More, More, More, said the parents

Ask Umbra on big families 48

Posted 9:00 PM on 8 Sep 2009
by Umbra Fisk
- More from this author
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Living Green,
- Ask Umbra
Read More About

Share
- del.icio.us
- digg
- Facebook
- Reddit
- MySpace
- Buzz Up!
- Twitter
- Newsvine
- Google Bookmarks
- StumbleUpon
Comment

Q. Dear Umbra,

I have recently become a grandmother. (Eek! Doesn’t seem like it was that long ago that I made the decision to have a child.) Though I had just one child, my daughter is pregnant again. She married a guy with seven sibs, and they want to have three or four, including adopting one. How do I talk them out of it? Having more kids will defeat their work to live lightly on Earth, won’t it? Even adopting—making a kid from Asia or elsewhere [into an] American—doesn’t help much, does it?

Crowdedly,
Terry

A. Dearest Terry,

New rule: You can raise as many kids as you can fit in a Smart Car.Andrew Currie via flickrDo not try to talk them out of it unless your side goal is to never see your grandchildren.

How did you feel about people who told you to have more than one child? To say nothing of relations who said one child was not enough. I shudder to think of the family strife that might ensue. Best to simply love your grandchildren and help them grow into strong citizens.

It might be permissible to gently speak with your daughter about the environmental impact of Americans, on a one-time only basis. You may wish to pair this conversation with an offer to help her have a smaller eco-footprint, via some useful contribution such as ... let’s see ... cooking vegetarian meals for the family once a week? Or by setting aside money for the children’s college fund now, in hopes of raising an inventor of solar-powered tractors.

Having kids will not help your child’s overall lifetime carbon footprint, no. We are responsible for the environmental impacts of our child raising, and it is reasonable to consider that we are responsible for the lifetime impacts of any child we choose to birth or raise, as well as our descendants through that child. A recent study out of Oregon contemplated this idea of carbon legacy through childbirth, if you wish to read some interesting genetics and carbon math (and transfer your anxiety from your daughter back to yourself, which is where it might more properly belong).

It is a bit unfair to carry a multi-generation burden of guilt around for child raising, when most of us can buy and sell a car or a toothbrush without thinking too hard about the centuries of atmospheric carbon and landlocked garbage we have created. Think about it all we must, though. Alas.

In terms of adoption, you have a point that international adoption is not automatically an environmental act, beyond the fact that you are choosing from an existing pool of children rather than adding another to the world’s population. One could adopt a child from another country and then raise an SUV-driving, vinyl-buying American who has an outsized carbon footprint. If a child is adopted domestically, you are not adding more people to the carbon-piggy American population, but the same danger lurks. In either case, you can help your daughter raise thoughtful children who are careful about their own impacts as they get older.

These are interesting ideas to discuss on a theoretical level with your daughter, but only if your relationship allows for such discussion. Otherwise, child bearing is an intensely personal act, and outsiders are generally unwelcome at the decision table. Keep your mouth shut and your arms wide open.

