# Family Size and the Ecological Footprint



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

I decided to start this thread in light of a discussion that resulted from another one on family size, and whether to "add one more".

First off, check out this link as far as your OWN ecological footprint-- it's fascinating:

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

That's for one person only, so figure in your spouse, children, etc. It was a real eye opener for me, and I consider myself a staunch environmentalist.

How do you feel about family size and how it impacts the environment? Is environmental impact a factor in your family planning decisions?


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

wow, that is a cool link! i'm going to send that to the rest of my family. it's really a stab in the gut to hear "if everyone lived like you" we would need x number of planets.

environmental concerns are a huge factor for me in determining family size. ideally, for me, i would adopt, b/c i know that there are plenty of kids that need homes. but i really want to experience pregnancy and birth, so i'll have at least one biological child. i'll probably have two, and i feel ok about that. i think two kids for two adults is ecologically fair, but i'm an american, and i can justify whatever i do. just kidding. what i mean is, i'm an american and i'll be raising american kids, who will use more than their fair share of resources, just as i and dh do.

i am always striving to be more environmentally friendly, though, so if i can instill that in my babes, maybe that will be easier to justify.


----------



## CeraMae (Apr 25, 2003)

Food for thought:
In a world where most parents chose to limit their family size in order to accomodate the economy. Families who had many children would populate more rapidly. Eco-friendly families would then be "weeded out" of the population whereas large families would dominate, and the whole point would be mute. Basically by process of natural selection, those who consciously limited the size of their family would die out.


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

that is only assuming that every child from a large family in turn decides that large families are best and has more than the average number of kids. deciding how big one's family is isn't genetically encoded, so a couple could have eight kids, then those kids could grow up in a society where most people have decided to limit the number of kids and those eight kids could have an average number of kids themselves.

this essentially happened during the last century, which started out with as-large-as-possible families as the norm, but as birth control became more accessible/acceptable, family sizes shrunk when children from large familes grew up and had smaller families. now it's an exception rather than the rule to have really big families. and hopefully (ecologically speaking) that trend will continue.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Quote:

Eco-friendly families would then be "weeded out" of the population whereas large families would dominate
Well I think that education by those families could help "convert" other families to being more eco friendly.

This quiz was neat! I got 15 vs. 24 as the average for my area. However they didn't take into account that we use cloth diapers, recycle, and have water-saving devices on our showers. Or that we keep our theromostat up in summer, down in winter to conserve energy. Most of our neighbors have pools, SUV's and, and use disposable everything.

I did one for my SIL's house in India, and she just built a house that's really cool. Has her own solar generator to save money, and roofs that colllect rainwater and purify it to use during the drought seasons. They also have their own well, and line dry all the time. She scored a lot better than I did!

Darshani


----------



## Aster (Aug 12, 2002)

I havent done the footprint test for a while. I scored a 6. Average for my area is 8.8.

Anyways, back to the discussion at hand. In large families, there's a lot of buying in bulk, handing down clothing, carpooling, getting the most use out of things possible. A lot of big fam's are pretty frugal with resources out of necessity. We always ate lower on the food chain bc it was cheaper.

Hm, i just redid the footprint test with the data that would have been valid when i was still living with my parents...i'm from a family of 11, and it gave a footprint of 3.7

So my footprint was actually smaller when i was in a big family?

ps, we're only planning on having one child...being the oldest of 9 kids really sucked and i never want to have a big family.


----------



## spinach (Jan 26, 2003)

Quote:

Families who had many children would populate more rapidly. Eco-friendly families would then be "weeded out" of the population whereas large families would dominate, and the whole point would be mute. Basically by process of natural selection, those who consciously limited the size of their family would die out.
In the above quote there is an assumption that children of large families will also have large families. It also assumes that there is no hope for environmetal education. I'm pretty envionmentally conscious and many people in my life have been influenced by my example or through conversations with me to become more environmentally conscious themselves. I come from a family of 4 (not huge, not small) but I believe in small families for environmental reasons. If our dd ends up "buying into" our philosophies (env, vegetarian, etc) I believe that our child (or 2 children in the future) could also influence people through example and education. Then again, she could turn into an Alex P. Keaton.







.

Then again, the idea of a huge family of earth-loving children is a pretty cool thought.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

I'm feeling pretty good abvout myself, especially considering that they do not take into acount the many other things that we do for the enviroment, as USAmma said.

Quote:

Then again, the idea of a huge family of earth-loving children is a pretty cool thought.
spinach, that is how we feel about it. I grew up in a family of 7 children. Our family was very eco friendly, and did so much more for the enviroment than nearly anyone around us (most of which were people who had small families.) We all love the earth, and animals etc., and truely feel responsablety to protect, and care for it. I certianly don't think that a big family = bad for the enviroment. It seems to be the most people in this society don't even think of the enviroment, it's just not important enough, and someone else can worry about it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that to me the number of children isn't nearly so important as how you act, and what you do, and what your children do.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

The overpopulation crisis, and the impact of humans on the environment is a very complex issue. Large family size is only ONE of many, many factors. And frankly, I'm not convinced it's any more important than the others.

If everybody were having ten kids then yes, I'd say a large-scale education campaign against big families might be in order. But I bet every mama here of four or more kids can attest that people everywhere stop and comment in awe at them - that's because it just isn't seen much anymore.

And consider that in areas where women typically have tons of kids, it's usually b/c they have no access to education and contraception.

It's easy to see how a family with two kids in a 3000 sq ft home with 2 cars, disposable diapers, a huge lawn, and no recycling could easily leave a larger footprint than a family with four kids, in a 1500 sq ft apartment downtown, no car, who cloth diaper and buy everything second hand.


----------



## nikirj (Oct 1, 2002)

I got a 7 - not bad, since the average for my area is 24!! (OUCH!)

My parents have a 19 - and I was kind about their car mileage and public transportation. There are 5 people living in their house now, and they produce nearly 20x more trash than we do in a week (we have 4 in our apartment).


----------



## MelKnee (Dec 5, 2001)

I got an 8 vs 24 for my area.

We live on 5 acres of land. My new goal is to get my footprint down to that 5 acres.









I don't agree that large families continue to have large families. My paternal GPs had 14 kids. None of those kids had more than 4. And only a few of my generation has more than two. However, out of all of those people, my family is the only one that doesn't buy disposable everything.


----------



## nataliekat (Dec 3, 2002)

Everyone keeps talking about how they and their children live. IMO, what matters is not how you and your children live when you are all in the same household.

What matters more to the environment is probably the fact that each addition to the family will have their own household when they become adults. That means more resources will be used to build their housing, and that more open space will be used to house them. For me, that's it right there. The more people, the less open space we have.

Plus the fact that they will use irreplaceable resources no matter how carefully they live.

Edited to add: We scored a 10 vs. 24. We take a lot of public transportation, but could do better on the way we eat. Something to work on.


----------



## comet (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm trying to figure out why I got a 22. ???

Is it because there are only 2 in my house? Would I get a lower score if I had 4 more children? Apparently it would be a lot lower if my husband hadn't moved out.

Anyway - very eye opening!


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

I haven't taken the test yet - I will later and edit to add.

But I must say that I do feel really strongly about the family size factor. Being in So. Ca. and seeing the impact of housing on the surrounding open space I am very much in agreement that more kids in the end means more housing when they grow up (although in S. Ca housing is so expensive most kids never leave home







).

That being said - I plan on having two biological children but then adopting at least 2 more. I would adopt 8 more if DH would let me get away with it. But sadly he has limited me to only 2.







There are just way too many children out there without families for me to feel even remotely comfortable without adopting at least a few of them.

edit to add:

We scored 13 out of 24. Unfortunately among other things they don't take specific areas into account. Where we live public transportation is basically useless. In a 13 mile long city it can take approx. 1 hour to get from one end to the other. Not advisable with a toddler. And my dr. and farmer's markets are in other cities.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

The housing issue wouldn't be such a factor if everybody didn't insist on having their own house with garage, white picket fence, and ten acres of land around them.

Not that there is anything wrong with wanting that - it's lovely, I'm sure. But in many places that's just a pipe dream. Small communities arranged in such a way as to maximize density, allow for shared green spaces, encourage walking/biking and public transporatation, etc....these types of communities can go a long way to reducing the impact of more people.

Besides, I believe that in the US and Canada and other developed countries, we are fairly close to achieving zero population growth, so I don't think a few people wanting to have big families is such an issue.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Interesting quiz. And it's amazing what large footprints all those living in America are leaving.

As a comparison - I live in Scotland. We live relatively well for our area (although our income is very small compared to what we would make if we lived in the States).

I scored 5.9, with an average in my area of 6.8. Makes you think a bit about the average American lifestyle, doesn't it (I'm American myself, by the way)?


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I scored eleven but the average in my area is 24. (yeah, yeah, things will be different when my dh works at home and we don't have to use the car at all) I want to have a large family though so just out of curiosity I entered in the information with the necessary adjusmtends for if I have seven or more kids and I scored lower!!!









So I guess it is not the amount of people around, it is wether they are producers or consumers. A family of eco-friendly people consume much less than your average "Sprinkler city" -.5 acre lawn folks.


----------



## zealsmom (Nov 22, 2001)

This is very interesting to me.

I took the quiz twice, once choosing INdia (where we use to live) and once choosing the US where we now live.

For India, we scored a 3.5.
For the US, we scored a 25.

The difference between the two is only this: the size of our home and the type of dwelling. We lived in a small apartment in Delhi and have a 2000 sq.ft. home in the US. Our habits are the same as far as buying all our food unprocessed and locally, biking for transportation, eating strict vegetarian, and having less waste than those around us (except not in India, we had eqal waste there).

The other thing that may have brought them up is that we fly in excess of 100 hours each year.

Anyway, I'm sad that we scored so high in the US even though that compared to most people we know, we are so much more environmentally conscious. Maybe it was the flying that threw us over. Regardless, I am sad about it.


----------



## zealsmom (Nov 22, 2001)

Yeah, It's the flying!

I did it again without the 100 hours of flying. Brought us down to a 5! Wow! I never realized what all that travel meant!


----------



## TEAK's Mom (Apr 25, 2003)

This is definitely an interesting quiz. I do think that it fails to take a couple of things into account. We scored an 11 and it said the average for our area is a 24. But, they do not take into account the fact that you cannot drive here, you must fly or spend several days on a boat. Without the flying, we went way down. I also agree that it doesn't take into account cloth diapering, recyling, breastfeeding, etc.

But, it really makes you think about family size. Our original plan was to have two children on the theory that they could replace us. But, I like the idea of raising a bunch of earth-friendly kids. Maybe the world needs my kids?


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

okay, i want some credit for breastfeeding and not having a period for almost 2 years and then using the Keeper and not tampons! :LOL and we don't use paper towels or napkins or disposable diapers and wipes.
we scored a 16, which is high compared to the rest of you. oh the shame. i thought we were making a smart move by only having one vehicle and taking turns with it, but i guess that doesn't matter. now, if i could figure out a way to get my dog to haul me around..........
this gave me new resolve to fix up our eating habits. it's hard when your dh wants to eat chips and cookies and fast food for every meal.
our house is defintiely too big for us. the next time we buy a home it is going to be a lot smaller.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Are there any other quizzes like this out there? I want to try a more comprehensive one.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Are you guys serious when you say the average number is 24 in your area????? As in 24 biologically productive hectares per person? I'm an ex-pat American, and I have to say, even I am shocked. What the h*ll do you have to do in a year to require 24 hectares to sustain yourself? Thank goodness I'm living in the land down under now, where the average footprint is 7.6. I scored a 5.9, which confirms my suspicions that I've been slacking off on the greenie front lately- off to the community garden for me now, I think!


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

i think america in general gets a 24. big houses, big vehicles with shitty gas mileage that we drive to go half a block, processed foods, meat at every meal, you get the picture.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Hey, I think I've been slagging you guys off too much; that's actually 24 ACRES in the US, which is a big difference to 24 HECTARES- There are about 2.5 acres to each hectare. (But I could make a cheeky comment about the Americans refusing to get with the metric program )

And I re-did the quiz as I would have lived in my uni days in Washington state- still needed 2.5 planets to sustain everybody at that lifestyle, which is astonishing considering my consumption patterns were so much more environmentally friendly back then.


----------



## MelKnee (Dec 5, 2001)

Ok, I just redid the test using data from my living-high-of-the-hog days. When it was just me and my dh, two incomes, two commutes, big house, a lot of waste. I got only a 15.9. I can't imagine how much someone would have to consume to get a 24.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Hmmm, I got a 12 which sounds good until I noticed it would take 2.5 planets for everyone else to live by my high standard!!

db


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Quote:

The housing issue wouldn't be such a factor if everybody didn't insist on having their own house with garage, white picket fence, and ten acres of land around them.
A good point. I really don't understand why nearly no one questions the "need" for this kind of lifestyle! We live with family right now, trying to save money, etc., so that we can buy land and hopefully homestead so that we will be living off of the land we own (a small number of acres) as opposed to how we live now, and the choices we have for living. I don't feel bad about wanting a large family, especially if we can completely live off of our own land.
This is an interesting dissucion, it's given me lots of things to think about.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I realize reading that quote from me that my "10 acres of land" was an exaggeration that led to a good point (made by lunar forest), but I didn't want to come across as criticizing anyone who prefers the "country life". I can definitely see the appeal in that, and if you use your 10 acres to sustain yourself, then that's way cool too.

I guess it's more of a suburb thing that I was trying to refer to. With everybody having their own oversized house with an oversized lawn that requires fertilizers, mowers, and lots of water to maintain, etc. Those type of develpments are really a big drain on resources, IMO.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

I completely agree that, especially in America, our lifestyle does use and misuse too many resources. However, there are a few key issues brought up here that I take particular unction with...

First and foremost - except those who desire to live in New York City no one aspires to live and raise their children in apartments surrounded by cement. Apartments are a stepping stone to a suburb life. And what is wrong with that?

Right now I live in a detached condo. 1511 sq. ft. My backyard is 600 sq ft. My front yard 2 ft X 20 ft. It fronts the street. In my backyard I have a patio and dirt. In the dirt I have 3 zucchini plants, 3 tomato plants, a tangerine tree, and a nectarine tree. Unfortunately, I can not take my baby out into the yard with me while I garden. He will never be able to be let loose to play in the back or front yard without my constant supervision until he is almost 10. I will have to walk him and his siblings to the park for them to be able to play outside. What is wrong with me wanting a house and yard that enables my children to play outside as preschoolers and elementary schoolers without me having to stand over them. To have grass, a swing, and maybe a mini pool?

The idea seems to be that it is okay to have a ton of children but not okay to want them to have certain lifestyles. If everyone on this planet limited themselves to only 2 children everyone could have a suburb lifestyle without running out of resources. On the other hand if everyone had 10 kids on a self sufficent 10 acre farm we would run out of resources only a few generations.

I also feel very strongly that if you want to raise ecologically responsible children you should try adoption for anything more than 2. Because regardless of how much you recycle, etc. you and your children will still be using non-replenishable resources, including and especially fresh water supplies. What better way to teach your children about respecting the earth than to love someone else and not add to already over-populated planet. There are millions of children out there who need homes and would love to help "save the environment."

Sorry if I offended anyone but I feel very strongly, especially about the second issue. My dream would be to adopt 8 children from China, Russia, Africa, and South America (plus my 2 bio boys) and we would all live in a 4000 sq.ft. house with a yard big enough to grow enough food to help feed us all year.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

What a fun quiz! For our current situation, i scored a 7. Interestingly, I did it for when we were living with my mother and scored a 13. I think this is mostly because they have a house and we had a *lot* more trash. Now we're using cloth diapers & we can recycle, so we do. I've read more than once on this thread that the test doesn't take cloth diapers or breastfeeding into account, but I think it does in terms of waste production. Dh & I have *much* less trash than our nieghbors; we average one bag every 2 weeks.

I'm also working very hard to limit processed foods, partly for health reasons and partly to cut down on trash even more. And I've recently become a vegetarian, eating (but not living) as a vegan. (I'm allergic to milk and eggs, but I will not give up honey or my skechers. *hehe*). I think I could get that footprint smaller if I didn't drive in to see Eli's grandparents so often, but short of that I'm not sure what else I can do.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Quote:

With everybody having their own oversized house with an oversized lawn that requires fertilizers, mowers, and lots of water to maintain, etc. Those type of develpments are really a big drain on resources, IMO.
I completely agree, piglet! I think, maybe some people on this thread are missing this point.

Quote:

Besides, I believe that in the US and Canada and other developed countries, we are fairly close to achieving zero population growth, so I don't think a few people wanting to have big families is such an issue.
I think that Piglet made a very good point here. Of course it would be wonderful if all the children in need of a home could have one, but it isn't very practical for everyone to adopt, and I take exception the statement that the only way to be ecologically responsable is to adopt. I understand that you feel very strongly about this, irishprincess, but I think this idea is a bit extreme, and unrealistic. Especially considering the cost, availability, and possibility for most people to even be considered for adoptees. I have freinds and relitives whom have been involved in the adoption process for years. It's not the romance that one might think.
Most people will probably never be able to afford to adopt any children, so should they than be limited to only 2 children? Perhaps I have just misunderstood what you ment?

My feeling is that you can, and should raise your children to be ecologically responsible, regardless of the number of children you have.

btw, it only takes 3 acres for a family to be self suficiant...


----------



## Zhlake (Mar 19, 2003)

Well as embarrassed as I am to post this I will. I scored a 24. Someone wanted to know how you could possibly get this--well I eat meat or dairy at almost every meal, I live in a really big house with only 3 of us there, we drive an SUV, we eat a lot of processed foods, and we have running water and electricity! I wouldn't say that we are more wasteful than your average mainstream family, but we are definetly not enviornmentalists!


----------



## Lovebugsmommy (Nov 16, 2002)

2.8 YEAH!


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Lunar Forest:

I agree to a point. Adoption is not always feasible for everyone. If you want an American baby the wait can be years, if you want out of the country the expense can be tremendous, and if you do it through foster care it can be heartbreaking.

And I didn't mean to imply that you are not being ecologically responsible if you don't. Although I don't believe that large families are ecologically responsible. In most cases of adoption where there is a will there is a way. But most people that I know and that you would even ask would be honest enough to admit that adoption is only a last resort measure. That they want "their own." Which is why fertility clinics make such big money. Adoption rarely enters into the vocabulary of families and I dearly wish that would change.

The argument however, that people can't afford adoption is not a viable one. If you are willing to do foster care most states will end up paying for things like medical expenses and college educations for adopted foster children. You just have to be willing to open your heart up to sometimes damaged children.

However, I trust that you didn't mean to imply that I was "missing the point" on this thread. I completely understand that as Americans we have probably one of the highest levels of waste in the world. What I don't agree with is that it comes almost completely from the size house we live in which seems to be what was implied not only from Piglet but also from the test itself.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the idea of "oversize". I live in S.C. very few people have what you would call "oversize" lawns and houses. But I know that I don't agree with the idea that you have to live either in an apartment or a 10-acre "self sufficent" farm to be within the code of environmentally friendly and ecologically responsible.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, I believe that in the US and Canada and other developed countries, we are fairly close to achieving zero population growth, so I don't think a few people wanting to have big families is such an issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But only if they live in apartments not the suburbs, right?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I couldn't disagree more that "no one" wants to raise their children in an apartment...there are many, many wonderful urban neighbourhoods in cities and towns across the US and Canada. It just requires dismissing preconceptions (living in a "concrete jungle") and a shift in attitude.

