web metrics
Browse by:
Get daily news round-up
Columns & Opinion

Opinion: Telling people not to have children for the sake of the environment is cruel and baseless

cute%2520baby-thumbsdga.jpg

Was anyone else appalled by a report last week by the Optimum Population Trust, which argued that families should restrict themselves to two children because it is no longer responsible, or environmentally friendly, to bring three, four or more into the world? The thinktank, dedicated to reducing population growth and its effects on the world, would seem to most to be a little off the planet rather than saving it. The fact is, as the Guardian who publicised the report pointed out, immigration is now the main reason for population growth in the UK, and according to the National Statistics Online births are no longer the main cause of population increase. With such an overwhelming fact, it seems outrageous for the Optimum Population Trust to suggest that we should have less children for the sake of the environment. Their report seems baseless on that fact alone.

But there is another, perhaps stronger and more humane, reason for not curtailing bringing children into the world…

Related stories: Too many children is bad for the environment | The Green Parent Magazine

Bringing children into the world is one of the most beautiful things a person can do, for those, of course, who want to. We live in a free-society, and whilst all societies must realise their limits in order to maintain a healthy existence, curbing people who want to have children has to be one of the last things to go. The fact is that it appears to me the argument is flawed. We are well aware that we can cut our CO2 emissions to almost zero by mere human will and the clever technology that already exists, without curtailing bringing new life into the world. Are we really that selfish that we would rather deny people the chance of life rather than change our own lifestyles a little bit? I personally would rather be a vegetarian, spend a little more on organic vegetables, walk to work, and spend a few thousand pounds on green technology than not have the most basic and powerful human pleasure and honour of bringing new people into our beautiful world - and that's from a non-vegetarian. I’m sorry for my outspokenness here, but on this one I couldn’t keep silent.

Posted by Jonathan Kalmus on July 16, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://shinymedia.headshift.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/42535

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Opinion: Telling people not to have children for the sake of the environment is cruel and baseless:

Comments

Nice ideas, but in reality the world population is increasing at an unsustainable rate and as the amount of land available to live on gets smaller due to rising sea levels, water shortages and desertification, all those exta people are going to be crammed into an ever smaller amount of space leading to inevitable conflicts over dwindling resources. So carry on having babies if you want to, but I'm not sure how much of a "beautiful world" there will be to live in in 30 years time when your children are deciding if they themselves want to bring noew people into the world.

Posted by: Martin | July 16, 2007 3:17 PM

I appreciate your outspokenness and am slightly confused by the Optimum Birth Trust. I don't doubt that they are well meaning but when you consider that the birth rate in the UK is 1.77 children per woman (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=951) then ??? I really think they should be focusing on two main points: it is the quantity of resources a population uses which is more important and ONLY equal rights for women and access to sex education and family planning have been proven to limit population growth. Strangely enough most women don't want to have children ad infinitum!
And I am biased as I have more than two . .

Posted by: emma | July 16, 2007 10:18 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Optimum Population Trust saying all families, not just those in the UK, should limit their size to 2 children (which is not telling people to have no children). And isn't it true that most immigrants are leaving their homeland due to overpopulation and the resulting lack of resources and job opportunities?
I agree with Martin that unbiased sex education (including the elimination of the ridiculous Global Gag Rule we impose) and access to health care will indeed help curb the population. But is it so wrong to also point out the benefits to limiting (not eliminating) the size of a family? I understand that this is a passionate issue, but population is a huge factor and I believe addressing this is important.

Posted by: alicia | July 17, 2007 7:39 PM

The Economist has run a story a few times citing studies that the best way to optimize family size is to put girls in school. When girls and women become part of the education stream, they make more money, delay their first child until a time when they can more likely afford it, and they are less likely to have more children than they can handle.

Posted by: rob | July 24, 2007 10:33 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.