Mazeltovly,
Umbra

Comments

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Andrée Zaleska Posted 6:19 am
09 Sep 2009
Something an old friend said always comes to mind when I consider family size: "If you can parent well, then you should have as many children as you want." While I do think we should all consider keeping our families small and enlarging our sense of community to compensate, I think that those of us whose true vocation is parenting can only bring more good into the world.
Permalink
kristen510 Posted 8:54 am
09 Sep 2009
Parenting isn't a vocation. It's obviously a life-consuming hobby for some, but no reasonable person could ever believe that having children makes the world a better place. Anyone who does so is delusional, probably because they think the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow without their own little angels treading upon the Earth. The truth is we're all just people and we're taking over the planet. It makes no difference who you are, if you have children you are just adding to the burden that others, like me, have to compensate for by having no children at all. Besides this basic fact, a lot of parents in the US are now welcoming their grown, jobless children back into the house because there are no jobs for any of them. The more people we have the more competition for any resource-- be it water, food, land, or jobs-- will increase. Prospestive parents must think of things like this before they say, "I am a good parent and I can have as many children as I want." This is the kind of selfish and anthropocentric thinking that got us into this mess.
Permalink
1. mr.burr Posted 7:27 am
  10 Sep 2009
  Word up, sister! Everytime I see these giant (I mean giant like 5+) jewish and Hispanic families it makes my blood boil! What the hell are they thinking! These people are ruining the world!!!!!
  Permalink
2. kristally Posted 4:00 am
  14 Sep 2009
  I'm with you! I am seeing so many families with 4+ kids lately. Just imagine if everyone followed in their footsteps. Of course, with a family that big, you need a giant car to transport them, and a giant home to house them, and oh, the list is just endless.
  Permalink
plantqueenie Posted 10:07 am
09 Sep 2009
It's the attitude of someone like KRISTEN510 that turns off a lot of moderate people like myself from the green movement at times. If humans are all that terrible of a detriment to our planet, would mass suicide be a better solution? Really? Having a family is obviously a very personal decision, and 'no' I do not have any children, although someday I'd like to have a couple - with the possible option to adopt one or two. I believe that if we choose to have kids, and educate them to live responsibly... that's reasonable. If everyone decided to stop having kids... well, there's the end of humanity. And if all those who cared about caring for our environment didn't have ANY kids... guess who would quickly become outnumbered?
Permalink
Madisontom Posted 1:12 pm
09 Sep 2009
I've taught classes in the sustainability area for the last 14 years, and I have chosen to have 4 children. Those that have written about the intensely personal nature of the decision to have kids are correct. While someone like Kristen510 undoubtedly condemns my decision, it is because of my kids that I work so hard to create a future that honors them.
Permalink
kristen510 Posted 2:10 pm
09 Sep 2009
Oh come on now, let's not be drama queens here. I do not recall mentioning mass suicide in my comment, Mr. or Ms. "Moderate". My point is that the people already placed here upon the earth should make the most of our time here by doing everything we can to reverse the damage our species is doing to the planet that we all need to survive. What's the point of preserving the mighty human race if the planet it depends on is unable to sustain it? A lifetime of an individual's attempts at sustainability are undone by a person's choice to have a single child. Someone has to be accountable eventually, and we are reaching the end of the time when everyone can have kids just because they feel like it. As for working harder for a better world because of your kids, that's great. I just wanted to point out that it's possible to work to better the world without reproducing. Finally, the concept that those who live sustainably should be reproducing in an attempt to outnumber those who do not is absurd. We're all on the same ark no matter who we are or what we believe, and sooner or later we're going to sink it. We are all going to be forced to live sustainably whether we like it or not. For those who have not managed to miss the news about the current water/climate change/economic crises, I am sure you agree.
