When It Comes to Pollution, Less (Kids) May Be More

[MountainLaurel]

To heck with carbon dioxide. A new study performed by the London School of Economics suggests that, to fight climate change, governments should focus on another pollutant: us.

As in babies. New people.

Every new life, the report says, is a guarantee of new greenhouse gases, spewed out over decades of driving and electricity use. Seen in that light, we might be our own worst emissions.

The activist group that sponsored the report says birth control could be one of the world's best tools for fighting climate change. By preventing the creation of new polluters, the group says, contraceptives are a far cheaper solution than windmills and solar plants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403308.html?hpid=topnews

[tk2kewl]

1. File under "No-Shit-Sherlock"

population reduction is almost never brought into any public policy discussion, but overpopulation is at the root of many of our problems and not just the environmental ones.

[hamsterjill]

2. +1

It was something that was discussed in my upbringing back in the sixties. We discussed in public school, no less, the responsibility of having no more than two children to control overpopulation.

But I rarely even hear that topic addressed these days in any way. We have only to look at the example of China to see that it SHOULD be discussed.

[tk2kewl]

3. I remember it being an issue when i was grade school aged too

early 70s

[Control-Z]

9. Nothing like "discovering" the obvious. n/t

[GliderGuider]

10. If you think it's so obvious

Try preaching it to the unconverted. Wear asbestos underwear.

[Control-Z]

13. Well, if you're saying

there are people who will argue the obvious, you're right. I talk to these people often enough, and they really frustrate me, to put it mildly. They don't believe that humans have anything to do with global climate change, so numbers mean nothing.

[GliderGuider]

18. Yeah, that's about it.

:banghead:

[joshcryer]

4. And every so called "enviromental activist" I know has at least one kid.

I know one with three. But yeah, this is a pretty obvious conclusion.

[GliderGuider]

5. Perhaps there's a problem with your sample size? nt

[joshcryer]

6. I didn't know I was "extrpoloating." I can do that if you want. :)

Let's look at a "top ten" list, then.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0602/S00247.htm

Dai Qing, daughter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Qing

José Bové, no children known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Bove

Amory Lovins, same as Jose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins

Wangari Maathai, three children (darn, guess that negates Jose and Amory not procreating): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai

David Bellamy, 5 children (oh fuck): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy

Can't find a wikipedia entry on Sinafasi Makelo Adrien, so dunno if he has kids. Searches for Marina Silva suggest no children.

Paul Watson, one child: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson

Oral Ataniyazova, none that I can find, same for Medha Patkar. That's not too bad, only 4 out of 10 have children. 40% isn't so bad, except it results in 90% children for every environmentalist.

Let's look for a top 100 list, the first 50:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/28/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

Rachel Carson, no children.

EF Schumacher, no children.

Jonathan Porritt, two daughters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Porritt

(I'm beginning to sense a pattern here.)

David Attenborough, two children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough

James Lovelock, no children.

Wangari Maathai, as we saw from the other list, 3 children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai

Charles Windsor, two children, obviously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales

(Why Charles Windsor gets 7th on this list is beyond me, but I would be happy to look at a different list.)

William Morris, two daughters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris

Al Gore, four children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Gro Harlem Brundtland, four children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro_Harlem_Brundtland

Richard Sandbrook, can't find any.

Amory Lovins, none known.

Vandana Shiva, none.

Ansel Adams, two children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams

Fritjof Capra, none known.

Aldo Leopold, five children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Leopold

Chico Mendes, three children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Mendes

David Bellamy, as we saw from the other list, 5 children.

Joseph Bazalgette (another weird one on this list), 10 children (I won't count him in the end since this was the norm for that time period): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette

John James Audubon, four children (won't include him either due to time period): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Audubon

Peter Scott, two children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scott

Tim Smit, three children: http://recreatingeden.com/index.php?pid=8&season=04&episode=47

(Not a big fan of Tim Smit, his Eden Project is nothing more than a green capitalist invention that achieves nothing of substance.)

George Monbiot, one child: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

Michael Meacher, none that I can see.

