Time for a Moratorium on Children?

overpopulation1.jpg

Thank you, Al Guess, for saying that which few dare to speak, even by the greenest of environmentalists. In a letter to the editor in last week’s The State, he wrote:

Bob Guild of the Sierra Club espouses the “conservationist” approach to global warming and says we must start now. I agree — with two caveats:
1. “Now” is at least 100 years too late.
2. Population creates demand for fuel use. No amount of conservation will be effective unless we curb worldwide population. That includes by each individual in the United States.

Since the traditional attempts have failed, the only workable solution I see is a worldwide monetary incentive program. I wish the Sierra Club and others would take a leap forward from their slow-moving, somewhat politically correct approach.

AL GUESS, Columbia

His letter prompted this one, which ran today:

Al Guess writes Saturday that we need to “curb worldwide population” to fight global warming. Regardless of how much this tactic may help reduce greenhouse gases, I am disturbed by the inhumane nature of this suggestion. Does not promoting “curbing of the population” indicate a belief that human beings are some kind of disease? Human beings are the reason that we should be trying to improve the environment. The more, the merrier!

GREG GOEBEL, Columbia

I’m afraid Mr. Goebel makes Mr. Guess’ point, but that’s neither here nor there.

The point is, with all this talk about global warming, perhaps it’s time to question our casual attitude toward making babies. Lord knows there are more than enough already here, many without homes. Don’t we have a moral obligation to tend to them first? And don’t we owe Mother Earth a break? She is already drowning in our waste.

Every baby adds to the strain on the environment. Their diapers alone are a problem. Consider these numbers, posted on the cloth diaper service web site Punkin Butt.

For every baby diapered with single-use diapers for a 2 1/2 year period, over 2 tons of waste is generated. Disposable diapers make up the 3rd largest single consumer item in our waste system – following newspapers and beverage containers. They account for nearly 4% of the total amount of solid waste, and 30% of the non-biodegradable waste. It takes 500 years for one disposable diaper to decompose. Yes, while a cloth diaper, if it is ever thrown away, will become one with the earth within six months, a disposable diaper will just sit there and do what it was made to do: absorb. Ever seen a disposable diaper get wet? A child’s disposable diapers sit in a landfill and continue to swell and absorb water.

So why isn’t population control a topic worth debate? It seems past time we give it serious thought. The forward-thinking Alice Walker has.

Her latest book, We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For, includes a graduation address she gave to students at Agnes Scott College in 2000. She said, “I believe there should be a moratorium on the birth of children. That not one more child should be born on this planet until certain conditions are met.”

She goes on to list the ills of the world weighing heavily on her mind (poverty, plutonium, pollution, animals in cages). In the end she concedes, “You will have children, the majority of you. Some of you may already have them. You will not listen to me at all… Have your work in the world, and have your children. Only one, please, out of respect for the weight we are to our Mother. But be aware that the other children of the world are your responsibility as well. You must learn to see them, to feel them, as yours. Until you do, there is no way you can make your own child feel safe.”

Amen, sister Alice. Amen.

Becci Robbins

5 thoughts on “Time for a Moratorium on Children?

  1. Another great letter in today’s paper on overpopulation, this from Ralph Boineau:

    Al Guess’ July 21 letter, “Curbing population best way to conserve,” contains a message seldom heard but sorely needed.

    The human race no longer inhabits this poor planet; it infests it. Depending on whose figures you use, there are approximately 10 times the number of people in this world than there were a century or so ago.

    Locally, I’ve lived in Columbia for almost six decades, and I laugh when I hear statistics quoted that say we have about three times the number of people around here as we did, say, 50 years ago. That’s a gross underestimate, as any other long-time resident can tell you.

    And it amuses me to see the current flap about global warming. If you ranked, in order of importance, the environmental catastrophes that the human race has perpetrated upon this planet, global warming would rank about 10th. Worry instead about rainforest destruction, ocean and waterway pollution, species extinction and diminution, overfishing the seas, etc.

    We don’t need tax incentives for having children, we need tax penalties. We need to make people qualify to have children, meeting physical, mental and educational standards before they can breed (incidentally solving about half of society’s problems in a generation or two).

    We need to stop glorifying people who have big families and start excoriating them as the selfish and thoughtless people that they are.

    Of course, none of that will ever happen, at least not until we are all standing shoulder-to-shoulder and not a tree or bird in sight.

    RALPH BOINEAU

    Columbia

  2. Well, I have to disagree again with ya’ll (don’t mean to be so darn disagreeable!). Well at least partially disagree. Yes, we humans are sadly mistreating the world we live in, partially out of ignorance and partially out of the struggle to survive. But it seems to me that limiting human reproduction is like cutting off one’s head to stave off a headache. When we start mandating that certain people can and certain can’t have children (and how many) we then have to decide who gets to do the deciding – can you imagine that process? I’d hate to see the Supreme Court, the White House, or Congress getting to decide who is “in” and who is “out”. Let’s not turn on humanity in an effort to save the world, because then we’d be destroying a beautiful (albeit problematic) part of the world.

    Thanks for the blog – great to see these important issues discussed right here in our hometown.

  3. I appreciate your thoughtful response, Greg. But I’m not advocating that human reproduction be regulated by the state – that would be unwieldy and unworkable, as you suggest. But why can’t we work toward making it socially unacceptable to have multiple biological children? We’ve done it with smoking.

    Also, we should be offering monetary incentives for people to adopt.

    The bottom line is that there are already more people here than the planet can support, and we had better get serious about the problem.

  4. Thanks Becci. Yes, I think we can all agree on incentivizing adoption. I tend to think that in the West we already have a climate that generally promotes thoughtful choices in terms of number of kids. Beyond that, I’d hate for that to imply that shame should be associated with larger families, should parents to that route, especially for religious reasons (i.e. Roman Catholics). But I remember when I was in Romania, a Christian missionary there was teaching the young men (former street kids whom he and his wife raise in their home) to work, save money, graduate, and get established before getting married and having children. The culture there promotes marriage in the teen years and lots of children right away, which results in poverty and struggle for years and years. So, yes, I agree in part that it would be a good thing if this idea of getting established and preparing for children were the norm across the globe. IMO this is a more positive approach that doesn’t unnecessarily imply that humans are a disease. But rather, humans are a wonderful resource and a new human is a huge responsibility that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Should this slows down the population growth in overpopulated areas, it would also promote a higher view of the value of humans at the same time. I’m afraid that the “human disease” (my sarcasm) viewpoint, while possibly effective, could end up inadvertently promoting a degrading attitude toward people. So both movements end up with less people, but the emphasis is laid on the positive value of human beings rather than the negative impact.

    Thanks again and any and all comments, criticisms, laughter, or fine bottles of wine are welcome!

  5. “Moratorium” is the wrong word choice in the title of this page. It would suggest that we as humans are debating not having any children in order to solve overpopulation and its countless side effects. Simply having two children (I base my arguement on the fact that this is plenty) would induce zero population growth and provide our society with time to resolve the “side effects” of overpopulation regarding resources. Nonetheless the situation would arise in which a demographic would feel the “short end of the stick” in some sense. Folks might find themselves saying “It’s my god given right to make as many people as I see fit” It makes me think back to when people had to give up another “god given right” I think it was around the civil war…

Comments are closed.