I do not want a house. To me they are one big ol' PITA and just not the way I wish to live. We just bought our dream home, and it's on the 15th floor of a high rise, right in the city. The neighbourhood is a thriving area, and we are right across the street from a fabulous waterfront market full of farmer's produce and fresh seafood. There's a huge arts community nearby, many beaches, waterfront seawall walks, children's water parks...heck there are parks in every direction. Our kids will not be "surrounded by concrete". Sure I won't be able to leave them unattended in the back yard, but having one floor sure comes in handy when you're trying to watch the kids and do laundry and houseclean! AND there's a fabulous community garden just three blocks away where we'll have a plot to grow our own veggies and let the kids play in the dirt.

Anyways, my point was that there are many factors involved in the footprint. Family size is one, your home is another. I don't see alot of people growing up wanting large families, but I do see alot of people still buying into the "American dream" of owning a house in the 'burbs, so IMO that is the bigger concern. But certainly one can have that and "make up for it" in many other ways.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

I scored a 7 and we have a large family! The average for my area is 24. I guess some things are relative. (







ha! ha! a little joke there - family - relative







)

I'm not going to enter this family size debate, because I don't want to waste the energy, but I sure would like to see the same respect and tolerance given to those that choose a large family as is given to those that choose other options and lifestyles!

I do think that by living where we can grow some of our own produce and nuture animals is ecological sound. Also we have two families living in our house, which IMO is also a more responsible way to live, even though it is culturally frowned upon in North America.

Ah well, live simply so that others may simply live.

peace and love,
~b


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I'll enter into the large family debate.

We live in the U.S. The population in the US and in other developed nations is at or below ZPG by birthrate (the population increases by immigration) I don't think limiting family size is the issue at hand in the US but rather the way people consume resources.

I have eight children. I am unusual here. Most people have one or two children....not because they care about the environment but because they *choose* to have only one or two children. Oftentimes they choose to have only one or two because "they can't handle any more" or for selfish reasons....but that's their choice (and I'm glad they have a choice)

The vast majority of people around her don't give a rat's behind about the effect they're having upon the environment.

Most people (with one or two children, mind you, live in 3,000 square foot houses with a bathroom for each person. Keep the AC at 68 degrees. Eat tons of meat (and wonder why they're fat) and drive large SUV's (do not need to get through in the snow and ice, either.) Take exotic vacations with themselves and another with their children. Kids are wasteful because they have the notion that things are always there (like magic or something.)

This is typical of the four person family in this area.

In large families, however, children learn to cooperate, to share, to distribute resources fairly because there generally isn't that sense that resources are unlimited because a large family is supporting many more people on a limited income (we're comfortible but still it's being divided in more directions) I think I scored well because we generate much less trash per person, live in a 2,500 square foot house that is shared with seven people. I almost always have *someone* in the van with me.

And, no, so far my children are growing up and not having large families of their own. My oldest wants one or three children (doesn't want two because it's "too typical and boring". DD #2 will likely have one or two (she's studying to become a doctor so won't have the time to have a large family) #3 doesn't think she will have any (she's the Marine) and the rest are too young to have formed opinions.

One reason my older children don't want a lot of children is because they *know* it takes a lot of work and commitment.

I think because our own cultures don't have the problem of population growth (population growth seems to decline with education and economic opportunities) we need to focus on encouraging people to conserve resources. Because so few people want to have large families we can enjoy the special qualities of those rare large families without worrying about overburdening the planet.

Debra Baker


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

QUOTE:
"Because so few people want to have large families we can enjoy the special qualities of those rare large families without worrying about overburdening the planet."

Excellent point Debra. I appreciate your entire post. Hats off to parents of large families!!!!!! They have something very valuable and precious to offer our culture.









:bf














:binky


----------



## spinach (Jan 26, 2003)

Quote:

Because so few people want to have large families we can enjoy the special qualities of those rare large families without worrying about overburdening the planet.
I appreciate the advantages of a big family, as pointed out by DebraBaker, but it's pretty hard for me to swallow the "w/out worrying about overburdening the plant" part. That logic applied in other areas would be scary - "everyone else recycles so what difference does it make if I don't?" "Most people drive relatively fuel-efficient cars so my SUV on the road doesn't hurt the environment that much." Etc, etc. Like I said, I can see the wonderful benefits of a large family but I think everyone needs to acknowledge their impact (direct and indirect) on the planet.

Fatalism warning... My dh listened to a spot on environmentalism/global warming on NPR and told me about it. The host asked the expert (sorry, I don't know who it was): how concerned should we be about destroying our plant? The expert's opinion was that we should be more concerned about the possibility of a self-regulating earth. It's possible that the earth has a similar ability to fight "disease" as the human body. His opinion was that it's arrogant for humans to think we can destroy the earth and that it's more likely the earth would destroy us, making the climate inhospitable to us. I don't know how much credence this opinion has among environmentalists but it's a very interesting thought.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

DebraBaker

Thanks for enlightening others about the reality of large families vs. the myths! I couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Piglet, let me first start off by saying that I did not mean to imply that no one wants to live in high rise apartment buildings. Different people prefer different lifestyles. But along the lines of what you said - owning your own home with a front and backyard doesn't make you a nasty "anti-planet" person either. A person can make up the difference in other ways.

I have to point out one mistake, especially for So.Cal. - we may have a zero population growth when it comes to birth rates for American citizens but unfortunately Mexico does not and the legal and illegal imigrant rate in S.C. is creating a HUGE population problem. Also immigrants to America, from most other nations tend to have large families. And they almost all come with the goal in mind of eventually having a suburban life. An example is a typical Hmong (sp?) family in WI. Everyone pitches in and buys an apartment building, they all live together and save their money and then one by one buy each family their own house.

DebraBaker - the one flaw in your argument about large families is the attitude. You look at your neighbors and judge their lifestyles as being too "wasteful" and disregarding of the planet. Yet you defend what most people see as just as big of a disregard, larger families. If they choose to have smaller families so that they can take vacations, etc. and you choose to have a large family and not do the "extras" what makes you "less wasteful" in the long run.

My point, in the end is this, if everyone on this planet only produced one child for themselves (a couple has 2 kids) and didn't purposely "misuse" resources then the N.A. lifestyle wouldn't be a problem. Or if every family had a dozen or so kids but lived on completely self-sufficent farms (no piped in water or use of gasoline) then it wouldn't be a problem. But I don't believe that one is necessarily worse or better than the other. But the planet can not handle both at once.

P.S. I still wish that people would consider adoptiong as goal rather than a last resort but then I bet most people on this board would wish that everyone would cloth diaper and breastfeed so we all have our wishes and dreams for the betterment of children and the planet.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

P.P.S. I took another look at the test again. It turns out that the house size debate is sort of a moot point. I checked off the worst on everything and food was 6.9, shelter was 11.1, mobility was 13.1, but the goods/services were 39.

So I guess in the end it matters more to the environment how you live your life rather than the house you live in.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Irishprincess,

I'm more thinking of a composite of the typical person living in this area rather than singling out individuals and judging them.

The Joe Schmo who scores an average "24".

As I noted (and you seem to agree) there needs to be some more education and emphasis upon every individual living lightly on the earth. In this culture it is much more about living lightly rather than the number of children people have. I would maintain that the sheer number of average Americans who use up 5 to 10 people's worth of resources has a greater negative impact than the rare large family.

DB


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*I still wish that people would consider adoptiong as goal rather than a last resort but then I bet most people on this board would wish that everyone would cloth diaper and breastfeed so we all have our wishes and dreams for the betterment of children and the planet.*
Yup!









And together maybe we can all make a difference!


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

As a warning, I'm a bit crabby at life in general at the moment.

But still, as I read threads about family size that pop up here now and then, I have a bit of a morbidly curious question.

For those who feel that it's horrible and irresponsible to go 'beyond' a certain arbitrary number of kids, what do you say to folks who edge over that through chance/nature?

I was all nice and ecologically responsible when I had my daughter and my second pregnancy...however, since my sanctioned second fertilized egg decided to split into two embryos, now I'm on the irresponsible outs.

Do you make a moral exception for this? Why? The impact should technically be the same.

However, I will say that since we exclusively breastfeed, co-sleep, cloth diaper, and buy almost all durable goods such as clothing and baby equipment second hand (not carseats though, sorry), I would venture to say that our family produces less waste and contibutes less to pollution than most households with zero or one child. Both my husband and I are 'retired' until the kids are older, so that's one or two less cars on the road. Having kids so close together precludes us from flying to see family. We buy staples in bulk and cook from scratch (to save money, but it also means we do not contribute to sales of processed food and all the waste that entails).

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Footprint program, but I tended to view it as an indictment of our Western (and particularly American) culture of consumerism/consumption, rather than an opportunity to point fingers at family size.

Hey, maybe even as an old fogey I'll be less burden on the system, since I'll have three children to contribute to my care (hopefully) and to help me in my old age--less reliance of governmental support (that's inadequate, and will probably be bankrupt anyway).

I don't know of anyone else except my husband and I in our immediate circle of friends OUR age who's put more than a couple of thousand dollars into retirement or long term savings. That makes them a liability in the long run. What do you think large families are *for* in the 3rd World? Not everyone who lives in a 'poor' country and has a large family is ignorant or has no access to birth control. Maybe they just want to be able to eat and be cared for when/if they reach fragile old age. Do you think loving home care isn't a better use of resources than warehousing in nursing homes?

This is such a complex and layered issue. It really irritates me when people choose one aspect of perceived wastefulness and fixate on it, rather than looking at the big picture.

We could all stand to tighten our belts a bit, regardless of how many times we have spawned or not-spawned.


----------



## spinach (Jan 26, 2003)

Tigerchild, I've read most of the posts in this thread and I didn't see any that were as judgemental as you seemed to take it. I'm one of the "I'm having two" people but I'm not on a high-horse. I can guarantee that you walk into the homes of any of us one or two-ers and you will find environmental "violations". I took this thread to be a "something to consider" conversation. There are so many things we can all do to be kind to mother earth. Just as someone who purchases an object for the home should consider the lifecycle, so should parents consider the long term ramifacations of bringing X amount of children into the world. The main issue with having many children is that the impact (even if ALL offspring are staunch environmentalists) is exponential. 6 children will have children who have children, etc. People require earth resources, regardless of how much you try to minimize your footprint. I drive a station wagon and that takes way more gas than an electric hybrid. My personal reason is that I'm terrified of all the SUVs out there and I want my family a chance in an accident (I used to drive a Honda Civic hatchback). We all make our choices. I don't think it's shameful to "admit" to having a large family or wanting one. Many posters in this thread have explained the beauty of a large family. I love the idea of a huge family of earth-loving people. However, the impact is still there.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

I hopped on the ZPG bandwagon a few years ago, but realized my concerns may be a bit off target. I don't think the issue is so much about population growth, although, the overall world population is a bit scary (we add 1 billion people every 14 years now... and will double our numbers in about 50 years). I think the real issue lies with the huge amounts of waste we generate (and by we, I am mostly referring to Amercians). The SUVs that get 12 miles to the gallon, the fast-food culture, growing landfills and shrinking farmland, urban sprawl. I think it's more about what we consume than how many consumers we have. An interesting factoid is that Americans consume 30 times more water per capita than a citizen of India. That's just an example. The ecological footprint is largest for industrialized nations because we are the largest generators of waste. If we could give the masses an ecological conscience, instead of the numb disposable mentality, it would make a bigger impact than ZPG, in my opinion.

BTW, my footprint was 12 - average, 24. The worst category for me was food because we are carnivores.

P.S. Here is good link to population related factoids: http://www.populationconnection.org/Factoids/ Other links from this site include how the US stacks up to the rest of the world in regards to consumption, etc.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

Hey, maybe even as an old fogey I'll be less burden on the system, since I'll have three children to contribute to my care (hopefully) and to help me in my old age--less reliance of governmental support (that's inadequate, and will probably be bankrupt anyway).
thanks for making that point Tigerchild!


----------



## sozobe (Aug 5, 2002)

There was an article in the $$ section of this week's New Yorker about the benefits of large families. The site seems to be down (blackout-related?) so I don't have a link, but will try again later.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

I was thinking about this last night, and I think _my feeling_ in a nutshell is: Raising my children will change the world and enviroment for the better.
That's the nutshell, now I'll elaborate...
I would like to rais as many ecologically responsable children as I can. I think the more people who care about the earth the better. (Now this might sound condescending, but that's not how I mean it) Me raising many children is going to make a better impact on the world and enviroment than "Joe Schmo" raising 2 children with his 24 point average, IMO
As db said, growing up in a large family that is ecologically responsable teaches children to be that way, there's really not much getting around that. They may feel that it is more responable for them to have 2 children, or none at all. We all make differant choices. None of us our perfect enviromentalists, but we each see different things as most important. I would never have such a large home/yard/unused space as some people, and they would probably not have such a large family as me - but we're all still trying to do what we think is best, right?

So there!

P.S. I have to admit that some of these arguments and statements being made are quite amusing.







Though, interesting, too.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Lunarforest -

Just out of curiosity, do you or have you considered adoption as a means of raising "many" ecologically responsible children?

Why or why not?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Wow-- I left town for a few days after starting this thread, and I never expected it to grow like this.

The original intention of starting this was to create a dialogue on family size and our individual ecological footprints. I consider myself a staunch environmentalist, and scored a 12-- I was amazed. I could rationalize to no end why I scored that, but the fact is, I have a bigger footprint than I thought, based on where I live, my travel habits, etc. The "quiz" is by no means the be-all end-all environmental litmus test-- it doesn't take into account a lot of factors-- but it's a neat starting place.

I was also curious how family size affected the footprint, and much to my suprise, it in many cases seems to lessen the footprint, the larger the family. Of course, that's a conscious family in many cases, and sometimes in others a family crowded due to socioeconomic factors.

It's all so interesting to me. My own personal opinion is that family size DOES matter, and a bigger family carries with it some hefty responsibilities, but I feel that rings true for all families, regardless of size. As far as population growth, I don't buy the argument that having lots of children doesn't impact the population-- it does, based on simple math, exponentially. This is sheer statistics-- the more people, well, the more people.

No one should have family size dictated to them, IMO. I have my views of how I'll do things, and I totally respect others views. I think dialogue about this sort of thing is very valuable-- there are points to be learned from all facets of the issue, and I appreciate the discussion, as long as it's respectful and informed.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Irishprincess,
Yes, I have in fact considered adoption. However, as I said before, it is not the bed of roses that it may seem. In my experiance it has often been terriable thing for all parties involved, much heart beack, etc. Something many people just don't want to believe. You can only believe it when you see it, because adoption does seem like such a wonderful thing.
As I also stated before, it will probably never be an option for me for many reasons which are out of my control.
Adoption is just not for everyone. Maybe some people can handle all that one must go through, I don't think I am one of those people. I'm not that tough.

I think adoption deserves a thread of it's own. If you really want to talk about it you should start one, irishprincess.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Here's another amusing/amused observation from me...

Most folks I know that end up having large families did not come from one themselves. The reverse is not really true, though most of the people I know that come from super-sized families stopped at 2-4 kids themselves.

Limiting yourself to 2 kids does NOT ensure that in the long run your progeny will be less and will impact the environment less. If one of your kids has 6+ kids, then your 'savings' have just been blown out of the water. Conversely, if half the kids in a large to medium sized family limit themselves to one, then really, they're having less impact in the long term than the original example.

One thing we need to realize is that we have no control over our children's reproductive wants. None. That could be a good thing, or a bad thing. But it's not something you can predict with certainly. So I would be careful of becoming too sure of oneself that because you have less children, they will give you less grandchildren than someone who has 4 kids. The ONLY way that someone can say in good faith that they are not contributing to future 'overpopulation' is to ONLY have children by adoption.

I also have to concur that adoption is not to be used as some sort of idyllic solution to the population problem. Adoption is hard work. Adoption has an impact on all members of the triad long after the court proceedings are over. This is probably why most people who crow 'If you want so many kids adopt!' are not adoptive parents themselves. There have been some really interesting threads on adoption here at MDC, you've got all 'sides' represented nicely here.

I can't sum it up better than a previous poster--adoption is *not* for everyone. In fact, some of us bear scars because well meaning people adopted for very wrong reasons. If you wouldn't force everyone with a certain level of resources to bear children, then you really shouldn't try to guilt people who desire a certain size of family to adopt. It's just not that simple, as anyone who's been through ANY kind of adoption process can tell you.

Again, I think environmental impact is most dramatically lessened by HOW we live and how we conserve our resources of all kinds, and less by the configuration of our families. I know my kids will be equipped to live environmentally frugally--they won't have to start from scratch and learn as they go like I did as a young adult. Now, whether or not they continue on that way--that's up to them. But they've got a leg up on the Joneses and their 1.2 kids in that regard.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

I don't disagree that family size makes a big impact on the enviorment, however, I think your ecological footprints test shows that eating habits and travel habits (read: airplanes wreak havoc on the enviorment!!!!) make a bigger impact!

Our family of 9 people living in a modest house scored a '7 acres' in an area where the average is '24 acres.' We are looking at how we can improve that 7, but for 9 people that is less than '1 acre' per person. Not too shabby IMHO.


----------



## spinach (Jan 26, 2003)

This is a very interesting thread. I just found a website that might interest some of the readers: www.unfpa.org (the United Nations Population Fund). I've only perused it so far but it seems to have a lot of good world population information. I believe we must consider environmental issues on a global scale, including population.

I still argue it is statistically highly unlikely that a person who has many children will have fewer progeny (3-7 generations out) than a person who has few. It's all about the potential to procreate. With adoption, there is no greater procreation potential because that potential is already in the world.

I've been thinking about the idea of a large family living off their land; the children loving and honoring the earth throughout childhood. It's an absolutely beautiful image. I am genuinely curious about how the progeny of those children would live 3-7 generations out. Would the family legacy of respecting the earth maintain itself? I hope so. That would be amazing and I'd be all for that. It's the uncertainty that scares me.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

life is uncertian.

Perhaps that is where faith and spirituality enter in.


----------



## sozobe (Aug 5, 2002)

Yes, the New Yorker site was taken down by the blackout. Now it's back. Here's the article:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...alk_surowiecki

Excerpt:

Quote:

The problem is that while it may be economically rational for a middle-class professional to forgo having kids, the effect of a baby embargo would be economically disastrous, and not just for the producers of SpongeBob SquarePants. Parents may have to bear the costs of rearing children, but it's society as a whole that reaps the benefits. We all gain from having more people going to college and becoming productive workers. And all of us-even those who have no children-expect that we will be taken care of by others in our old age. The United States has $6.7 trillion in debt and forty trillion in potential obligations to the elderly or soon-to-be-elderly, and we're sticking future workers with the bill. Even if the American birth rate stays where it is, we're headed for serious trouble. If it drops, look out.

In a sense, children are what economists like to call a "public good," like national defense or scientific research. The essential characteristic of a public good is that everyone benefits from it even if not everyone pays for it. Government usually plays a valuable role in making sure that a public good is paid for. This doesn't mean that the state has to take over driving the kids to soccer practice-or, God forbid, require each couple to have 3.2 "Heroes for the Homeland"-but it should certainly help spread the financial burden of raising a family. There may be some sense after all in having those taxpayers who don't have children subsidize those who do, and there's little sense in cutting back on programs like Head Start. All of us, it turns out, have an interest in improving public schools. It may not take a village to raise a child, but these days it seems to take a village to pay for one.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Lunar Forest - I have thought about starting a thread on the adoption issue. And I might one day, however, since this thread dealt with the issue of overpopulation I thought it was as legitimate of a tie in as driving cars/cloth diapering/eating meat.

Quote

_Yes, I have in fact considered adoption. However, as I said before, it is not the bed of roses that it may seem. In my experiance it has often been terriable thing for all parties involved, much heart beack, etc. Something many people just don't want to believe. You can only believe it when you see it, because adoption does seem like such a wonderful thing._

Quite frankly all I want from everyone is a consideration of the issue. I know full well that it is not for everyone. For one thing I would NEVER want anyone to adopt who could not honestly say in their hearts that the love for an adopted child would be as close if not the same for a bio-child. And it takes a special person to be able to do that.

I have one friend who compared my wanting to adopt a child the feelings one has for a family dog. The idea of that person adopting would scare me to death.

But I do know ALOT of people who have adopted and seen great experiences. No it is not always a bed of roses but neither is raising kids in general.

Tigerchild -

.

Quote:

This is probably why most people who crow 'If you want so many kids adopt!' are not adoptive parents themselves
Actually in my case it is just the opposite. Most of the people I know who don't think I should do it are those who haven't adopted. The many that I know that have adopted don't try and talk me out of it. And while they will admit to it being difficult that will also admit to it being great also.

Quote:

then you really shouldn't try to guilt people who desire a certain size of family to adopt.
I am no more trying to guilt people into adopting then the rest of this board is trying to guilt me into cloth diapering. This thread was about population and its effect on the environment. I was offering my feelings about a way to do both - have a big family and still be ecologically-responsible. Funny, how cloth diapering is considered a given but adopting as an option is a guilt trip.

As a general opinion though, as much as we would like as parents for our children to take on all of our values as adults it is not a guarantee. We raise (or rear as Ms. Manners puts it), our children in an ecologically responsible manner only to have them look at the Jones and decide that is what they want. Or vice versus, how many of us where raised in a home opposite what we want now.


----------



## nataliekat (Dec 3, 2002)

I just wanted to say that I've learned a lot from the dialogue in this thread, and it's given me a lot more to think about.

I appreciate everyone's perspective on this issue.


----------



## lilabet (Aug 6, 2003)

Wow that was cool, I got 3.2 (average in area was 5.3) - how do you guys use so much...?!? I live in London btw. And 1.8 of my score was food, obviously where I need to watch out.

Lil

Edited to add :

OMG -Just realised that 3.2 is divided between me and my husband!!!!!!!! We use 1.6 each!!!!!!!!!! I'm sorry but I don't live massively eco friendly but have a small score, some of the 'perfect' families are using far more than I ever could or would even if I had 20 children! I think the 'large families are bad' attitude is slightly misguided as I have seen no evidence that a smaller family uses less acerage based on what people are saying on this thread....How do you come to your conclusion?


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

ITA with Irishprincess. Having more than 2 children is horrible for the environment.


----------



## veggiewolf (Apr 11, 2002)

In a town where people average 24, we scored a 21 (I fly a lot for work). However, when I did it without the flying, we scored a 9! I think I could improve on what we eat, though, since half of our food isn't from local sources. When we buy a house this year, I plan on growing more produce, which should help.

We have one child, and won't have more for a variety of reasons, but ecology plays a big role. I tend to think that if I had more, I'd feel like I needed more "things".

Great food for thought!


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

that New Yorker quotation: "We all gain from having more people going to college and becoming productive workers. And all of us-even those who have no children-expect that we will be taken care of by others in our old age. The United States has $6.7 trillion in debt and forty trillion in potential obligations to the elderly or soon-to-be-elderly, and we're sticking future workers with the bill. Even if the American birth rate stays where it is, we're headed for serious trouble. If it drops, look out. "

This is a bit of a red herring....the US has huge debt because of the government's priorities, NOT because we don't have enough people to work here.







We have HUGE unemployment and more jobs leave this country all the time.







:

And a note on the flying...it isn't actually the airplanes that make flying so environmentally costly, it is all the infrastructure required to support them: miles of runways, construction costs in "structurally challenging" areas (airports are frequently filled marshland because it is flat -- wasteful to the environment to lose it and tricky to build on), the fossil fuel industry for power, transportation to the airports for the passengers, packaged food on board, etc., etc. Airplanes are actually very efficient per mile if you can separate them from all the other stuff. And, no, helicopters aren't better because they use less space: they require waaaaaay more fuel per mile than an airplane.

I would require 1.3 planets.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by EFmom_
*ITA with Irishprincess. Having more than 2 children is horrible for the environment.*
Like many people have said, it's pretty pointless to pick one issue and claim that those people are ecologically irresponsible, and forget about the many, many other factors invovled. I guess no one is going to change thier mind, but I'm glad that some people at least appreciate the different oppinions.







I'm just a little amazed that after all that has been said about this, some people just don't see it. Barbara's family of 9 scored a 7 (that's *0.7 acres* per person,) where the average _person_ scores 24 (that would be *94 acres* for the "perfect" family of 4.) I guess I just don't understand some of the logic. Certainly it would be less acrage for barbara's family if there were only 4 of them (2.8 acres for her "perfect" family of 4) but it's still pretty amazing that these 9 people live so gently! Just for a comparison, Irishprincess (I'm really not trying to pick on you







) with her family of 4 scored a 13.

I would still prefer to have a large family, and live as gently as we can, rather than have a family of 4 and be able to have the average amarican lifestyle. Irishprincess and others feel the opposite, and that's ok, they should be able to have whatever kind of family they want, especially if they are being "ecologically responsible."


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Interesting thread.

I am not at all surprised by the people who think the majority of the answer lies in each couple only having 2 kids. I was thinking that if people who are not at all otherwise environmentally conscious, were to not have kids at all, then we more environmentally conscious folk could have more than 2, but that is just a thought, as I am sure there are more people out there you don't give a *darn* about the environment, than there are those who do care deeply and want more than 2 kids









But then again this comes from the perspective that each person is very important and I hope the child I am now carrying #3 proves to be as useful a person as my first 2 are







: As I suddenly feel that he/she will have to prove their worth in the world







(and gasp- I am #4 in my family, so I have a lot of worth to prove LOL)

Also, I agree that adoption can be a wonderful option and I am a person who intends to adopt in the future, as my brother and SIL have just been through the process and it was heartbreaking at first and beautiful in the end.

Interesting how this plays out for different people.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jess7396_
*

I am not at all surprised by the people who think the majority of the answer lies in each couple only having 2 kids. I was thinking that if people who are not at all otherwise environmentally conscious, were to not have kids at all, then we more environmentally conscious folk could have more than 2, but that is just a thought, as I am sure there are more people out there you don't give a *darn* about the environment, than there are those who do care deeply and want more than 2 kids










But then again this comes from the perspective that each person is very important and I hope the child I am now carrying #3 proves to be as useful a person as my first 2 are







: As I suddenly feel that he/she will have to prove their worth in the world







(and gasp- I am #4 in my family, so I have a lot of worth to prove LOL)
*
Very good point, jess. I certainlly hope that there is a *lot* more involved in deciding to have children than merely replacing oneself.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

IMHO I think that the environment is most happy when people live more natural lifestyles. I think that since nature sometimes allows women many many children, it cannot be bad for the enviroment of itself. If a woman was to have many children who lived unnatural lifestyles THAT would be bad for the enviroment.

But it seems foolish to say that having lots of children, in and of itself, is bad for the enviroment because otherwise one would think nature would prevent most women from conceiving more than 2 kids.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

ITA, Paxetbonum!


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy







:







:

Since I seem to have opened a huge can of worms let me make a few points......

1) My stance on adoption comes more from the love and pain that I feel for parentless children then it does from my love for the environment. There are MILLIONS of children in this world that NEED love and good homes. Being blessed to grow up and live in an industrialized country should spur us to want to share those blessings if possible. And if you have enough love in your heart to want lots of children, why not _consider_ adoption.

2)

Quote:

I think that since nature sometimes allows women many many children, it cannot be bad for the enviroment of itself
Sorry but this does not hold water simply because until the last 100 years women NEEDED to have many children because most did not survive to adulthood. In America in the 20s the average lifespan was only 40 yo. Now it is 70 yo. The advent of indoor plumbing was THE biggest influence on increasing life expentancy. Antibiotics and other medical breakthroughs have added to that. As humans we no longer NEED to have lots of children to make sure that the human race survives massive outbreaks of small pox, bubonic plague, etc.

3) If you want to have lots of children, that is fine. But don't claim that it is best for the environment and I won't claim that a 3,000 square foot home with a large back yard is best for the environment. It is just a choice of lifestyle.

4) We all seem to be using this test as a means to prove or disprove the impact of many kids on the use of acreage. However, many people here are not taking into account that this is only an initial useage.

A) when I took my test I did not say that I always drove with someone even though DS goes with me everywhere. I only put sometimes because I only considered carpooling with other adults (trips to malls, farmer's markets, zoos and museums) as truly environmentally benefitial.

B) The simple math is our house of 1500 sf + DS#1 grows up and gets a house of 2000 sf and DS #2 grows up and gets a house of 2000 sf = 5,500 sf. Barbara's house of 1000 sf + DC#1 house of 1000 sf, etc. = 8,000 sf.

C) Water usage - fresh water is the number one resource that our planet will run out of first. Someone pointed out that as American's we use 30% more than most other countries. A big part of this comes not from watering backyards but from showers, toilets, simply cleaning for the sake of cleanliness, and just plain having and drinking as much water as our bodies need. Most people in this world do not even use as much water per day as the average American drinks daily.

Lunar Forest - I am not trying to feel like you are picking on me. However, I have tried in every post to reiterate that as strongly as I myself feel about adoption I don't believe it is the entire answer to the problem.

I just believe that from everyone that I have talked to who have personally adopted it solves several problems at one time. For someone who has the capacity to love many children it gives them the children to love, it does not add to an overpopulated planet and it gives a child or children a home, a family and the love that they need and deserve.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

I think that the environment is most happy when people live more natural lifestyles
Unless you live a hunter-gatherer existence, you aren't living a "natural lifestyle." Since you are posting here at MDC, my guess is that you don't. Nature intended you to die young and for the bulk of your offspring to die before they reached reproductive age. Visit a cemetery from the 1700s and look at the headstones and see how and when people died, and even that's much better than what nature intended.

The major issue with large families is not the resource use of the family of origin. It is that the children reach adulthood and go out and establish a much larger number of households, each of which consumes resources.

I come from a large Irish catholic family. My parents had six children. My aunts and uncles on my mother's side had nine, seven, four and three children. None of my brothers or sisters or cousins had extremely large families, but several of my sibs had three and many of my cousins had 3-5 kids. The annual family reunion gives me the cold shakes every year without fail when I see how many people have resulted from my grandparent's marriage. It is simply not sustainable for the planet.

I am an adoptive parent. I don't think it's a solution for everyone either. Adoption isn't always easy for anyone in the triad, but it is a fabulous way to make a family. I do wish, however, that I had a dime for every time I've read or heard from the people who want big families who say that they'll give birth to one or two or ten and then adopt. Yeah, right.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

"I do wish, however, that I had a dime for every time I've read or heard from the people who want big families who say that they'll give birth to one or two or ten and then adopt. Yeah, right."

I am very sorry that your experience has not allowed you to know many families who do this, my life experience has allowed me to see this first hand, and it is beautiful


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Well, since my family is being used as an example, I figured I'd put some 2 cents in. I really would have liked to see this thread discuss the positive things we can do to live gently and simply, so as to leave minimal, gentle footprints on the enviroment.

I am aware that less resources would have 'wasted' were I to have not had children (or fewer of them.) However, I know that the world would have been a less beautiful place spiritually. I'm sorry, but I do not seperate the spiritual aspects of the world's enviroment from the physical ones. This is my opinion, and I am well aware that it is not a popular one, and I will probably be flamed for it. So be it. At this point in this thread I feel that it needs to be said.

There was a beautiful woods behind our house for the last 25 years where deer, skunk, bats and birds made their home. It has been torn down to build storage garages so that the people living in Apts. on the lake will have somewhere to store thier 'stuff.' Perhaps if those people would consider having less 'stuff' there would be more room for living things. That was all I was trying to say. I think that people and animals are more important than well manicured lawns, extra rooms of funiture, dishwashers, cars, boats, 4-wheelers, disposable plates, cans, meal packaging, diapers, tablecloths, clothes, and whatever else we 'need.'

I am speaking to myself as much as anyone. I need to re-think how I live and how my 'trash' effects the enviroment. I need to reconsider how often I am wasting water by letting it run while doing dishes, brushing teeth, or enjoying a long shower. I want to re-examine long trips where I will directly effect the enviroment with unneccessary use of gasoline. These are things that I can directly do to make a difference.

Adoption is a wonderful and blessed thing on so many levels. It certianly deserves a thread of it's own. As far as the impact it can have on the enviroment, I am unsure. I am all for reform of the adoption processes in this country and others, so that it will be a more viable option for those that are not middle class or wealthy. For the children's sake I would like to see speeder adoption processes so that more children can be adopted into homes in the early months of life when the transition for everyone is more optimum.

Now, if everyone would consume less and eat less, or no animal products, the earth could more easily produce the amount of food needed to feed the population.

We can all do something to make our footprints more gentle, for some it may be to limit the amount of children they bring into the world, for others it may be to geat more naturally and consume less waste products. For others it may be to find an occupation that does not require them to go to places where they will need to fly or drive large distances. And for some it will be to live where they can walk or bicyle to work or work out of thier home.

We all can do some things to help the enviroment and live more gently, let's focus on what we can do and not criticize others for not doing the things we do. That really isn't helpful to anyone.

Maybe if we stopped waging war we would have more resources available to love one another. Just a thought.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Barbara

I loved all of what you just said, and this part in particular:
"I am aware that less resources would have 'wasted' were I to have not had children (or fewer of them.) However, I know that the world would have been a less beautiful place spiritually. I'm sorry, but I do not seperate the spiritual aspects of the world's enviroment from the physical ones."

I had been trying to think of a way to say just that, and you said it so much better than I could have.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

EFmom it appears we posted at the same time.

Quote:

The annual family reunion gives me the cold shakes every year without fail when I see how many people have resulted from my grandparent's marriage. It is simply not sustainable for the planet.
How sad for you. Which one of your siblings did you wish your parents didn't have? Or would it have been better if your grandparents hadn't had any? Then you wouldn't be here to be having this discussion with us. Do you not see the spiritual implications of what you are suggesting??









I also know several families that have adopted. One has adopted 4 and always have at least another 4 foster children living with them. These people are 'saints' to say the least! These families adopt out of thier love for the children, not for enviromental reasons. I also know many families (our own included) that would like to adopt, but do not have the resources to do so. (For many adoptions and foster care situations, each child must have his or her own room, IMO this is a waste of resources!)

I have dear friends that do have a large family and have also adopted. They have perhaps saved the life of child they adopted, but the crap that child and the family had to go through is a crime, and will impact this little girl for the rest of her life. Reform is needed.

Again, adoption is another thread, sorry if I hijacked this one with my experiences.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

Which one of your siblings did you wish your parents didn't have?
That's a fairly curious way to look at the situation. I don't sit up nights worrying about all the additional siblings I might have had if my parents had had a little more privacy... I don't waste a lot of time mourning the extra nieces and nephews my sisters might have had if only they'd met their spouses earlier...

No, I don't see any "spiritual" ramifications whatsoever to not overpopulating the planet, other than responsible stewardship of the earth, but this line of thinking belongs on "spirituality" not here I guess.

I know quite literally hundreds of adoptive families and do not know one where the family adopted in order to have a large family in an environmentally responsible manner. I don't think adoption should ever be entered into to "save" a child--it's the wrong motivation and it's damaging to the child.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I think people may be missing the point here. It's not so much how bad the "action" is, it's how many people are doing it.

Owning a private jet, a speedboat, and five cars is definitely bad for the environment - but is this a contributing factor to our planet's distress right now? No. It's the millions and millions of people who own 1 or 2 cars that are the problem.

Similarly, while having a large family does contribute to the population problem, there simply aren't that many people having large families anymore. So I don't think it's fair to act as though anybody who chooses to do so is "inconsiderate" of the environment.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

And let's try to stay respectful of the diversity of families and lifestyles on this board, 'kay?


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

EFmom, I guess my point about the spiritual aspects of enviromentalism was lost on you then.

I must have missed something, because I certianly didn't say my friends adopted to save the child. I said that, because they did adopt her, I'm fairly certian that they did save her life. That is a pretty big difference.

Also I wasn't the one that said one should adopt for enviromental reasons. That was Irishprincess who said that, I was simply replying to her post.










edited to add that I'm really sorry we digressed here. our planet will only be changed by love!


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Barbara -

I 100% agree with your entire post. And it scares me that so many people have taken so many of my words and intentions out of context. Although I don't believe that it was intentional. (It does give pause to consider the art and difficulty of diplomacy though).

*Personally,* for *ME* I want a large family but I do not feel comfortable bringing that many children into the world. First and foremost because too many other children need the love that I have to give. And a very distant second because there are already too many people on the planet.

But I don't believe it is fair to children to ever bring them into your home (bio or otherwise) with anything other than love as the intention. Don't give birth to kids simply because your parents guilt you into it, your religion tells you not to use birth control, don't bring other kids into your home because you want the money of foster care, you want to "spiritually" save a child, you want to "save" the environment. Bring any and all chldren into your home because you want to love them.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I am sorry if my post was interpreted as being anti-adoptive.

I am totally for adoption and probably more por-adoption than most people as I think it is the BEST option for unwanted pregnancies. I grew up with lots of adopted friends and appreciate the sacrifices their biological and adoptive parents made.

I simply think it is wrong to accuse large earth loving families who live sustainable lives of being a threat to the environment when they are only living the lifestyle they think is the best.

I'de like to add that most people spend the money they save from not having kids buying sports cars, fancy vacation homes and using up earth's resources much more than having a child would have.

Just one more thought here. . .

My friend who has five children and siblings with large families once was at a family reuinion and the grandfather griped about how they all needed to "quit" and that there were too many kids already. My friend's youngest turned to him and said "which one of us do you want to go away grandpa ?" He never made any comments again.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

I just want to echo Piglet in asking that everyone stay respectful of folks' lifestyles. It's like we're forming two gangs here, and starting to rumble... Listen-- we all want the same thing, healthy thriving loved families on a healthy, thriving liveable planet. We're coming from different perspectives, but that's no reason to accuse people of not getting their "spirituality" of environmentalism, or to feel attacked because you have 8 children.

"I'de like to add that most people spend the money they save from not having kids buying sports cars, fancy vacation homes and using up earth's resources much more than having a child would have." --- Paxetbonum, I take issue with this. Many of us don't have more than one or two children simply because WE CANNOT AFFORM THEM. I certainly won't be using any money we "save" from not having a large family to buy a fancy sports car or rabidly consume earth's resources in some other way-- I'll be putting money away so my son can go to college if he wishes. ... And he'll never be bankrupt in love....









