05-23-2010, 11:20 AM
Ultimate Way to Go Green? Skip Kids, Writer Says
Updated: 4 days 16 hours ago
Print Text Size
EmailMore
Dave Thier
Contributor
(May 18) -- The environment faces daunting threats in the coming century, from overconsumption of fossil fuel to a lack of clean water and habitat loss to ocean depletion. But ultimately, all those thorny problems have roots in one thing: There are just too many people.
And that is what Lisa Hymas, senior editor at environmental blog Grist and self-proclaimed "GINK" (Green Inclinations, No Kids), has decided to combat by opting not to have children.
Choosing not to have children "just so happens to cost a lot less for me and weigh a lot less on the carbon-bloated atmosphere," writer Lisa Hymas says.
Hymas puts a green spin on the larger "childless by choice" movement, which an upcoming documentary suggests is gathering momentum in this country. She echoes the sentiment of noted author and lecturer Stephanie Mills, who made headlines with her 1969 Mills College commencement address declaring that she would forgo having children in the face of ecological destruction.
But while Mills announced her decision as a sacrifice for the greater good, Hymas describes the environmental aspect as a side benefit to uninterrupted sleep and financial freedom.
"Making the green choice too often feels like a sacrifice or a hassle or an expense," she writes. "In this case, it feels like a luxurious indulgence that just so happens to cost a lot less for me and weigh a lot less on the carbon-bloated atmosphere."
Still, Hymas' deciding not to have children is a drop in the bucket of global population growth. While the birth rate in some countries has fallen below the rate of replacement, worldwide population is expected to grow by 2.6 billion by 2050, according to a 2005 U.N. report. That would put the total at around 9 billion, a jump of more than 30 percent from where it stands today.
The choice to be childless -- outside leading a monastic life, that is -- is afforded only to those who live in countries with easily accessible contraception. Some research suggests that dollar for dollar, increasing access to contraception could be the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions. According to a study done by the London School of Economics, every $7 spent on family planning over the next four decades could reduce carbon emissions by a metric ton, far outpacing technological solutions.
Some take a more extreme view on human population, such as the Voluntary Human Extinction Project. It argues that the best thing for the world would be for people to get together and decide to stop having children -- essentially putting a DNR on the human race.
Author Kurt Vonnegut expressed a similar sentiment on "Real Time with Bill Maher" in 2005. "We are a disease on the planet," he said. "I think we ought to become 'syphilis with a conscience' and stop reproducing."
Obviously, not everyone shares Vonnegut's bleak outlook, and it seems unlikely that the notion of peaceful species suicide will find many takers anytime soon. For her part, Hymas stresses that the movement to reduce global population is about making the world better for the people that are here.
"If women can control their own family size, they're probably going to have fewer kids, and the kids that they do have will have better lives," she told AOL News. "I think it's about making society work as well as it can."
Updated: 4 days 16 hours ago
Print Text Size
EmailMore
Dave Thier
Contributor
(May 18) -- The environment faces daunting threats in the coming century, from overconsumption of fossil fuel to a lack of clean water and habitat loss to ocean depletion. But ultimately, all those thorny problems have roots in one thing: There are just too many people.
And that is what Lisa Hymas, senior editor at environmental blog Grist and self-proclaimed "GINK" (Green Inclinations, No Kids), has decided to combat by opting not to have children.
Choosing not to have children "just so happens to cost a lot less for me and weigh a lot less on the carbon-bloated atmosphere," writer Lisa Hymas says.
Hymas puts a green spin on the larger "childless by choice" movement, which an upcoming documentary suggests is gathering momentum in this country. She echoes the sentiment of noted author and lecturer Stephanie Mills, who made headlines with her 1969 Mills College commencement address declaring that she would forgo having children in the face of ecological destruction.
But while Mills announced her decision as a sacrifice for the greater good, Hymas describes the environmental aspect as a side benefit to uninterrupted sleep and financial freedom.
"Making the green choice too often feels like a sacrifice or a hassle or an expense," she writes. "In this case, it feels like a luxurious indulgence that just so happens to cost a lot less for me and weigh a lot less on the carbon-bloated atmosphere."
Still, Hymas' deciding not to have children is a drop in the bucket of global population growth. While the birth rate in some countries has fallen below the rate of replacement, worldwide population is expected to grow by 2.6 billion by 2050, according to a 2005 U.N. report. That would put the total at around 9 billion, a jump of more than 30 percent from where it stands today.
The choice to be childless -- outside leading a monastic life, that is -- is afforded only to those who live in countries with easily accessible contraception. Some research suggests that dollar for dollar, increasing access to contraception could be the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions. According to a study done by the London School of Economics, every $7 spent on family planning over the next four decades could reduce carbon emissions by a metric ton, far outpacing technological solutions.
Some take a more extreme view on human population, such as the Voluntary Human Extinction Project. It argues that the best thing for the world would be for people to get together and decide to stop having children -- essentially putting a DNR on the human race.
Author Kurt Vonnegut expressed a similar sentiment on "Real Time with Bill Maher" in 2005. "We are a disease on the planet," he said. "I think we ought to become 'syphilis with a conscience' and stop reproducing."
Obviously, not everyone shares Vonnegut's bleak outlook, and it seems unlikely that the notion of peaceful species suicide will find many takers anytime soon. For her part, Hymas stresses that the movement to reduce global population is about making the world better for the people that are here.
"If women can control their own family size, they're probably going to have fewer kids, and the kids that they do have will have better lives," she told AOL News. "I think it's about making society work as well as it can."