http://www.care2.com/greenliving/too-many-children.html
Too Many Children?
When I first toyed with the idea of writing a parenting blog, I thought a key issue (at least for me) with having children, was the tremendous impact (both positive and negative) that one or several children would have on our already burdened planet. The act of bringing a child into this world is the equivalent of a cosmic crap shoot, or a blind leap of faith, hoping that the thin reed that holds this whole project earth together will maintain long enough for our kids to grow up and undo all the horrendous and ignorant mistakes we had committed in the recent past. But ultimately, the gesture of having a child, in itself, is such an affirmative and optimistic action that it threatens to undo any pragmatic misgivings one may have about bringing a child into this world. But how about eight, or 10, or 14?
As sited in a recent New York Times article by Kate Zernike, the average size of families (as in number of children) has fallen drastically from the large, rambling brood of the mid-20th century to a more conservative one or two per couple (2.1 to be exact). This trending down has been gradual, and has cast the notion of more than three or four children to be almost excessive in the eyes of the majority of the population. What was once seen as “normal” to have a gaggle of children is now often looked upon as impractical, untenable, or downright irresponsible. This sort of judgment is no more evident than in the current furor and hullabaloo over Nadya Suleman, recent mother of octuplets in addition to her existing six children (14 total, if anyone is counting). Controversy aside, the lasting thorny issue is the outstanding impact of breeding, on both a conservative and sometimes excessive level.
Many parents with large families argue, besides the obvious benefits of constant companionship among siblings, that they have an economy of scale that consists of lots of children, yes, but children that pool and utilize the same resources over and over again (think commune). However, those that don’t subscribe to the more is less concept, scoff at the idea of multiple children and see it as a gratuitous drain on our, already beleaguered, resources.
How much is too many? Is there any value to the Chinese model, which limits procreation to one child per family, or can we learn from the Mormon ideology of abundance with children that populate the earth with good intentions? Like other forms of conservation, should we, as parents, curb our hunger for large families, at least until we sort out our deficits and shortages? Or just maybe, is it nobody’s business?
Feel free to chime in.
Eric Steinman is a freelance writer based in Rhinebeck, N.Y. He regularly writes about food, music, art, architecture and culture and is a regular contributor to Bon Appétit among other publications.
related stories
-
(6 comments)
-
(2 comments)
-
(18 comments)
Robyn
Melissa
Deepak
Eric
Dave
Dr. Brent
Isha
Susan
Delia
Michelle
Wendy
Megan
Hilary
Ann
Judi
Ronnie
Kelly
Lily
Terri
Betsy
Cait
Andrew
Jana
Annie B.
Veronica
167 comments
add your comment »I don't think it's a matter of placing a # on how many kids you can have. My bf had 8 siblings, and a nice house... he had a wonderful childhood. He had dogs, and puppies, and even a pet skunk....
I think having many children is perfectly fine as long as you are able to support them all.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
3 kids max unless you're on welfare then 0.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I've not read every response to this post, but I don't think that I really have to. First, I think lumping children and pets together is is inappropriate. While each might be had for the sake of connection, pets do not tend to represent (unless you own a tortoise or macaw) a lifelong commitment. Neither do most pets add dirty disposable diapers to landfills, bus or carpool to school or be sent to rehab when their parents can't or won't bear the responsibility for caring for them properly.
I seriously doubt that anyone here has suggested that children need to disappear. But when otherwise socially and environmentally conscientious people talk themselves into thinking that they can offset the environmental cost of having children by shutting off the lights and insulating the house, there is something wrong, and that "wrongness" works the same way as much of human folly does by rationalizing what really cannot be rationalized.
No one has asked you folks to live like hermits - or even stop having children, for that matter. No one has asked you to foresake joy. As for "trading the world" for something that you don't find rewarding, I think you need to ask yourself what constitutes a reward and not make those of us who choose not to have children out to be joyless demons bent on turning the world into something from out of "The Children of Men."
If you feel judged, it is clear that's likely because we've often answered for ourselves quesions that you choose not to address.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
it is unsurprising that the human race is becoming a bitter and despoiled slag heap with all the resentment it puts upon it's members. The earth may well be going through change but it is not the first time, this is all a process of evolution. If we as a species have reached the end of our evolution then we will begin to die out soon anyway and if we are still evolving then hopefully some of our childrens children will survive the climate change. I have two children who i love dearly and I have cared for many more, it is not always fun or even rewarding but i would not trade it for "the world" I am very environmentally concious but I am also not willing to stop living in order to keep the world the same. All change is hard, from death and injury to birth and even relocation but if the alternative is to do nothing then why even exist?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Call me sentimental, but I cannot imagine a world without children or pets. Without the love and companionship of other creatures, life can be desperately lonely, especially in these hard times when going out and painting the town isn't feasible. To say that you can't be green and have either children or pets is insane. You can, of course, have too many. I have friends who love pets and have housefuls of them - and when a crisis comes along, what happens to the pets? What happens to a family of 14 children if the parents lose their jobs? Responsible parenting and pet ownership together with a green lifestyle is the ideal, but at this point people who want to live a green lifestyle, whether or not they have children or pets, are at a disadvantage because it's hard to be able to make total use of groundwater, solar energy, houses with adequate insulation for cold climates so as to minimize heating bills, etc. Instead of condemning those who don't want to live like a hermit, why not read up on the best way to be green and still have the comfort of children or pets. If you're a hermit at heart, that's fine. But don't maintain that your choice is the only one. With a little ingenuity, you can have both.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I'm 41, single, and have neither children nor pets, and that's by choice. You cannot be 'green' and be environmentally conscious, when you have a ton of children and pets, no matter how many hybrid cars you drive, how much you reuse and recycle or how much organic food you consume. You cannot reduce your carbon footprint if you create more 'carbon'.
