- checking login information
Loading...To Breed or Not to Breed?
- by Care2 Causes Editors
- March 3, 2012
- 3:00 pm
Even Conscientious People Have an Eco-Footprint
by Erica Gies
Veteran reporter Erica Gies has covered the environment for The New York Times, New Scientist, and the International Herald Tribune, among other publications. She writes a regular column about energy and water for Forbes.com.
As biological creatures, our raison d’être is to reproduce. Cultures worldwide reflect that purpose: Children are celebrated, and those who don’t have kids are pitied or distrusted. It’s time that changed.
We humans are an inordinately successful species – perhaps too successful. Our world population hit 7 billion on October 31, 2011. In my lifetime, 40 years, the population has nearly doubled. We are putting unprecedented demand on natural resources and are beginning to see their limits.
Some argue that this Malthusian idea has been overturned by human ingenuity. True, we have created innovations to accelerate the efficiency of production, thus expanding our growth capacity. But such progress can only go so far. There is no escaping basic biology: Our habitat has a carrying capacity. Resources are, ultimately, finite. When we go beyond that capacity, there are negative consequences. We can already see those consequences all around us: water shortages, topsoil loss, saline soil, pollution, degraded ecosystems, and of course, climate change.
Many animals stop breeding when they surpass their habitat’s carrying capacity or when they sense that conditions are not conducive to reproductive success, such as a monster drought. Environmental factors appear to be curbing human reproduction as well; there is growing evidence that the rise in human infertility is linked to chemical and air pollution. Still, our numbers are growing too fast, and the human population as a whole is showing few signs of course correction.
Others think the problem is not our sheer numbers but our consumption rates. As affluence grows, we consume more meat, more energy, more stuff. That is true. But there are also too many of us. Quality of life is suffering for us, for other creatures, for plants. The health of the natural systems upon which we depend is declining.
That decline is part of why I’ve decided not to have kids. I simply can’t in good conscience contribute to the rapid diminishment of our world. Also, given the degradation of natural resources and landscapes, children born today are likely to have a lesser quality of life than I am enjoying. I don’t want to condemn them to that.
A 2009 study by statisticians at Oregon State University, published in Global Environmental Change, highlighted the outsized environmental impact of having kids. It is not just the diapers, food, fuel, and other resources that a child will use in her lifetime, but the exponential power of population growth. “Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female – which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions,” the study’s authors wrote. Future growth amplifies reproductive choices, just as compound interest makes a savings account soar.
There is no getting around the math that a person who does not have a child has a lighter environmental footprint than one who does.
We have the intelligence to understand concepts like the future and exponential growth. The conclusion is obvious: Some of us should stop breeding. Surely the brain that has pushed the boundaries of resource supply and dramatically increased life expectancy, allowing our population to boom, is likewise capable of a little restraint as a balance.
What surprises me is how often I’m called upon to defend this decision. The mere topic of population control threatens the biological imperative and invokes strong emotional reactions in people. For example, when I wrote about this topic on Forbes.com, one reader told me I could solve the population problem by offing myself.
Well-meaning people tell me I’m missing out on a core life experience. And while I surely am, if that’s my choice, why are they fussed? One person told me I was selfish because I was “unwilling to share my life with a child.” But he could also look at it this way: My not having kids is an act of generosity that leaves more resources for his children.
Julie Zickefoose makes a compelling case for how important it is to raise kids with conservationist values. I agree, and I have no doubt that Julie’s kids are going to be excellent citizens of Planet Earth. But it’s worth remembering that kids have an uncanny ability to grow up to be their own people, who don’t necessarily live by your values or have the number of kids you’d prefer.
Also, you don’t need to have kids to have children in your life. I spend time outside with my nieces and nephews, hiking and looking at plants and animals. I talk to my friends’ kids about topics I cover as an environment reporter. When I was an elephant seal docent at Point Reyes National Seashore, I educated many kids about seal biology, introducing them to the beauty and excitement of critters.
The choice of whether to have kids is emotionally complex and intensely personal. Careful reasoning and logical arguments won’t “win” the debate. There will always be couples who have more than the replacement level of about two. Exhibit A is the Duggar family, whose extreme fecundity has been rewarded with a TV show. This is the wrong message: The exponential implications of one couple producing 19 kids are staggering, and to celebrate such choices is outdated.
