The latest news in promoting a “green” lifestyle says that to truly make the biggest impact, don’t have any kids.
Well, they say, have fewer kids, but what exactly is the definition of “fewer?” For people like the Duggars, fewer would qualify as twelve. For people such as myself, fewer equals only one. And for others who only want one, that would mean zero.
Is this the latest ploy to make people feel guilty for having kids? There seems to be a large anti-kid contingent around lately, ranging from those who think kids have no place in a restaurant that doesn’t have a drink dispensing machine, to this article purporting we could save the planet if we all just went away.
I understand the point they are making, that obviously less people on the planet correlates to less greenhouse emissions and use of resources, simply because there wouldn’t be as many beings to emit the gases and use the resources in the first place. Completely logical, Mr. Spock.
However, in most First World nations, the birth rate is already declining. It is the developing countries who still have the higher birth rates, and I think that the ultimate way to decrease population growth is actually to make those countries prosper more.
I do consider myself a fairly liberal person, but the idea of limiting children, when there are so many other things that could be done first, sort of boggles my mind.