This story is archived
Large families are 'bad for planet' »
Posted by: pagey 2 years, 7 months agoHAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanor 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.
Read Full Story at news.com.au »
Submitted By:
pagey
Hi Everyone, thanks for the visit and check out my group
.http://www.propeller.com/groups/automotive/
“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 114
-
TechnologyExpert
May 7, 2007, 12:27 p.m.I'm surprised no sinks. This is really a "hot button" topic, but I agree with this, perhaps not worded in the same way the excerpt indicates. But really, population increase is not happening in developed countries, but in developing ones. Many developed countries, like Japan, are having a decrease in population, as well as an uptick in Median age.
The U.S. is pretty stable at a little over 2 kids / couple ... but in reality, if you look at the projected population in 2050, about 9 billion ... this planet cannot sustain that, at least in the way we live ... and especially if DEVELOPING nations start to consume as the U.S. does!
-
tkyrchncs
May 7, 2007, 2:03 p.m.My young niece got on a "Save the Planet" kick at about 14 yrs old, and reprimanded me for not having 5 trash cans in my small kitchen to recycle. This was ~20 years ago. I told her that if she wanted to do the very best thing she could for the environment, she would take a vow right now not to reproduce. She was horrified!
-
Dionys
May 7, 2007, 4:12 p.m.Maybe it should also be directed at the Bushies who only fund "abstinence only" programs around the world these days for AIDS prevention (shown to be ineffective) and family planning.
-
jaern
May 7, 2007, 10:54 p.m.We can all point our fingers at the third world countries for f***ing up the planet but the USA is still the biggest problem for generating excess waste. I'd bet that an American family of three can still "out trash" a family of seven in Africa and I don't care how many bottles you recycle.
-
comstockkit
May 7, 2007, 3:36 p.m.In regards to this, I went to college and recieved a degree in Environmental Analysis. Years back, the top government officials met for a wolrd conference, in regards to this topic- large families are bad, and will dessimate this planet. The carrying capacity is gettimg maxed out, this was 15 years ago. Sorry to say this to the religious people, but the biggest offender is the Catholic Church. They asked the Pope to junst not say, or endorse anymore "be fruitful and multiply". Naturally, he refused. Well, now all the folks that are multiplying made their beds, and have to lay in them. Water was already in danger of being a non-renewable resource, and now the larger populated areas are paying for it.
-
whatever2000
May 7, 2007, 3:47 p.m.So I can still water the snot out of my big, green, beautiful lawn if I stop having kids?
-
dtrov
May 7, 2007, 4:12 p.m.If you don't accept religious beliefs on the issue of life, that's your opinion, but there are educated people who have an opposite view like myself. Your pope are scientists and your doctrine and dogmas are your views which if people disagree with, are considered heretics and idiots. When people become the enemy, developing nation or not, we are heading down the slippery slope. To be open to life is a wonderful thing & from the heart. To decide an arbitrary number such as 2 children per family is calculating and not from love. The human race can survive by working together despite differences in political, cultural or religious views. In my opinion, the love of creation is superceding the love of each other and our worth. I love creation & understand its use for us but to make the statement that having children is as bad as driving an suv or long flights is just sad. I am not angry, just disappointed at where we have come as a culture and society. As a Catholic I'm offended.
-
mesodude
May 7, 2007, 4:27 p.m.I think we'd be fine vis a vis population growth if we simply reduced the number of *unwanted* children being born. Those who choose to have more children and are willing to support them should be able to do so.
-
djwilli
May 7, 2007, 5:02 p.m.Well, if having a large family is an environmental misdemeanor, throw me in jail already. My mom and dad had 10 kids. I find fault with the article, though, as it would be much better on the environment to have 12 people in one family than to have 12 people in 6 families (married couples with no kids). Why? Because the family of twelve lives in one house, not six different houses (cutting down on urban sprawl), and everytime the family of 12 piles into the van to go somewhere, they are carpooling, while the 6 married couples are probably driving 12 separate vehicles.
-
miklkit
May 7, 2007, 5:06 p.m.Tell this to the mexicans. Isn't mexico city the largest in the world? It's pretty much an open sewer.
-
djwilli
May 7, 2007, 5:08 p.m.Furthermore, when going to the store, the family of twelve will buy in bulk, thus cutting down on trash going to the land fill from all that extra packaging that the 6 married couples will throw away from their single-portion-sized food purchases. The utilities used in the house of the family of twelve will no doubt be less than the utilities used in the 6 houses of the married couples. I sunk this article because it's just brain-dead, knee-jerk, alarmist folkore.
-
ballbuster2
May 7, 2007, 5:12 p.m.why should people, no matter the culture, be allowed to have children they can not afford? i believe if one can not provide EVERYTHING required to raise a child they should not be allowed to have them.
"everything": medical, dental, food, home, trasportation, education(1st grade - 4yr's collage). too, i do not believe the tax payer's should have to assist with long term welfare/social program's for those who have children they can not afford.
-
buckncindykill
May 7, 2007, 5:41 p.m.Didn't Scrooge have the answer? People should die at a faster rate so as to decrease the surplus population?
Or certainly, the more gay couples allowed to marry, pro-creation can go the way of the dinosaurs, providing the earth with a more desirable populace; gay, liberal and fewer people as a whole.
-
simonsez
May 7, 2007, 6:15 p.m.It seems as families gain financially, they are less prone to overdue on the number of children they have.
Maybe adopt a few if you want more kids.
-
JamalWindfall
May 7, 2007, 6:52 p.m.The future does not look bright. I may spend too much time in my office but I can't imagine how anyone who is literate cannot see through these types of stories. Seriously how dumb are people to not know that these types of stories are designed to get us all in line into accepting a new crapload of bogus laws. All professing to be to help save our environment but actually are to create further control, taxes and all around plans that most cannot understand. See I dont know the specifics but I know there is a big pile of dog poop somewhere in the room. While normal people are worried about paying bills they are dreaming up new ways to keep you worried and trapped in artifical systems
-
LadyKelien
May 7, 2007, 7:01 p.m.I have 6 children. I am not catholic. I am not mormon. All but my first child were concieved due to mis information from my doctor and in one case where they flat out lied to me and said they tied my tubes only to find out after I had gotten pregnate again that they hadn't done any such thing. My husband was fixed twice. Sometimes what ever God you believe in decides you need to have more than the two average kids. I agree the couple Just north east of us who are having their 17th child are way to much and should have stopped a long time ago. Im suprised shes not insane. But, We do what we can for the enviorment. We live on 11 ackers of woods that we let grow wild. Our trees are supporting your breathing. We raise a lot of our own food organically without pesticides. We use the lightbulbs they want everyone to switch to and we recycle. I even have a rain barrel. Not all big families are bad for the earth.
-
ningyo
May 7, 2007, 7:04 p.m.this is the next attack from the global warming enviro-stalinists...just more government control and intrusion into private life disguised as "saving mother earth"
-
kedirian
May 7, 2007, 7:04 p.m.If we all began to depopulate, there would always be one (or more)group(s)that would see in that a means to control and overpower others, in other words, WHO would have the largest armies?...
Besides, if we had fewer people on this earth, our Capitalistic economies ("Best system man invented") would collapse - mostly because the HAVES would NOT be able to exploit the HAVE-NOTS, management would not be able to play one group of laborers out against another especially when it comes to wages.
Maybe, that's why CHURCH and STATE - the latter until recently - have been so filled with blind hatred of homosexuals!
If we wish to attain "sustainability", we should let NATURE take its course and see in the acceptance of homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality the
one,NATURAL way to maintain that balance...
-
aceofspades1
May 7, 2007, 7:41 p.m.we can really protect the environment of the now & future world by stopping people from getting laid in SUVs
-
Tigra
May 7, 2007, 8:10 p.m.Big families in developed countries are a thing of the past, but I dont think that government shuld enforce restrictions of how many persons a family unit should have. I'm concerned about my own country first and foremost, which is the good ole US, and in the good ole US, it's 2.5 kids per avg. 2-3 in real terms. Not a foreseeable problem in any way. The third world countries especially need help with contraception; and the religious orders need to stop being so self-absorbed, and start educating their flock about the negative impact a large family can have
-
lancaster
May 7, 2007, 8:37 p.m.I have an idea , why don't those who believe we are over populated already , go do the funky lemming dance over a cliff somewhere and give the rest of us a little more space to live in , and apart from that it will save us having to listen to all this save the planet stuff , and what is the point of saving the planet if no ones going to be around to enjoy it .
-
anioklyComment has been removed: User banned.
-
Jaydee40
May 7, 2007, 9:19 p.m.Big families are great,nothing wrong with them. Big cities are where the problem is, the natural environment is first destroyed to make room for the people to move in then the people produce so much waist they have no place to put it. Next they assault the environment by driving millions of cars and trucks daily. Cities should have their population caped.
-
PamDemonium
May 7, 2007, 10:03 p.m.Perhaps another angle we should consider is our aging population and THAT drain on resources. People are living (in developed countries) much longer lives and as health declines there is a drain on resources. Demand for nursing homes and pallative care is on the increase. TEchnology and medical treatments can keep people alive long past any quality of life.
Bring on referendums on abortion and euthanasia. While polititions bumble around umming and ahhing, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.
-
ARRAY
May 7, 2007, 10:14 p.m.I suppose all the wars going on now are good for the planet too.
Global warming is a political tool, nothing else.
Watch this video featuring some the top scientists that wrote the IPCC concensus paper on global warming that is always spoken of in the news:
The first 88 comments are shown. Show all 114 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