To counteract that arithmetic, I challenge people who want to experience parenting and to provide a child with a loving home to consider adopting a kid already here on the planet rather than passing on their own genes. And I ask people and governments to recognize that my choice is helpful to the ongoing success of the human animal – and therefore valid. We need to shift our dialogue and incentives to reward smaller families, not larger ones.
I’m not having kids, and that’s OK – for me, for you, for the world.
These articles originally appeared on the Earth Island Journal.
Related Stories:
Which Party’s Policies Really Push Population Control?
Welcome To The World’s 7th Billion Person
Read more: Children, earth island journal, eco-footprint, environmentalism, overpopulation
Photo from maybemissions via flickr
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
Jenn C. ___ your comment is a great one ! _____ I agree. Sadly it seems this world has gotten…
Shame on beekeepers that take excessive amounts of honey from the bees. There should be a certain amount…
Kevin stop your claims that a constitutional amendment is 1 of 2 ways to overturn a Scotus decision. 1.If…
meet our writers
258 comments
+ add your ownGood article from both sides of issue, we are over populating the planet and war seems worse than ever it is painful to watch news and the destruction of other species at alarming rates. The people that must have oh I have 5 and now on number 6 have got to stop! and also the ones that love to say I cant imagine a world without my children! You don;t know what you're missing! the lack of resources, education, increased war, pollution just look at ancient countries like ChinaQ The usa was already inhabited by people when europeans came and look what they did either assimilate be conquered or die! wish people would stop killing the last rhino to feed children because they dont use birthcontrol or we have to chop down rainforset so we can feed our families cause our country is so underdeveloped all we can do is this, or war is big business esp for large corporations, etc etc
Thank you for sharing.
Come on, Geneva; is that all you have to say? What do you do when you are not writing?
Why would we want selfish humans like this couple? Let us devide them - not multiply them or add to them...
They obviously are child minds in adult bodies - that's dangerous!
Here's where I take issue with this article. As someone who will never have kids through birth (for medical reasons) I love kids and hope to adopt some day. Finances, or lack there of, are the only thing holding me back at the moment. But when I read articles by seemingly intelligent women reminding all of us who will never give birth that a 'bell' in us will never ring, do you know how that makes me and others feel? Well, I'll tell you, AWFUL! Or as the writer states, "It brought me into a much vaster and richer reality than the one I’d inhabited. It awakened me to the blindingly fast progression of infancy to youth, adolescence into maturity".
Again, really? It's this I'm a deeper person than you because I have given birth attitude that drives me nuts. I swear , sometimes I feel woman just have to tell themselves this to rationalize bringing more kids into this insanely overpopulated world. And frankly, as someone who worked as a nanny for years and saw all types of women having kids (most who shouldn't have) I firmly believe too many people have kids for all the wrong reasons. And replicating (.e. cloning) oneself is the worst reason of all. This article sounds as if the writer's number one goal is to clone she and her husband. Well, as a liberal raised by two hard core republicans, keep in mind, parents don't always get what they wish for. :)
Something in nature will balance this out. Until then, educate teens and use birth control. Use resources wisely, recycle, and conserve energy. If we all hadn't been so greedy (by all I mean the entire human race since the beginning) we wouldn't have quite so much to worry about. Our predicament now is that we not only have to negate OUR footprint, but the footprints of all humans before us who took more than they left
Well said:)
Excellent article and I agree whole heartedly with both viewpoints.Some people make excellent parents, and some really do not want kids for a variety of reasons. Both ideas deserve respect.There certainly is no reason to fight over it. We need quality, not quantity, and the fewer children you have, the more focused attention you can give each one.
personally, i think that a lot of people should consider adoption. i understand a lot of people want that special genetic connection with their child, however you dont need genetics to have a special connection with your child. i know for a fact that despite not being related to my parents, i have a connection like i am.
having a child (hopefully) isn't just for selfish reasons, however i know several people who want kids for the experiences. but i hope that that's not the only reason most people have kids...
Well... I'm childfree since I was a kid, and I try to minimize my bad impact on the environment. Planet is already overpopulated and people still think about having more and more kids because of their selfishness. that's just nonsense.
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment