Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids

[I AM EL-NINO]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...thavefewerkids

livescience.com – Mon Aug 3, 12:18 pm ET

For people who are looking for ways to reduce their "carbon footprint," here's one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

"In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime," said study team member Paul Murtaugh. "Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources."

Reproductive choices haven't gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child - and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future - the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

A child's impact

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent - about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

The impact doesn't only come through increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases - larger populations also generate more waste and tax water supplies.

Other offbeat environmental impacts have been in the news recently:


One 2007 study found that divorce squanders resources, because people who once shared resources such as energy now use twice as much under two roofs.
The current obesity epidemic may also be hurting the climate, because food production is a major contributor to global warming.


The impact of having children differs between countries. While some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the United States, their overall impact on the global carbon equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption. The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one-fifth the impact of a child born in the United States, the study found.

However, as the developing world increases both its population and consumption levels, this equation may even out.

"China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living," Murtaugh said.

Not advocating law

The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.

"Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," Murtaugh said. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

Murtaugh's findings are detailed in a 2009 issue of the journal Global Environmental Change.

[PETA]

counter: fewer people means we'll need greater assitence from machines to accomplish tasks that maintain our quality of life... machines require energy. Think the Indians and Chinese are going to rely on "earth happy" energy sources?

[DjJuliaMarie]

The Dalai Lama is all over this. Quality not quantity are this exact words.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by DjJuliaMarie

The Dalai Lama is all over this. Quality not quantity are this exact words.

How many children does he have?

Yeah, I'm listening to a celibate monk on matters of family planning

[matt]

good. fewer idiots

[PETA]

if we're looking at planet population growth and we're looking to restrict it then it would make sense to restrict births in higher growth areas... which is to say that portion of the planet not white... so, is this scientist just shielding his racism?

[david austin]

Originally Posted by PETA

counter: fewer people means we'll need greater assitence from machines to accomplish tasks that maintain our quality of life... machines require energy. Think the Indians and Chinese are going to rely on "earth happy" energy sources?

True quality of life maintenance is largely automated already.

It doesnt really take that many people to run a power plant.

[Typofile]

Robots!!!!!!!!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Typofile

Robots!!!!!!!!

Apparently you did not see the Futurama documentary which clearly illustrated that robots are the singlemost important source of global warming.... geesh

[Hey Bubu]

so, who's gonna take care of the old people? Just look at japan...

[Ash]

Poverty and lack of education is what perpetually feeds massive population growth. They are inexorably tied with each other. Smart people should have more kids, but they won't because they're fucking smart and know that kids cost too much damn money.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Ash

Poverty and lack of education is what perpetually feeds massive population growth. They are inexorably tied with each other. Smart people should have more kids, but they won't because they're fucking smart and know that kids cost too much damn money.

Kinda matters where and when.

Large families are traditionally the way to safe guard the whole against the risks of life (unemployment, disease, war etc etc) and help guarantee prosperity... . In more developed countries the government has stepped in to provide many of the elements of the safety net formely provided by family. The more the government does this the less necessary family becomes. Europe's cratering native birth rate and the rise of their form of social welfare track one another very closely.
Additionally, in developed societies it becomes expensive - children are no longer sources of insuring prosperity but are instead cost centers... as you note, education being a prime example of that.

The less developed world isn't there yet - which is why their birth rates haven't come down as much as ours. As their societiers develope their birth rates will also come down.

The biggest population risks in the 22nd century will be population shortages - not surplusses.

[Ash]

true true