"The major issue with large families is not the resource use of the family of origin. It is that the children reach adulthood and go out and establish a much larger number of households, each of which consumes resources."---- EF Mom, I totally agree with you, and I don't understand how this is being misinterpreted as an attack. It's just exponential math, and bears true in any animal population. No matter HOW softly we live on the planet, each being consumes resources.

Instead of arguing with each other, we should be finding the common ground from all sides of the issue to make real sustainable change for the planet.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

No offense ment, Island mama. I said "most" not "all."


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I know, I know simple math. But... my grandmother was one of 13, she had one, my parents had 4, and of the four, I am the only one who will have children of my own, the rest will adopt and not have any biological children. Also, as someone pointed out before, your 2 children might choose to have big families, so you can only be responsible for the next generation, but even then, I still agree that more children cannot be compared to disposable diapers, SUVs, and all other wasteful things, sure there is more opportunity when there are more people to "waste" but people bring about good in this world, and none of the disposable diapers I have seen do much of anything good (OK, now someone flame me and tell me how a disposable diaper has taught them so much and cared for them when they needed it







LOL-just a joke people







)


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

Instead of arguing with each other, we should be finding the common ground from all sides of the issue to make real sustainable change for the planet.
Agreed! I think this is what we are all saying.

No question your math is correct, but as others have said, math alone does not take into account the spiritual effects of those lives. Comparing generations of people to the effects of airline exhaust, and chemical and human waste build up of disposable diapers, etc. does not, IMHO, reflect a consideration of the spiritual enviromental aspects of this planet.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

BTW did you all know with the amount of grain it takes to produce one _beef steak_ you could feed 10 men! (and that does not even take into account the vast amount of land and other energies it takes to raise and house that one "steak."







)
Many tribal men have never eaten that much grain in one meal. Just think how we can effect the planet with a vegetarian or vegan diet.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Jess, barbara, Paxetbonum - good points all around!









I would much rather have my too many children respecting and loving the earth and animals than have the perfect family that eats, wears and otherwise abuses them! I agree that the spiritual impact is one that should be taken into account. I also agree that everyone should be respectful of eachothers choices, even if you truely believe they are wrong - it's not your choice to make!


----------



## nataliekat (Dec 3, 2002)

"I still agree that more children cannot be compared to disposable diapers, SUVs, and all other wasteful things"

"I also agree that everyone should be respectful of each others choices, even if you truely believe they are wrong - it's not your choice to make!"

I'll respect your environmentally irresponsible choice to have a large family if you respect my environmentally irresponsible choice to use disposable diapers. Deal?


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I did not say that I would make any choice for you, I said disposable diapers and SUVs cannot be compared (in worth) to children. They are not equally "good" IMO, that is the point I was making.

I know none of us makes all environmentally conscious decisions all the time, I just resent my choice of a third child being compared as equal to a choice of sposies and SUVs.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Oh my!


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

ITA jess.

I think quality of life, not quantity is the issue here.

I love my "irresposible choice. " . . . and look forward to more.


----------



## nataliekat (Dec 3, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jess7396_
*I said disposable diapers and SUVs cannot be compared (in worth) to children. They are not equally "good" IMO, that is the point I was making.*
Absolutely. Children are worth a lot more than disposable diapers or SUVs.

All this "respecting each others choices" is easier said than done. I'm expected to respect another's choice to have a large family. But comments like the ones I quoted in my previous post make me feel like my choices are not respected at all. That is the point I was making.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Ya know what nataliekat, I do respect your right to make the choices that you feel are best for your family and I would hope that you and others would at least try to understand that others also make choices that they think are best for their family. Some of these choices are also best for the enviroment and some are not. The choices are made by individual families, and thank God we have the right to make these choices, unlike states like China, where the Govt. makes the choice for families!









I think that we can all learn a lot from each other even when we don't agree. I am inspired to hear that some of the mamas here are using all solar and water powered energy for their homes! Wow, I would love to be in a possition to do that and am inspired to strive for that goal! Other's are composting much more than I am at present and it has inspired me to do a better job in that area. There is so much that we can do, it is a shame to focus on what other's are not doing. It may make us feel better, but it doesn't inspire us to do better!!







and


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

I think what is being said is the vast majority of one or two child families are *not* making choices based upon their concern for the environment.

I would dare to farther and say that many (perhaps most) larger ecologically sensitive families have a much smaller footprint than the typical three or four person American family (remember my large family scored a 12 or 13 'can't remember) and the average here is 24)

OTOH, I understand that I am extremely blessed to be able to have a large family. If I was living elsewhere I would likely have not been able to have my family.

I think the two sides being articulated here can have peace with one another.

db


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

OTOH, just because a family has a lot of children does not neccessarily mean that they are also ecologically-sensitive either. I think there are probably equal percentages to both in Canada and America. Also in using the original test - the point system is based per person in your household. There is a huge drop in points given based on the number of people per household. I was at 18 for 24 until DH included our coming baby as a household member then we dropped to 13.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I agree that large families are not necessarily going to be ecologically friendly either







I think we all can learn a lot from each other about how to be gentler to the Earth. My point is simply that children bring about good, people are capable of bringing great good to the Earth, to other people, to animals, etc., whereas other wasteful things cannot, YK?

I realize that larger families will raise children who will each head a household and in theory that will make more waste than less children would. I am just trying to say that that doesn't make the case for me that lessening the number of children you have is worth what is gained, for some of us.

I suppose that there are people who so that they can spend more time with their children (or some other reason) choose to use disposable diapers, heck, many choose to use disposable everything or over use other resources in a wasteful way, and I cannot judge them for that.(cause I don't knwo their reasons)

Sure there are many ways to live more gently, I just think even though less children might save a lot, a lot would be lost as well, and what would be lost is more important than any "item" in my opinion.

I think we can all learn a lot from the other thread that was started with the purpose of showing many different ways to live gently, instead of focusing on lessing the number of children as the "best" answer.

Did I make things worse?







:


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Yes, a small family is not necessarily a more ecologically-living one than a large family. It does indeed depend on the choices made as far as one's posessions and transportation and eating habits, to say the least.

However, more people is more people. Several years ago, I photocopied an article in Scientific American Magazine about some archeological work done investigating the soil strata in one area of the Mediterranean. (I think it was in Greece. I'll try to locate the citation and post it here someday...all my "archive" folders are currently in storage.) The conclusion of the geologist-archaeologists was that, judging by the thickness of the organic-based soil layers (as in not just chemically weathered rock layers, and I don't mean "chemical" as in someone pouring lye ove the rocks, I mean "chemical" as in acid/alkaline reactions from groundwater and atmosphere), people settling in an area impoverished the soil. This was a location that had human inhabitants several different times with periods of "lying fallow" and free of human settlement in between. The layers that also contained 'artifacts' (as in things made by humans and then left in or on the ground) were thin and depleted. The organic soil layers that accumulated during periods of no people, or only hunters or gatherers going through, were much, much thicker.

The article postulated (I think, maybe it is my own memory of the writing that makes me extrapolate this idea) that here was proof that even organic farming ultimately depletes the soil and people had to move on to be able to plant and grow food. Human life was ultimately a less-than-zero-sum game.

AND, for those who think that hunter/gatherers are 'in harmony' with nature, just remember, it was most likely human hunters who made the wooly mammoth and mastadons extinct. There is a lot of evidence of this in North America. And the hunters who caused the extinction in N. America were the ancestors of the aboriginal nations who so many romantics revere as ideal natural people. We are all human and truly there are more similarities than differences among us, in our faults as well as our good points.

I am reminded at this point of a chapter in the first book (The Trees) of Conrad Richter's trilogy The Awakening Land. For those of you who aren't familiar with this book, it is by the same person who wrote The Light in the Forest and is about settlers in the early 1800s. I believe the name of the chapter was "The Great Hunt" or "The Big Hunt". Someone had lost animals to or was mauled by a wolf (I think) and most of the men of the area (along with cheers from most of the women) got together, made a HUGE circle around the forest for miles and walked toward the center, killing a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g within the circle. Several weeks later, Sayward Luckett, the protagonist of these books, is pregnant and near starving, there is snow on the ground and she goes out into the woods, hallucinating and looking for something to shoot to eat for her family (her husband is away for some reason, don't remember). She is blessed to see, and hit, a big turkey.

My brain skipped over to another neuron and I am now wondering if these guys were ancestors to all the people I know who buy ATVs and SUVs and rip up the land, roaring around in search of a good time and get angry when we 'tree-hugging luddites' try to keep them off our property. But that is totally off topic.







:

AND, I also wonder about all this call to be so very careful of "not judging" other people's lifestyles when they include things that have a large impact on the human race. Perhaps you have never lived near a garbage dump. Perhaps you have always lived blissfully far from an industrial area. You are lucky. I do 'judge' people who 'choose' to use disposable diapers. I have seen piles of garbage sixty feet high where the amount of diapers (all with human waste on them) has been six percent.

Imagine a typical relatively small solid waste disposal facility (ie: a dump): 400' long x 400' wide 60' high (this is REALLY small, ok?).

That is 9,600,000 cubic feet of trash. 6% of that is 576,000 cubic feet. So, that means half a million cubic feet of convenience and lifestyle choice. 'Scuse me while I bark and guffaw and just plain old laugh at that. How in blazes am I to accept that 'lifestyle' choice without being a little bit judgmental?

Another way of looking at it is the estimate that a child will use 8000 diapers (got that from a link in another thread on this board http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/...sp?Main_ID=554) between birth and toilet training being completed. Estimate (generously) that a cubic foot of space (visualise a box one foot high, one foot deep, and one foot long) can accomodate about ten used disposable diapers. That is 800 cubic feet of diapers for each child. So, that figure above of 576,000 cubic feet of diapers in a landfill is only accomodating 720 children.

I also fear that I have been known to rant nothing but obscenities at seeing the bumper sticker "It's a child, not a choice" on the back of an SUV. (Not to imply all SUV drivers are anti-choice, nor that all anti-choice people are polluters. Ok?







It is just that I've seen this particular combination several times and, no, it wasn't the same vehicle passing me repeatedly!) How DARE they not only get mixed up with MY womb and MY body, but they also want to lessen MY quality of life and destroy OUR atmosphere!! At least, that's one of the more printable things I said at the time.

And I just don't buy it that you 'have' to have an SUV because you've got too many in your family for anything else. I'm sorry. I do indeed judge there. You could live somewhere that everyone could walk to what is necessary and you could rent/buy a diesel van or small schoolbus for those longer trips. If it had a diesel engine, you could run it off biodiesel or vegetable oil. I'm sick of people buying good farmland or woods and turning it into house lots. It's screwed up the migration and hunting paths of mammals, it is changing our watertables and it means that more people have to have the infernal combustion engine. It also results in more paved roads and more retention of heat in the atmosphere.

Entropy, its the law!








edited for a silly grammer mistake!


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Just wanted to say that SUVs are rarely owned by "large" families, they don't seat all that many people (most of them anyway). Also, not many large families can afford SUVs.









It's funny though, cause compared to the mainstream, we are all really eco-friendly people, and no doubt we all have room for improvement, and I'll even go so far as to say that those of us who choose large families have an even greater responsibility to live gently and teach our multiple children to do the same, but alas, I am spouting again. I should try to stop that


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Okay, I would dearly like to know WHAT all you large families do drive. We are planning on our next vehicle being an SUV simply because I have no idea and have not seen a current car that will hold more than 2 car seats at a time and since DH and I intend to have 4 children in the next 6 years 2 of them will be in car seats and 2 in booster seats according to CA law. If you have another cost effecient way (short of changing jobs and moving to another state to avoid needing a car completely) I would love to hear it. If and when they come out with a reliable hybrid SUV that will hold 6 or more people I will be the first in line to get it.

Also, I do use disposable diapers and by my calculations we will use approximately 3,570 diapers by age 2. That is an average, we used more when newborn, less now. Also because of the way disposables are made these days I can fit 35 diapers into a 10"x10"x8" container (less than the described cubic foot container).

Now I know that I am not being the best ecologically conscious person by making this decision and you may judge me if you want. However, in Southern CA where drought and water conservation are MAJOR deals that did add to my decision about whether or not to use cloth (the water in flushing the toilet and washing the diapers). And the chemicals used to treat the diaper services are not good for the environment either so that was a consideration also.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

We have a GMC Safari for when we're driving together as a family and a Honda Accord for trips with fewer people.

In the next few years we'll have two more children going to college. Likely my son will go away to school but I think my daughter will stay around home.

When we need another vehicle I will opt for a smaller (more fuel efficient) van such as a Honda Odessy or a Toyota Sienna(?)

Before the van we had a station wagon. We have always had a big and a small car/van so we could downsize when we had fewer people riding with us.

DB


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

i've been following this thread, and ii'd like to make a few points:

first, the score for the quiz is your _personal_ score. it can't be divided for the other members of your household. if all members live exactly the same, and you got a ten, then multiply ten by the number of people, and that's the household's footprint. it's an imperfect quiz, to be sure, but what you get is what you get.

second, diapers have a huge impact on the environment, whether you use cloth or 'sposies. someone said earlier that water is the first resource that will be used up, and you can't get around water usage if you cd. in many parts of the world, clean water can't be had. we all know this. so i guess this means that if you're trying to be as eco-friendly as possible, you'll do ec, right? but how many people do it? my point is that there are always ways to improve your footprint. whether you choose to continue doing what's easiest for you or constantly push yourself to do the harder things is up to you, but ESPECIALLY in the u.s. no one can really get on a high horse and say "i'm more eco-conscious than you" because the way our society is set up, we ALL can be doing better.

third, population is an undeniable factor in environment quality. sure, you can have just two kids, and they could go on and both have eight, but you could also have ten, raise them ecologically, and they could all go on to lead super-consumer lifestyles. so it's obvious that you don't have a huge family and teach them to be super-consumers. i don't see how the converse isn't also true, that to be most eco-friendly, you have a very small family and teach them to treat the earth fairly. i know this is a hard pill to swallow, as all of us here really love children and know we can provide a loving, nurturing environment for them, but the math is inescapable. what's most appealing to me here is that if every couple had just one child, by 2100, we'd be back to a pre-turn-of-the-twentieth-century population--and that inspires so much hope in me! like maybe we're not too far gone after all, that we can still amend what we've done. but even if everyone has only two kids, the pop. is still going to grow by two billion people!! and if growth rates continue as they are, the pop. will nearly quadruple!!!! if you think natural habitats are being eaten up by developments now, just wait until there are 22 billion people on the earth! but what's going to change?? i know very few people who only want one child, and plenty of people who have more than two. and these are people i love and care about, so i'm not wishing they'd made different choices, but the earth can't sustain this kind of growth. period.

i plan to live until i'm at least 120, so i may just get to see what happens.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Quote:

I'm sick of people buying good farmland or woods and turning it into house lots.
It makes me sick everytime!!!!

About the cars..... We only have one and one of the way right now, so we don't have a vey big car - a Ford Focus, but the back seat does fit two car seats in it. I agree that SUV's usually don't fit very many people. I, personally, don't know anyone with who has a SUV and a big family.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

If ecological factors were the only consideration, I think perhaps one should have no children to make up for the already large population.

The point some of us have been trying to make is that there are other factors involved in making the choice to have children. some of those factors do effect the enviroment both physically and spiritually.

One's ecological footprint can be lessened in many ways and each family (or person, if you will) has the responsibility to choose how they will effect that footprint.

Being sickened by how wasteful others are may make you feel like a better person, but it doesn't really change you or them. It would be better if we would each look at how we can lessen our own impact on the enviroment, and stop pointing fingers at others!!


----------



## mamabain (Sep 19, 2002)

i am loving this discussion.
don't see that i have much to add, people are oh so much more eloquent than i.

the only thing is, how much water does it take to make disposable diapers? if i remember correctly in an analysis i read when deciding to cd, the manufacture of disposables uses A LOT of water.

anyone have any links about this?


----------



## gurumama (Oct 6, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*
Now I know that I am not being the best ecologically conscious person by making this decision and you may judge me if you want. However, in Southern CA where drought and water conservation are MAJOR deals that did add to my decision about whether or not to use cloth (the water in flushing the toilet and washing the diapers). And the chemicals used to treat the diaper services are not good for the environment either so that was a consideration also.*
The water used by the disposable diaper company to make the disposable diapers you will use is FAR in excess of the water you or a cloth diaper service will use to wash your cloth diapers.

And the chemicals used to make your disposable diapers (bleaching chemicals to bleach the paper, sodium polyacrylate for the gel in the disposable, etc). are far more caustic and damaging to the environment than the tiny bit of bleach and detergent used by a diaper service, or detergent alone if you wash your own cloth diapers. 15% of a disposable diaper is made up of petroleum products.

Also, consider the transportation costs and fossil fuels used to transport the raw materials for the disposables to a manufacturing plant, then the fuels used to process the diapers, then the additional fuel to transport the finished disposables to your supermarket. With cloth, this is a one-time thing: your cloth diapers are made once, then washed repeatedly. With disposables, they have to be made over and over and over because they're made once, used once.

It sounds like your impression of cloth vs. disposables is based on the study done in the early 1990s, funded by--surprise--the disposable diaper industry. It's since been debunked thoroughly.

We used disposables exclusively with ds1. We now use cloth almost exclusively (2-3 disposables each week, and we use Tushies, a non-bleach non-gel disposable). We have a diaper service, though I washed them myself until a month ago. It's as easy as disposables, cheaper, and much better environmentally.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*Okay, I would dearly like to know WHAT all you large families do drive. We are planning on our next vehicle being an SUV simply because I have no idea and have not seen a current car that will hold more than 2 car seats at a time and since DH and I intend to have 4 children in the next 6 years 2 of them will be in car seats and 2 in booster seats according to CA law.*
As dorky as it is, have you guys looked into the new models of minivans? They are much better at being fuel efficient than in the past (esp. manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota). Still, if you are used to extremely efficient small cars (like me), be prepared to go into shock at the mileage.









We looked at all sorts of cars for our brood, we will have 3 in car seats for at least the next 2 years and after that 2 in a car seat and one in a booster. Most SUVs wouldn't cut it. You could fit a goodly number of people in them, but carseats take up more room. Also, we didn't like the safety ratings of many SUVs--believe it or not they pose more of a danger to the occupants than the other vehicles on the highway! (That was a shock to me!)

Once we finish paying off the ICU bills for one of our boys, we'll be getting a Honda Odessy. I am mourning the fact that we're getting a minvan, but it's really the only option that we could find that was a good fit, allowed us to position car seats safely and with easy access in an emergency (no crawling over other seats to get to the middle child), and it got a hell of a lot better mileage than most SUVs, and doesn't have the flip-over problem. The cost is roughly the same, maybe a little less expensive (but we're not getting the big options package).

I am just hunting for a 'Minivans are tangible evidence of EVIL' bumpersticker (saw one the other day) to stick on it, so I feel better.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by barbara_
*Being sickened by how wasteful others are may make you feel like a better person, but it doesn't really change you or them. It would be better if we would each look at how we can lessen our own impact on the enviroment, and stop pointing fingers at others!!*
Considering that I'm the one who first used the word "sick" in regards to how I felt when confronted by profligate lives, I feel I must respond to this.

I don't "feel like a better person" because I become physically ill and enraged whenever I am confronted by blatant disregard for, frankly, our fellow humans and environment. I feel nauseated.

Did you ever see the movie Billy Jack? (A somewhat cheesy, very idealistic, low-budget film from the early seventies. One Tin Soldier was its theme song.) When Billy Jack goes berserk after seeing racially-motivated nasty behaviour directed at a little girl at a friend's school and beats up several stupid people, no one in the audience is expected to think that he is only doing so because he has not confronted his own latent racism.

According to the (rather superficial, as several have already pointed out) test at the start of this thread, apart from moving out of the United States, there is little I could do to further lessen my impact on the environment and still be alive and healthy. I ran that test several times. The score I noted on my first post in this thread (1.3 planets) was because I live in the United States. I also ran the test with my consumption habits (note that I did not say 'lifestyle') from other periods in my life...when I lived in Spain, Scotland, and Canada. Despite being a seventeen year old thrill seeker and eating meat heavily when I lived in Scotland, I used less planet (under one planet) than I apparently do now. I also used less planet when I lived in Spain in a larger apartment and travelled by airplane more frequently. I do actually live a very low-impact life. I choose to be here in NYC to continue that low-impact life in this country. I have access to most incredible public transportation system in the world and the largest one in the US. The test scores are affected by the home country, and, therefore, by the AVERAGE consumption habits of the people we choose to associate with, IE: our fellow consumers. The American Dream is a poison. Life can be pleasant in other countries. It IS different. And the typical Spaniard does not have a front and back yard. You know what, though? They've got beautiful plazas and their cities stop at the edges. Truly stop. You're walking along a street and, suddenly, you come to the end. You are standing on pavement with a fifteen storey <<edificio>> behind you and in front of you are rows of artichoke plants on a <<granja>>. In order to have this, very few have yards. But, I don't regard Barcelona as a concrete jungle. (I suspect that that phrase was made up by real estate agents selling subdivision homes to the masses.)

This quotation above seems to say that no one is entitled to ever point out another's failings because, in the writer's eyes, no one is perfect. Well, I wasn't pointing out anyone's individual failings, I was pointing out larger consequences of consumption choices using one particular thing as an example. And I'm not perfect, but, as far as consumption goes, I'm good enough. I do live a sustainable life.

This quotation is also anti-democratic. Democracy requires communication and hashing thing out. That means that there might be disagreement and things might be said that others don't want to hear. That's life in a vital community. Community is not some post-modern romantic ideal of everyone being really supportive and really non-confrontational all the time and each person is supposed to just grow on their own and no one is supposed to be upset at another person. Up until relatively recently, poisoning a well was a hanging offence in many places in this country. Extrapolate that and it means that one's neighbors have a right to have an opinion on one's consumer choices. And, now, the choices made have a geographical impact much larger than 150 years ago. So, our 'ecological neighborhood' is much larger than just our street.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Like I said - I know I am not doing the best for the environment by using disposables. And I will confess that most of my reasonings are based on the here and now (meaning that the price of water in our area makes things closer to equal in terms of cost for our family). I obviously didn't take into account shipping and manufacturing costs on the other side.

However, diaper services don't just use water, detergent and bleach they use MUCH harser chemicals which is why most of them, at least in our area, can claim to use less water per diaper then the average person would. Also, given the outrageous statistics quoted earlier from a website about the average use of 8,000 diapers in a 2 year span and the size for land fill I would be hesitant to completely trust those people to tell me how destructive disposables are. Not that I believe for a minute that they are entirely harmless. I will look into Tushies though. Thank you for that info.

Regarding SUVs. DH has done some research on SUVs and found the Suzuki will hold 7 people. It is pretty much the only SUV out there that will and still gets good gas milelage for and SUV (and it is comparable to minivan milelage). It is scary that the SUVs are only safer for the occupants if they are hit by a smaller vehicle. I will admit that DH is bound and determined not to by a minivan which is why he is spending alot of time researching vehicles.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

sohj, I am truely sorry that you become physically ill and enraged, by so many of us here at mothering. I think that you have a lot of good points to make, yet I fear that so much of what you have to say will not be heard because of your stated nausea at our children.

Quote:

'Minivans are tangible evidence of EVIL' bumpersticker
Tigerchild, I love it!! BTW, Our minvan gets the same or better milege than most of the small cars out there and way better than SUV's!! It seems that SUV's are the 'soccer mom' vehicle of the new century, so your hubby might want to consider that before buying.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Does anyone know how long it takes for a disposible diaper to decompose? I know that if you use those damn diaper geini things they practically never decompose!


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

oops double post


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*However, diaper services don't just use water, detergent and bleach they use MUCH harser chemicals which is why most of them, at least in our area, can claim to use less water per diaper then the average person would.*
I have not kept up with the back and forth.

Diapers
I live in SoCal too and we used Dy-Dee Diaper Service for a couple of months.

Quote:

Today, as a rule diaper services use biodegradable detergents not harmful phosphates. The waste water produced from washing diapers is benign, while the waste water from the manufacture of the pulp, paper, and plastics used in disposable diapers contains dioxins, solvents, sludge, and heavy metals. Chlorine bleach, whose manufacture is harmful to the atmosphere, is used in whitening diaper service diapers, but the environmental impact is far greater in the paper-bleaching process used in making disposable diapers.4
How do you know that they use "MUCH harsher chemicals"? I find that hard to believe since the people I know in my area (including us) who have used both Disposable (gel-filled - which is a strong, super-absorbant chemical) had babies with horrible rashes.... and once we switched to Dy-dee the rashes disappeared.







Until recently, I used cloth at night. I washed it with our regular biodegradable detergent. Detergent does NOT have to be harsh to work. I don't even need bleach.

We used to use Tushies. We now use another brand (can't remember the name). Unbleached disposable diapers. *Disposable diapers - gell -filled - take 500 years to dispose*. There are lots of links on this topic. Just do a search.
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/motherc.htm

Cars
Yes, we Americans spend/waste too much.







We are not even conscious of it. It's very depressing. Some of it is out of true need, but most of it is out of selfishness. Case in point... my DH







drives a luxury SUV. He treated himself too it. Yes he needs a car to go to work (well, that's debatable too... all his co-workers COULD carpool/bus to work) but he doesn't need a gas guzzler. I would love to drive a Hybrid (gas/electric) but he says no. He thinks I should stick w/ my Volvo SW because I'm safer... on the road, I'm surrounded by SUVs, Hummers, Chevrolet Suburbans, trucks, etc... It's insane.... he's right.







:

I told my DH







that my dream is to have a 3-car garage (for myself). It would have
1. Minivan for the times I want to carpool with my mommy friends 2. Electric car for local errands
3. Volvo SW for long treks alone with the kiddies

Children & Ecological footprint....
I don't think more children = more spending/waste. It does in America though. Not in the rest of the world. That's the big difference. Should Americans have less children? No, we should just be more aware of the impact we have and aim to lessen it.

I buy USED, plastic toys. I avoid buying new toys... that's one way....









When I went to Ecuador, I was stunned to see a family of 5 (3 daughters, 2 adults... plus grandma) and how little they spent on "stuff" (whereas I'm buying something everytime I go out!!!) and *how little their garbage bag was*. It was literally one shopping bag for the whole household. They were working-middleclass, not rich or poor, it's just that there isn't a Consumer Mindset over there like there is here. I'm home and I'm aware of it, yet is it very difficult to remain conscious of it and fight it off.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Oh sohj, it appears your pm box is full, but I wanted to tell you:

I'm sorry it appears I did misunderstand you. I guess I did lump your post with others. I am sorry.

I do appreciate the perspective you have given as someone who has lived outside of the US. I agree that those of us who have lived in Suburbia, USA for all (or most of) our lives do need a wake-up call as to how the rest of the world lives. The American dream is so imbedded into our mindset, that even when we are trying to break from it and live more simply, we don't see how very wasteful we are.

My apologies to all for becoming defensive in what should be an enlightening and educational thread.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

barbara: I'm sorry about my message box. I forget how small a capacity it has







. I've cleaned it out.

Apology accepted. I gathered that that had to have been what happened. There's a LOT of info. and discussion on this thread







and it is hard to keep it all straight. (I spend so long writing a post and rereading







what people have written that I'm "unlogged" by the time I try and "Submit Reply"







.)

Anyhow....back to our regularly scheduled programming.....


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

a little different take on having less children....

it has some other repercussions.... see the projected scenario for Japan.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/14/173641

"The depopulation crisis has already forced Japan to slash pensions and raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 to keep pension funds afloat. By 2040, says the OECD, the rise in the ratio of dependent old to working young may be reducing Japan's growth in living standards by three-quarters of a percent per year, cutting Japan's GNP by 23 percent by midcentury.

Immigration, once unthinkable to the insular Japanese, is being touted by some as a solution to the looming shortage of workers - and taxpayers. Yet Japan would have to accept some 600,000 foreigners a year to maintain its present work force, and it is unclear where such large numbers of immigrants would come from and how well they would fit into a society that is fearful, suspicious and even hostile to foreigners.

The Economic Planning Agency of the Japanese government recently published a plan for addressing the low birth rate. In it, it proposed a hodgepodge of measures from reducing the work week and providing a diversity of child-care services, to promoting home schooling and improving the environment in the home. "

this has been a topic lately in various news organizations... you can do a google search for more data.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Hmmm..... That is very interesting, trabot, thank you!


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

i don't see a decreasing population in japan as a problem to solve. i don't think anyone needs to be concerned about teaching the japanese about the "value of a child"--most probably value their children just as much as most of us do. it's ridiculous to suggest that because they typically have only one child that they don't value children. that's insulting. and since population growth and economic growth are so linked, i think the economy has to be reworked as the population declines, rather than passively accepting these "modern" economies and the current population growth rate.

and the comparison to the ancient greeks is telling--the greeks were enlightened, right? so are the japanese.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I've been following this discussion with great interest over the last few weeks- a few thoughts.

What is so wrong with wanting to cut living standards if our collective living standards are too high to sustain on our planet without risk of environmental collapse? I take the point about what is happening in Japan with the declining birth rate and the need to increase the age of retirement to be able to support elderly people, but, if people are living to an average age of somewhere in their 80's, why have a retirement age set at 60? When the official retirement age was set 30 or 40 years ago, people didn't live as long as they do now. Why do we see it as a right to be able to leave a job at age 60 or 65, only to expect that you will be cared for the rest of your natural or unnatural life? Alternatively, why do we as a society force people to retire at a certain age when they are perfectly happy to continue in their job? There was a situation here in Australia where a magistrate (judge) got caught out lying about her age so she wouldn't be forced off the bench at 65. Nothing wrong with her ability to do her job, just that the state deemed her too old to continue. I'm not suggesting that we force the elderly and sick into continued work, just suggesting that maybe we need to re-evaluate how we define working-age.

As a animal species (and yes, humans are animals just like a dog, or a chimp, or a mollusc, or a lemming) we have to face up to the fact that our lifestyle and consumption choices are putting us a risk of a serious population crash. We won't get away from basic rules of animal ecology, because we are animals. So we need to make choices, as animals do in the wild, about the reproduction of our species, and think about which generation in the future is going to bear the brunt of that population crash. The thing that really bothers me is that 'developed' countries, already using way more than their 'fair' share of resources, are going to take the rest of the human species down with them. And that, to me, seems unfair.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Sticking up for the Japanese now. I have been to Japan. It's a great country. And I can tell you absolutely that the Japanese LOVE children- anybody's children. I had a high school boy come up to me and want to hold the baby, wanted his photo taken with the baby, his friends wanted to hold the baby...you get the picture. Show me a pack of high school boys in Aus or the US who would be hovering around wanting to take turns holding the baby! Love of kids is ingrained in Japanese culture. And my kids loved Japan.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*The thing that really bothers me is that 'developed' countries, already using way more than their 'fair' share of resources, are going to take the rest of the human species down with them. And that, to me, seems unfair.*
To me, that sums up the entire problem. It's depressing.

Americans want to consume, consume, consume without any thought... even my "dream" of having a 3 car garage (














) with 3 different cars for 3 different purposes is insane.

I do not doubt that the Japanese people love children. The issue seems to lie here:

Quote:

Japanese women are remaining single - having been convinced in some numbers that marriage perpetuates patriarchy and the single life is more rewarding than marriage and motherhood. The Japanese birth rate is plummeting as a result. Those women who do get married do so later, have children later, and stop at one or two.
Young women and couples are enjoying their single status. That's all it is. It does not mean they don't "love" children (I disagree with POV of the article). It's just another form of self-centeredness. Americans are self-centered too - in consumeristic way.

Another reason why they choose to have only 1-2 children is EXPENSE. Isn't Japan an expensive place to live? Small, teeny, tiny, expensive apartments?


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Japan is a very patriarchal society. I have had the opportunity know several Japanese mothers, and the ones I know are totally devoted to family life. They spend hours preparing food for their families, washing, cleaning, and in general doing just about everything for their husband and child or children. And Japanese women are very educated as well, so if they want to have a career, something has to give. Being a rather male-centered society, many men want a woman who will stay and home and serve their every need. Men want to find a woman who will stay home, and if they can't find a partner they deem suitable, they can just live at home as an adult, and their mum will continue to do the job she has always done for them. As usual, this is a complicated issue, and I don't think its just the Japanese women who are 'selfish'. Is it selfish to want a life outside of home? Is it selfish to want a partner who will be at your beck and call, waiting to serve your every need? I think I know which scenario I find selfish.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Yes, there is a lot of sexism within Japanese society.

I think the Japanese generally love children, however. There was an article in Mothering Magazine in the early '90's that compared parenting practices and attitudes in Japan with that in the west.

Perhaps it's in the archives.

OT, I agree with Aussiemum's observations about retirement age. When the retirement age was 'set' in the US at age 65 the average lifespan was 65 (a statistical wash for the government) Now our lifespans are in the '80's and people still expect to retire at 65.

Not only this but most people didn't work as teenagers and the majority of people are attending college for several years. Our number of years working and putting money into a pension fund (or social security for that matter) is less than it was back in the 1930's when the system was initiated.

This is a generality and I know there are major and minor exceptions but have you seen the typical retiree?? They have no greater purpose in their lives, I don't want to be in that situation however leisurely it might appear. These comfortible seniors are the most selfish, self-centered and wasteful people I know. They drive and fly here and there and paste bumper stickers on their RV's that brag about squandering their children's inheretence.

Yuk, yuk, yuk.

DB


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by trabot_
*http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/14/173641

"The depopulation crisis has already forced Japan to slash pensions and raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 to keep pension funds afloat. By 2040, says the OECD, the rise in the ratio of dependent old to working young may be reducing Japan's growth in living standards by three-quarters of a percent per year, cutting Japan's GNP by 23 percent by midcentury.

*
Accepting this as a "crisis" means that we cannot see the wisdom in Edward Abbey's statement "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

Edited to add: for years, most countries have financed retirement plans on the hope/assumption that the economy will continue to "grow". Well, when our economy went stagnant a few years ago due to "low consumer spending and lack of consumer confidence", I was laughing through my tears. Something that none of the business pages seemed to consider was the possibility that everyone just HAD ENOUGH CRAP AND DIDN'T WANT ANYMORE







: ! I mean, just how many pairs of flourescent fake fur ear muffs can one person want?!!?!?!??!?!

And then when the marketers complained at Christmas time that there weren't any "innovative signature products that are just must-haves"! Well, damn, NOW I know what's been missing from my Christmas/Channukkah. I guess I just wasn't buying enough stuff. I gotta stop pouring some of my husband's homemade beer on the roots of the apple tree hung with ribbons and jelly-candy covered popcorn balls and lighting the lights on the menorah and get back into the mall and SPEND.









Uh, sorry, I think I've just gone off topic.


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

Good point, sohj,

How *dare* we live within our means, avoid trendy marketing gimmicks, and share our holidays with our family on a more spiritual level!!!

It's *bad* for the economy.

DB


----------



## yequanamama (Aug 30, 2002)

I suppose my view is very different from that of most here. More people doesn't simply mean more mouths and more consumers. It also means more minds to think up new and vastly more efficient ways of doing things. IMO, what matters is not the number of children one has but how well those children are educated - to tread as lightly as possible, to dream up and make reality better ways of living.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that there is enough to go around, and I think the main reason we've had so much progress in the last century (of course, "progress" is an arguable designation, but surely we all agree that there has a been an explosion of ideas, including in the environmental arena, i.e. wind and solar power, recycling) is because we've had so many more people to think new ideas. The human imagination is wonderful, and will come up with solutions to problems, so long as someone can recognize something (i.e. environmental degradation) as a problem.

I won't hesitate to have a large family. I feel my responsibility to the earth is to make sure my children, whether I have 2 or 8, can think for themselves and leave "a light footprint."


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

ITA, yequanamama, well put.

You know, DH will be forced to retire at age 50! He says that's practically a baby - lol! His union has to give him a raise of so much, and save for his pension each year that by the time he is 50 they won't be able to afford him anymore!







: Though, this is actually good for us, as we do not hold to the idea of retirement, and he fully intends to pursue a career in another trade that interests him. We'll see when the times comes, 50 is still a long way off for us.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

IMO, what matters is not the number of children one has but how well those children are educated - to tread as lightly as possible, to dream up and make reality better ways of living.
Well said yequanamama!









Sohj, I too have an ironic laugh every year when they predict a "crisis" of low holiday spending.







: The waste in excess packaging that is put out to trash is enough to gag on each year.

Debra B it does seem that the new american dream is to retire early, travel around in an RV, and take cruises each winter.







:


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I still think that the problem of how to provide for our elderly folk is one that too many population-worriers (for lack of a better term?) gloss over in their handwringing.

Of course, so does just about everyone else!!!

Still, the way to solve that problem will need to start with today's young people being educated in how to manage money at least semi-intelligently, as well as educating people that social security and other programs are pretty damn pitiful, and were never meant to support you! I know very few people who know the first thing about saving for their less-productive years. And very very few people who even think about squirrelling away even $20 a month!

It breaks my heart NOW that so many elderly people are warehoused in nursing homes or inadequate group homes when they deserve to be loved and cared for and cherished. If beginning of life care is supposed to be tender and loving (even though it can be rather gross, trying, and expensive at times), then end of life care should be the same way!!!

Our family has also made provisions and plans to care for my parents and at least one of my husband's parents in the future. I wish I had a responsible sibling to share this with sometimes, but I'm an only and that's just how it goes. Once the kids are all preschool age, we plan on 'adopting' some seniors in our community too. I hope by that example, and by getting the kids comfortable with the idea, that my husband and myself will be cared for in the same way if/when we should need it!

To me, this is all connected. If you don't teach your kids to love and care for old folks, then why should you expect them (or the government that they'll be running in the future) to give a damn about you when you need that care?

That's why the whole "family size" thing is so complicated. There's a lot more tied into it than just the environment, just the future, money, ect. :/

Talk about social security and the like always makes me sad though. Abandoned elderly people break my heart as much as abandoned kids, but at the same time I'm frustrated that most people don't really do anything to help themselves out in their younger years, KWIM?


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Right now the more people means more clever minds to think up new solutions to problems approach just isn't working for me. I see no indication that the human species is getting any better at looking after itself and its habitat. We have worked out how to make solar cells and derive energy from the sun. And how many of us are using it???

Global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, increased CO2 in the atmosphere, thinning ozone layer, etc. etc., and how hard is it to get people to even recognise that???

For every clever invention in the environmental arena, there are who knows how many more that are directly destructive to the environment. And just how sure can you be that your kids are going to turn out the way you envisage them to be??

