Children: "Bad for the planet"?
Children are bad for the planet.
Hmm, that really makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, I think we should all quit having children so then there wouldn't be any population and then we could all stop worrying about overpopulation. Oh wait, but there wouldn't be anyone left to worry about it.
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.
Did anyone stop to realize that if couples only have two children, the earth will slowly die out?
The conclusion of the article:
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
Actually, I have a better idea. What if we were to all start taking personal responsibility for our actions and to teach our children to do the same and thus raising environmentally responsible adults who were wise stewards of the planet and who were not dependent upon government welfare for existence?
Another idea: What if instead of passing out condoms and birth control pills like candy to today's teens we were to encourage abstinence before marriage? Not only would that reduce in large part the number of diseases currently being fostered by such behaviors, it would drastically reduce the number of unwed teenage moms who cannot support themselves.
Anyone else have any great ideas to add which you think might be more beneficial to society and help the future of the planet than having less children?
posted by Crystal Paine at 1:46 PM
20 Comments:
Oh brother...the overpopulation myth makes me laugh...I see it so frequently online. It's mostly from people who are anti children so I can see where the article comes from.
This world has gotten so weird. Thank God us Christians won't be a part of it much longer. :)
I agree 100% about teaching abstinence instead of birth control. When I mentioned that in a group I am in online I got laughed at saying "that God thing doesn't work...we are made humans with sexual needs". Wow..we can use that as an excuse for everything.. "we are only human". *sigh*...
The world is so backwards...and yet us Christians are told we're the crazy ones...the ones without a brain....
"What if instead of passing out condoms and birth control pills like candy to today's teens we were to encourage abstinence before marriage? Hmm, not only would that reduce in large part the number of diseases currently being fostered by such behaviors, it would drastically reduce the number of unwed teenage moms who cannot support themselves."
The problem with that is that abstinence programs have never been shown to work. :( I don't have the solution to the teenage pregnancy problem, but I know that abstinence only education programs statistical fail.
Goodness me, what a ridiculous article! That's like saying cut down your food to just a few chocolate bars in order to not eat more calories than you should - how about just eating a sensible, well-balanced diet?
We NEED children in order to replace the population. I think there's just a handful of African countries that are actually having enough children to replace their population - most other countries, particularly places like Germany, are way below the level for replacing their population.
A hearty AMEN to what you said about teaching kids instead to be responsible and look after the environment, and about teaching abstinence before marriage instead of handing out the pill and condoms to anyone who asks.
Things are so backwards in this world sometimes, it's unbelievable! God help us.
In His care, Emily
Actually, I would disagree with Dawn Marie's comment that people with the overpopulation concern are mostly anti-children. My husband and I know that our biggest blessing in our life so far has been our son, but we both feel a deep-rooted responsibility in this area. For US (and I can only speak for us) that means we are choosing to probably only have one more child. There are many reasons for this, and one, albeit a small one, is that yes, there is concern there is over-population. Yes, I know that in all actuality the U.S. population is actually almost decreasing with the average children per family now standing at 2.1 vs. 2.4. or therein. However, if you examine the rest of the world particularly countries like India or Mexico, it is hardly a concern there. All statistics do point to the fact that if the entire world's population growth rate were to continue at the current rate then we will have serious overpopulation issues before 100 years is up. Honestly, I cannot see why this is offensive to some - it doesn't mean you can't have the large family you have always wanted, but you should be aware that your grankids will be living in a very different world, and yes, most of the 'overpopulation' (if statistics prove true) will be children of third world, poverty-stricken people.
Btw, I strongly encourage all of us but especially those of you planning to have large families to start (and these are pretty simple to incorporate into everyday life )these eco-friendly ideas:
1. Recycle everything - and really I mean everything. the only thing you really need to toss in the actual trash is mostly food products, and sanitary products. Batteries, cell phones, furniture, toys, plastic, aluminum, glass, paper etc - all need to be properly disposed of. You can get on your local metropolitan governments website to find out how to do this in your community.
