Monday, March 10, 2008

Environentalists Convince Themselves Breeding OK

Why Eco-Activists Still Have Children
If you only have two kids, you and your spouse merely replace yourselves, thus only temporarily adding to world overpopulation. If you only have one kid, then you leave the world with one less person when you and your spouse become compost. One argument for having a child or two is the quest to pass on "green" skills to the next generation. If it's only the thoughtless polluters and environment-rapers who breed, then eco-conscious people will take themselves out of the pool--kind of like the Shakers.
Why do so many ignore the fact that an ecoactivist child still pollutes and consumes far more than no child at all? (Pretending for a minute you can guarantee who your child will grow up to be) That adopting allows you to raise a child that way without contributing to overpopulation? I guess when it is convenient for them, eco-activists are just as capable as the next guy of convincing themselves their contribution to the problem is not that bad. Landfills are full of recyclable products thrown out by masses using the very same reasoning.

I threw my fears to the wind

This put things in perspective. I hated flying. So, like most people, I threw my fears to the wind. I was going to have a low-carbon, politically engaged child, and I wasn't going to think too far into the future. My husband, George Monbiot, an environmental campaigner, caved in.
Technorati Tag:


Mercurior said...

notice she says he caved in. giving the impression that she nagged him constantly for that baby..

"Before giving birth, I would have gritted my teeth and followed his advice. Now, as a mother, I fear that it would be like looking down from the tightrope, and that I would fall", so ignorance is bliss

she is happy not knowing the problems, she is causing the world, because she has a child.. what a selfish act

Anonymous said...

I completely disagree that decreasing the number of children you have improves the outlook for global warming, take a like at my posting to find out why:

L.T. said...

So, double the problem in order to increase the odds of finding a solution? One of the many problems with that logic is that our environment is not binary.

The greater overpopulation, the more extreme the remedies must be. So fewer people have a very good chance of solving the less complex problems of slight overpopulation, as compared to more geniuses searching for an even more elusive puzzle with more dire repercussions.

And if we practiced real constraint, and decrease the population, there is no problem to solve at all.

Feh23 said...

I know this sounds CRAZY but...the idea that people should be encouraged to have children to increase the chances of birthing another Pol Pot who will help decrease the surface population by killing off all those other kids folks had, is a BAD ARGUMENT for having children in my estimation. Then again, I stupidly and blindly agree with the millions of people around the world that "Mass murder is wrong" is a good thing. That's probably just the native american in me speaking though.

Unknown said...


So, if by your calculation, if we had a global population of 1 trillion people, we'd have 6 million geniuses, we'd be even *better* off than the 60,000 we'd have with 10 billion people?

Epic fail, right there.