Permalink
jeff johnson Posted 2:16 pm
09 Sep 2009
Wow...i guess the environmental movement has changed...i am an old guy (65) and i still think of overpopulation as a problem...not just in india, china, or someplace i am not. I am blessed to have one wonderful child, who i love and treasure. I think we should be asking how many more humans can this planet support and what life will be like with more and more of us and less and less of the rest of the plants, animals, insects and so forth, whose space we take up? That seems to be the way it works out. I think a little reminder to Terry about her family's role in the protecting the planet is in order.
Permalink
plantqueenie Posted 2:27 pm
09 Sep 2009
I'm no drama queen... only trying to point out that you seem to be the opposite extreme of couples that decide to have a dozen kids just because they can. What got me so upset is your opinion that anyone who wants to have a child is selfish and unreasonable. Name-calling is not the best way to get your point across. If everyone felt the same way you did, and EVERYONE decided to not have children... the entire human population of the world would vanish in 100 years or less. So if wiping out all humans seems a little extreme, what's a viable alternative? And why can't we be accountable to our actions and still have children? To my comment about competing "numbers"... If all of the environmentally responsible people didn't procreate (or even just adopt!) and pass along their values to the next generation... eventually those values will disappear. Get it?
Permalink
kristen510 Posted 3:38 pm
09 Sep 2009
Funny, I don't recall doing any name-calling either. If you want to feel put upon and attacked by a wacko eco-extremist, go for it, but using the phrase "selfish and anthropocentric thinking" is hardly name-calling. Speaking of extreme, recall the original topic of this article, which is big families. I did not say no one should reproduce. I said that people should not delude themselves into thinking that producing children is good for the planet, and that those who produce children are going to have to deal with the fact that there may not be enough natural or economic resources to sustain those children. It's happening right now, an alarming amount of our young people cannot get a job because there are not enough resources and people all over the world are starving to death. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.Regarding the loss of environmental values, it's pretty well known that societal patterns do not perpetuate solely on the basis of familial teachings. There are many worthy organizations that educate children (especially disadvantaged children, whose parents largely don't teach sustainability) about environmental topics through schools, field trips, and summer camps. I work for one and work with many others. I think this is a far more effective approach than dedicating one's life to educating only one's own children. How about hundreds of kids a year- thousands of kids over a lifetime? This is the scale that will get us where we need to go.
Permalink
1. plantqueenie Posted 5:05 pm
  09 Sep 2009
  In your original post you did call those individuals wanting children "delusional" and that if you have children (with no mention of how many) you are "adding to the burden of others" who choose to have no children - thus, implying (although not out-right saying) that the only logical thing to do is refrain from reproduction. Jobless-ness and hunger are hardly solely due to overpopulation. I'm no expert, but there are many more complex economic and social issues that play into these problems. And in addition, some countries that have experienced a decline in their population (notably some of the more progressive, well-educated, developed nations) have resorted to encouraging their citizens to have families because a decline can have devastating results when the workforce retires and less taxes are paid into the system. Again, I'm no expert in this arena but have read into it a bit in the past.And finally... I agree that organizations teaching children about environmental topics are absolutely essential - especially for the disadvantaged - but topics taught and enforced at home from early childhood, by the loving, devoted parents are going to be even more valuable and "ingrained" into that little person's life experiences that they will be more likely to hold those values into adulthood. I agree we've done a lot of bad in this world, but I also believe that we can clean up most of the mess we've made, and the earth can be healed over time... The birth of a child is a wonderful, miraculous thing... the process of raising children is demanding, tiring, but a rewarding and exciting process. I value all life... the life of all the creepy, crawly, flying, swimming creatures of the earth AND the life of all us humans.
  Permalink
anasimeon Posted 5:24 pm
09 Sep 2009
I resonated with the compassionate attitude behind Umbra's reply to worried grandma, but would take issue with the assumption that "making decisions on child-bearing is an intensely personal matter". The decision is personal, but not only personal. It impacts all of the commonwealth of life - therefore, those who are likely to be impacted (all of us) have a right to a say. Some balancing of individual rights and community rights is called for here, however much it offends the accepted notion of "freedom".For refreshingly creative suggestions - respectful of an individual's calling to be a parent - on how to stabilize the population, I recomment Daly and Cobb's book "For the Common Good".
Permalink
kristen510 Posted 6:22 pm
09 Sep 2009
I agree with anasimeon. We have to accept that our actions affect others, including future generations we'll never know- not just the generation we are producing. I cannot agree with the "baby Einstein" theory "maybe my kid will discover the cure for cancer". I know many well meaning, and well-off, people whose children were seemingly born obsessed with muscle cars, drugs, and consumerism. No one intentionally raises a child to love Hummers. Yet, SUVs are all over the place.Regarding delusion, I have to say, most of my friends have kids and having kids makes people crazy. It makes them do things no normal person would do. One of my friends wants his kid to ride his bike everywhere, but because the streets are too "dangerous" for his kid to ride the bike by himself, my friend ends up biking to school with the kid, dropping the kid off, biking to work, and having his wife drive around picking up bikes and people at the end of the day with the minivan. Lunacy, right? And this is in the Bay Area, where sustainability is a household word.Our personal choices are our own. But we have to think of how our decisions affect other people. I think the entire human race is in a crisis of misunderstanding and lack of respect for others. This is evident in pretty much everything we do. We become so wrapped up in our lives that we forget others' lives matter. Somewhere along the line, human reproduction became a sacred act rather than the simple biological process of perpetuating the species. If we really do consider ourselves to be above monkeys, we should not simply respond to the impulse to reproduce. If we consider this process to be such a life-changing miracle, we should consider its ramifications equally.
Permalink
1. Cara_J Posted 8:34 pm
  11 Sep 2009
  Kristen, I'm responding to just one point here. "No one intentionally raises a child to love Hummers" ? You bet they do. Have you ever spent time in the smaller cities or towns that make up mainstream America? I currently live in a Midwestern county that is a mix of Democrats and Republicans. I am amazed at the values people pass on to their children. They let their kids ride along while mowing sprawling lawns with big, emissions-spewing riding mowers. Then they get out the gas-powered leaf-blower. Then the weed trimmer. They buy the kids (electric, noisy) toy cars they can actually drive, replicas of SUVs or Jeeps or, yes, Hummers. Families wash their cars and SUVs in the driveway, letting soap and water run into the storm sewer without any regard for the effects in streams. You get the idea. No one can convince me that parents' eco-values or consumerist values don't typically get passed on to their children. Of course there are exceptions, as you say. But in general, parents' values have deep, lifelong impact, for better or for worse.
  
