3 ms·

First, not having kids in no way guarantees that you will live lightly on the land. Plenty of childless people drive cars, take air plane flights for vacations,

by Mz 10y ago

First, not having kids in no way guarantees that you will live lightly on the land. Plenty of childless people drive cars, take air plane flights for vacations, own big homes and generally live a consumerist lifestyle to the max. Second, simply having kids does not, by itself, mean you will add all kinds of burden to the system. When I wrote a college paper some years back for an Environmental Law class, a typical American kid consumed something like 200 times the resources as a typical kid in India. Your argument in no way holds any water. It sounds like you basically are saying you want to be personally rewarded in some way for not having kids. Generally speaking, not having kids frees you up to put your time and energy into your job and hobbies and what have you while not having to pay the costs involved in having a kid. That seems like plenty "reward" to me if you do not even want kids to begin with.

jelliclesfarm 10y ago
I wasn't making an argument. Listening to various points of view. Thanks for yours.
jelliclesfarm 10y ago
Also: what is your opinion re global warming? Housing, for example, is a direct function of population growth. We are clearly showing strains in quality of living there. Thoughts?
- Mz 10y ago
  Climate change has gone on since the birth of this planet's atmosphere. We have the term "Ice Age" as evidence of our knowledge that average temperatures have varied over time. The planet has been getting warmer for at least hundreds of years, having nothing to do with humans. We are adding to that, but we don't really clearly know exactly how much is due to human activity, nor do we know as well as we sometimes claim what that will lead to. Humans are terrible about running around shrieking "The sky is falling!" News basically means bad news. When the oil wells in Kuwait were set on fire, it was predicted that they would burn for years and be a global environmental catastrophe. When crack teams converged upon Kuwait, invented new techniques on the spot and put them out in six months, this did not get celebrated on par with the hand wringing that initially occurred. Y2K followed a similar pattern. When things turn out okay, we consider that normal. When disaster gets averted, we often rewrite history and claim it was never a serious threat to begin with. Then we find some new thing to have conniptions about. Climate change is real. Potential disaster due to climate change is also real. But we routinely overcome such problems and then are all Meh, no big afterwards. "It's the end of the world as we know it -- and I feel fine."
  - jelliclesfarm 10y ago
    I hear everything you are saying. And yet..with every passing day..any illusion that I may have that human beings are 'special' fades just a bit... Having said that, I still cannot see the justifications for having children. If we can have a carbon tax for vehicles, then surely there ought to be a child tax? Maybe there is a way to earn child credits? And they can be traded like stocks. Example: if I earn enough child credits through responsible green living, social contributions etc(whatever the criteria may be) I can either use the credit to have my own offsprings or buy more credits to have more children or trade it with someone who can buy my credits(with a premium when bought. Example: anyone who wants to buy child credits need to pay 1.5x or double what it took for me to monetize it. This is not a free market) Child credits can vary in value from place to place. Example: if the air quality is really lousy in a city, you would need more child credits to have and raise a child there than in a city where air is cleaner. It could be any other index. Maybe not here in on earth..but if we find another habitable planet, would it make sense to regulate population if we are going to start from scratch there?
    - Mz 10y ago
      The data show that birth rates fall AFTER child mortality rates decline. This causes populations to surge during the period that birth rates are still high, but child mortality rates are starting to come down. If this really concerns you, the humane and practical way to approach this is to be very pro female empowerment. Giving women reproductive rights, access to education, the ability to support themselves and a few other things (there were five in the list I saw, I am only remembering three) improves quality of life for everyone and also brings down birth rates. If you can't see having kids, that's fine. Don't have them if you feel strongly about that. I have also seen studies that show that animals who experience severe overcrowding see an increase in things like homosexual behavior of members, presumably as a means to reduce new births. So, I think the way you feel about this is adaptive and part of the solution. But if you want to find a means to get other people to have fewer kids, the optimal way to do that is to help women get lives and careers on par with men. Women who are educated and empowered tend to limit the number of kids they have. I am female and I originally wanted three kids. I chose to stop at two due to health issues and other personal issues. I have several years of college and was in a more empowered position than many women. So, this is both data I have seen in college classes and first hand experience of mine that backs that up. Best.

by Mz 10y ago

jelliclesfarm 10y ago

I wasn't making an argument. Listening to various points of view. Thanks for yours.

jelliclesfarm 10y ago

Also: what is your opinion re global warming? Housing, for example, is a direct function of population growth. We are clearly showing strains in quality of living there. Thoughts?

Mz 10y ago
Climate change has gone on since the birth of this planet's atmosphere. We have the term "Ice Age" as evidence of our knowledge that average temperatures have varied over time. The planet has been getting warmer for at least hundreds of years, having nothing to do with humans. We are adding to that, but we don't really clearly know exactly how much is due to human activity, nor do we know as well as we sometimes claim what that will lead to. Humans are terrible about running around shrieking "The sky is falling!" News basically means bad news. When the oil wells in Kuwait were set on fire, it was predicted that they would burn for years and be a global environmental catastrophe. When crack teams converged upon Kuwait, invented new techniques on the spot and put them out in six months, this did not get celebrated on par with the hand wringing that initially occurred. Y2K followed a similar pattern. When things turn out okay, we consider that normal. When disaster gets averted, we often rewrite history and claim it was never a serious threat to begin with. Then we find some new thing to have conniptions about. Climate change is real. Potential disaster due to climate change is also real. But we routinely overcome such problems and then are all Meh, no big afterwards. "It's the end of the world as we know it -- and I feel fine."
- jelliclesfarm 10y ago
  I hear everything you are saying. And yet..with every passing day..any illusion that I may have that human beings are 'special' fades just a bit... Having said that, I still cannot see the justifications for having children. If we can have a carbon tax for vehicles, then surely there ought to be a child tax? Maybe there is a way to earn child credits? And they can be traded like stocks. Example: if I earn enough child credits through responsible green living, social contributions etc(whatever the criteria may be) I can either use the credit to have my own offsprings or buy more credits to have more children or trade it with someone who can buy my credits(with a premium when bought. Example: anyone who wants to buy child credits need to pay 1.5x or double what it took for me to monetize it. This is not a free market) Child credits can vary in value from place to place. Example: if the air quality is really lousy in a city, you would need more child credits to have and raise a child there than in a city where air is cleaner. It could be any other index. Maybe not here in on earth..but if we find another habitable planet, would it make sense to regulate population if we are going to start from scratch there?
  - Mz 10y ago
    The data show that birth rates fall AFTER child mortality rates decline. This causes populations to surge during the period that birth rates are still high, but child mortality rates are starting to come down. If this really concerns you, the humane and practical way to approach this is to be very pro female empowerment. Giving women reproductive rights, access to education, the ability to support themselves and a few other things (there were five in the list I saw, I am only remembering three) improves quality of life for everyone and also brings down birth rates. If you can't see having kids, that's fine. Don't have them if you feel strongly about that. I have also seen studies that show that animals who experience severe overcrowding see an increase in things like homosexual behavior of members, presumably as a means to reduce new births. So, I think the way you feel about this is adaptive and part of the solution. But if you want to find a means to get other people to have fewer kids, the optimal way to do that is to help women get lives and careers on par with men. Women who are educated and empowered tend to limit the number of kids they have. I am female and I originally wanted three kids. I chose to stop at two due to health issues and other personal issues. I have several years of college and was in a more empowered position than many women. So, this is both data I have seen in college classes and first hand experience of mine that backs that up. Best.