The Elephant in the Room
I don’t pay much attention to the more popular “feminist” blogs, as I’ve found them to be completely dismissive of childfree individuals, favoring instead the furthering of a pronatalist point of view, to the detriment of those who have chosen to forego parenthood.
That being said, I do still occasionally pop over and read some of the posts when someone points me to something s/he thinks I would find interesting. Such was the case with post, “Rejecting ‘Population Control’ as a Way to Fight Climate Change.”
The topic of having fewer (or no) children in an effort to help stave off global climate change is always the elephant in the room. It’s obvious. Fewer people = less consumption. But no one ever wants to talk about it. And, if someone actually does dare to bring up the topic, people, usually women, become absolutely livid, usually precluding any hope of a calm, rational, and intelligent discussion/debate.
I don’t pretend to understand the desire to have kids, since I don’t recall ever having it. But I do understand that some people have the desire. I also don’t understand the whole “it has to be my biological child” thing, as opposed to parenting an adopted child, but, again, I understand that this desire exists, as well.
And that’s just fine.
So why do people who have the desire to procreate have to get so defensive about their choices? And why is it so taboo to discuss it?
I own a car… something that, even though it’s a hybrid and gets awesome gas mileage (compared to nonhybrid vehicles), uses fossil fuels. My computer runs on electricity and I don’t have solar panels, a windmill, or any other such source of alternative energy. I don’t currently compost. So, I’m not perfect. At least not in the environmentally-friendly way. 
But I don’t get all defensive about it when someone points out to me that, were I to be really environmentally conscious, I would get rid of my car, compost, and put solar panels on my roof. Because they would be correct.
However, if anyone dares mention that not having children is a “greener” choice than having them, parents immediately go on the defensive. Yes, people have the right to have as many children as they want. But they need to stop pretending that (a) they’ve done it for some altruistic reason(s), or (b) that having children is good for or does not impact the environment and the rest of society. Because just like my driving a car or my using electricity to run this computer I’m typing on affects the environment, so does having a kid.
Should we encourage people to have fewer children… or forego biological parenthood entirely? Why not? We encourage people to put sweaters on in the winter and turn down thermostats to save energy, don’t we? We encourage people to recycle instead of sending everything to the landfills, don’t we? We encourage people to walk, bike, or take public transportation more, don’t we? Why wouldn’t we include not adding to our already burgeoning population to the list of things one can to do help alleviate some of the stress on the earth?
I’ve said it in my past posts about feminism… the answer is one word: EDUCATION. Instead of throwing around red herrings about how encouraging people to have fewer (or no) children is based in racism, classism, anti-feminism, or any other –ism you can think of, why not advocate for better, more comprehensive education – financial education, environmental education, and reproductive (including complete and accurate information regarding birth control) education?
And, by the way, that education I’m suggesting includes educating women and men.
Powered by FireStats
September 26th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Hmmm… It seems like you are only talking about the “baby” elephant in the room.
After all, you have a carbon footprint, and as you have just admitted above, you are far from perfect in minimizing it. There are surely many in your (our?) generation who are the same.
So in addition to (or perhaps instead of) encouraging people to limit their family size, why not encourage those who are environmentally conscious to just “snuff it?” After all, that will be even better than limiting family sizes, because the benefits to the planet would happen immediately.
Perhaps those in the older generation, knowing that they are hopeless when it comes to the size of their carbon footprints, should just make room for the younger generation, who might be able to grow up without getting addicted to cars, electricity, and other carbon producing substances.
BTW, the above is not intended as a serious suggestion. Unfortunately, there have apparently been a few suicides by people who have followed this logic, and have offered themselves as “human sacrifices” to environmentalism. This is perhaps why people are afraid to bring up the subject: deep down they know where it will logically lead.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Thomas Brock. Thomas Brock said: Good friend & BrockNet blogger, @emmasteinfeld, raises a ?: Why aren't we educated on enviro cost of children? http://bit.ly/F2COB Thoughts? [...]
September 26th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
LMAO. You just made my point for me. Change the subject. Throw out a red herring. Anything but actually discuss the topic rationally and intelligently.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
No Emma, you really don’t get it.
If a not yet conceived baby has a carbon footprint that should be stamped out, then it is only logical to consider that existing lives may have carbon footprints that need to be stamped out. Especially if the world is in the sort of climactic emergency that global warming alarmists are constantly telling us about.
We are talking about “not adding to already burgeoning populations,” right? There is not a big logical leap from not adding to populations, to actively reducing them. You may think that you are nice enough not to consider taking the next step, but there are plenty of people in the world who are not so nice. You ought to know that.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
No, actually I do get it. Because, you see, I’m the author of the original post and, believe it or not, I included in that post what I wanted to discuss.
For some odd reason, you seem to be unable to address that particular topic. Seriously, there’s a huge…monumental…not to mention bizarre…jump between the idea of not creating new people (as in they don’t yet exist… get it?) and offing people who are already here. There’s absolutely no comparison. And the fact that you can make that leap is more than a little troubling.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 am
Haw haw! Ray’s on to a non sequitur worthy of Rick Santorum’s “accepting gay marriage will lead to accepting bestiality” shtick. I love his belief that “you may think that you are nice enough not to consider taking the next step, but there are plenty of people in the world who are not so nice.” Even if he knows something about your level of niceness that you & the rest of us don’t, how is that relevant? That would be like me objecting to his argument that, say, Creationism ought to be taught in science class by saying that even if he’s nice enough not to burn people at the stake for espousing evolution, there are plenty of people in the world who are not so nice.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I just don’t understand how, if we can discuss other “sacrifices” people can make in order to reduce their footprints (turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater, walk/bike/take mass transit more, recycle, compost, etc., etc.) at least semi-rationally, why is mentioning having fewer (or no) children not included? Why do people get all edgy about it? And why-oh-why would someone jump from having fewer/no children to murder?