Population Truth
by Tao Oliveto, Carrboro, NC
Some truths are hard to accept, making it easier to simply avoid them. We are unwilling to give up the notion that we can throw or flush something “away”, so our landfills, rivers and oceans keep filling up with sewage and trash. We enjoy fast food and other inexpensive meat and dairy from factory farms by avoiding the image of the abuse to the environment and the animals it comes from. We drive our cars because the CO2 it produces is, for the most part, invisible. (If our cars spewed black exhaust, I think we would all drive less.)
It gets even harder when it comes to the truth of our exploding population. Producing children is a biological response to nature. This makes it a perplexing problem - to have upset the planetary balance to the point where reproduction is unsustainable. Personally, I’ve felt little conflict over the issue, always knowing that I would not bear biological children due to overpopulation, the need for adoptive parents and the willingness to consider my life - both internally and externally - full and complete without it. (I did not adopt, but ended up, perhaps fatefully, with a stepson.)
Treehugger has previously posted on population issues, and is currently hosting an interesting debate regarding the issues, including why eco-activists still have children. The recent post that started the debate, by our own Changer, Sami Grover, is here. The comments started rolling in fast - they were up to 74 last time I checked.
So why do most aware eco-activists resist adoption alternatives and have their own children, despite the facts and a perilous future? It’s a question that has yet to be be answered as much as rationalized. I read with interest the cited article by eco-activist and mother - entitled most candidly, “I Threw My Fears To The Wind.” Even within this knowledgeable and sincerely motivated green group, it seems that there are some things better left unsaid.
(As previously cited, Chris Rapley, professor and head of Science Museum in England writes on population. Excerpt below. More from Rapley here.
“[B]y avoiding a fraction of the projected population increase, the emissions savings could be significant and would be at a cost, based on UN experience of reproductive health programmes, that would be as little as one-thousandth of the technological fixes. The reality is that while the footprint of each individual cannot be reduced to zero, the absence of an individual does do so.“)
March 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It’s not just about over-population anymore, if you’re deciding not to have children. I don’t want to have children just to see them suffer. That’s a really bleak thing to say, but if we’re being honest…
March 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
i am not smart like all you “green people” and maybe i was selfish and not thinking of the world. but, i always wanted children. i always wanted to be a good mother and nurture and teach and love my children. they are my gift from G-D. and i thank G-D every day for the blessings of my sons. i know this is way too traditional for you and your friends. but, i write this with total honesty and love for the world. and i think my sons will give back to the world because of the strong character that they have and the goodness they give to their family and the world…..so, i did good for the world, i raised good people
March 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oh, but you are just like us “green people” Phyllis! You were having children when these issues were not of concern. It is never “selfish” to have children and it’s sad that we even have to consider doing otherwise at this time just so that we can return to a sustainable world. Fortunately, there are many babies and children needing loving adoptive parents. If most of us could settle on one biological child and adopt more, it would be a good start.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
dear trace, thank you for your comments….i agree on the adoption choice, not only about the population, just the simple fact, that all children need a loving, kind home full of love, and in a perfect world we all would take the responsiblity on to take a child and help him grow….but, life is not that “pat” we do what we can…..i understand the need for a biological child, but what about the need of that child. to have a childhood that can enhance their life? doesn’t that child deserve it? as a society don’t we want to give back? lots of quesions…………..your blog has enriched my life.
i know a beautiful woman who became a stepmother to a “perfect” 3 year old. and she gave him love, shared her knowledge and love of the world. and provided a home full of gentleness and love. you must know her name