I'm not handwringing, I'm trying to do the right thing here and compromise with things I want to do with my life, or have done with my life, such as having kids.

Living in a country that is mostly desert or semi-desert (Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth), in the middle of the worst drought we have ever had, has given me a lot to think about. Running out of water is something that could happen soon to us here. Last I checked our water supply has about 12 months left in it here where I live if we don't get a major wet season here this year. Our cropland is very quickly being ruined thru irrigation, turning it into a salted wasteland, much the same situation you have in parts of California. Increasing crop production to provide enough for all comes at a cost. I see the dust from the storms settle in a thin layer on my furniture, and i wonder when it will rain, so maybe I'm handwringing over that. But I also see what happens to people when everything doesn't turn out 'all right', when we just aren't clever enough to work out how to make it rain.....


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Hmmmm...

Now, I may be way off base here, but I really don't think if you culled the population of world to one child per family that it would make it rain in Australia (or in Western Washington, USA< for that matter...we need it too!). So, if you're looking for population to solve the problem of us screwing ourselves into global warming--well, yeah, that's pretty unproductive.

That damage is done, we're going to reap the benefits no matter what for a few years. We need to figure out what we can do now with what we've got, as well as how we (industrial countries) are going to counterbalance the developing countries (because that's REALLY where the population boom is, as much as it's popular to point fingers at the fat-cat Americans and Europeans who are having more than 1.2 kids or whatever).

Clearly, it's not a matter of minds to solve the problems and slow down the damage we are creating. It's a matter of @$$es, namely EVERYONE getting off them and doing what they can. I don't believe that the majority of folks in the USA, Australia, Europe, or anywhere else where we are blessed with the ability to be able to do that ARE.

Kids or no, most people in our societies are vomitrociously wasteful, no? So wouldn't it make sense to work on the wasteful FIRST before automatically beating on large families? Blaming large families for global warming, when it only takes one rich guy to own a factory that belches out pollution or one cattleman to own a legion of meat animals to do the same, seems to me to be a lot of heat and no fire.

Just my opinion, though. I get awfully tired of being automatically labeled "the enemy" due to a freak accident of nature, when I'm actually probably on the label-er's side. It's not practical to police eggs popping out of ovaries and sperm finding them. It is practical to police the insane amount of waste that occurs due to consumerism.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Sorry to hear that you get labelled because you happened to get lucky in the life lottery and get twins. Coming from a family (a big one!) with lots of twins, I can appreciate how truly marvelous and challenging life can be with twins. I also have a greenie friend who thought she'd stop at two, and surprise! -she had twins with the second pregnancy. Really, all this discussion is about challenging our current point of view about the world we live in...and i don't mean to pick on the big family people...


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

Quote:

Global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, increased CO2 in the atmosphere, thinning ozone layer, etc. etc., and how hard is it to get people to even recognise that???
aussiemum, I Just don't see that having _less_ people is going to fix any of the problems you've mentioned. However, as stated before, having more *well educated* people very well may.

I do, however, think that it's great that you are doing what you feel is most important for the enviroment! If you can scarifice to do what is important to you, than you're doing the best you can. I'm doing the best I can, too.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Tigerchild: loved what you said about teaching people to save and also about looking after loved ones.

I also wanted to ask a question of you all: many people have commented on the wastefulness of air travel. But I believe that a well-travelled child is an asset to the planet. Who better to recognize what a narrow view we have of the world here, than a child who has seen how others live in Europe, Asia, the South Pacific, etc. And how can you travel to those places without using a plane or a boat?

While air travel may be "unfriendly", I worry far more about a nation of people who have never left its borders, making decisions that affect the planet...

Just something to think about.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

You bring up a good question, piglet..... That's a tough call. For me, I think a well rounded child might outwiegh the damage depending on how great the damage is.


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

Quote:

But I believe that a well-travelled child is an asset to the planet.
big OFF TOPIC

I know that I would have been a bit more comforted if our current president had traveled internationally before becoming president.

instead he had not been to europe and within 400 days of taking office pissed off most of europe and certainly pissed off muslims around the world. Let's see who is next.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

continuing the OT topic:

As I've mentioned before, I've lived abroad. And I have, when living abroad, been forced to occasionally interact with other Americans who live abroad. Just because someone trravels, it does not mean they learn anything about the countries they visit/live in. I met DOZENS of people (a SHOCKING percentage!) who had lived in Spain for years and did not speak spanish. Let alone Catalan, which was actually the local language. (Spain is far from a mono-culture.) When I lived in Britain, I met "yanks" who only socialized with other "yanks". Some have been defended to me as being people who didn't really want to go where they are but were forced to by family situations (ie: husband's job). Whatever.

By no means was this the rule, as there were lots of non-Spanish I met in all sorts of places and groups, but it was really surprising how many people did this. And it happened with just about every nationality to some degree. I did notice that Canadians, French and Dutch seemed to suffer from it less than some others. But, I did not do a scientific poll.

This is trite, but true:

Wherever you go, there you are;

One tends to see what one is looking for;

And

Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open.

Not to mention, open-minded thoughts existed in the writings of many who rarely travelled: like Erasmus. And Emerson who, though he travelled to England, had already done a good deal of his writing.

And Christopher Columbus travelled a lot, but he STILL thought he made it to China.


----------



## lunar forest (Feb 20, 2003)

On the OT topic as well:

Quote:

I know that I would have been a bit more comforted if our current president had traveled internationally before becoming president.
I did not know that. I hear a new thing every day about this man that just pisses me off more. grr!

I agree that many people who travel still do not have a clue about any other culture than their own. However, if you are traveling with the purpose of learning about other cultures, and becoming more well rounded I think you will achieve that.
I went to TJ Mexico when I was 13. We built a house for a family. It was considerably smaller that most garages in the U.S. but compared to the literal cardboard box these people lived in it was amazing! The moved all of their extended family to this house after it was built.
This experience forever changed my life.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

While air travel may be "unfriendly", I worry far more about a nation of people who have never left its borders, making decisions that affect the planet...
I lived abroad as a child, and I do think that it shaped who I am and gave me a broader, more global, world view than my peers. (Or perhaps it had to do with the type of people that my parents were, and the fact that they treated me as an intelligent person and not simply as a child that wouldn't understand adult conversation.) My point being, that I do think that traveling abroad was benificial to me. My teenagers have also had the oppertunity to experience other cultures through travel. How other cultures live (especially their music) has always been a topic of intrest in our home.

I do think that travel can be of great benifit in forming one's world view, however, as sohj said, one must be open to other cultures and ideas in the first place. I also believe that forming a global world view can be done without ever leaving one's hometown.

I also think that traveling abroad by air a few times is not nearly as damaging to the enviroment as traveling around the country on buisness trips every week or so, and the yearly family vacation to disney world.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

The vast majority of people in the world will not have the opportunity to travel for leisure. And of the small percentage that are affluent enough to do that, what percentage of those had their minds/worldviews changed *because* of travel, or did they travel because their minds/worldviews had changed?

This just points to another dilemma about environmentalism, though...just because something is wasteful, does that always make it "bad", or are there some things that are worth a bit for the tradeoff? I don't really know the answer to that question.

Air travel is time-conservative but resource-wasting. But man, oh man, ships are pollution hell too. I could broaden my mind by getting into personal relationships via pen-pal-ing, but hell, if the airplane's delivering my letter, why not *me*? Or I could do it via the internet, and hang out on e-communities with lovely people like y'all--and just hope that I can find a computer recycler who doesn't just take my $$ and dump my box in a landfill when my machine bites the big one?

I've lived all over the US, and several places in Europe. (And dare I say that the US is a rather large country with many cultures, and I really wish *that* was recognized sometimes--I wonder if people in the EU are going to feel that pain in about 50 years or so?) I know people who are far less travellled than I that are much more global concious and who have been globally conscious for far longer--and people who are more travelled that I who couldn't put themselves in anothers' shoes if their lives depended on it.

Just because one goes to one of the Gulf resorts in Mexico or visits Rio or backpacks through Bali doesn't mean that they've read up on Mexican politics or understand the history and horror that the US has supported in central and south america or want to know about what we supported in East Timor.

I fear more a nation who steadfastly refuses to read even unhidden history more than one where most people don't travel outside their cultural comfort zone. :/


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

what percentage of those had their minds/worldviews changed *because* of travel, or did they travel because their minds/worldviews had changed?
Good question Tigerchild. You have made some excellent points and given much food for thought.

Quote:

I fear more a nation who steadfastly refuses to read even unhidden history more than one where most people don't travel outside their cultural comfort zone.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Well now, this is interesting...I feel i must say this, but I'm trying to do it in the gentlest possible way....
Quoting Barbara:
"While air travel may be "unfriendly", I worry far more about a nation of people who have
never left its borders, making decisions that affect the planet..."

Sorry, but who exactly deemed that the US (or anybody else for that matter!!), with its nation full of people, 90% of whom have never left its borders, should be making decisions for anybody else on this planet???? Isn't it this mind-set that gets the US into its wars?? I realise that any country that uses 25% of the world's resources is probably going to be making some de facto decisions that will affect the rest of the world (like refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol and pushing to open up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge) BUT, doesn't this bring our discussion back to the original topic of over-population, family size, and environmental responsibility? Quite frankly, I think the world could do with a little more of the US staying within its borders, and out of other people's countries.....


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Sorry, aussiemum, but that quote was by me, not barbara.

And what I meant was that Americans make decisions that affect the planet _with the choices they make for lifestyle_.

Pollutants from industry affect the rest of the planet. So do greenhouse gasses emitted from the millions of single occupant vehicles commuting from their suburban paradise into the cities. Huge amounts of pesticides and chemicals are dumped into the water table by massive agricultural operations. Not to mention nuclear weapons manufacture. And so on...

A country the size of the US, using that much of the planet's resources, and with practices that extend beyond their borders, cannot help but influence the planet.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I take your point Piglet, you are absolutely correct that environmental pollution produced by the US (and others, like Australia and Britain) is a problem for everybody. I guess there's something else bothering me with the trend in general thought on this discussion...I'm still trying to understand how having a large family in our respective Western democracies is somehow an environmental choice, as if you can make the world a better place by having lots of children that you have raised up by your point of view (and I assume that the point of view held by many writers on these boards in environmetally aware). I mean, why can't having a large family in Mali or China or Paraguay be considered an environmental choice then, because people living in these countries would have (I am assuming again!) a smaller ecological footprint per capita than either the US or Australia. Why shouldn't we all have large families then???? Do we really want to find out just exactly how many people we can pack onto this planet?? These are things I can't seem to resolve...


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I guarantee you that you will not find anyone on here who is arguing in favor of large families, that thinks only people in the US should have them. I think we all feel that having less children is not necessarily worth the trade off for us. That we don't feel less children=better planet. We have all said that children cannot be compared to other wasteful things, and that is *my* only point. I do not think a simple, "if everyone had only 2 or less children, the world would be better off ecologically", is necessarily true, I think that a huge combination of other ways of living gently is a better answer for *some* families. Everyone will make their own choices about how to live most gently, and none of us will be perfect. I have just been saying that I have chosen to have more than 2 children, but I have also chosen other ways to live gently. I do realize that more people use up more resources, but I also believe that there are many many other ways to live gently than to limit the number of children. I wonder if those arguing that less children (smaller families) is the answer would be willing to not have any children, to make up for those of us being labeled as wasteful







:

I have quite a few friends who intend to never have children b/c of overpopulation, and while I am sure some people do exist who actually will do just that, but all of my friends are using that as an excuse IMO, and have many other reasons why they don't want children. I think the same would be true of many who choose to have only 2 children "for environmental reasons". I doubt many are doing it for environmental reasons only. just like I don't use disposable diapers only for the environment, but also b/c they are cheaper, better for my babies health, etc. I don't drive an SUV, but it's not ALL about the environment, it's also about not wanting to be a *yuppie* (IMO-that's how I see them-flame away!).

I see a valid argument about more children=more resources used, but I think it's more valuable to talk about all ways to love more gently, rather than just focus on one.

OK, what was my point? Oh- I promise you there is no one on here who thinks only Americans can have large families, those of us who love large families would find beautiful a large family in any country.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Also, none of the people defending large families would try to say that you or anyone else should have a larger family.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jess7396_
*Also, none of the people defending large families would try to say that you or anyone else should have a larger family.*
Actually, I recall a thread some months ago in TAO on family size as regards having just one or more children (on the "he/she should have a little brother/sister to play with" issue) where quite a few people said very strongly (no flaming, though, nothing nasty







) that they thought more than one is much, much better. I tried to find it but it wasn't archived and I think it was inactive long before the oldest post on the current TAO.

And I've had some people IRL before I was pregnant tell me I was "unwomanly" (or is it un-womb-anly







: ) for not having children and that I'd regret it someday. And now that I have a child, I've had people tell me I'm cruel for not "even considering another" because he'll be lonely. No pleasing some people.

And, actually, I was intending not to have any children at all, precisely because of the population issue. However, I also have an incredible fear of doctors and could not face voluntarily going in to be sterilized. And my husband, being male and therefore really good at denial and not listening, never took it upon himself to take care of (he's had a vascectomy since...after he saw what hell I went through during the birth). So, the birth control didn't work and by the time I knew I was pregnant, it was 2 and a half months along. I couldn't have caused an abortion by herbs at that point and I decided to carry the pregnancy to term, if it lasted. It did. There won't be another one. Perhaps other children will join our family, but not from my womb.

And frankly, I had NOT been planning on NOT having a child so someone else could have an extra one. This is, therefore, a really strange question: "I wonder if those arguing that less children (smaller families) is the answer would be willing to not have any children, to make up for those of us being labeled as wasteful".


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

As much as I agree with and believe that pretty much all Americans live well beyond the truly perfect gentle lifestyle (including everyone on this thread who obviously have computers) I must take complete unction with the idea of the "bad" American. Yes, we are wasteful and could learn alot from other less commercialized countries but we are by far not the worst when it comes to recognizing the fragility of the planet. And it completely irks me that we fail to realize that. Even hollywood tries to indoctrinate our children into believing that the rest of the world are the good guys and America is the only bad guy in terms of environmentalism.

Examples -

Taiwan or Thailand (I can't remember which) - they have sewage pipes dumping thousands of tons of waste and pollution into their rivers with absolutely no laws of restriction. They also dump motorbikes (main source of transportation) on the side of the road whenever one fails.

Japan - serves whales as a food. And throws dynamite into coral reefs to fish.

Iceland - plans on reinacting whale hunting.

Brazil - the Amazon is has been polluted for so long that most biologists didn't know that the dolphins weren't supposed to be pink.

And these are just a few stories that I have heard of or read from the top of my head. Say what you want about the commercialism of Americans but suggesting that we are the environmental idiots of this planet is rather shortsighted and quite frankly misinformed.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*...(including everyone on this thread who obviously have computers)....*
Not necessarily. They may simply have ACCESS to a computer and not actually own one themself.

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*...Brazil - the Amazon is has been polluted for so long that most biologists didn't know that the dolphins weren't supposed to be pink.
*
A very large chunk of the pollution in the Amazon is due to a U.S. gold mining corporation far upstream. They use cyanide to separate the gold from the ore and dump it directly into the river w/o treatment.

And as heinous as whale hunting and so forth are, the actual consumption in all those countries you mentioned is far, far lower than it is in the U.S. On the average, the transport miles per person and the fuels consumed per person are much less. This does not excuse dynamiting coral reefs; however, in the last five years, there has been an enormous die-off of coral due to the warming of the oceans. This is directly related to global warming. If you accept the thesis that states that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, then as the U.S., _per capita_ is the largest producer of greenhouse gases we are surely to blame.

edited to add: Thailand and Taiwan do, as you say, dump untreated sewage. So do we in many communities. And so does much of the world. Building sewage treatment plants takes money. There are some relatively cheap sewage treatment methods ("constructed wetlands", for example) but those take lots of land space. So, many of these countries choose to concentrate on making sure the drinking water is clean and can treat the drinking water more economically("sand filter beds", for example) than treating all the sewage as, frequently, the sewers are what we call a CSO, or Combined Sewer Outflow and both septic waste and rainwater runoff end up in the same sewer and, therefore, a huge volume of water needs to be treated.

If you (or anyone else on these boards) are ever in NYC, let me know and I will be more than happy to try and arrange a tour of the two world's largest sewage treatment plants: Wards Island WPCP and Newtown Creek WPCP. WPCP stands for Wastewater Pollution Control Plant. And we still have some raw sewage end up in the Hudson during periods of large rainfall. Imagine if we had a monsoon season.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:

And as heinous as whale hunting and so forth are, the actual consumption in all those countries you mentioned is far, far lower than it is in the U.S.
I would love to know where to find whale on the U.S. market because I have yet to see it. And if perhaps you are talking about consumption in general (which I personally don't think compare), NO Japan is not far, far lower than the U.S. they are right up there with us. In fact, most gadgets and gizmos on the U.S. market are tried out in Japan up to 2 years prior to U.S. release.

Quote:

Not necessarily. They may simply have ACCESS to a computer and not actually own one themself.
Possibly - BUT highly unlikely. And I think a quick survey would prove this.

Quote:

If you accept the thesis that states that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, then as the U.S., per capita is the largest producer of greenhouse gases we are surely to blame.
Not true - there is a NASA photo taken showing the warming spots on the planet and the U.S. was not even close to being first. China was, in fact, the biggest problem in global warming is burning of fossil fuels and forests. For which China and South America are the worst. But then I am sure that you could blame that on the U.S. too.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

In response:

1) I'll find the stats on per capita consumption and check my info and let you know.

2) Well, I was just offering a possibility as you used the word "everyone" and I know that at least two of the people here I regularly exchange messages with log on only at the library as they don't have computers, so there is a time lag for our communication.

3) You missed the fact I said "per capita". China and most of South America have larger populations than the U.S. does.

Yes, there fires buring the rainforest to clear unsuitable land for farming in South America and there are long-burning (centuries!) coal seam fires in China and China also has heat and CO2 and CO and NOx and Sulphur generated by industrial plants with few or no pollution controls.

Well, the coal seam fires are an act of God, I assume, as mention of them has been found in texts for hundreds and hundreds of years. We also have a couple burning in this country. They are
very difficult to put out.

And as far as industry goes, well, I _could_ mention that a great deal of the output of the industry in China goes to the U.S. so purchasers of these products here _could_ consider themselves at least partly responsible for another country's environmental degradation and the resulting damage to the atmosphere...but I shouldn't because you'll assume I'm bashing the U.S. and putting the "rest of the world" on a pedestal.

As a matter of fact, I am not america-bashing. I am consumption bashing. I know a brit who seems to consume a huge amount of stuff and I know canadians who do the same. However, I have noticed that it is only in this country that I see an incredibly high "consumption level" across all economic groups and social classes. I'm convinced it is because we have an economy of "disposal" and because our advertising industry works really hard to keep us in line and thinking that we need food that is "sinfully delicious" and vehicles that give us "freedom" and new clothes that allow us to "express ourselves" and other possessions that "make us who we are."

Hmmm. I've met people who had nothing except a few rags to try and keep the dust out of their mucous membranes. (Literally! War and famine certainly help you get your priorities straight.) They certainly seemed to be 'who they were' by virtue of what they talked about and what they had experienced and who they were related to, not what they had. And I don't think any of them thought that a new SUV would give them "freedom".

