Can a big family ever be truly green?

Vicky Allan · Can a big family ever be truly green?

Hello,

I'm actually a journalist for the Sunday Herald and I'm doing some research into an idea that I'm hearing more and more in green circles, that the greenest thing you can do is not to have children. I have a son, so I'm not living that ideal myself. But I wanted to canvas around and see what people thought of that idea, and how it made you feel as parents who did have children and were striving to bring them up as greenly as possible. I'm also looking for someone with a big family who might be willing to oppose the argument, or perhaps even just talk about any of your feelings on the subject. Is it something that troubles you? Do you feel that in fact your contribution is to bring more people into the world who do have an environmental conscience? You can contact me at vickallan@hotmail.com.

best

Vicky allan

wildgarlic

Just a quick word from me to say that Vicky has contacted me with proof that she is indeed a journalist from the Sunday Herald.

I'm looking forward to reading the article in due course!

Martin

In a word - "no"
Before I get lynched, that deserves a little qualification - for those families that now exist, obviously it doesn't apply, but for people embarking on marriage and raising a family nowadays, I think it's criminally insane NOT to take very real heed of the dangers of overpopulation - a retired American Professor sets out the proof here of precisely WHY - it isn't opinion, it's simple arithmetic - at some point mankind HAS to limit population - it is far better to do it now, voluntarily, and painlessly than in the future, when it may be too late for life on earth!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RdOk521m9WA
And part 1 of the 8 parts here of "The Most Important Video You'll Ever see"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
And the full 1 hour version here
http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
-personally, I'd make this lecture obligatory for all members of government, and all schoolchildren - it is jaw-droppingly good viewing, and really grabs you by the lapels 8)

IainC

Problem is, all the "sensible" people limit their offspring and the "stupid" (for want of a better word) don't and you still end up overrun by people.

Unless you are ready to sterilise people after 1 or 2 kids and/or kill all newborn babies that are born to people who already have x numbers of children then you are never going to stop it happening. That plus you then get into the situation where women are going elsewhere to have their babies, etc.

It can only be a voluntary thing from the parents to be to choose whether to have kids or not.

Martin

that's quibbling over how to achieve zero or decreasing population growth - it needn't be draconian if we act soon, if we don't we may have little choice but to adopt the most distasteful measures (or nature will do it for us)
As Professor Bartlett shows, what sounds like "innocent growth" is what is killing this planet - scientists are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of practising their black arts of GM and worse to feed an ever spiralling population, totally forgetting that all that would do is to hasten the demise of life on earth.
ALL of the environmental problems we are now facing have their roots in overpopulation - get to grips with that, the earth can recover, and those that are born have some hope of a good future - if we don't................

Ina

I'll probably be lynched, too.... I think it's irresponsible in this day and age to spend millions on people who are desperately trying to have children of their own. I even think that, maybe, the current problems with infertility in men and women are nature's way of telling us we should have fewer children!

Not all people who have many children are "stupid". Some just love having them, and are brilliant parents. Fair enough, I think. If then everybody who can't have them just accepted the fact, we'd be OK. But when I hear of women in their 50s or more going to all possible lengths to get pregnant, it makes me sick.

Oh, and I think it's perfectly possible for large families to be as green as smaller ones - or "DINKYs" (or singles like myself, as a matter of fact). I even think that a lot of larger families, because they have a (potentially) lesser amount of money to spend per person in that household, may even be greener - as they don't buy loads of gadgets for each child, and those they do buy get used several times over. It always seems to me cheaper to run a household for several persons sharing, anyway. You only have to heat one kitchen, one bathroom etc; cooking, too, can be more energy saving if you do it for several people rather than one.

Says one who has no children of her own, and should shut up, really.

monkey nuts

Very interesting video

makes you really think!!

Martin

it's "lapel grabbing", and there really is no argument against it, he points out inescapable FACTS not opinions...... 8)
I watched the first bit (the extract), then watched the lot in chunks at one sitting, like a good book, it's "unputdownable" - and he's one of those gifted people who really can teach! 8)

monkey nuts

Must agree with you there...wish he had been one of my teachers at school, might have done much better :oops:

misteralz

Christ on a bike, me agreeing with some of what Ina has said! I'm a firm believer in the fact that nature finds its own natural balance in much the same way that liquid always finds a level...
I think the HSE are largely to blame for overpopulation as well. Without them the idiots would be killing themselves with much greater ease. I'm gonna get lynched again, but some large scale genocide targeting the ones who either contribute nothing or merely disprove Darwin's theories would sort out an incredibly high number of the world's problems.
And if it does ever come to pass, I'm gonna reactivate an old Bren gun - or a General Electric 7.62mm minigun like Blaine uses in Predator - and take a drive through Torry.

IainC

Villagefarm

Nice to know I'm "stupid" then. At least it's official now!

BTW I think Ina's comments about larger families being able to be just as green etc, etc. show a much more balanced view.

IainC

Martin

here's where I do get lynched! There are certain religions (which will remain nameless) that regard contraception (other than abstension) as "sinful", and load people up with guilt trips for trying to save mankind from itself - if we are to take decisive action, this is an aspect that will have to be dealt with 8)

JamesB

heres my 2p worth.

I actually dont think its a big problem in the developed world, economics is a good limiting force and we need enough children to look after us all when we are old. The UK population has certainly gone up, but quite a bit to do with immigration. Unfortunately, developing countries have a much bigger problem and the developed countries should help them more.

We did think about having a family (first one due in a few weeks!) and decided that if we couldn't have one with IVF etc then we wouldn't.

James

Martin

something tells me that you haven't watched Prof Bartlett - it IS a problem for the whole world, not just the developing world! 8)

Jessica

Martin

this isn't suggesting lopping off his lordship's membrum virilis, or that the pill is in itself a good way to achieve contraception (like you I agree about the disastrous consequences of pill residues), BUT there's no escaping the fact that at some point we have to practice population control - the sooner we do it, the less painful it will be, and the more chance there is of actually preserving human life on earth. I would suggest that rather than hurling money at those things that will only hasten our demise as a species (GM, chemical farming, nuclear power etc) we should spend some money on developing safe, natural contraception! 8)
It is no big deal to limit familes to one or two kids for a generation or four - if you contemplate the horsemen of the apocalypse that face us if we don't, it's actually a very simple, and not too onerous a step to take - if you consider the alternatives - (otherwise, as Prof Bartlett says, nature will choose from the right hand column) 8)

Jessica

That certainly does not hurt - after all that is what China is doing - for how many generations now? - unfortunately I do not know numbers on population decrease and effectiveness.

It would be interesting to work out how long it would take until a desirable number of people is reached - then - what is a desirable number? - or shall we just keep it as it is?

Anyway, I do not think that any such measures would be taken globally and nature will take its way from its various options (bird flu, earthquakes, flooding, famine, ...)

Martin

I think you've hit the nail on the head - this is precisely the sort of debate we should be having - like how small a population we should aim for, rather than the utterly brainless of this world (like Professor Philip Stott of Radio 4's "Home Planet" fame) who lamely intones that we MUST adopt chemical and GM farming to feed the coming teeming hordes........giving no thought whatsoever that such measures would just enable even more people to end life on earth that bit more quickly and certainly!

Sassinak

I restricted my family to 2 and was lucky enough to get a boy and a girl, who got on extremely well

When my son died 4 years ago, for the first time I regretted not having another child. Not to try and replace him, you can never do that, but my daughter is now on her own and has said herself that she worries about her children if anything should happen to her. I could take them on initially, but I am not getting any younger and would really struggle to look after 3 year old twins as well as the older lads.
So yes, population control is essential, but it has to be accepted that there are drawbacks to it as well

Stonehead

Hmm, a big family would be greener on a smallholding or croft. Three or four children could replace a tractor, another couple could pump and fetch water so no electric pump, and another couple could collect firewood so no oil-fired heating. I wonder if the Other Half could be interested in another six children...

Sassinak

rofl
That is certainly how life used to be, and I think we were all healthier for it. I should imagine you would be prosecuted for cruelty if you tried to get your kids to carry water and collect firewood nowadays

JamesB

In britain the average new family is 1.8 children, so mathematically the population will stabilise and then reduce (once increased life expectancy has stabilised) so unless there is immigration the pop will go down. therefore even though the problem effects the UK, the solution does lie in helping developing countries (which would cut immigration).

James

P.s just reread this and it sounds like im against immigration, im certainly not. Britain needs immigration. However, from a purely population view then immigration has caused the population of the UK to go up.

Vicky Allan · Wow

Lots of interesting debate up here. Would any of you be willing to pitch in your views for my piece in an interview? My work email is vicky.allan@sundayherald.com. The idea with my article is it should form part of a debate that will continue online. So, anyone who talks with me, will also get a chance to have further debate and comeback online. I'm getting the scientists, economists and experts to take part in this too, but it's really important to me that real people contribute their thoughts and feelings.

Vicky Allan · And thanks

Martin, for the link to the video. Bartlett has a great way of putting the issues. I take it you're not in Scotland?

Martin

sorry Vicky, I'm one of those interlopers from the faroff lands of the South
(just North of Eastbourne)

Can a big family ever be truly green?

Wow

And thanks