Ever
since a friend posted a complaint against mothers who
seek attention on Facebook for their 24/7 (often thankless) vocation of
child-rearing, I've thought about how environmental reasons factor into
the decision to have kids, and have come to the conclusion that most of
my friends who cite the current unsustainably large population size
of earth as a reason for not having children may not be making the best
argument (not that they should have to defend their choice one way or
another, but these things do come up from time to time).
It's not the best argument because it seems (to me) like those who choose not to have kids often also choose to drive 4-8 hours every other weekend so they can enjoy some time away, take more frequent vacations in other coutries via air-travel, or simply buy more than my friends who have kids at home. In other words, it seems like the extra freedom and financial resources generated by not having children cause us to consume a much larger amount of resources, thereby increasing our environmental footprint. Although I'm not sure if the resulting environmental footprint would be quite as large as that of feeding and clothing additional mini-humans (probably not by the time they are teenagers), I'm betting that it is certainly not simply the same footprint minus the kids share. I've always maintained that if you raise your children to be committed to improving sustainability, they may end up decreasing that footprint even more; and I suspect that the hero of many environmentalists, David Suzuki, probably shares that view, givent that he's had 5 children himself. Ultimately, by limiting yourself to one child you are still contributing to a trend of reduced reproductive output in the country. Perhaps the large population size of the earth and other environemntal arguments are not the best arguments for not having children; but then, why should we have to argue about it at all?
If you get in a discussion about this with someone who thinks everyone should have kids and presses the issue, the best argument is simply "I don't want to have children"; if they press further, you could add "because I don't want to give up my freedom", as usually seems to be the case. Citing the large population size of the earth is likely to make people that have kids defensive about their own reasons, because it implies they are doing more damage than you (although if that's what you mean to imply, its a great way to do it). If you have particularly fecund siblings, you could also suggest that your genes are already being passed on abundantly, so you choose to improve your biological fitness in other ways (e.g., getting more exercise, education, or R&R).
Occasionally people with children become somewhat persistent in trying to convince those that don't want them, even suggesting that it is 'selfish' to not have children, while maintaining a 'holier than thou' attitude (although I have also seen this attitude in non-reproducers). Given the fact that not having children is an evolutionary dead end, and that devoting more time to other people's children (or just other people), as many teachers, professors, and aunties or uncles do is, by definition, altruistic (the opposite of selfish), this is certainly not the case for most. Although one could argue they are at least a bit more selfish than reproducers, in that they only devote 50% of their time compared to 80% or more of reproducers (to pick two not very well-researched guesstimates), there are selfish reasons involved in both choices: reproducers are selfish in that they want to ensure their own DNA is represented in the next generation (as opposed to that of others), whereas non-reproducers are selfish in that they are not willing (note that this wouldn't apply if you simply couldn't have children) to devote as much time to raising children.
In my opinion, the absolute best of both worlds, and the least selfish option altogether, is adoption, because there is zero increase in population, but you still have a chance to pass on your best, most sustainable ideals for the future.
Being an environmentalist doesn't mean you have to abstain from child-bearing, nor does having children necessarily make you less environmentally friendly (unless, perhaps, you have rabbit-like reproductive tendencies). Whatever you choose to do, you can also choose to do it responsibly; don't fool yourself into thinking you are somehow more enlightened than those who choose differently.
It's not the best argument because it seems (to me) like those who choose not to have kids often also choose to drive 4-8 hours every other weekend so they can enjoy some time away, take more frequent vacations in other coutries via air-travel, or simply buy more than my friends who have kids at home. In other words, it seems like the extra freedom and financial resources generated by not having children cause us to consume a much larger amount of resources, thereby increasing our environmental footprint. Although I'm not sure if the resulting environmental footprint would be quite as large as that of feeding and clothing additional mini-humans (probably not by the time they are teenagers), I'm betting that it is certainly not simply the same footprint minus the kids share. I've always maintained that if you raise your children to be committed to improving sustainability, they may end up decreasing that footprint even more; and I suspect that the hero of many environmentalists, David Suzuki, probably shares that view, givent that he's had 5 children himself. Ultimately, by limiting yourself to one child you are still contributing to a trend of reduced reproductive output in the country. Perhaps the large population size of the earth and other environemntal arguments are not the best arguments for not having children; but then, why should we have to argue about it at all?
If you get in a discussion about this with someone who thinks everyone should have kids and presses the issue, the best argument is simply "I don't want to have children"; if they press further, you could add "because I don't want to give up my freedom", as usually seems to be the case. Citing the large population size of the earth is likely to make people that have kids defensive about their own reasons, because it implies they are doing more damage than you (although if that's what you mean to imply, its a great way to do it). If you have particularly fecund siblings, you could also suggest that your genes are already being passed on abundantly, so you choose to improve your biological fitness in other ways (e.g., getting more exercise, education, or R&R).
Occasionally people with children become somewhat persistent in trying to convince those that don't want them, even suggesting that it is 'selfish' to not have children, while maintaining a 'holier than thou' attitude (although I have also seen this attitude in non-reproducers). Given the fact that not having children is an evolutionary dead end, and that devoting more time to other people's children (or just other people), as many teachers, professors, and aunties or uncles do is, by definition, altruistic (the opposite of selfish), this is certainly not the case for most. Although one could argue they are at least a bit more selfish than reproducers, in that they only devote 50% of their time compared to 80% or more of reproducers (to pick two not very well-researched guesstimates), there are selfish reasons involved in both choices: reproducers are selfish in that they want to ensure their own DNA is represented in the next generation (as opposed to that of others), whereas non-reproducers are selfish in that they are not willing (note that this wouldn't apply if you simply couldn't have children) to devote as much time to raising children.
In my opinion, the absolute best of both worlds, and the least selfish option altogether, is adoption, because there is zero increase in population, but you still have a chance to pass on your best, most sustainable ideals for the future.
Being an environmentalist doesn't mean you have to abstain from child-bearing, nor does having children necessarily make you less environmentally friendly (unless, perhaps, you have rabbit-like reproductive tendencies). Whatever you choose to do, you can also choose to do it responsibly; don't fool yourself into thinking you are somehow more enlightened than those who choose differently.
No comments:
Post a Comment