|
 Most of us acknowledge that our planet needs some extra lovin' these days. So we're trying to do our part. We recycle, eat local foods, buy reusable shopping bags, and some of us even drive hybrid vehicles. Our attempts to reduce global warming have gotten a lot of people excited about "going green". But what if you had to choose between saving the environment and having children?
Concern about overpopulation has people talking about the environmental effects that each person inflicts. One movement wants everyone stops having children today. The Voluntary Human Existence Movement (VHEMT) believes that only when humans become extinct can the Earth fully recover. Their motto, "Live Long and Die Out" summarizes their views. Still, the VHEMT isn't against babies. "'Having babies' isn't the problem—having adults is what's causing the problems" their website explains.
VHEMT's concerns about children are that they will grow-up to be fossil-fuel consuming adults. Instead of bringing more children into the world, the VHEMT suggests adoption, becoming a foster parent, teaching children, or working with a Big Brother – Big Sister program. Other suggestions include "nurturing Earth's 'other children'" such as habitat restoration, reforestation, and other outdoor activities.
Of course not everyone believes that an end to human reproduction is necessary. Instead, others are pushing for a "one per couple" initiative. Alan Weisman, author of The World Without Us, says that if everyone had just one child the population would be reduced by about five billion people over the next century. Weisman also assets that each child that is brought into the world can double the carbon-dioxide emissions from your family throughout their lives.
Babies don't produce as much as greenhouse gas as adults, but they will when they grow-up. Consequently, Weisman argues that having one child would lead to a planet where people are able to enjoy a more spacious world and would be able to see the world return to a more beautiful state. As a way to institute this policy it has been suggested that taxation should be placed on families that choose to have more than one child. Others have pointed out that this will only deter people from choosing to adopt a child.
This isn't the first time the topic of having one child has arisen. In 1999, environmentalist Bill McKibben published the book Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families. While I haven't read the book (yet), I did read an excerpt that I found to be very interesting. The excerpt noted studies that have been done on only-children, proving that these children are just as normal and healthy (or more) than those from larger families. Even more, this book talks about the effect that large families have on the environment, compared to those with only one child. Although McKibben was roundly criticized when the book was published, some people are starting to think differently because of it.
While I've only hear murmurs of this topic on the Internet, no major reports or initiatives have been proposed to the masses. Data and statistics may still be unclear at this point, but I don't think that this topic is going to fade away. In fact, I would be very surprised if we don't start to see more of this kind of discussion.
Here's what I want to know:
- The United Nations (UN) has predicted that our current global population of approximately 6.5 billion people is likely to increase to 9.2 billion by the year 2050. Are humans out of control when it comes to reproduction?
- Many advocacy groups focus on individual lifestyle choices rather than broaching the topic of family size. Are "population control" and "family size" too taboo for people to discuss?
- Do you think that if everyone had one child it would make that much of a difference?
- What other solutions are available?
| 
Re: Reproduction Reduction