I think people have children because they can, but never think about whether or not they should. Child rearing is not for the faint hearted, wishy-washy, impatient, emotionally unavailable, insecure, selfish or mentally unstable person. Yet most people who have children have one or more of these issues. If you have one, you don't need two, if you have two, you don't need another. I've noticed recently among the folks I know, when a couple decides to have that third baby, that means the relationship is on the way out, and usually, that's true. Instead of dealing with the issues within themselves and the relationship, (or face up to the fact that it might indeed be over,) the baby serves as a band-aid to be used as pawn (along with the other kids) later on in the divorce.
I think if people were more honest with themselves, looked inward, dealt with their issues, and worked on improving their well-being, then we would see less children, because more thought would be given to it.
Of course, the Western world would collapse, because if population decreased, there would be less people buying essential items and useless jun
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Ainsley Jo:
It is not just a matter of "global warming". In 1960 the U.S. population was about 180 Million. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau projects a U.S. population of 439 Million-- nearly a 40% increase over today's 306 Million.
How do you plan to feed, house, educate and employ all these people WITHOUT tearing up more resources?
The Census Bureau also reports that 71.7% of U.S. women responsibly complete their families with two or fewer children (including zero). We were warned during the 1960s, yet 28.3% have more than two. Why do these women think they are superior? Nadia Suleman and the other mega moms take this arrogance to the extreme.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
(the last of three parts)
Could it also be that people have been led to believe that they "should" hate on Octomom or else be thought of in the same way that she has been described: selfish, crazy, dishonest, immature, irresponsible?
Remember how a bunch of crooks almost had an entire kingdom duped into believing that their king was wearing clothes that only the worthy could see?
Not wanting to be thought of as unworthy, the people faked seeing his clothes until an innocent and confused child at the parade blurted out: "But he has nothing on!"
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
(continued from another comment...)
Do you know what has bothered me the most about the story of Nadya "Octomom" Suleman and her family?
It's not that she had so many kids. It's not even that she had more kids than she could realistically afford.
My concern doesn't come from her but, instead, from how too many in society want her to fail.
They don't want her getting government assistance--but neither does she.
But what's all of this threatening to boycott (or even worse) companies that have helped other large families in the past?
What's all of this wanting to boycott networks who want to develop a television show of sorts around her family?
If you don't want her to depend on government assistance, then why are you obsessed with pressuring people who could help her to make an honest living to slam doors in her face? That really doesn't make a lot of sense to me...
Could it be that some people see her as a threat for reasons that have nothing to do with population growth or tax dollars?
She's unconventional when--due to the shakiness of the world situation--we don't want people to be different. The different kids get taunted in school while the powers-that-be nod and wink.
People are having a difficult time keeping their teens in line even when there might be only one or two kids in the family--so is there a fear that this mother of 14 will show them up in some way by being a more successful parent?
(to be continued...)
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
My maternal grandparents had seven children. The first one was too premature to survive birth. Of the six surviving kids, a son died at 24 and was childless. Another son married at 52 to a widow with five kids, one still at home. Those kids had everything from a couple of kids to four or five. Another son married a woman with one son who had five kids. Another son never married or had kids. The two daughters had a daughter apiece--both childless.
My paternal grandparents had two sons and two daughters (four kids). One daughter had one son who had one son who's, currently, still single and childless. Another daughter had a son and a daughter. Son is childless. Daughter had four. Three of her four have children--everything from an only child to four or five kids. One son had one daughter (me, of course) who is childless. Another son had two sons and three daughters. One of his sons is married and the other isn't. Both are childless. Two of his daughters had only children (sons) with one still single and childless and the other married and with a baby. One of his daughters had three children. One is still in grade school. There's one or two grandchildren from one or both of the older two.
In short, it all pans out, imo.
I don't believe that there are that many people who want to have kids upon kids, so these people like Nadya and The Duggers aren't going to make all of the ice caps melt and give St. Louis, MO oceanfront property.
(to be continued.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account: