My parents had four children, and my partner’s 3. Of the 7 of us, only 3 are likely to reproduce (3 of us are childfree by choice, one’s gay and plans on adopting). My aunt has two children but only one grandchild and is unlikely to have any more. The net result here is that, although our families populations increased with my generation, they are likely to decrease again with the next generation and perhaps be even smaller than my parents’ generation.

*I’m using the term “marriage” throughout to refer to both marriage and marriage-like relationships (common-law, long-term committed cohabitation, etc.)

The world can not become a better place for living by itself. It is human being that makes the world a better place by their wisdom, education, and work. The environment problem can not be solved by not having children. But it can be solved by not producing/using any kind of weapons and/or explosives. Future generations will be different and will be more wised and fair that can help them live a better life, full of joy and pride.

You should be damn grateful the childfree exist, because they’re creating some wiggle room for you and your prolific family.

‘Nuff said!

Boxermom and Britgirl,
Sorry about the label. I do know that being infertile does not encompass my identity. It was not so much a slip as it was just a simpler label. Well, it sounded simpler than non-parent-half by-choice-half-not. I am not pining. Life is too short for that.

Lurker, I am in the U.S and it is trendy here to have four kids as well. Or rather a status symbol. It’s like a big house or an SUV. If they can afford a bunch of kids, they have them simply to let us all know they can afford them. I think it is mindless from all points of view, not just environmental.

I don’t make any particular effort to be “green” but neither do I waste stuff I don’t own a vehicle and more importantly don’t have kids. None of these was a green consideration – I am childfree because I prefer it.

I consider I already pay high enough taxes, which go towards other people having kids – but that’s the tax system for you. I think a tax break for those who don’t have kids would be excellent, but in the meantime I’ve set up a side business, which although it means I work harder at least means I get some of that tax back. I have one life and my intention is to enjoy everything this world has to offer

Per Emma Quinton… well by the time she’s had the 6 kids I would imagine the damage has already been done – it’s an interesting way to justify imagined “greeness”

@Waterbishop – I felt a little sad to hear you describe yourself as an infertile. I hope you take boxermom’s comment to heart… and reject that negative notion. Just because you’re unable to have children doesn’t mean you’re any less a person. And if it was a Freudian slip and you didn’t mean it that way – then that’s good.
@ Lurker – it will be interesting to see how they’re going to support the “new trendy symbol of 4 kids” with the economy in the state it is now. I presume they’ll be working parents Wait a minute… it’s not necessary.

Btw there will need to be lots and lots of babies created to be future taxpayers… and just look at the tax burden they will be taking on. It is not pretty. They will either need to be keen small business people – or, if they are employed they will be working forever.

I live in Europe. Here they talk about how 4 kids are the new trendy symbol of high status. Not exactly the right way to go..should instead called it the new symbol of selfish and mindless behaviour…at least from an environmental point of view..:)

Time to start understand that the CF are not the one being selfish and the CF should be the one with the tax-relief…simply due to environmental concerns.

No shit.

Our (I’m in America so can only talk from that POV) tax system encourages making babies. You get tax cuts when you have them. But I think that, in light of the current environment troubles, you should start being taxed for having people who will use up environment resources.

Enough with encouraging people having more people.

And actually get a tax break for those of us who don’t. It’s like, as long as you have not had a baby, you can continue to get that tax break. But once you have a kid, you have lost that tax break forever and will actually BE TAXED from that point forward.

One thing I want to add: this will never pass. There are more people with children than without and they don’t want to lose their tax breaks.

Minorities are becomming even minor. Soon there will not be any untouched ground on our planet.

Up to now developed countries could expand on behalf of the lesser developed societies. But with increasing population we see more proof of how we start “eating” ourself. The “excess” pool of people increase and I dont think its just because of any financial crisis.

I think the overpopulation has nothing to do with evolution but more with self-destruction.

The world would be a MUCH BETTER place with LESS people in it. As usual we never remove a problem by ignoring it or keep on going in the same wrong direction. If we want to keep on living we need restrictions on how many kids each person could have.

Time to start understand that the CF are not the one being selfish and the CF should be the one with the tax-relief…simply due to environmental concerns.

to Waterbishop – on a side note – Freudian slip or no, you are not “an infertile” as you wrote! You are much much more as a person than simply your ability to procreate! While I don’t know you, I am sure you have many interests and abilities that make you YOU and being infertile is a part of you not the whole. Not that my little opinoin matters but whatever you decide, fertility treatments, adoption, or the CF life, you have to see yourself as more than a pair of ovaries on standby. You don’t have to hate kids to be CF but you can’t be CF and pine away over ‘the kid you always wanted”. It’s a choice, either you want a child or two (or hell eight if you ask the right girl) or you think your life and your goals would be better off without that particular responsibility. Best of luck to you!!

They’re CHILDREN for pete’s sake!!!! What’s she saying – that they often used to sneak out in the middle of the night for their London-NewYork long haul, cheap thrills fix, until she put a stop to it by educating them on the environment…?
Is she going to guarantee that even when her kids are all 18 plus, and old enough to do what the hell they damn well like, that they are *never* going to fly long haul??
geeez.

Erm. Not. The fact is, the more people there are, the less area remains for something called “ecosystem services” — the bacteria, plants, insects, invertebrates and vertebrates which live, reproduce, and die in such ways that soil is created, water is cycled, air is cooled and heated and purified. All creature processes create “pollution,” but these organisms’ life cycles have developed to fit together so closely that byproducts from one species are fodder for another.

The more people there are, the more that ecosystem space is needed for living and working space, and for human food production, none of which contributes to these natural cycles in the forms practiced now.

Our current lifestyle and our current population are possible only because of artificial inputs (like petroleum). One very big part of the reason we’re heading toward trouble is there are so many people that cheap forms of energy are being used up, fast, and pollution is accumulating, fast.

As Miss M pointed out, if there were only a few people around, likely this wouldn’t be such a problem.

Typically, in Nature, when a population exceeds its resources, then a crash results.

But you can bet nobody with kids is going to look around and say “I am partly responsible.”

They’ll be too busy repeating all that garbage about CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE.