A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
He wasn’t too surprised. “I think human reproduction is such a strongly selected-for behavior that any time you draw attention to possible negative consequences of it, you get a very strong reaction,” he says.
Murtaugh, 54 — who is single with no children, but hasn’t made that a conscious decision — doesn’t want people to interpret any social message from his statistical analysis.
“Already, people have extrapolated our results into suggesting we’re implying that some restriction on reproductive freedom is called for,” he says. “We don’t say that ... We want this to be an additional piece of information that prospective parents consider when making a choice to have children, or how many to have.”
Nationally, the overpopulation dilemma has been a hot topic lately since bloggers dug up a 1977 book called “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” co-authored by John P. Holdren, President Barack Obama’s top science and technology adviser. The text advocates for population-control measures including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory body implants that would prevent couples from having children.
Anecdotal evidence suggests concern for the ecosystem is a common factor Portland couples cite when deciding to remain childless.
It was one of the reasons why Marc Higbie, 31, and Kattie Gardner, 26, of Northeast Portland chose not to have kids after they married three years ago.
Neither has ever had a strong urge to raise a family, they say. They also didn’t want the financial burden of raising children.
The more they thought about it, the more they were glad not to add another footprint to the Earth. “We’re inching up on seven billion people,” Gardner says. “I don’t want one more, especially if I’m not ready or willing to raise them.”
The couple also says that with their busy lifestyles, having a child would crimp their efforts to be sustainable by doing things like biking when they can, buying organic and looking into installing solar panels on their home.
“If I had a kid, as much as I’d like to say we’d use cloth diapers, I know we wouldn’t,”Gardner says. “I know we’d be a lot less prone to being ecologically conscious, out of convenience.”
jenniferanderson@portlandtribune.com
Recycle newspaper, magazines, glass, plastic and aluminum cans 17
Replace old refrigerator with energy-efficient model 19
Replace 10 incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient ones 36
Replace single-glazed windows with energy-efficient windows 121
Reduce miles driven from 231 to 155 per week 147
Increase car’s fuel economy from 20 miles per gallon to 30 148
Reduce number of children by one 9,441
Data is derived from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s personal emissions calculator and calculations by OSU statistics professor Paul Murtaugh. Annual totals were multiplied by 80, to reflect life expectancy of a woman in the U.S.
Source: Paul Murtaugh
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
This is a 'duh' question, but since we are rapidly approaching both 7 billion people and global idiocracy, it's nice that someone asked it and came up with a statistically valid answer.
For more on this topic the one best resource imho is www.paulchefurka.ca
(email verified)
Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:45 PM
So, you're saying - we all stop having children, no human life continues, and the earth is left to be beautiful for the animals to enjoy.
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:10 AM
How to begin? The author and the couple interviewed have chosen not to have children because they want to save the environment. Really? What if your child might have been the one to invent an efficient, solar-powered car? I truly feel sorrow for those who do not have hearts for children. Children are our greatest resource and source of hope.
By the way, did you know that the entire population of the world can fit in the state of Connecticut with getting their feet wet? Do the math :)
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:47 AM
I think it needs to be stated that the people in the article, whether its the researchers or the couples, are not saying that human reproduction should cease altogether, but rather that it's a personal choice, and one that goes conveniently hand-in-hand with today's Earth-friendly craze.
While children may be a blessing, some people take the time to really think and realize they're not the parenting type. Why are those people dehumanized or shamed? With so many people having children without thinking about the consequences and without the means to care for a child/children properly, I applaud those who make the conscious choice to take control of their reproductive freedom... and that could mean having children or NOT having children. Just because you have the ability to procreate doesn't mean you HAVE to exercise it.
Plus, if you're really upset about the article, just remind yourself that, luckily, these people aren't breeding. ;)
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51 PM
The list of savings is incomplete: What would your Carbon savings be if you took advantage of Oregon's Physician Assisted Suicide law?
Those of us choosing to remain in the gene pool thank you for your righteous discretion.
(email verified)
Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Love your response, Honest Questioner. I also have a question--if having a child in the usual fashion is so hideous, why not consider adopting a child who needs a good,green-oriented home? If the do-gooders truly wanted to do good, that would be a God-send for a child who needs a permanent home. And for those who ask, why haven't I adopted? I have, and it's one of the best things I've ever done.
(email verified)
Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 09:30 PM
Another way to look at our impact was devised by William Rees of the University of BC: ecological footprint. Adding up all the area required to provide everything we use, including ocean resources, gives us a good idea of how large a "footprint" we make on Earth. It's basically an Environmental Impact Statement.
