Should We Stop Having Children to Save the Earth?
One of my friends has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, “Thank you for not breeding.” Every time I read it, I feel a pang of guilt that I have two children. I know that children in developed countries, especially Americans, use up for more resources than children around the world. The statistics are staggering when comparing children’s footprints across the globe, which causes many environmentalists to suggest that not having children may be the single most important thing you do for the environment. As a mother of two, this is a hard pill to swallow, and I try to convince myself that my children will be part of the solution since they are raised with green family values.
According to Mother Jones, a developed world baby’s carbon footprint is quite large:
Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.
One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids.
Zahara Jolie-Pitt will produce 45,000 lbs of CO2 yearly, compared with 221 lbs if she still lived in Ethiopia.
A typical baby goes through 3,800 disposable diapers in her first 2.5 years.
96% of American babies wear disposable diapers. In China, only 6% do. In India, 2%.
- » See also: Don’t Forget the Batteries Grab Fuji’s New EnviroMAX Batteries
- » Get Eco Child’s Play by RSS or sign up by email.
China claims its one-child policy has prevented 400 million births—saving 1.5 billion tons of CO2 in 2004 alone.
China is often criticized for its one-child-policy as a restriction on personal freedom. I am not a proponent of laws that dictate the demographics of a family, but I do think that through education, we can have a significant impact on helping families decide the right number of children for themselves and the environment. I believe in educated choice.
I do have a few friends who have three or more children. One friend was accosted by another mother as being environmentally irresponsible for having three children. For many environmentalists, having children feels like a hypocritical action. Angharad Penrhyn Jones said in the Guardian:
Eco activists spend their lives agonising over the planet’s future - but that doesn’t stop them having children. We mustn’t give up hope.
It is a personal decision whether or not to have children. I believe it is possible to live by environmental ethics and have a child, obviously since I am a mother. The amount of carbon left behind as individuals and families is the most important factor, whether we have children or not. It is all about carbon emissions. If you leave a very small family’s carbon footprint, you are being eco-responsible and can still have children. It is one reason why I live-off-the-grid and grow my food. Just remember:
American children make up 4% of the world’s population, but they consume more than 40% of the world’s toys.
We humans are part of the Ecology that encompass this entire planet. Procreating is part of that circle of life. Just as we can’t tell a Lion to stop procreating, we also have the deep instinctual need. We may reason and we may have the mental capacity to say “no, I do not want to have children” but I think that instinct is still there and should not be made feel guilty by some mad hats even if they are environmentalists.
As for it being one of the worst environmental sin, I think that’s bull****. We do destructive things to the planet but we also do many good things as shown by people like us.. people who DO care and who try to make this planet a better place.. and most likely, our children will continue on because they are being taught to be good humans. I think as a parent, you become MORE compassionate, MORE caring, and MORE giving.. which benefits the planet. If there wasn’t any children around… the world would be a sad sad place.
Can this question be answered without asking (and answering) the question, “For what purpose does the earth exist?”
I feel having children is a God given right by Him; however, I don’t think God intended on us abusing his creation. Nor do I think God intended on us being lazy & chosing convience over the care of people or planet.
All this to say, I have four children and I intend on having more if it is God’s will for my life. And I do not, in anyway intend on asking bumper sticker people if it is ok. What about the resources it took to make that bumper sticker? Hopefully that person will not get sick in her old age & our children will have to be her dr or at least hopefully, they will have a different heart than she does. or maybe they’d think she shouldn’t live so long becaue she is using up resources. (for the record, i don’t feel that way, just trying to provide an equal idea for her way of thinking.)
Sincerely,
mom of 4 beautiful children!!!
I am really shocked by this article. I think you and anyone else that bases their family size on what is right for the earth needs some serious freakin therapy. Children are a gift, a miracle. Not a statistic.
I agree with the theory that as long as those of us who are making it a lifestyle point to reduce our waste and consumption and teaching our little ones to do the same and not be consumer-driven-big-box-mart goers is more helpful towards creating adults later who will understand the importance of that verses the willfully ignorant who have just as many kids (or more) who will grow up to be mindless consumers.
environmentalists having children is NOT the problem… may even be the long term solution. who else is going to teach them?
Big families conserve better almost by default. Parents have more colleges to fund, and usually have to cut back in order to save. Their minivans and SUVs are filled to the brim instead of just carting 3 folks around. They can’t afford McMansions or lawn services. Big families usually eat the food they buy, hand down the clothes they wear and carpool because there are only two parents and 6 different places to go. Also, their kids ride their bikes and walk a lot. A lot of big families that I know home school. Can you imagine the carbon emissions that cuts? No to-and-from trips to school five days a week? Count that up. As one of eight kids I know big families don’t over consume. It’s next to impossible. Each kid is waiting for the other to cast something aside and swipe it up for himself. Not much gets cast aside in a big family. Before people have children, they think mostly of what they can GET. They value their new car, their awesome apartment, their flat screen t.v. Single people and even married people who don’t have children are inherently selfish because they have only themselves to look after. Good stewardship and prudence are important in all walks of life. If these people want the rest of the world to understand that they would encourage BIGGER families rather than selfish lifestyles.
With people living longer, one child per family makes sense. Given our current global/environmental condition, having more than one child is irresponsible.
Of all the vain self important things I have ever read or heard, this article takes the cake. The fact that you truly believe that Angelina and Brad Pitt’s child would be better off in a 3rd world country where food, health care, vaccinations and overall quality of life are the epitome of the bottom of the barrel. You would rather see the child die in a cess pool of diseases over seeing the child prosper? It’s just amazing. Because their carbon footprint is larger here? Are you serious? When are the green loving hippies going to understand that the earth will buck this species (humans) right off with one drastic weather change if we screw it up too much. No amount of recycling, footprint minimizing, bike riding, dieting, compost heap building, birthday giftless years are ever going to change that. We CANNOT destroy this earth. But it can very easily destroy us.
So in order to save the planet, you’re going to not have children? Does it ever occur to you that a lot of the solutions proposed to global warming are a lot worse than the problem? I’d rather have the temperature go up a degree or two than deprive couples that want children from having them.
If environmentalists do follow this advice, environmentalism will gradually go extinct as everyone else continues to have kids. Then the public will vote against environmentalist policies. Quite a quandry you’ve got yourself in, isn’t it?
“Having babies” is not so much the problem — having adults is what’s causing the problems. The environmental impact of disposable diapers is heavy, but we are adults much longer than we are children.
People who envision having a baby often forget that they are creating an entirely new human being who will leave in a few years as an adult.
Youth is a wonderful phase of life, whether it’s people, panda, or panther. It’s sad to imagine there being no more of any of them. A baby condor may not be as cute as a baby human, but we must choose to forego one if the others are to survive.
Children’s welfare will improve as there are fewer of them to care for. Considering the future world we are creating for future generations, procreation today is like renting rooms in a burning building — renting them to our children no less.
We must evolve past the selfish desire to reproduce-at-will if we have any hope of winning the war against ourselves.
Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life.