2. Turn out lights of every room you are not in
3. Turn up the AC if you use it a couple degrees, and the heat down a few degrees in the winter
4. TURN OFF THE CAR INSTEAD OF IDLING it (this is huge! It is a myth that it uses more gas to turn it back on) so turn it off while you are waiting in it
5. Don't run water while brushing your teeth or shaving
6. As you need new appliances, buy the types that require less energy as you can afford - the energy star appliances
8. No more plastic bags for every cucumber - let them roll in the grocery cart
9. Large families = large cars and that can't be helped but if you are driving a giant car and it is usually just you or 2 people, ask yourself if you can downsize to a more eco-friendly car
10. shop local - farmers markets, etc. the shorter the trip for food and products to reach you the better it is for the eco system
Anonymous: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that we should be wise stewards and responsible stewards (as I mentioned in my post), however, I also believe that God is sovereign. If He says children are blessings, why would we reject these blessings for fear of earthly resources running out? (I'm not sure if you are a Christian or not, so I'm just stating this from my perspective as a Christian.)
As Christians, we are to walk in faith, not fear. God is a big God. I don't just say that, I know it. I lived it. I have seen Him provide. I have seen Him do great and mighty things on our behalf and I know that He will provide for us and take care of us, no matter how many or few children He sees fit to give us.
However, yes, we need to think long-term and be wise stewards today and teach our children to be wise stewards as well. That is one reason, as I wrote in my Dave Ramsey post, we are "scrimping" today. It is for the future. Yes, we could spend more money if we wanted to, yes, we could have nicer stuff and eat out more, but we are thinking long-term. Wisely saving and investing today, being wise stewards of the resources God has given us today, will make a big difference in the future - for our children and grandchildren, Lord-willing.
I think that instead of limiting the number of children, encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their actions can go a very long way in making a difference on this planet.
Environmentalists should worry about monitoring coal use and exceeded limits of carbon dioxide emission by industrialized countries. Thinking of having children as contributing to pollution is not only ridiculous, it's insulting.
... of course in a way, every living being is contributing to pollution. We breathe, for God's sake! Do they suggest we stop? :)
To anonymous who says abstinence programs statistically fail: I don't have enough information to check that statement, but I know for sure sex ed programs and handing out condoms not only fail - they increase the rate of teenage sex, pregnancy and abortions. I mean... they are just to-do manuals.
Actually abstinence works just as well as sex-ed. The latest study that the media broadcasted, proving the abstinence failed, just showed that it did the same as sex-ed classes.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmM1NzA1NDQ4NDdkMTFjNWQ4YzNkMmNiZTM0NzNlYTk=
(sorry, I still can't do links)
I really recommend the above article because it stressed chastity more than just abstinence. I think the abstinence movement only works for virgins and we have got to encourage nonvirgins that they should wait for marriage. It is also very hard to preach abstinence in a secular environment with sexualized images all over the media.
About the overpopulation thing. Whatever. I would encourage all the earth worshipers to not have any children. We don't need mini Sheryl Crows running around telling us how much toilet paper to use.
-Zan
Someone sent me this article just today! They sent it as a joke bc I'm pregnant...again! :)
It gave me a good laugh. Britain has become so socialist it's scary.
-a nonny mouse
Oh, Zan, I like that - chastity as opposed to abstinence as you are right, we definitely need to be encouraging those who are no longer virgins that they can still wait until marriage. Just because you "messed up" once doesn't mean you need to keep doing it over and over again. You can make a change today for the good of your future, not to mention your health.
I don't know what the answer is for this generation of young people who are constantly being exposed to such garbage, but I DO know that throwing condoms and sex-education at them and talking all about "safe sex" (which I don't believe there is such a thing outside of marriage - aren't I old-fashioned?!) ain't doing much of anything but to encourage the behaviors, diseases, and problems which are so prevalent in our society.
I happen to believe that families should have as many or as few children as they want, so long as they can actually support them. I'll stay out of the over-population discussion.
As for sex-ed programs (I'm talking about what they teach in schools), many do encourage abstinence rather than birth control, but as an anon already stated, abstinence-only programs just don't work. We live in a fallen world, and not all kids come from families with a strong moral background (not to mention Christian). And the world sees morality as relative anyway. In an ideal world, people wouldn't have sex outside of marriage. The reality, as we all know, is quite different. As such, I believe it's imperative that kids be taught how to use birth control, but they should also be taught that the best thing is simply to wait until marriage.