Give me a few days and I'll locate solid waste statistics for a few dozen countries.

I fear I've gone way off topic again.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:

As a matter of fact, I am not america-bashing. I am consumption bashing
If you recall in my first post on this, I said,

Quote:

Yes, we are wasteful and could learn alot from other less commercialized countries but we are by far not the worst when it comes to recognizing the fragility of the planet
I am a firm believer in consumption being a large problem. However, the rest of these countries that people are so quick to point out as living less consumer based lifestyles and only damage the environment in an attempt to fill the American consumer hole WANT our business and WANT our lifestyle. That is why they are producing for us. They WANT our money. We don't go around begging them for business. 40 and 50 years ago they came to us for our money. And it is not just about having enough to survive. They want to live like us. And will do anything it takes to achieve that, including destroying the planet. Which, per my original point, makes them no better than us and no worse than us. It is an unfortunately flaw in human nature to want more and more. Not everyone is effect to the same degree and there are a few, like Mother Theresa, etc. that have overcome it.

The average Asian, South American, etc. want to live like Americans do. They don't live in dirt-floored huts because they want to. If that were the case America would not have the highest rate of immigration in the world. People don't come here to live what they percieve as the "poverty" lifestyle.

I also believe though that a large portion of Americans DO happen to care about the environment. Much more so then the populations in other countries.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Well, if I could work out how to do the fancy quote thing I would, but it eludes me so you'll have to put up with my imperfect quotes I'm afraid!

Quoting Irishprincess (I hope I get the quotee right this time!):
"The average Asian, South American, etc. want to live like Americans do. They don't live in dirt-floored huts because they want to. If that were the case America would not have the highest rate of immigration in the world. People don't come here to live what they percieve as the "poverty" lifestyle."

Why exactly do we perceive a simpler lifestyle as a poverty lifestyle? I think it's because we are sold an ideal by mass marketing, and the US sells that vision around the world. The second most commonly known word around the world is Coke, as in the kind you drink, not the kind you put up your nose (or so I learned from a Casey Neill song back in my enviro activist days!). China is polluting and developing and doing just the most environmentally and socially horrific things so they can be just like the US. Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtse River- now that mess is shocking on a number of levels. But you can compare it to the Hoover Dam in the desert southwest if you like. I'm sure the Chinese do. A book called Cadillac Desert outlines the environmental damage caused by building dams post-WWII. The Columbia River salmon fisheries have been devasted by dams (& probably overfishing), and on and on it goes. So, how can industrialised western countries even begin to assert that others who are just developing are somehow more polluting than us? It's just that we got in first. This is why I think we all need to take a long hard look at the way we live our lives, and part of that examination must include family planning.

People come to America because they want to make money (the Aussies do anyway!), because the want to live the lifestyle they see on Baywatch as it's beemed down to a television sitting in a two room home. Somehow, they are getting the message that this lifestyle is better than theirs. I personally don't get that, but then again I live a very comfortable life, with a car, and a reasonably nice house in a reasonably trendy inner-city area. I've got the quarter acre block dream (an Australian dream anyway), with two kids, a few chickens in the backyard, right down to the picket fence out front (no joke!







). Some days, I wonder how I got here....starting to sound like a Talking Heads song now, so I'll stop here.

Sorry, edited to add: That I think the last bit in irishprincess's post about Americans caring about the environment more than others is perhaps a bit off the mark (I'm trying to be diplomatic here!!).


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Okay - if you don't believe me about U.S. bashing being a given in almost all arenas take the test again. Try putting in the exact same information for the U.S. that you would for South American. I did - my score in the U.S. was 12 and for Brazil was 3.2. Which I take to mean that the test itself takes it as a given that you are automatically living unfriendly lifestyles and precalculates it into the average.

Quote:

Sorry, edited to add: That I think the last bit in irishprincess's post about Americans caring about the environment more than others is perhaps a bit off the mark (I'm trying to be diplomatic here!!).
Granted we are consumer driven which contributes to a large portion of the destruction of the environment in building and processing; however, I don't see any American's condoning whale hunting and eating like Japan and Iceland, dynamiting coral reefs; most American's I know would love to find ways to stop the destruction of the Amazon rainforest (which they have found a way but the natives and the countries are not interested). And I didn't necessarily mean more than everyone else so much as I meant that we are on average with other industrialized countries as individuals.

I must also point out that I believe that there is a Catch-22 to the problem solving of getting other countries to care for the environment. Until a country can reach a point where the people on a whole (not just the politicians) live a middle-income lifestyle they are not going to care how they achieve it or what they destroy along the way.

P.S. I know this is a bit nitpicky so forgive me but the Hoover Dam is pre-WWII.


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

the reason your score was so much lower in brazil is b/c the number is given in hectares, which are much bigger than acres. if you want to compare the answers, you'd have to convert acres to hectares. this is not america-bashing, although imo we americans could definately use a wake-up call. and i would assume that if you used the metric system and plugged in your numbers in most other countries, you would still get a lower answer in the non-usa country, b/c this country is not set up to be eco-friendly. things are too spread out, traffic is heavy, and, even if you're living an eco-friendly lifestyle compared to your compatriots, it is almost certainly going to be more consuming than the average for most other countries.

also, a large part of why rain forests are getting chopped down is for grazing land for cattle. who buys the beef? what's for dinner? it's not that the natives and the countries are not interested, it's that they need the money. if that's what people are buying, that's what becomes important to them. if there were other viable alternatives, they'd do less of it. and maybe americans aren't dynamiting coral reefs, but the us emits more co2 than any other country (with australia emmiting the most per capita), which causes global warming, which causes more cyclones, etc, which rip up coral reefs and cause the sea temps to rise and cause coral bleaching. (see "all the disappearing islands" in the current issue of _mother jones_ )

americans pay lip service to the environment. sure, people "care" but nobody is really doing anything. recycling is not enough. if we really cared, there would've been an uproar when we didn't sign the kyoto protocol. we would already be driving solar-powered cars, but only when necessary, and otherwise we'd be using mass transit or walking/biking, and city planning would be more sophisticated, not the sprawl-inducing joke that it is. local farmers would be rolling in the dough, and dependence on fossil fuels would be a thing of the past. most of all, people would stop buying crap and buying into the ideas of beauty that those who have something to sell pawn off on them.

and, until we take a serious interest in learing about other countries/cultures/languages, without just assuming that everyone else can speak english, so what difference does it make, other countries should feel free to ridicule us. this is a narcissistic nation. we need to get off our high horse.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

You have some good points happypants, and I agree that the US needs to get off it's high horse....or maybe we need to get on the horse and ride it to work instead of cars and mass transit.









I wanted to make sure everyone saw the following point that happypants made:

Quote:

a large part of why rain forests are getting chopped down is for grazing land for cattle. who buys the beef? what's for dinner?
Let's all wake up and stop eating crop consuming beef! What's for dinner? Beans and rice! yum...


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

In regards to the rainforest - as I said before, THEY WANT our money. Yes, we may buy the beef but the governments in South America would throw a FIT if we stopped buying the beef because they want the money that goes along with it. They don't use the beef for themselves in fact, if they just wanted to live that "wonderfully ecological" lifestyle that so many on this thread keep glorizing them for then they would continue to live off of the land. There is a lizard that lives in the trees of the rainforest that actually produces a higher quantity of protein and meat than beef for much much less land waste; this lizard could not only feed the natives but allow them to sell for a small amount of money for themselves but they have no interest.

The U.S. does not emit more CO2, in a photo taken by NASA (which I unfortunately deleated the link) China came out on top. The one spot in the U.S. that showed up glowing as bright as China was Wyoming during the fires 2 years ago.

I find it amazing that the good is never seen only the bad. There are sooo many areas that the U.S. has improved upon in the past 40 years but no one seems to want to see or admit it. The first that comes to the top of my head is Lake Michigan. 20 years ago the lake was so badly contaminated with poisons that if you were a woman of childbearing years you could not eat the fish. That is no longer true and native fish are finally returning because of the quality of water.

Unfortunately, America's main infrastructure was built during a time when the prevailing thought was "endless supply." Which makes it very difficult to back up and change. So. CA. is a very good example of how mass transit just is not feasible at this time much as we would like it to be.

Quote:

and, until we take a serious interest in learing about other countries/cultures/languages, without just assuming that everyone else can speak english, so what difference does it make, other countries should feel free to ridicule us.
Guess what, to obtain unity in anything you have to have a common language. Because England lead the way; English has become that language. French used to be the language of diplomacy (all diplomats had to know French) but that changed (much to the complete disgusted and anger of the French). And I see much less ridicule from the people in other countries of the U.S. then I do from Americans themselves.


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

just for point of record..

Quote:

Unfortunately, America's main infrastructure was built during a time when the prevailing thought was "endless supply." Which makes it very difficult to back up and change. So. CA. is a very good example of how mass transit just is not feasible at this time much as we would like it to be.
I think it actually was more like 'greed' than 'endless supply'.

many cities in california including Los Angeles had beautiful transit systems in place. Here in LA it was the "Red Cars" which all members of my family speak very affectionately.
The Red Cars here were everywhere. There were several lines in your neighborhood, IrishPrincess..you could have gone from your home to downtown LA quite painlessly, along the ocean up to washington blvd then to downtown.

however, it was the greedy side of the tire industry, the car industry and the oil industry and senators from those states that systematically pulled up the transits systems in many cities so that more people would be forced to buy cars. It was all fraud. The tire industy literally set up fake bus systems in these cities and then deliberately put less buses on the roads so that they would be inconvenient and people felt they needed cars.

It is a tragic story. San Francisco Mayor Alioto took the senators on and practically got handed his genitals back, but god bless him he did it.

if you ever want to learn more get this documentary.

http://www.newday.com/films/Taken_for_a_Ride.html

I personally think the story should be dramatized and Curtis Hanson who directed LA Confidential should tell the tale.
It is heartbreaking.

by the way, some of those red car lines are now, the 405 freeway, the santa monica freeway, the hollywood, the ten... I think you get the picture.


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Trabot - you are right about that whole fiasco. And I had heard about it briefly; very frustrating. So much of human nature and action is based on greed. I wonder though if they had been able to look into the future and see the disaster of overcrowding on the freeways that we deal with now if they would have done the same thing. Since 1980 the miles of roads has increased in the U.S. by 2.4%, number of drivers by 31.2%, registered vehicles 39.8%, miles of travel 81.2% and time in traffic 232%. I don't think anyone could have even come close to predicting these rates.

In So. Ca. though we are now dealing with a lot of outlying areas (Palmdale, Lancaster, Thousand Oaks, and even Ventura) where people are buying affordable homes and commuting to L.A. The metrolink is a start but doesn't answer the whole problem and a bit expensive for the average wage earner.


----------



## Kanga Mom (Jun 9, 2002)

We have seven children.

I scored a 5. The average for this country is 24. If everybody lived like we do (a logical fallacy upon which to base on argument), then we would need 1.1 planets.

There a lot of logical problems here- it's a cute little test, but I wouldn't base a single life decision on it.
There are too many false starting assumptions and too many factors not included in the questions.

We live, for instance, in a house that is 120 years old. If everybody lived like we do, there'd no new houses built.

We pump our own drinking water from our own well. IT's pumped into the house, and then we handpump the stuff we drink. If everybody lived like we do...

We do not buy new clothing, except for undergarments. If everybody lived like we do, there'd be no work for garment makers and many other folks.

When we lived in the city, we could walk a lot of places, but we couldn't raise our own food as well.

Now we live in the country and we drive a bit more (although we combine trips), but we can grown and raise food for ourselves and others.

The list could go on and on, because it's a very, very bad idea for everybody to live just like everybody else.

We lived in Japan for five years. We were astonished at the litter, filth and trash we saw in the roadsides that we never see here in the U.S. We saw open sewage flowing out to the sea. We saw whale meat sold in the grocery store.
We've also visitied the Philippines, Mexico, lived in Canada, been to South Korea, dh has been to Australia. I saw things that were done better than they are in America, and I saw things that were done much, much worse (really, teh garbage in Japan probably was the worst I saw anywhere).

Each country is different and will have its strengths and weaknesses, and what works in one home or country may not be duplicatable in other countries. America is not the worst offender across the board.

Kanga


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

MY "footprint" was a 7 with our area being 24. I don't know. I mean we use cloth diapers, breastfeed, make our own baby food, buy stuff 2nd hand (or get it free at our homeschool swap... very cool!







). We own a small 3 bedroom one bath house. I do drive a minivan, but we are planning on 5 kids and have 3 already. I don't drive too much anyway. It takes me about 2-3 weeks to go thru a tank of gas. We maybe fly someplace every 2 years (4 hours total). We have had 3 computers but only one brand new my MIL gave us one for free and we baught on 2nd hand (that was our first on YEARS ago). This is our first new one. We recycle, buy organic, eat veggie,try not to buy processed foods. We have our own garden. I mean I think that the whole idea of family size is really irrelivate for the most part, if you live a "clean" life style. I mean I have a friend with no children and they make tons of trash (she is married) they eat loads of meat, have 2 cars that they drive every where, etc. So her foot print is much larger than mine.
Also with a large family I think you have to do things cheaper, so you tend to buy second hand and don't eat expensive foods (at least this is my experience with the families I know) you can't fly a family of 8 all over the place too often do to the fact that it cost so bloody much.








I guess it has more to do with your lifestyle then the amount of people inthe house.

H


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by irishprincess71_
*I also believe though that a large portion of Americans DO happen to care about the environment. Much more so then the populations in other countries.*
I believe this is a false statement. What makes you say Americans care about the environment more than other countries??? America is NOT one of the best countries environmentally speaking. In fact, we are the world's biggest polluter. The majority of our adult population does NOT recycle, does NOT regularly use public transportation instead of personal vehicles, does NOT eat a ecologically sound diet. We CONSUME and EAT and DRIVE and POLLUTE!!!!

85% of our garbage goes to a dump or landfill.

Although we comprise 7% of the world population, we consume 29% of the energy used per year, and our carbon emissions comprise 25%.

The US Senate just rejected a bill to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

America backed out of the Kyoto Protocol. USA wanted special rules that would apply just for us so we could pollute more than other countries by exploiting poor countries. America didn't want to compromise its lifestyle for the planet's sake.

Sweden, Australia, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, and many many other countries have better environmental policies, consume less, and have the courage of their convictions - compared to Americans, anyway.

Maybe you're right...maybe a lot of Americans DO care about the environment. But we sure have trouble ordering a salad instead of a steak, walking instead of driving, carpooling, not shopping at environment-abusing stores and companies, recycling, reusing, etc...we just can't seem to put our money where our mouth is. (Hey - we're rich - we don't have walk!!!







: )

I'm wondering why you think Americans care more than other countries?


----------



## irishprincess71 (Mar 22, 2003)

Quote:

What makes you say Americans care about the environment more than other countries???
Because I don't just look at what we are doing "wrong" as a litmus test. I look at what we are trying to do right. I also don't look at other countries with poorer lifestyles as doing "right" either.

In using the test and our general assumptions as to what is ecologically "right" the lifestyle of most Brazilians should be our goal simply because most of them live a very poor lifestyle and consum much less than we do. However, if you ask most Brazilians they will tell you that their goal is to eventually live like us regardless of how they get there.

4 weeks ago there was a meeting of the WTO. Brazil and a number of other poor countries walked out because it would not lift the tarifs on their agricultur. Brazil want the tarifs lifted so that they can grow and sell grain to other countries in order to make money. Where the H#%@ do you think they are planning to get the land to grow that grain. The Rainforests. The U.S. is not "exploiting" this poor country so as to use its natural resources; this country is begging the world to allow it to exploit itself for money.

I would like to see qualified the statement that Japan has better environmental policies as an overall. As Kangamom stated from actual experience not heresay - Japan has lousy waste management and I have a few Biology books that talk about Japans dynamiting of coral reefs for fish and serving of whale for food. They may be better in some respects (ohh, I know because THEY didn't back out of the Kyoto Protocol, they should be our heroes) but they have a lot of work to do before they can be held up to a higher level than the U.S.

And why is it that Americans are bad guys for ordering steak instead of salads but Japan can eat whale, Australia can eat kangaroos, Germany can eat bratwurst by the tons and it is okay. I can not see the average German being a vegan and the fact that Japan and Germany use more mass transit has less to do with their desire for a better environment and more from a general lack of space and over-crowding. Given that one of the biggest waste in auto fuel is in Germany (the Autoban) it is kind of goofy to look to them as a standard for anything either.


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Man, I typed out replies on all of your responses. My computer froze. It was 2:30am, so I had to just go to bed.

Just really quick summary:
-I didn't say it was "Okay" for other countries to do ecologically responsible things like consume meat or drive everywhere. But, unlike us, many countries (you mentioned Germany) have mush better *environmental policies and population practices*, which was the point I was trying to make. Of course, no country is perfect, as no people are perfect. I just wish the United States would emulate other countries more as fas as the environmental practices are concerned.
-Yes, it is true that we have sold other cultures somewhat on "American Life." But, it is also important to realize how those countries got those ideals, and the full ramifications of that. For example, more people in China regularly drink Pepsi than tea now. Pepsi, in all its irreverence, started an enormous campaing painting tea as old-fashioned and unhip. Thus, a part of traditional Chinese practice, (and much better drink environmentally and health-wise) has started to dramatically decline. Yes, many people in the world wish to emulate our lifestyle. But at what cost? And *why* are cultures conforming to our standards? We only have 7% of the world population... We have *the best* global marketing, though.
-The exploiting of indigent countries I referring to was not farming in Brazil. I was referring to President Bush's propsed modifications of the Kyoto Protocol. They would allow the USA to purchase "polluting shares" from poor countries, who then would forfeit their right to pollute. This angers me on many levels.







I will go into more detail, if you want.

I have so much more I could say, but I don't want to hijack the thread! I will leave my earth-defending here! I will try to stay more on topic about "Family Size and Ecological Footprint"...

So...many thanks to Islandmama for posting the test. I scored a 7; average is 24. Not bad, but still work to go. I will be traveling again internationally this year (to Turkey!), so my number will stay up, I fear.







Although, I agree...I wish the test did take into account CDing, as well as BFing.

Also thanks to Piglet68, sohj, trabot, barbara, lunar forest, aussiemum and others for keeping this discussion interesting, intelligent, and respectful.







Your reverence for the earth is apparent, and it makes me smile!







You guys rock!


----------



## Kanga Mom (Jun 9, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*I mean, why can't having a large family in Mali or China or Paraguay be considered an environmental choice then, because people living in these countries would have (I am assuming again!) a smaller ecological footprint per capita than either the US or Australia. Why shouldn't we all have large families then???? Do we really want to find out just exactly how many people we can pack onto this planet?? These are things I can't seem to resolve...*
Well, if you can't resolve them, nobody can, because they are entirely your own construction. They were not postulated by anybody here. I'm rather flabbergasted that you would ask why people in mali or China shouldn't have large families, as though anybody who believes that their family size is a personal, free-will choice has denied that freedom to anybody else. Where on earth would you get that idea? Family size is a personal decision. If you don't want children, don't have them. If I do, I will. The size of my family or your family (Unless you live in China) is utterly outside the control of anybody else, and that's the way it should be.

The only way to control family size is through facist eugenics policies, and that's a very ugly place to go.

"So we want to find out how many people we can pack into this planet" is a total strawman. Nobody has said that is their goal for having children.

