Comments on: Carbon Babies: The Octuplets and 8 Nappy Bottoms http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/05/carbon-babies-the-octuplets-and-8-nappy-bottoms/ Green and Natural Parenting for Eco-Friendly Families Thu, 24 May 2012 17:04:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Photos of Octuplet Mother Nadya Suleman Pregnant : Eco Child’s Play http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/05/carbon-babies-the-octuplets-and-8-nappy-bottoms/#comment-9055 Photos of Octuplet Mother Nadya Suleman Pregnant : Eco Child’s Play Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:59:42 +0000 http://ecochildsplay.com/?p=2944#comment-9055 [...] body…loss of calcium, stretch marks, anemia, etc.  No matter what you think about the octuplets and their carbon footprint, I find these images of the mother incredible. (Image after the [...] [...] body…loss of calcium, stretch marks, anemia, etc.  No matter what you think about the octuplets and their carbon footprint, I find these images of the mother incredible. (Image after the [...]

]]> By: Cate Nelson http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/05/carbon-babies-the-octuplets-and-8-nappy-bottoms/#comment-9057 Cate Nelson Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:18:46 +0000 http://ecochildsplay.com/?p=2944#comment-9057 I certainly understand the outrage, here, Lucca. It seems to be a great demo on overconsumption: the need to continue to have more and more and more, even if the "product" is children. I agree with you, Amy. Here at Green Options, we give many tips on how to be eco-friendly. I try not to push people too far to what I would like to be: my dh and I would love a self-sustaining farm. We're taking our own steps to make that dream a reality. Not everyone can have chickens or a cow, though. I know that for most people, it takes baby steps. It's the reality for most families. But yes, having a large family can be quite sustainable if they live as Amy suggests. That's not only large families; smaller families like my own can strive for sustainability, too. However, from what I understand, that is simply not the case for Ms. Suleman. We can all wish her luck and hope that she turns to eco-friendlier living. I certainly understand the outrage, here, Lucca. It seems to be a great demo on overconsumption: the need to continue to have more and more and more, even if the “product” is children.

I agree with you, Amy. Here at Green Options, we give many tips on how to be eco-friendly. I try not to push people too far to what I would like to be: my dh and I would love a self-sustaining farm. We’re taking our own steps to make that dream a reality. Not everyone can have chickens or a cow, though. I know that for most people, it takes baby steps. It’s the reality for most families.

But yes, having a large family can be quite sustainable if they live as Amy suggests. That’s not only large families; smaller families like my own can strive for sustainability, too.

However, from what I understand, that is simply not the case for Ms. Suleman. We can all wish her luck and hope that she turns to eco-friendlier living.