Ken Livingstone, at least five children (dirty old man): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#Early_and_private_life

Tony Juniper, three children (ironic article): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510612/Friends-Earth-director-Tony-Juniper-sensationally-quits--attacks-hypocritical-green-celebrities.html

John Muir, two children (not a modern environmentalist, though; though an inspiration for us all) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir

Kirkpatrick Macmillan, none known (another weird entry on this list; luckily most of these people at least have a decent claim to environmentalism).

Arnold Schwarzenegger, four children (he doesn't *really* belong on this list either): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Environmental_record

John Ruskin, none known.

David Brower, four children (ironically he advocated government licensing for child bearing, mandatory contraceptives, etc): http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=feature0607

James Hansen, unknown.

Thomas Malthus, three children (not modern): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Percival Potts, unknown.

David Suzuki, five children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki

(It seems the more well known you are the more children you must have!)

Max Nicholson, three children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Max_Nicholson

Mayer Hillman, two children: http://www.livablestreets.info/node/36

Octavia Hill, none.

Dai Qing, daughter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dai_Qing

Paul Johnson, two children (another weird one on this list): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

Paul de Jongh, unknown.

Dionisio Ribeiro Filho, unknown.

Andrew Lees, none.

Petra Kelly, none.

John Dower, unknown.

St Francis of Assisi, none.

Jane Goodall, one child: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall

Henry David Thoreau, none.

Sunita Narain, unknown.

Now, 26 out of 50 had kids. But of them, they produced 70 (not including 12 from "non-moderns"). Pretty telling, isn't it? Now, I am making no statement about whether or not these people are environmental activists, nor am I saying to be a "real environmental activist" you shouldn't have kids. It's just that my experience seems to be reflected by the reality collected here in top ten environmentalist lists. It seems to me that the better off you are, the closer to middle class you are, the less likely you are going to actually champion environmentalist ideals, and will instead use it as a hobby or other indulgence. But I could just be overwhelmed by cynicism after spending a lot of time around these types of people.

Also, I was probably exaggerating a bit, because there are a few environmentalist activists I have known over the years who don't have kids. I just don't know them very well anymore, and certainly not personally.

[Nihil]

7. OT comment on your OT comment

> (Not a big fan of Tim Smit, his Eden Project is nothing more than
> a green capitalist invention that achieves nothing of substance.)

Totally disagree with you on this.

IMO, the people behind the Eden Project (not just Smit) are far more
deserving of being on a list of environmentalists than the likes of
Lovins or Schwarzenegger (and no, I was not accusing you of defending
the latter two's appearance as I read your disclaimer!).

We went to the Eden Project last month whilst on holiday in Cornwall
and I'd heartily recommend it to anyone who gets the chance to visit.

It works on many levels, from the "pretty flowers & plants" to the
appreciation of the diversity of environments that most of us will
never visit (e.g., the tropical rainforest) through to the graphic
examples of the devastation that humans are causing, either through
deliberate policy or by sheer carelessness. You can see the impact
it makes on the kids who are walking round (as well as the adults)
and this is invaluable to turning around the "F*ck the world, I want
my profits" attitudes that have been so damn strong over the last
few decades. It is a major win.

[joshcryer]

12. My maing gripes with the Eden Project (maybe I was being too hard on it):

It's similar to Biosphere 2 in that it attempts to recreate an ecosystem within a biome. This is all well and good, and they deserve credit for getting it right (compared to Biosphere 2). But from my point of view it's not really anything better than a glorified garden that is always going to require outside input to keep going.

If you want to really really create a breakthrough why not show how waste can be recycled into feedstocks for hydroponic or aeroponic gardens? NASA has shown that hydroponic / aeroponic foods can grow much more efficiently. And they have even dabbled in waste->feedstock recycling.

The biome is made of ETFE, which is a petrochemical, ie, you need fossil fuels to make it effectively (it can be made other ways but that's one detriment). If caught on fire ETFE produces hydrofluoric acid. Fluorine in nature is not generally organic friendly, though there some plant species that can use it in compounds.

The reason, I think, these big ecological projects don't utilize space age stuff is because it won't *look cool*. A big hydroponic greenhouse made of organic plastic (PLA/PLLA) will just look like your run of the mill greenhouse. Yet it wouldn't have any negative side effects (to recycle the plastic you just throw it in a digester). You could produce more from the organics grown in it. But it won't be big and spacious (the most effective means of sunlight utilization is to have it wide and flat). It'd have rows upon rows of racks on which food is grown, pretty boring, yet the technology behind such a project could be utilized anywhere, and it could feed a whole lot of people with zero ecological impact (no pesticides or waste means no runoff into streams, since it's a greenhouse water evaporate will be able to be kept in check, so no heavy water losses as in our current geoagriculture method).

[Nihil]

8. Good. If that wasn't the case, environmental activism would die out pretty damn quickly ...

... as the "right thinkers" are swamped by the "duh, I don' wanna pay any
more for my gas" crowd due to sheer weight of numbers.

(ETA: I suspect you will find a lot of the recent support for "true
environmentalists don't have children" has originated more from the
pro-consumption/anti-green brigade than from anyone genuinely concerned
about the over-population problem, simply as their latest ploy to
discredit activism and maintain profits from Business As Usual. JMO.)

[joshcryer]

11. Oh I definitely wasn't trying to pull a "no true Scotsman" here.

I think you can most certainly have kids and be an environmentalist activist, there's no necessary hypocrisy here. However, I don't feel the place for a child is to be indoctrinated into being "also environmentalist." Indeed, we look at the report and it seems that they count impacts based on the fact that not all of them do. ie, you are a low impact family, as soon as your kid grows up there's no guarantee that they're low impact, too. That's why it's better to "not have children" at all. I think from an environmentalist standpoint we can affect far more people on an individual to individual basis than we ever could by having a child.

[Nederland]

14. To every childless environmentalist out there

I ask: are you going to pony up the costs of your retirement and end of life medical expenses?

I ask because I'm wondering why my kids should pay for it.

[GliderGuider]

15. Your kids should help pay for it because I help pay for their eduation.

That's what living in a community is all about.

[Nederland]

16. Education doesn't cost you money, it makes you money

When a person receives an education, they end up in better jobs that pay better and therefore result in more tax revenue. Every dollar government puts into education results in $7.46 dollars of additional revenue for the government in the form of higher tax revenue. As the bumper sticker goes, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/c&b/2008/spring/Trostel_invest_in_higher_ed.pdf

Unlike educational money, retirement money and end of life medical costs by definition do not result in increased tax revenues, so your argument doesn't really work.

So I ask again: are you going to pony up your retirement and end of life medical costs?

[GliderGuider]

19. No, I'm going to pony up someone else's.

I'm a socialist. My family has been socialists (the Canadian CCF/NDP variety) for four generations. I'm a firm believer in both socialized medicine and socialized education (although not such a great geliever in socialization...) If my taxes can pay for an army, they can sure as hell pay for medical care.

[Nederland]

28. The point is

That you wholeheartedly embrace certain unsustainable practices of our society (e.g. socialized medicine and socialized retirement) while decrying other unsustainable practices of our society (automobiles, rapid growth, etc.).

You should be opposed to unsustainable practices everywhere, not just your pet concerns.

[GliderGuider]

30. I "should"? According to who?

I think compassion is crucial to humanity. I'm not prepared to barter away community-funded equal-access health care. I'm prepared to see constraints on the the services offered (in the interests of sustainability), but I'm not prepared to give up equal access and public funding.

I have no doubt that at some point we're all going to be living with much lower standards of health care, no matter what our preferences are.

[Nederland]

31. You are not being "compassionate"

It is compassionate to engage in behavior that bankrupts the next generation and leaves them with nothing?

[GliderGuider]

36. As I said

I'm prepared to see constraints on the the services offered. The compassion comes in the equal-access and community-funded aspects of the program. I don't want to see anyone denied essential medical services (whatever level that ends up being).

Canada's system is working reasonably well so far, and as long as we're prepared to constrain services to match the nation consensus on values and priorities with the available funds, it should continue to work reasonably well without bankrupting future generations (which btw is a libertarian talking point if there ever was one).

[Nederland]

38. Then huge constraints are necessary now

Based upon your belief that humanity is doomed within a few years, I'd have to say we should enact an immediate 90% cut in all end of life medical services and redirect that money toward more sustainable endeavors that are crucial to preparing for the coming collapse.

Of course, I would never recommend such a thing, because I don't believe humanity is doomed.

[GliderGuider]

43. Now you're just being silly

I don't think humanity is doomed. If our civilization is heading for major changes (which I do believe), then our provision of health care will be up for reassessment along with every other way we do business. If the health care system becomes too expensive for available revenues to support, then it will be scaled back, rationed, prioritized, whatever. If your kids can't afford the system, then they will be within their rights to change it. It's not a sustainability question like fish stocks or oil.

[Nederland]

51. Yes, it is silly

Because the catastrophe you always talk about is not going to happen.

[GliderGuider]

52. You might not have noticed that I stopped using the word "catastrophe" a year or more ago.

I still think our global industrial civilization faces major changes in the way we do business, but changes that will differ in nature and severity from place to place depending on local circumstances. But I've stopped thinking that what we face is a "catastrophe" in the sense of a sudden, uniform, amorphous dissolution of the fundamental structures of our civilization. Some places may experience effects like that (and some place at the bottom of the scale are living them already) and others may not.

We're not facing a global catastrophe, at least not yet. While the possibility is always there, the probability is still low.

[joshcryer]

21. Is this question exclusive to environmentalists? Or just anyone who doesn't have kids?

I support a sustainable retirement plan, ie, without monetary tax based archaic concepts such as current Social Security and Medicare.

"Pay into the system as you go, your money pays for people who are already retired," is *not* sustainable. It irrevocably requires the overall system to grow, and does not allow for extended life spans.

[Nederland]

29. No it is not

And I would agree, the fact that (as currently funded) Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable is something liberals gloss over.

I merely singled out environmentalists because they are the ones that talk the most about sustainability.

[joshcryer]

33. I know I am making a statement about environmentalists having kids; I don't mean to have a stance.

The implication was, rather, intended to show that many environmentalists do not actually care about sustainability.

[amborin]

17. 6.7 billion now, 9 billion in 2040 Scary & Unsustainable! n/t

[GliderGuider]

20. I don't know which is scarier

9 billion by 2040, or what Mother Nature might do to fix the problem.

Here's an article I wrote a couple of years ago on the latter topic: Population: The Elephant in the Room.

[joshcryer]

22. Mother Nature can't do much.

Ten billion less three billion equals seven billion. ie, Mother Natures worst, while abhorrent and awful and terrible, would still result in populations higher than now.

Unless you assume very bad case scenarios (global nuclear war, nuclear winter, asteroid impact, etc).

[GliderGuider]

23. Nuclear war/winter is a trifle, a mere bagatelle.

And besides that's Man, not Nature.

None of the Four Horsemen are nuclear, or come from the asteroid belt. Famine, Disease and Pestilence have far greater lifting power than puny human levers, no matter how they are powered. We have no way of knowing how long we can keep the Horsemen at bay, but the possibility of their emergence is always lurking in this fundamentally unknowable universe. Man does not have Dominion -- never did, never will. To reject that idea, the ultimate message of the Copernican Revolution, out of hand is hubris on a par with the clergy turning from Galileo's telescope.

We will always work in our own perceived best interest -- it's what species do, after all -- but insisting on recognizing only one side of any coin is simple self-delusion. Our experience of the universe becomes so much richer when we permit ourselves to be full participants in it.

[joshcryer]

24. Humans are distinct in that they can mitigate Famine, Disease and Pestilence.

This does not say "Man has Dominion." Merely that humans are indeed unique on this planet with their innate ability to internalize and create their own environment.

"The possibility of their emergence" most certainly should not be ignored, but the "reality of our ecology" tells us that ignoring it never actually happened, and that indeed, our *understanding* of these problems is the single reason why they are not unfixable problems, we will fix them. Ignoring this fundamental historical perspective changes nothing except shows ones ignorance on a public forum.

[GliderGuider]

25. The notion that all human-created problems are fixable

is faith, not science. We have not demonstrated the ability to fix some pretty serious ones, despite our vaunted understanding of them.

