that it is my right to have as many kids as I want as long as I can care for them.

with everyone going green, i think it will all work out. not to mention the fact that people are having fewer kids now. and besides, my older sister doesnt want kids... so i will have her two. and i am sure there is some other woman out there who isnt having kids. so that takes care of that problem.

I grew up with 5 kids in my family, so six is not that odd. and it isnt like I am pulling a duggar or anything. im not talking double digits here.

I have 3, but only planned on 2

2nd pregnancy was twins, natural twins, no fertility treatments ever.

I called it quits after that.

wow!! next it will be that we can only have boys or girls.the rest will be slaughtered.im serious.arent there some countries doing that now?! lets ask them how its working,eh? what foolishness,2 kids only?.what if on that one particular hot&heavy valentines evening,mr&mrs joe shmo have an "extra" good time" and by god!! they have a 3rd child?!! yes! they should be punished!! give me a friggin break lady!!

What people need to know that the founding "Mother" of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist (she advocated abortion to rid society of the so-called "undesirables" (HER words) e.g blacks and those with physical and mental handicaps).

I recommend everyone pick up a copy of "A Mother's Ordeal" by Steven Mosher, about the first woman granted asylum in the U.S due to China's "One Child" policy. What is beig discussed is just a FEW STEPS AWAY from implementing a limit on child-bearing and from there, forced abortions. Ridiculous you say? This is happenng RIGHT NOW in China.

I have two children and am pregnant with my third. Perhaps I should go into hiding?

I fully support every family's right to decide on the appropriate number of children to have within a family.  The right is not the issue.  It's the health of the planet and the ultimate survival of our species and others that's at stake.

It's like Bekka said, it's about math.  The more people you get, the less resources there are for each individual.  To make matters worse, in the most desperate of times, the division of resources is anything but equitable.

Sure, you may keep your right to have as many kids as you like, but soon enough the middle class will merge with the lower class, making your descendants fit very neatly into the "desperate enough to eat a tennis shoe for dinner" category of survivors.  How much will your "rights" matter then?

What we're talking about here is a conscious choice to see that things never come to that.  Avoid over-indulging.  Take the whole world into consideration, not just your arbitrarily-picked "perfect" number for a "perfect" family.

As for the upside-down pyramid, it's system that can't be sustained.  A system that depends on the growth of a population may have worked when the population was still pretty low, but it is not a viable plan for the future.  So, rather than moaning about the projected miserable demise of the elderly resulting from the collapse of the (poorly implemented) social security system, lobby for a solution.  Make your politicians find a way to make it work in a more sustainable way.  They work for YOU, remember?