]]> By: Amy http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/05/carbon-babies-the-octuplets-and-8-nappy-bottoms/#comment-9058 Amy Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:34:12 +0000 http://ecochildsplay.com/?p=2944#comment-9058 There are a lot of "huge" families that we know personally. After figuring and re-figuring, one family of 19 produces less carbon or anything else than a couple who is ultra-eco-friendly in downtown! Life style is a huge thing ya know! (And I am only speaking of here in the US.) When you produce 97% of your own food, compost all manure (human and animal), make your own clothing, shoes, diapers, wraps, menstrual pads, washable toilet paper, soaps, lanolin, and herbal tinctures, and grow your animals feed, make your house out of a recycled tobacco barn with reclaimed building materials, have no electricity (even solar panels/wind generators leave a huge footprint from manufacture), water coming from your spring/creek, home school your children without fancy curriculum, make your living from your land and being a home birth midwife, etc... then you will see what real life could be. What we've lost as a society is community, we have forgotten that community (and I mean serious community, not your neighborhood farm stand, or local library group) is the way to overcome overconsumption, overwork, overproducing of waste, etc... If you own things collectively and collectively do the work and don't strive for worldly possessions, and don't be so outside the box that you create your own box you might find a really interesting balance. It's not as outlandish as it may seem at first read. It is happening all over the place, but these folks are under the fast paced radar. Biking your children to playgroup might feel eco savvy, but why not have them planting trees (that were grafted by Papa, not shipped from the latest organic mail order) with their 9 brothers and sisters in the community orchard that is within steps of your own home? Now that's what we call playgroup! I might be being a bit hypocritical sitting here at this computer, but this will soon be turned off as well! We should watch ourselves instead of worrying about the footprint of that family with too many children. Until we can stop being consumers our concerns should only be with ourselves! We have to wean ourselves from all of our pacifiers before we can scoff at someone still sucking their thumb. There are a lot of “huge” families that we know personally. After figuring and re-figuring, one family of 19 produces less carbon or anything else than a couple who is ultra-eco-friendly in downtown! Life style is a huge thing ya know! (And I am only speaking of here in the US.) When you produce 97% of your own food, compost all manure (human and animal), make your own clothing, shoes, diapers, wraps, menstrual pads, washable toilet paper, soaps, lanolin, and herbal tinctures, and grow your animals feed, make your house out of a recycled tobacco barn with reclaimed building materials, have no electricity (even solar panels/wind generators leave a huge footprint from manufacture), water coming from your spring/creek, home school your children without fancy curriculum, make your living from your land and being a home birth midwife, etc… then you will see what real life could be.
What we’ve lost as a society is community, we have forgotten that community (and I mean serious community, not your neighborhood farm stand, or local library group) is the way to overcome overconsumption, overwork, overproducing of waste, etc… If you own things collectively and collectively do the work and don’t strive for worldly possessions, and don’t be so outside the box that you create your own box you might find a really interesting balance. It’s not as outlandish as it may seem at first read. It is happening all over the place, but these folks are under the fast paced radar. Biking your children to playgroup might feel eco savvy, but why not have them planting trees (that were grafted by Papa, not shipped from the latest organic mail order) with their 9 brothers and sisters in the community orchard that is within steps of your own home? Now that’s what we call playgroup!
I might be being a bit hypocritical sitting here at this computer, but this will soon be turned off as well! We should watch ourselves instead of worrying about the footprint of that family with too many children. Until we can stop being consumers our concerns should only be with ourselves! We have to wean ourselves from all of our pacifiers before we can scoff at someone still sucking their thumb.

]]> By: lucca http://ecochildsplay.com/2009/02/05/carbon-babies-the-octuplets-and-8-nappy-bottoms/#comment-9056 lucca Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:07:14 +0000 http://ecochildsplay.com/?p=2944#comment-9056 I don’t care whether Nadya Suleman has “only child syndrome” or not. I care that she’s a single 33 year old unemployed woman with six fatherless children (one of whom has autism) who lives with her bankrupt parents and intentionally had 8 more children who will probably have long term medical problems themselves due to her stupid decisions. Who's going to pay for these 14 children? The bankrupt grandparents??? Though public records show that Nadya Suleman was on the payroll at Metropolitan State Hospital until last year, it appears that she did little work (if any) after September 1999 due to a workman's compensation injury (back injury and psychiatric condition) in which she's received up to $165,000 in compensation. She filed an additional claim for worker’s compensation for a separate car accident in which she argued that this car accident wouldn’t have occurred had she not been going for medical treatment for the earlier worker’s comp. injury. Currently Nadya Suleman is single, unemployed and has 14 fatherless children that will need to be supported by taxpayers for at least the next 18 years. Given her “history”, I’m sure she knows full well how to fund her large family and her stupid decisions. I don’t care whether Nadya Suleman has “only child syndrome” or not. I care that she’s a single 33 year old unemployed woman with six fatherless children (one of whom has autism) who lives with her bankrupt parents and intentionally had 8 more children who will probably have long term medical problems themselves due to her stupid decisions. Who’s going to pay for these 14 children? The bankrupt grandparents???

Though public records show that Nadya Suleman was on the payroll at Metropolitan State Hospital until last year, it appears that she did little work (if any) after September 1999 due to a workman’s compensation injury (back injury and psychiatric condition) in which she’s received up to $165,000 in compensation. She filed an additional claim for worker’s compensation for a separate car accident in which she argued that this car accident wouldn’t have occurred had she not been going for medical treatment for the earlier worker’s comp. injury.

Currently Nadya Suleman is single, unemployed and has 14 fatherless children that will need to be supported by taxpayers for at least the next 18 years. Given her “history”, I’m sure she knows full well how to fund her large family and her stupid decisions.

]]>