  Thus there is validity to the point that parents who actively work to reduce their families' footprint are doing less harm than those who have kids and raise them to be careless consumers.
  Permalink
2. kristally Posted 4:09 am
  14 Sep 2009
  Actually, there probably are many parents who do raise their children to love SUVs. I would venture to say that the great majority of families still don't really get it.
  Permalink
bailsout Posted 10:06 pm
09 Sep 2009
I hate to see the name calling and arguing go on here. But the good news is that we're finally talking about an issue that for hundreds of generations was never dreamed of. Maybe there is a chance for the planet, its species and even humans.
Permalink
rockypandora Posted 5:57 am
10 Sep 2009
I was recently visiting my neighbor who thinks of herself as an environmentalist and raising her three kids the same way. During my 5 minute visit she used half a roll of paper towels to wipe her counters, dry her hands, polish her faucet, etc. Not the worst crime in the world, but it says something about her lack of awareness about the impact of everyday actions on the planet. In my house the only time we use paper towels is if the cat pukes. I think people believe themselves to be eco-friendly because it's nice and in vogue, but to actually put that into everyday action requires consciousness. IMO the biggest gift we can give the planet and each other is to be aware of how our choices affect the rest of the planet. It's impossible and exhausting to be on top of every purchase and choice, but when faced with the big-ticket items like procreating, we have the biggest responsibility to be conservative (by which I mean ecologically conservative) in making those decisions. Twenty-five years ago when my husband and I got married we were thought weird when we said we were only going to have two kids, both of us coming from large families. At the time, thinking about overpopulation made us as weird as being vegetarian. Today's couples no longer have the luxury to bring new life to our crowded planet without being aware of the impact of their decision.
Permalink
bpcaul Posted 9:10 am
10 Sep 2009
I have four children and 12 (yikes!) grandchildren, all of whom I love dearly. I've really felt guilty about my contribution to overpopulation for the last few years until a friend recently told me that the number of children you have is not as important as how you raise them. Since 2 of my children are what I'd call avid environmentalists, one is fairly good and one not so good, I guess odds-wise, I haven't done too bad. My grandchildren, on the other hand, I think are much more into sustainability and environmentalism--as much as children can be when they aren't in control of their households. So I guess it's a mixed message. When I had my 4 kids back in the 60s and early 70s, I was young and not that aware of the importance of limiting families. If I had it to do over again--well, it's hard to say. Maybe I would do a better job of making ALL of them radical environmentalists. Because that is what it is going to take to save our world.
Permalink
loraz Posted 9:22 am
10 Sep 2009
I agree with Kristin510.� Having a child is inherently a selfish act, since reproduction is each organism's attempt to perpetuate its own genes.� Having a child is not a gift to the world, and people who think otherwise are deluding themselves.� My husband and I struggle with the question of whether we should have a child.� I tend to agree with the idea that every person should limit themselves to one child, at most, so the population can gradually decrease to a sustainable level.� More than one is not sustainable, and I think that anyone who thinks of themselves as an environmentalist needs to confront the fact that having a child is probably the most environmentally-unfriendly action you can take, even if you raise them to live lightly on the land.��It is frustrating for those of us who�make important life decisions based on our understanding of our personal responsibility for the global environmental problem of overpopulation, to see other people explain away why�it's okay for them to have 3 or 4 or more kids.� It's not okay, no matter how good of a parent you are.� You are taking resources needed by others by personally increasing the world's population.� Your four children will make it harder for my one child to have a good life in this world.� This is everyone's problem, and it's time that everyone took some responsibility for it.��
Permalink
1. mr.burr Posted 10:37 am
  10 Sep 2009
  Totally agree with Loraz & Kristin510. What about these pathetic yuppies and their 10's of thousands of dollars to reproduce? I think Kyoto and the up coming conference in Copenhagen should address this. THE CHINESE GOT IT RIGHT! There should be a mandated baby rule (one & only one!). We should also think about only producing useful citizens. Children with special needs (and people for that matter) are extra resource pigs. We should advise (and this has happened throughout history) a system that only insures healthy individuals being born.
  Permalink
  1. plantqueenie Posted 11:13 am
    10 Sep 2009
    Your last sentence is absolutely repulsive. I could only hope that your post was not intended to be serious, but I doubt that is true. To suggest that babies born with disabilities or special needs should not be cared for (and I would guess, be either put to death or allowed to die) is beyond inhumane.
    Permalink
  2. loraz Posted 12:19 pm
    10 Sep 2009
    I think there's a pretty clear difference between me, as a private citizen, advocating for people to take personal responsibility for a looming environmental disaster by making informed choices about the number of children they should have and a government statutorily limiting those options.�
    Permalink
bailsout Posted 4:15 pm
10 Sep 2009