It's disappointing that this is the way it has to be, but the world is putting out the message that dating=sex. We can try to combat that message as much as possible, but covering up crucial information for those that are going to disregard the better way isn't helping matters.
And I honestly don't know of any schools that pass out condoms and birth control. Planned Parenthood may be a different matter, though.
I am one of three children, and people in my school always seem to think I have a big family, which puzzles me slightly! I always get a bit upset when someone insinuates that my mother has been 'selfish' in having one more child than is permitted by society. There are so many professional couples who go on holiday every two weeks and destroy the earth with aeroplane emissions! Maybe we should worry about them, instead of people who are bringing up the next generation.
These 'anti-child' people should remember who will be running the world when they are old :)
But surely since the replacement rate for developed countries is 2.1 children, and so many women will never have children at all, large families should be encouraged, because without them the aging population will be unable to sustain itself and die out?
Stop promoting oral contraceptive use - the hormones are ending up in our water supply and hurting animals...and ultimately us.
Sorry, forgot to post the link to the article
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/
newsArticle.aspx?id=25291453-1c9
e-46d2-8aab-05ab487fb751
Okay, that is about the weirdest "study" I've ever heard of...
I have found some links that support position that abstinence only programs aren't working. Obviously we know, like anything that is studied closely, it is easy to find a study or two that might support your position. But what I would like make a point that over the decades the data has not supported abstinence only. I believe it is important realize they have failed so a solution can be found, if there is one. I worry about teenage pregnancy, both because of the impact on the person and the community. I worry equally about the dangers of giving a teen hormonal birth control, which can be harmful enough in adults. There have been numerous theories as to why the USA has such a higher rate of teen pregnancy vs. Europe. I wish I knew what was true, because it is serious concern of the entire country. But that is an important thing to note; European's aren't teaching abstinence and what they are doing is working.
These have well cited sources:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abstinenceonly.htm
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/04/13/burying-release-of-abstinence-only-report-on-friday-the-13th-seems-fitting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140823,00.html
Should we even waste our time with those who believe such rubbish? Who ever heard of such a thing? It sounds like China where children are numbered and only so many are allowed!
Ruth, PA
The more they listen to this tripe, the sooner we will outnumber them.
I am certain that if the "only-two-children" camp gets a majority of popular opinions, they will act to legally enforce their viewpoint. They won't start at two... they'll start at ten, or maybe five. But they will end up at two, or maybe one.
Interestingly enough, most of them call themselves pro-choice.
Crystal,
I thought that article was very good. We can't just say, "No, sex!" and expect kids to listen. Showing me STDs was enough to scare me from EVER being promiscuous, but I had strong parents and a strong faith. Our country has a long way to go. Like, the article stated, we need to build each other up and recognize each other as individuals, not commodities. Our culture seems to revolve around sex...the immoral kind.
BTW, there is NO such thing as "safe sex". The closest thing we have is "saf-ER sex."
I think the abstinence programs in churches do isolate the people who have messed up and if Christ has forgiven them, than so should we! In Christ, you are a new creature.
-Zan
Reply to anonymous:
The same study (Mathematica) in the articles you posted was the same one in the National Review article that I posted. These two paragraphs point out that the kids that received the sex-ed had the same level of condom usage as the ones who received abstinence only!
"Although it went unreported, Friday’s news casts doubt on this sweeping conclusion. In the Mathematica study, two groups of students were analyzed: One group took abstinence-only classes, while the control group had access to a varied array of sex-ed programs.
While the report doesn’t detail the type of sex education the control group received, it makes it clear that they did receive some type of sex education. usage (or any other type of That the control group would then prove to be no more diligent in condom contraception, according to the study) than those uninstructed in prophylactics has serious implications for sex-ed advocates."
Why aren't we criticizing sex-ed now? It doesn't seem like sex-ed is working very well, either. Abstinence is working just as well as sex-ed.Brilliant! If it is so lowsy than so is the sex-ed.
But, we don't here about that because that wouldn't be p.c.
That is why I loved the chastity angle that the author of the National Review article promoted. However, that would be making a moral judgement and those aren't very popular in public schools.
-Zan
Post a Comment
<< Home