We Kid You Not Childfree Forums

Full Version: Two Children Should Be The Limit
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Enjoy comment goodness at the link: Times Online UK

February 1, 2009
Two children should be limit, says green guru
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
Novelist Jenny Colgan: Go on, guess how many children Jonathan Porritt has

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland - an area the size of Trafalgar Square.

The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050.

Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.

“Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
Great article and very glad that someone in gov't is daring to take a stand on this critical issue. The comments - are FUCKED. Seriously - what a bunch of jerks. Looks like some pro-breeding group in the USA posted a link to it...
I hate to keep harping on the same issue but what about adopting or foster care?

I can certainly understand the desire to have a bio child (even though I don't have that desire) but if a person loves children, wouldn't they love ANY child, even it didn't come from their DNA?

Forget it...I guess I just don't understand that biological desire to have a kid. I never will.
NKBurlington Wrote:I hate to keep harping on the same issue but what about adopting or foster care?

I can certainly understand the desire to have a bio child (even though I don't have that desire) but if a person loves children, wouldn't they love ANY child, even it didn't come from their DNA?

Forget it...I guess I just don't understand that biological desire to have a kid. I never will.

I have a cousin who couldn't have kids and wanted to do the adoption, but her then-husband refused. It had to be a "fruit of his loins" thing. Added irony, he was adopted.
It wasn't the main reason that they divorced, but it was within the top 3.
I can kind of understand wanting to carry on the family name and lineage but I kind of also find that arrogant and selfish.

I dont' know...I'll never, ever undstand it and I don't want to try. It gives me a headache.
This woman has guts. I wish more people would speak out on this topic. But of course Joe and Mary Breederbrain would be offended.
From the comments:
Quote:ALL families that I know who have 2+ children are FAR more responsible with resources and contributing positively to society than most "anti-child" focused households in my area. Number of children isn't the issue. It's WHO is raising the children. Gov't? Not in my household!

Holly, Bremerton, US

I don't understand this. How can a household of four or more people (especially a baby with disposable diapers) contribute LESS to waste or resources than a family of two or one?
I think the key to getting most of the breeder-brains out there to understand this and, most importantly, follow it, is to get the churches on board with this idea. The churches, especially Mormon and Catholic, keep encouraging their followers to have as many children as they want by telling them that that's what god wants. If they started preaching that god wants them to stop destroying the earth through over-breeding and that he wants them to adopt orphans and unwanted children, the tide would turn. They need to stop focusing on that one line that says "be fruitful and multiply" and start focusing on the whole being good stewards of the earth thing.

PrairieGirl

Quote:It had to be a "fruit of his loins" thing. Added irony, he was adopted.

Not ironic at all, actually. I've heard this from a LOT of adoptees. My uncle once pointed to his son and told me, "that's the only blood relative I have ever known." I don't know how strong a drive that is, to have some kind of blood-tie to another human being.
NKBurlington Wrote:From the comments:
Quote:ALL families that I know who have 2+ children are FAR more responsible with resources and contributing positively to society than most "anti-child" focused households in my area. Number of children isn't the issue. It's WHO is raising the children. Gov't? Not in my household!

Holly, Bremerton, US

I don't understand this. How can a household of four or more people (especially a baby with disposable diapers) contribute LESS to waste or resources than a family of two or one?

Holly of Bremerton, US, is obviously retarded.
anastasia Wrote:
NKBurlington Wrote:From the comments:
Quote:ALL families that I know who have 2+ children are FAR more responsible with resources and contributing positively to society than most "anti-child" focused households in my area. Number of children isn't the issue. It's WHO is raising the children. Gov't? Not in my household!

Holly, Bremerton, US

I don't understand this. How can a household of four or more people (especially a baby with disposable diapers) contribute LESS to waste or resources than a family of two or one?

Holly of Bremerton, US, is obviously retarded.

Sadly, she is not the only one. Some of the other commenters were seriously mentally challenged.
If Holly lives in the suburbs of Seattle(isn't that where Bremerton is?)doesn't she notice the horrendous traffic jams,the vast sprawl that is displacing the trees and polluting the air?

PrairieGirl

noelle Wrote:If Holly lives in the suburbs of Seattle(isn't that where Bremerton is?)doesn't she notice the horrendous traffic jams,the vast sprawl that is displacing the trees and polluting the air?

Ah, but you see?!?!? Those things are caused by the presence of OTHER people......like all those undesirable homeless people, gays, Democrats, crack heads, things like that. Not decent people like her, her kids, or kids in general. See, kids are special! Kids aren't homeless people, or gays, or Democrats, or crack heads! The world should be populated with kids, who are sweet, and good, and sugar, and spice, and everything nice! That's why we have to outlaw abortion -- so that we can have more sweetness and such in the world.

Now, let's all join hands and skip through the pretty, pretty fields of flowers!
LOL, PrairieGirl! Seriously - these pro-breeding people are such selfish jerks. "I should be able to have as MANY kids as I want because I recycle." Fuck that. They don't ever want to believe that the problem begins right on their doorstep and their own wish to have fuck-trophys.
I get so tired of the argument that you need a constantly expanding population in order to have a growing economy. I mean it's like the way people look at Japan with one of the lowest birthrates in the world and they act like the population will drop from a couple hundred million to deserted cities ala The Last Stand within a decade. A 1% drop in population per year means it will be centuries before the land of the rising sun is depopulated.

Anyway, my point is that an economy can expand even with fewer people. A subsistence economy isn't worth much because they don't have time for leisure or luxury items. A modern first world economy has a lot more room to expand because of specialization, technology, and mechanization. I am considered "poor" and yet right now I'm on a computer with the time to sit on a message board while watching tv and enjoying central heat, electricity, and even beer. All this while unemployed. In a less developed society if I didn't work I sure as hell wouldn't be this well off.

Three points clarified:

Specialization: In an agrarian society over 80% of the people work in farming. In the US, that number is less than 2% now. That means you have 98% of the people able to do things other than farming. This means you get new occupations that allow things to develop in a more high tech way.

Technology: You can develop things to again expand the economy. I'll use education. It used to be that if you wanted to go to college you went to a campus, lived there, and sat in a classroom. Then they invented correspondence courses. You lost the live interaction but gained a wider audience. Today they have videoconferencing. I can sit at home and still be able to access a real time activity. All of this technology requires highly skilled workers instead of just grunt workers.

Mechanization: This is a key factor. It used to be you needed hundreds of workers to build a road. Today you can do it with a tenth of the workers. This means you have freed up a ton of people to do work that is more worthy of the human intellect. I think most of you know my views about work, but I honestly feel if a job can be automated that a human being was never meant to do it in the first place. It's like a fast food joint. You could easily mechanize a McDonald's because the customer could push the buttons showing the choices, a computer would activate a machine to make their order (they actually have specific procedures that ensure quality, such as the amount of time you have the fries in the oil, but with a machine these would be more adhered to making a better product). Again this requires more intelligent people working on this. We'd be freed from tedious makework (data entry anyone?) to have more leisure time and improve ourselves.

The only flaw with my idea is that the intelligent people needed to run my society are exactly the ones not reproducing. It's like the movie Idiocracy. Who are the breeders? Just look at the moo boards and you'll see the difference between the CF and the breeders.
catsnotkids Wrote:LOL, PrairieGirl! Seriously - these pro-breeding people are such selfish jerks. "I should be able to have as MANY kids as I want because I recycle." Fuck that. They don't ever want to believe that the problem begins right on their doorstep and their own wish to have fuck-trophys.

Add to that: breeders who consider themselves as environmentalists or express concern for the environment. Breeding is the number one problem to the environment, so if you breed, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Putting cans and newspapers in the recycling box each week does not make you a saviour of the planet if you don't think of the consequences of breeding. They just don't get it.
It's like the Duggar family who have 18 children. No matter what I do I will never impact the environment the way they do especially when they reproduce.
in all actuality we should be aiming for 0 - 1 kid. the world is over populated now, sustaining the current population numbers or growing it is NOT a good thing, it needs to reduce. but try telling that to the breeders and you will probably be lynched
Welcome to the board, Dog Holliday!
catsnotkids Wrote:Welcome to the board, Dog Holliday!

Thank you cats. Who says dogs and cats can't get along?
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's