Now that the issue has finally been raised on the Grist forum, thank you Umbra for taking it on, I wish our government would take China's lead and at least promote the concept of reducing our population through an educational policy. People need to be taught about overpopulation and then, hopefully, make intelligent decisions about their own reproduction. It doesn't have to be mandatory, yet. How about removing tax credits for children, or at least tax credits for not having children.I'm sure it was too hot an issue in the forthcoming health care plan, but it disillusioned me to see that abortion would not fall under the coverage. I know I shouldn't have been surprised. In the meantime I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to all the women out there who made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, no matter the reason.
Permalink
1. featherfish81 Posted 5:53 pm
  10 Sep 2009
  "It doesn't have to be mandatory, yet. " is exactly the sort of phrasing that scares me when the discussion of limiting family sizes comes up. As Loraz said, it's one thing to educate people and to have them think about their choices. It's an entirely different matter to insist upon it. All life, including human life, is valuable, and forcing people to end a life based on what may happen in the future is over the top. Nevermind the fact that this kind of sentiment could turn people away from the environmental cause, even some who are sympathetic.
  Permalink
  1. mr.burr Posted 7:10 pm
    10 Sep 2009
    But, if you believe in and are disgusted by overpopulation and the selfish people that are procreating how do you find a balance? When an entitled person from the west is happy to consume for themselves and foregoes children then we should bow to them for their selflessness and their light footprint. There needs to be some honesty in these discussions. Upper-crust whitey breeding bad (as Richard Pryor noted, "White folks need room for their ponies")...poor third worlders, "it's their culture".
    Permalink
mjgoeglein Posted 6:15 pm
10 Sep 2009
First thought: Wow. A world without brothers and sisters. Imagine that future conversation: "Mommy, what does this word 'brother' mean?" "Well, honey, back before we ruined the planet and had to live in this tunnel and eat roaches...." (and before you population-control fans start sharpening your knives, please note that I didn't make a moral judgement about the existence of siblings--k?)More to the point, underlying the population argument is the concept of consumption. I recently had my eyes opened to the reality that it isn't "third world" cultures who routinely have huge families that are ultimately the problem; it is "first world" consumption habits. What is the ratio again? One US citizen consumes the equivalent of 30 citizens in India during the course of a year? The math here is pretty obvious. While huge families are, in the long view, unsustainable, it surely behooves us in the West to take a deep breath and look at our navels before we start casting stones.Imagine being the woman in the culture where her worth is established by the number of offspring she has, in order to insure that someone will care for her in old age and keep the family afloat in the meantime (i.e., high childhood death rate, no government support or retirement plan, no female education, family planning, or option to have a career). Now imagine that one of us Western, resource hogging folk come to her village and explain that she needs to stop having so many kids so that we can continue to use the world's resources at the rate to which we have become accustomed.How about we a) start educating and empowering women, since that is the only way to shift a culture from viewing children as economic windfalls to economic liabilities and b) make damn sure we fix ourselves before we look elsewhere.Just a thought. I agree that there are way too many of us, but I also think that this issue, like so many others is a minefield and has many many different aspects to be examined. It is so important to try to grasp the big picture!
Permalink
1. mr.burr Posted 7:16 pm
  10 Sep 2009
  Which is with you people? Put your foot down. Are you really against overpopulation? If so then commit to something stronger then hassling people with kids and posting a bumper sticker. There needs to be a true grassroots movement on this. I'm sure we can organize in places Park Slope, the Bay Area, Santa Monica and any other places where there's an abundance of private college graduates....LETS UNITE!
  Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:57 pm
10 Sep 2009
This is a great issue to follow Umbra's advice on and mellow out. Support full reproductive and other rights for women, then let them make their own decision. Don't even whisper about forcing population control, and certainly never ever mention eugenics. That's just flat out insane. With advocates like mr. burr we don't need enemies. Shunning is called for of anyone expressing these extremely offensive views.Lead by example, then let your kids, friends, and the culture decide. Quality beats quantity. Better to have fewer people living within the means that our biosphere provides without damaging it, than trying to outpopulate other national, ethnic, or religious groups as seems to be the human cultural norm so far.Time to change that regrettable history or perish as a species. Women will decide rightly on this, the survival of mother earth and quality over quantity if given the freedom they ought to have. It is powerful patriacal cultures that insist on limitless population growth to provide endless consumers and fodder for the war machinery. Free women, we can all trust them to do the right thing.The ocasional 12 child mom will be balanced by one ot two child moms. No problem. And let's not make the 12 child mom feel bad either, that won't help anyone.
Permalink
1. mr.burr Posted 7:23 am
  11 Sep 2009
  So, a womens right trumps the health of planet. I'm saying what the previous posters won't. If things like overpopulation are so offensive to you that you say things (and quoting from the board) like:"my heartfelt thanks to all the women out there who made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, no matter the reason" or " Having a child is not a gift to the world, and people who think otherwise are deluding themselves" or "This is the kind of selfish and anthropocentric thinking that got us into this mess"The attitude is the one that I have been expressing. I think it's hard to be PC whilst making the against children and child bearing.
  
  Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 7:19 am
15 Sep 2009
Moderation in childbearing should be a choice for everyone. The previous US administration for years refused to release US funds for helping people in developing nations make the choice to limit their families. The Obama administration has adjusted that policy. However there is still a huge need for assistance to help people in poverty afford to limit their families.
Another policy issue is US tax structure which rewards people with tax deductions for having children. Shouldn't tax deductions for children be limited to the first child, and maybe for the second but not the third or more. Society shares the cost for every person alive. The Earth cannnot support the six and a half billion people on it now, much less the nine billion that it will soon have.
Permalink
bailsout Posted 3:01 pm
15 Sep 2009
Are we all in agreement yet that there is currently an overpopulation problem? If so, then we must also recognize that two children per family-- zero population growth-- is one too many. We need to go to the next step-- negative population growth. One or none.
Permalink
wannabegreen Posted 11:03 pm
17 Sep 2009
Babies and puppies and kittens are amazing and awe-inspiring in their power and miraculous wonder. But overpopulation of any kind of life is devastating to every ecosystem. Joys of creating and guiding life, and teaching values and hope, do not negate the environmental, societal and economic impact of every life added to the mix. Just like any mill that produces too many puppies, creating children in a society and political system that refuses responsibility to make our lifestyle sustainable is entirely selfish. Yes, teaching responsible and sustainable values to a young life is a very good start at making the impact of one whole other person less of a negative thing, but can any of us honestly say that the planet is better off with all of our individual consumption and waste production and change than it would have been without us? Of course not. Our family may be better off, even our community or society at large; but not the planet. So how can we honestly believe that our sweet little offspring will somehow be a positive blessing to the planet and all the other life that depends upon it?
I definitely agree that the choice to have a child or not is very personal, but each and every child's birth is a massive impact on every system and structure of our society, large and small, so the result of that "personal" decision is also very public, from the family level to the community at large.
People are going to continue to make babies, willfully or carelessly, with intent to create good or the intent to wield power, or whatever. For those who desire to make a better world, we must make the best of ourselves first, and live the best life we can by being an example of what we hold dear. If we can teach it to others, great. We don't need to have a captive audience to teach and to have a powerful impact of leadership. And if having someone who is a consistent part of our lives is the most comforting way for some of us to reach out, their are thousands of foster children who can benefit from love as well as guidance; tens of thousands of kids looking for Big Brother/Big Sister companionship and mentoring. Reaching out through community action and volunteer organizations is always welcome.
And remember the best way to lead eco-activism is by being a positive and inspiring example yourself. Which means, be nice, be creative (w/ideas) and be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you are the kind of person other people can get along with and listen to, the ideas will be shared and will take hold.
Permalink
1. mr.burr Posted 7:46 am
  18 Sep 2009
  Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
  Permalink
2. mr.burr Posted 7:46 am
  18 Sep 2009
  Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
  Permalink
wannabegreen Posted 11:04 pm
17 Sep 2009
Babies and puppies and kittens are amazing and awe-inspiring in their power and miraculous wonder. But overpopulation of any kind of life is devastating to every ecosystem. Joys of creating and guiding life, and teaching values and hope, do not negate the environmental, societal and economic impact of every life added to the mix. Just like any mill that produces too many puppies, creating children in a society and political system that refuses responsibility to make our lifestyle sustainable is entirely selfish. Yes, teaching responsible and sustainable values to a young life is a very good start at making the impact of one whole other person less of a negative thing, but can any of us honestly say that the planet is better off with all of our individual consumption and waste production and change than it would have been without us? Of course not. Our family may be better off, even our community or society at large; but not the planet. So how can we honestly believe that our sweet little offspring will somehow be a positive blessing to the planet and all the other life that depends upon it?
I definitely agree that the choice to have a child or not is very personal, but each and every child's birth is a massive impact on every system and structure of our society, large and small, so the result of that "personal" decision is also very public, from the family level to the community at large.