Other points: I have a computer. It's used. A computer geek friend was upgrading, and he offered us his for free. So the computer on my desk is one less computer in the landfill.
Computers are also, in this country, the best answer to the mass transit issue. Mass transit simply won't work in a country like ours. Working at home or schooling at home via computers will.
America is different from Europe in ways that Europeans just don't seem to be able to grasp.
The state of Texas is one and a half times larger than the country of France- but Texas has only 1/3 the people. Montana is bigger than Germany, and Germany has 160 times more people than Montana. They don't have a clue what it is like to live in a large, sparsely populated state. Mass transit simply does not work in large areas where people are few and far betweenwhich describes a large portion of the United States. But computer commuting will.

Kyoto- Oh, puleeze. There are many good reasons for us to withdraw from Kyoto. First of all, it was obviously economically rather than environmentally motiviated. It was a direct swing at America, or else large polluters like India, China and other countries would not be exempt from Kyoto's provisions. Putting a cap on the US's emissions that does not apply to other countries is a reasonable effort from those other countries. It makes good economic sense, for them, as it will enable them to compete for US businesses hampered by environmental restrictions _here_ to countries not so hampered. But I see no reason to just roll over and concede.

If Kyoto was about enviornment over economics, then we wouldn't have the strange provision that allows countries to simply play a shell game with their carbon dioxide emissions, by allowing the industrialized signatores under their quota target to sell or trade their surplus brownie (or should that be greenie?) points to countries that are over their target.

Then there's the issue of just how accurate the 'science' behind Kyoto is.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish environmentalist, wrote in the New York Times, "All current models show that the Kyoto Protocol will have surprisingly little impact on the climate: temperature levels projected for 2100 will be postponed for all of six years."

19,000 scientists have signed a declaration stating that there is no evidence for global warming, and the predictions of the global warming advocates are consistently proved false. Grapes once grew in Greenland. The MIddle Ages were warmer than the current age. What data there is that seemingly supports global warming is data that ignored weather satellites, an odd omission.

When so many scientists disagree with it, I see no reason to subject our country to a compact clearly designed to single us out. The science ought to matter more than it does.

Kyoto singled out carbon dioxide, and ignored black carbon, or diesel as a pollutant. Why? Because Europe uses more diesel.

And what do you make of the issue of CO2 versus non-CO2? Water vapor is a larger greenhouse gas than CO2. For some reason, however, Kyoto didn't address that, choosing rather to single out CO2, which is not so costly to Europe as it is to the US, since Europe has higher levels of non-CO2 (and worse greenhouse-effect) gases.

Kyoto was less about protecting the environment than giving Europe the right to meddle with the American economy. Can't blame them for trying. They've hobbled their own economies to the point that the only way to compete with ours is to hobble us as well, but while it makes good economic sense for them to try to blame us for the world's problems and bog down our economy in a quagmire of excessive regulation that really does nothing for the environment, I'm not going to apologize for my government seeing through it and saying, "Nope."

Then there's this little irony:

"In 2001, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,937.7 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.) (13.0 percent above 1990 emissions). Emissions declined for the first time since the base year 1990, decreasing by 1.6 percent (110.3 Tg CO2 Eq.) from 2000 to 2001, driven primarily by decreases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel...."

Compared to this:
BRUSSELS, Belgium, May 6 (UPI) -- European Union greenhouse gas emissions rose for the second year running in 2001, the European Environment Agency said Tuesday in its annual report on the bloc's strategy to curb global warming.
Ten of the EU's 15 states overshot national targets, increasing total emissions by 1 percent in the last year for which data is available.
The figures threaten to blow a hole in the EU's ambitious climate change strategy, which has been sharply criticized by the United States and sections of European industry.

Kanga


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I think while everyone is either defending or bashing anyone particlau countries environmental policies in the end we need to remeber that WE are the ones respondsible for the out come of our enviroment. If WE don't like the way something is being delt with we need to fight for change. Regardless of our family sizes, whether you have 1 child or 10 children, you personal choices paly a large role on how you impact the enviroment.
The governments of most countries aren't looking to save the earth, they are looking for away to make their countries wealthy. Whether it is hacking down the rainforests to raise cattle, dumping sewage into the seas, hunting whales, or pumping the earth dry of its fossil fuels. It doesn't matter. WHAT MATTERS IS YOUR PERSONAL CHOICES!!! That is it!
I mean you can compare the European mass transit to ours and say that here in the USA it isn't possible, but I am gonna have to disagree. I will admit that a massive masstransit system to cover all of the USA is pretty unreasonable, BUT in any city with a moderate to large population there can easily be an effective and easy to use mass transit system. I mean why not? Most people do a majority of their driving in the city anyway right? I know I do.
And why not ENCOURAGE people to make better choices... ie eating less meat, composting, using masstransit where avalible, cloth diapering, BF, making baby food, buying/growing organic, buying second hand, recycling. These are all things that the average person can do that really make a huge differance when LOADS of people do them together.
Instead of bickering back and forth about which counrty is doing a crapper job, lets work on finding ways to help each other make a smaller foot print.
I mean go in and take the test again with the changes you would like to make and see how much your footprint changes.

H

PS sorry about the misspellings and typos I am fixing lunch for the kids and Nursing a beebee!


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

I don't have a lotof time, but wanted to add something to this debate:

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kanga Mom_
*Mass transit simply won't work in a country like ours. Working at home or schooling at home via computers will.
... Mass transit simply does not work in large areas where people are few and far betweenwhich describes a large portion of the United States.*
Mass transit used to work very, very well in population centers. It was systematically done away with in the post--WWII economic boom when fuel companies frequently bought up transit lines (the tale of the Red CArs in LA, for example) and put them out of business while simultaneously heavily marketing the automobile as the "American Dream". And, obviously, places that aren't densly populated wouldn't have a lot of people to serve. And, most likely, people who live in sparsely populated places would have little reason to commute into a dense place on a regular basis. So, this seems like a red herring as a reason not to have public transportation.

Also, even more off-topic...but I am dying to throw this in...the existence of the suburbs as places where you would have to have cars was a conscious decision made in many cases to prevent the "poor" (or carless) from purchasing there.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kanga Mom_
*Then there's the issue of just how accurate the 'science' behind Kyoto is.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish environmentalist, wrote in the New York Times, "All current models show that the Kyoto Protocol will have surprisingly little impact on the climate: temperature levels projected for 2100 will be postponed for all of six years."*
But, Lomborg also wrote the following: "Global Warming is important, environmentally, politically and economically. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature. I will not discuss all the scientifica uncertainty, but basically accept the models and predictions from the 2001 report of the UN Climate Panel (IPCC)."

He disagrees with what the Kyoto agreement calls for and he disagrees with the Cassandras among the scientists, but he does not disagree with the global warming event as a whole.

Also, on the topic of his predictions of what will happen as a result of global warming, I must point out that he is not a biologist or climatologist or forensic-botanic archaeologist, but a statistician. He is re-analysing data generated by others. That is admirable and can be a welcome source of input when seen in context, but as one who frequently has to work with data points myself, I am sceptical of someone who is unfamiliar with the methods of getting the data in the first place or what the data points mean manipulating the information. For a very simplistic example, if you have 100 frogs in a pond. 80 of them are green, 19 are yellow-green and 1 is a deep blue, many people might want to say "Well, the typical frog here is green." And, as far as it goes, that is true. But, where is this pond? Are the ponds nearby stocked with a similar arrangement of frogs? What if every other frog in every other pond for half a mile in every direction is _blue_ ? Most would think that was important. But, if you are just taking the "raw published data" -- which may or may not (and I wish it always did, but it often doesn't) include all the data actually gathered on this study, or the data gathered on another study that might have been looked at, referred to and thought about when deciding the parameters to set on the data being collected -- you might just decide that the blue frog was an "outlier" and remove him/her from the stats completely. Now, seen that way, is that statement useful or even "true" in a larger sense?

I am sceptical of the "sceptical environmentalist" because he so consistently draws conclusions soooo diametrically opposed to the majority of scientists working in whatever field he is commenting on. I haven't gotten all the way through his book yet, but his astoundingly rosy picture of the future is making me suspicious. I also get suspicious with a total gloom-and-doom picture, but his claim that petroleum will never run out is just plain Pollyanna-ism.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kanga Mom_
*19,000 scientists have signed a declaration stating that there is no evidence for global warming, and the predictions of the global warming advocates are consistently proved false. .... When so many scientists disagree with it, I see no reason to subject our country to a compact clearly designed to single us out. The science ought to matter more than it does.*
I wonder about these scientists who are found to have quotations saying there is no evidence for global warming. Several years ago, I sat in a meeting room with the head of a division of Air Quality from United Technologies. That company is hardly a hotbed of Greenpeace activists and tree-huggers. Also in the room were two representatives of mining companies, three people from a big developer's office and a couple of people from the local wastewater treatment agency. All were scientists of some description, admitedly more on the commercial, private industry side. These are not what I would consider "wacky environmentalists". During the discussion of air filtration, the "background levels" of varous pollutants in the outdoor air was being discussed. This is important as when designing a air filtration/conditioning system, you have to decide where to draw your "fresh air" intake air from. If the available "fresh air" is highly polluted, then the intake ALSO has to be filtered and treated. The man from United Technologies said "....and then we come to CO2. These days the minimum I design for is 210 ppm [parts per million]. Twenty years ago it was 150 ppm, but with global warming, we have had to change our recommemdations on fresh air intake filtration." Not an eye blinked in the room. No one disagreed with this, even though it was going to cost several hundred thousand dollars more to deal with it. The reason that I could put that into quotes is because I was so shocked by the non-response of everyone, after hearing in the media how "debated" this idea supposedly is, that I wrote this down. And then I made a point of speaking with the man from UT later alone and asked him about that. His response was "Everyone knows about global warming. No one really thinks it isn't happening, except maybe someone who has never had to do air, soil or pollen sampling."

Straight from industry's mouth. Take it or leave it.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kanga Mom_
*"In 2001, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,937.7 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.) (13.0 percent above 1990 emissions). Emissions declined for the first time since the base year 1990, decreasing by 1.6 percent (110.3 Tg CO2 Eq.) from 2000 to 2001, driven primarily by decreases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel...."

Compared to this:
BRUSSELS, Belgium, May 6 (UPI) -- European Union greenhouse gas emissions rose for the second year running in 2001, the European Environment Agency said Tuesday in its annual report on the bloc's strategy to curb global warming.
Ten of the EU's 15 states overshot national targets, increasing total emissions by 1 percent in the last year for which data is available.
The figures threaten to blow a hole in the EU's ambitious climate change strategy, which has been sharply criticized by the United States and sections of European industry.*
Do you have these two things compared in the same units? I don't think it would be hard for us to decrease the _percent_ emitted, the question is the _mass._


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Kanga Mom_
*
19,000 scientists have signed a declaration stating that there is no evidence for global warming, and the predictions of the global warming advocates are consistently proved false. Grapes once grew in Greenland. The MIddle Ages were warmer than the current age. What data there is that seemingly supports global warming is data that ignored weather satellites, an odd omission.

*
1-These 19,000 scientists are *in the minority.* Most scientists who have field experience agree that global warming is a very real threat. It is still a THEORY...it has not been proven, so that is a very convienent way for people to argue that it isn't "true". I suspect a lot of these skeptics have found it clinically advantageous to ignore/dispute the threat. (A' la the Bush Administration)

2-Predictions are hard to make about global warming acceleration, because we have never faced a crisis like this before. We have no frame of reference for the level of pollutants being released. And we do know that the earth has been self-regulating in the past (it could never get to the point of "Waterworld", for example.) but the earth has never had to "deal with" pollution from 6 billion people before, either. It's hard to predict exactly when we will start feeling drastic effects of the impact.

3-Yes, the weather has been drastically different here on Earth. The earth goes thru cyclical temperature shifts naturally. The fact that the the planet is warming up is no big surprise to anyone. The problem is that it is warming up at an accelerated level due to high emissions levels by the human population. The data that "ignored weather satellites" ....no.
Experts know that the world has been both hotter and colder. This is normal for our planet. (I will explain how/why this happens if you like.) What is NOT normal is the rate at which it is getting warmer. People can argue that temperature-rising is normal, and so is global warming - and I agree - but what some fail to realize is that it's the activities of the human race that is altering this natural process dramatically.
---------
A little back to Family Size....I just want to mention how wonderful it is that so many large families are making efforts to tread lightly...I was raised in a very large family (7 kids) and I think my parents placed little or no value on ecological responsiblity. I think they thought recycling, walking, carpooling, etc was a lot of extra hassle with so many of us, and that's why they didn't do it.







Great job, mamas of many!!!


----------



## Kanga Mom (Jun 9, 2002)

First of all, let me apologize for the unorganized way I posted- I was short on time, suffering from a nasty chest cold (still have that), and I should have either waiting til I had more time to organize my thoughts (and proofread my post) or not posted at all.

Here's a couple points- somebody, I forget who, said that our failure to sign the Kyoto protocol was proof that Americans didn't care about the environment. The main thing I'd like people to consider is whether that is really a fair litmus test. I think that there are enough problems with the Kyoto protocol that reasonable and fairminded people could reach different conclusions on it- certainly there are enough problems with it that America's failure to sign should not be the litmus test as to whether or not we care about the environment.

Mass Transit- yes, I certainly was unclear and swept a broader brush than I intended. My apologies.

You are right, mass transit would certainly work in our population centers. I believe that we will have more mass transit systems in place in the larger towns and cities within the next 20 years, and this is a very good thing.
But we _do_ have many more places where such systems won't work than most European countries, and I think that ought to be taken into account. I do not think one size fits all fixes are appropriate.

Other countries have problem areas they need to work on that we don't have- for instance, the wastewater that flows from above ground pipes out of houses into open, above ground ditches and runs directly into the sea, such as I saw in Japan. The attitude toward the outdoors that I saw in Japan was much more disdainful than anything I've seen anywhere in America, too. It is common practice for men to urinate in the road- it's rude for you to look, but not rude for them to do. The litter and garbage strewn about the streets and beaches was astonishing. My oceanography professor there was incensed because the governor of Okinawa Prefecture had written a letter, which was published in the local paper, encouraging mainland businesses to relocate to Okinawa, and explaining that the size of the island was no object- they would simply expand the size by pouring concrete along the beaches (killing Okinawa's incredibly diverse coral reefs).
REcycling was unheard of where we lived.

Global Warming: I'm sorry, but there is _not_ consensus in the independent scientific community about global warming. If you only ever read one side, it might seem that there is, but if you try to read outside your comfort zone you might see a different picture.
There isn't agreement about whether or not it's happening. Among those who do agree that temperatures are warming, there isn't agreement about the causes. There isn't consensus about the best way to fix it amongst those who think there is warming. There isn't agreement about what it means for the future, either. The main point I wish to make here, is, again, that reasonable people can, and do, disagree about it without it meaning that they don't care about the environment.

Kanga


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

And still, America isn't the be all end all of environmental goodness. To say that because Japan may be nastier than the USA and there for the US has no reason for improvement is rediculous. (OK no one really said those exact words... but everyone is either defending or crabbing about it, BUT not offering any good solutions)

And Global warming... Is it happening? WHO CARES!!! What matters is we ONLY HAVE ONE EARTH!!! That is it! So does it matter if every person owns their own SUV, and factories pump out tons of air polution??? YES!!! It does matter. Does it matter that the amount of cattle on the earth for human consumption is tossing up methanine gas, yes! It does. Should we (or any contry for that matter) destroy all the old growth forests and jungles??? NO!!!

Like I said before, we should be working on solutions, NOT crabbing at each other about how crappy or uncrappy the USA is in comparison to other countries. Let us be the rolemodel for the world.
And small towns and cities can also have an effective mass transit system. It would have to be scaled down, but it could work. Why is everything an NO go, Because it is hard? I mean come on, having kids can be hard, but do you give up? Do you say well the neighbor just leaves her kids out in the yard all day with cookies and kool-aid, so that should be OK for my kids too. I mean because some other contry is doing a crappier job than us doesn't mean our job is GREAT!
It takes everyday citizens, voting, writting letters, send e mails, signing patitions, riding the buses or subways or light rails, recycling, reducing, reusing, and all that other great stuff, for the governments to see and then they change policies, because WE become the voice of the nation not the big corperations. WE demand organic farming, and mass transit, WE demand clean air and water, WE demand our natural forests to be left intact.

This isn't about who is worse than us, it is HOW we can be better. I mean if your making a large foot print, then there are things you can do to change that WITHOUT making life unbareable for your family.
I know for a fact we use to have a very large foot print, but we have made serious changes, and not one thing we did, changed the way we lived to an uncomfortable living. In fact we have saved money.
Tuesday I have the opportunity to vote on a light rail system here in my city!!! That will go right down the main street closest to my house! HOW COOL IS THAT!!!
I have three kids right now, and we are planning on 5 kids total, I think that, with a little work we are still going to have that small foot print. I am willing to do the little bit of work to keep it small.

H


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Well, back to this thread again..... Since I'm being quoted I'd better respond. Kanga when i was throwing out some thoughts on family size in different countries, they were simply musings and I'm sorry if you felt like I was attacking big families. I wasn't and quite frankly I hadn't really thought much about it before this thread was started. So I kinda reject the notion that I have some sort of construct about this topic thru which I view the world. I don't. I come from a big extended family (hundreds of rellys, literally), tho I've only got two kids myself and am not planning on anymore. Not really a planet kind of decision in the end cuz I'm enough of a libertarian to know that if I wanted more I'd have them. My dynamic duo are enough for me, thanks, and if you met my kids you'd know why, bless 'em!!!

However, I think if you do the simple maths it's easy to see that if everyone had as many kids as my great-aunt and uncle (12) you have a great big population explosion. Some of those 12 kids have gone on to have 6 or more kids, the minimum number of kids each of the 12 sibs has had is two. Even if, sadly and tragically in some cases, not all of those people have survived into adulthood, we still need to rent a community hall for Christmas get-togethers. In fact, some of these people I wouldn't recognise on the street, but they are my family nonetheless.

As a close to this rambling post, I would gently suggest that while everyone has the right to make their own choices about how to live their life (and I extend this right to lots of things ie: drug use, homebirth choices, homeshcooling, vaccinations, the right to free speech and I mean ALL free speech whether I like it or not, etc. etc.) we also have the responsibility to try and make those choices in such a way that will benefit the greatest number of people. In my mind every right comes with a responsibility, it is left to the individual to make a decision about what is right for them. You can only hope that that choice will not adversely affect others....
In my opinion, some of the choices being made in Western industrialised countries are not being made with the greatest good of humanity in mind. Indeed, as I understand it, the charter for companies who have public stocks is that they must make the greatest amount of money for their shareholders or risk being sued. (and if i'm wrong here could some of you business-y type mamas clear that up for me and set the record straight? Thanks!)

edited to add: I'm really comfortable with the idea that there is not consensus about global warming. Science should never be about consensus, otherwise it's not science anymore, it's dogma. However, I believe the precautionary principle should apply in this situation re: global warming. As another poster has pointed out, we do only have one planet and in my opinion if we stuff it up we've suddenly got the world biggest real estate hunt on our hands. And you can bet it's not going to be the poor people of the world who get the first tickets on a rocket-ship outta here!!! (sorry, had to indulge in a little Vonnegut fantasy, probably not reality, hee! hee!-- I hope)


----------

