Friday, May 07, 2010

Child-free conservationism

When I was younger (and it was still an option whether or not to have children) I sometimes wanted them and sometimes didn't. I often strongly believed that it was wrong to add to the severe problem our world has of overpopulation. That is the approach taken by Chris Bolgiano in her article entitled "My Mother's Day Gift to the Planet: Not Having Kids". Here's a little bit of what she says:

Although few journalists cover this angle, almost every environmental disaster is caused by overpopulation - but not the kind many assume. It's not the black and brown babies of the developing world that most threaten our planet, but our own desire for stuff - a hunger for iPods and starter castles.

American consumption, and the global pollution associated with supplying it, is unsurpassed. It takes a Third World village to use all the resources that a single American consumes and, often, wastes every day. So even though the birthrate in America is historically low, curbing it further would be a good place to begin when trying to save the world. I am pleased to do my part.
It seems to me that the encouragement of childfree couples is crucial to saving the planet.

I agree.

There are many other ways of contributing to the nuturing of the next generation without biologically reproducing. And so even though I'm sad at times that I never had children of my own, I'm also really glad that the children I do have are of the spiritual variety.

1 comment:

  1. Ellie, I have not had children, for much the same reasons, though I thought about whether I wanted to or not too. Sometimes I think it would have been nice to, but most of the time I think I made the right choice. And I agree completely with Chris Bolgiano.


New policy: Anonymous posts must be signed or they will be deleted. Pick a name, any name (it could be Paperclip or Doorknob), but identify yourself in some way. Thank you.