People are going to continue to make babies, willfully or carelessly, with intent to create good or the intent to wield power, or whatever. For those who desire to make a better world, we must make the best of ourselves first, and live the best life we can by being an example of what we hold dear. If we can teach it to others, great. We don't need to have a captive audience to teach and to have a powerful impact of leadership. And if having someone who is a consistent part of our lives is the most comforting way for some of us to reach out, their are thousands of foster children who can benefit from love as well as guidance; tens of thousands of kids looking for Big Brother/Big Sister companionship and mentoring. Reaching out through community action and volunteer organizations is always welcome.
And remember the best way to lead eco-activism is by being a positive and inspiring example yourself. Which means, be nice, be creative (w/ideas) and be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you are the kind of person other people can get along with and listen to, the ideas will be shared and will take hold.
Permalink
1. loraz Posted 7:36 am
  18 Sep 2009
  I agree with everything you've said wholeheartedly. Thank you for stating it so eloquently.
  Permalink
mr.burr Posted 7:47 am
18 Sep 2009
Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
Permalink
mr.burr Posted 7:47 am
18 Sep 2009
Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
Permalink
mr.burr Posted 7:47 am
18 Sep 2009
Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
Permalink
mr.burr Posted 7:47 am
18 Sep 2009
Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
Permalink
mr.burr Posted 7:51 am
18 Sep 2009
Likening a women to a female dog (or maybe that other word) and her children to animals in a puppy mill is definitely creative and a perfectly nice way to put it. Way to lead!
Permalink
1. loraz Posted 8:09 am
  18 Sep 2009
  Ah yes, let's ignore the environmental consequences of overpopulation because you refuse to think of yourself as a mammal. And in response to one of your earlier comments, advocating for more responsible reproductive choices given our overpopulation problem is not being anti-child. Watching children starve and be neglected around the world and in our own communities while deciding to keep multiplying like rabbits is being anti-child. How about making sure that we have the resources to take care of the children already alive before deciding to make more?
  Permalink
  1. mr.burr Posted 9:15 am
    19 Sep 2009
    Nope, I've always supported mandated, productive, healthy citizens. "One child..but preferably less" should be the motto
    I was just commenting on the the typical, "We hate destroying breeders"...but, "we support a womens right"....you either believe in this stuff or you don't. If we saw some hooligans destroying eco-systems in say (think of your favorite vacation spot- better yet, favorite eco-vacation spot) Costa Rica we'd want them to pay dearly...
    Permalink
mr.burr Posted 7:54 am
18 Sep 2009
Oopps, don't know why it posted so many times!
Permalink
grygy Posted 4:33 pm
18 Sep 2009
Thank you DrX and WannaBe especially (and Umbra) for your gentleness, this is one hot-button issue! Our family fost-adopted two boys, and I've thought a fair amount about the tradeoffs between raising their socio-economic status (means more impacts), "teaching the children well" (means less impacts, especially if they then go on to teach others well, either their kids or strangers).
It's a hard thing to analyze and much harder to imagine quantifying enough to say "every extra kid that a middle-class environmentalist bears will increase CO2 emissions by XXX tons over the next 100 years; every extra kid by a Chicano welfare mom increases by YYY tons, etc."
So just two things I know: 1) 2 children per family is BELOW the long-term replacement rate, so if the average woman bears two kids population will rise (because of the current over-representation of child-bearers) and then fall; and 2) the most effective ways to reduce family size in the third and probably first world are education of women, and alleviation of poverty. Both lead to children going to school, which means delayed childbirth, increased security for parents, smaller families.
Permalink
Al77 Posted 4:46 pm
18 Sep 2009
All environmental spending and donations should be transferred to contraception because it is at least 50 times as cost effective as any other environmental spending proposal.
Permalink
Al77 Posted 4:54 pm
18 Sep 2009
Disown her and all other breeders and associate only with the childfree. These breedeing polluters are destroying the planet. Then move to a childfree school district with no taxes!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/

These idiots with their vegan meals and alternative energy are insignificant distractions from overpopulation, they do more harm than good.

All environmental funds and donations should be transferred to contraception as it is at least 50 times more cost effective than any other environmental proposal or spending project.
Permalink
mr.burr Posted 10:41 am
19 Sep 2009
Hey ALL77,
We already have childless towns they're called nursing homes. And, speaking of nursing homes we should cut federal spending on longevity research. Why are all of these old people allowed to live past their natural life?
Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

Commented

Ask Umbra on big families 48

Posted 9:00 PM on 8 Sep 2009
by Umbra Fisk

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Ask Umbra on big families 48

Posted 9:00 PM on 8 Sep 2009 by Umbra Fisk

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Flat

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Posted 9:00 PM on 8 Sep 2009
by Umbra Fisk