Would you stop having kids to save the planet?

Featured Debate 30

We've talked some about overpopulation, etc. in Featured Debate 14: Should governments limit population growth as well as in the Least Green Thing You Do thread.  But let's get right down to it....

Personally speaking...would you stop having kids to save the planet?  That's right, you personally.  And would it do any good?

[Disclaimer: We at Huddler do not necessarily think that having kids is the opposite of saving the planet.  We are aware that the phrasing of the question may be somewhat leading.  But it's really just meant to stimulate conversation.  So let's remember not to attack anyone's personal choices.  Let's keep it nice and friendly, k?  K, good.]

Well, I haven't started, so I can't stop!

Personally I do think that overpopulation is one of the key contributors to most of our environmental problems, and thus I'm going to try not to contribute to it.  I don't think we'll have more than one kid (and possibly zero), and I'd consider adoption if the time comes where we're considering having a kid.

My answer? No. I'm not always 100% sure that I want to have children, but I do believe strongly in my right to do so. Also, if everyone stopped, that doesn't really work either :)

This also brings to mind a story from Beijing. I went on a tour of the Great Wall and our guide was a neat guy named Ning (I'll upload a video of him ASAP.) He was talking about how he got into his line of work and what his life is like. He mentioned the governmental restriction that families can only have 1 child each, but it wasn't said with regret or anger, he simply said that the Chinese people know it's what is ultimately best for the their families (because most are poor and properly raising children is not cheap no matter where you are,) and best for the country. He understood that resources are finite and he claimed that his countrymen feel the same way.

It was very interesting. Maybe he was just putting on a happy face for the crowd, but he certainly didn't pull any punches on other topics.

Anyway, for the debate - no, I wouldn't. I'd hope that my family and I can contribute more to the solutions than the problems.

I think I've already outed myself in Debate 14, but yeah, I'm hoping for 3ish kids.  And I'm studying to be a teacher, so that will give me umpteen more.  I realize that this is making a big environmental impact, but I'm with deej in hoping that by going into this eyes wide open, we can minimize the harm and increase the good.  I'm out to raise my liberal army! :)

I think we all know where Mike Judge stands on this one; I submit, for your consideration, the introduction to Idiocracy:

I made the decision to remain childless twenty years ago.When my parents started bugging me, I just pointed to my younger brother ;)

I wouldn't not have kids to save the planet, but then I don't believe that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for global warming either, so having more kids doesn't ruin the earth IMO.

Now, I don't even want kids right now, but in a few years I may, who knows?

As for the Chinese thing, that's great they are trying to deal with their population issues, however they have now created a new problem. The 4-2-1 issue, right now there are 4 grandparents, being supported by 2 parents, who are also nearing retirement age, who will then all have to be supported by 1 grandchild. Whether directly, or indirectly via their communist system. China is going to have a major shortage of workers in the next 40 years; that's going to hurt their economy a lot.

...must....resist....temptation.....to......go.......off.........topic..............!!!

Wow, this is a super interesting flip-side to the otherwise beneficial (in terms of overpopulation) impact of the government's restriction on child-bearing.  I hadn't thought of this!  It's especially important to consider given the cultural tradition of children supporting their parents, and the way their retirement is set up (that communist system you refer to -- they tend to receive very early and generou retirement packages).  How are corporations going to support all of these retirees with a shrinking workforce?

Interesting...has there been much public debate over/interest in this issue?

Again, not to get too far off topic, there is another interesting issue in China which I studied briefly back when I was in school.

So the one-child policy has had pretty significant implications for sex-ratio imbalances (a.k.a. China's missing girls or infanticide of [or sex-selection against] baby girls).  But now...another issue is coming up.  I mentioned it briefly in the "Should governments..." thread.  I'll go into a little more since we're talking about China a bit.

It's called the "bare branch" phenomenon.  Basically, there's a generation of young men who are coming of age in China....who will be unable to find wives.  There just aren't enough women to go around.  So there are these men...they are bare branches.  They are members of the family tree with no chance of bearing fruit. 

They have no hope of having children and keeping their family line going.  That means their actions have no consequences for their future generations.  So some of these bare branches turn to violent crime and gang formation.  And that can lead to social instability.  Here's a pretty interesting article from the Washington Post about it.

And of course...what about the nations with decreasing populations?  The countries that give away prizes for the first baby born in the new year (I think Russia did that)?