The average Earthling uses 5.5 acres and Earth provides 4.4 acres of biologically productive land, so we're already well into overshoot of carrying capacity. In a sense, at the end of September we have used up all the resources in our "annual account" and for the next three months are living on resources borrowed from the future.
By choosing to not create another of us, a couple in the US avoids converting 24 acres of wildlife habitat into human habitat for a lifetime. That's about 80 to 160 times longer than Oregon's Physician Assisted Suicide law, which usually only avoids around six to 12 months of this impact.
As long as there are children in need of parents, adoption is a wonderful way to fulfill a couple's desire to raise a child. We should also help avoid the unfortunate circumstances which result in orphans.
Rather than creating more of us and hoping one will solve our overpopulation problems, we should nurture existing children and provide opportunities for them to achieve their full potential.
(email verified)
Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:41 AM
Though I love my new husband and I think we'd have a wonderful baby, we're likely not having a child either. Overpopulation has simply become too huge a problem. People who love children should consider the future that these children will inherit if we continue mindlessly adding people to the world without a plan of how they will all be fed and even how they will all find drinking water.
Adoption and becoming a foster parent are both wonderful options that Lee and I will consider when the time is right. With all the wonderful children in the world who need a home I am continually flummoxed (and, yes, sometimes angered) by people who find it necessary to have more than two children. It used to be a necessity in the days when many children died and were needed to work the farm. Today it is only decadent. If we want a healthy future for any children, we need to start reducing our impact on the environment.
Oh - also - Portland Tribune, you really should add reducing or eliminating animal products from your diet to your list of "carbon-friendly" behavior. It's pretty common knowledge now that eliminating meat from the diet has just as much of an effect as changing your mode of transportation and way more than stuff like replacing your light bulbs. It's time to get serious and start making real changes that matter, not just dillying with light bulbs.
Here's a report on one study, but reports are proliferating from other organizations too, including the UN: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=1856817&page=1
If people are grown up enough to stop having children, they can certainly put down the hamburger!
(email verified)
Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Thanks to the Tribune for publishing this piece. It's not easy to bring these sorts of issues to light, because people have strong feelings on them, but it is something that should be discussed if we are to be honest about our actions and their impacts.
My own personal opinion is that having children should be a very well-thought out decision for a variety of reasons, and this only adds one more concern to the list. If someone hypothetically decided not to have a child because of the reasons discussed in this article, presumably it is done out of concern for preserving a world that other people's children can inhabit. They certainly don't deserve derision for this choice.
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:15 PM
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I am a happy "carbon using" mom of three, and proud of it. Children are worth MORE than this stance. Human LIFE!
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:41 PM
Wouldn't it be interesting if the only endangered species was Homo Sapians. We are the enemy. No other species is so destructive.
(email verified)
Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
Sheesh! Why do you people feel so guilty about your own existence?
(email verified)
Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 08:05 AM
I have 4 of them and reading this crap makes me want to have one more. The stupidity of so called professors is simply mind numbing. The worst part is that most of them use our money to do their "research."
(email verified)
Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 07:49 PM
Maybe some "lefties" can make the ultimate sacrifice and commit suicide. If you think human life is such a threat to the environment, then how can you possibly live with yourself as a person?
Ughhh, it gets annoying how extreme people are by trying to not be like the generation before them- that they actually are doing a 360 degrees and being just as annoying as their parents by being ultra green!
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Who will pay for your social security in old age if the population of the US declines through lower birth rates? Who will be your doctor and caregiver when you are old if the population decreases and there is no one to care for you? With no children or family you'd better hope you have a bunch of great friends that plan on outliving you!
(email verified)
Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:58 PM
The whole premise of carbon pollution is faulty, and this is an example of the Chicken Littles in our society taking that notion to its absurd extreme.
"Humans must sacrifice for the well being of mosquitoes, snail darters and banana slugs."
(email verified)
Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 07:52 AM
I can't believe people are still willing to ignore the population issue.
In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau made yearly population predictions for 2000-2100. Their predictions included four series of numbers, and the current U.S. population falls under their “high” series. If the U.S. population continues on the high side, then they predict a 2100 population of 1.182 billion. That is close to the current population of India. I'm glad I won't be around to see it; I feel sorry for the generations that will live with less open space and more congestion.
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.pdf
(email verified)
Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 01:00 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The Gresham Outlook
Sustainable feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Is having a baby not so carbon friendly?
I'm a pro-life activist in Portland. Babies are a blessing not a "carbon curse."
"Debbie"
(email verified)
Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:21 PM