[joshcryer]

26. Name one problem that can't be fixed.

I'll explain to you how it is fixable (this is the point of environmentalism, btw).

edit: Note that it seems we have a red herring here. Science can fix any problems that it creates. Indeed, it can be seen that science is completely neutral and doesn't even necessarily create the problems themselves. We see in the another thread the difference between using environmentally friendly deicing materials and and non-friendly salts; the salts are used because they are *cheaper* and thus *more profitable monetarily speaking*; the *science* was neutral in that respect, it is policy, economics, and government that choses to use salts.

One should not equate industrial capitalism with science.

[GliderGuider]

27. The extinction of the passenger pigeon /nt

[joshcryer]

32. Science will be able to eventually resurrect the passenger pigeon.

Next.

[GliderGuider]

34. Mmmm.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

42. The question remains, then. Do we bring 'em back via genetics, or do we let things be?

Do we play god, as environmentalism most certainly is, or do we sit back and watch? Obviously that's up to those who want to play, I suppose. You can dam up a creek in order to have a fresh water basin, or you can sit back and do nothing. Beavers don't mind damming up a creek, but then, beavers probably don't think so highly of themselves as to think their impacts are relevant on the scale of nature (eons).

[Nederland]

35. Agreed, it is faith

However, it is a faith that has a much better track record than the "humanity is doomed" faith.

[GliderGuider]

37. Nobody says humanity is doomed. However,

The "Civilization is doomed" faith has quite a good track record. Almost 100% of civilizations have proved it correct.

[Nederland]

39. That's cheating

It's like saying: "You're going to die." Eventually you will be right.

The real trick is getting the timing right. If you say to a person who is 30, you need to spend ten million dollars on X or you will die next year, and you are wrong, you've done that person a great disservice. The fact that the person eventually dies at age 70 is irrelevant--you've still done them a great disservice.

And by that measure, predictions of civilization's collapse have a horrible track record, and have done a great disservice to those that bought into them.

[joshcryer]

41. Actually, if "civilization was doomed" and if "almost 100% of civilizations proved it correct."

We simply would not have a civilization right now, would we?

Just because socioeconomic collapse occurs doesn't mean that civilization, society, doesn't continue. The most relevant example we have are the Dark Ages, but they didn't have considerable impact on the overall growth of civilization.

[GliderGuider]

44. We're pretty much the only surviving exception.

Ask the old Romans, the Minoans, the Aztec and Maya, etc. etc. etc. All we have in the world today, out of all the hundreds of civilizations that have existed in the last 10,000 years is our single monolithic modern global industrial civilization. All the others are dead and gone. Are we special? How lucky do we feel?

[joshcryer]

45. Hmm, well, when we consider the various obsticles modern civilization has had to endure...

...and the success at which it did endure, we can see that modern civilization is indeed an exception to the rule.

Just for perspective, every year the population of Ancient Rome at its apex dies from disease, or preventative ailments. In other words, for our civilization to fall like Romes did, it would require a significantly higher population culling. Now unless we have a known, predictable, mechanism that might cull these populations (one that cannot, under any circumstances, be worked around through our science and ingenuity) we can't actually claim we are anything like these past civilizations.

[amborin]

47. no, many do say the species itself will not survive more than, say, 50K yrs

[joshcryer]

49. So a species that has lasted a quarter of a million or so is destined to end in 50k? Interesting.

Granted, some transhumanists might agree with that on a more abstract level (transcendence = species dying off).

[joshcryer]

40. I don't know how it is faith. It is predicated on reason.

Collapse is predicated on straw men and red herrings. What's really amusing about the whole debate is that in the end we are all dead, the question is whether or not we die on our terms on on natures. It seems that collapsists want us to die on natures terms, to essentially give the fuck up.

But if we did that we would be going against every fiber of our being for the last 100k+ years.

[amborin]

48. wishful thinking, alas

<http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb00/AAAS.Pimentel.hrs.html>

[Nederland]

50. Questionable Assumptions

The article assumes that world population will reach 12 billion in 50 years. That is not going to happen. Current first world populations are dropping--the only place populations are rising is in the developing world. The developing world is already bumping up against limits of growth. They cannot feed the people they already have. Therefore, one of two things will happen. Either the developing world will "develop" and it's population growth slow dramatically, or it will hit hard limits that result in increased famine and disease, thereby increasing its death rate. Either way, population will not hit 12 billion.

[amborin]

46. interesting article! doubt humans will survive more than about 50K more yrs or so