Stop Having Babies to Save the Planet
It’s a controversial message that isn’t going to win many votes. But the truth is, human population growth and overcrowding are the cause of many of today’s problems.
The solution is simple - stop having babies. The world’s human population should be decreased, gradually, by encouraging people to abstain from parenthood. Remaining childless should be encouraged with significant incentives. Reduced tax rates for middle-aged childless couples and individuals would be a start.
There is only so much space and so much resource that the earth can provide. We are already in a situation where it would be impossible to raise the standard of living of every person in developing countries, including China and India, to the standard enjoyed by people in the west. There simply isn’t enough resource to go round.
A well known experiment was once conducted in which mice were kept in an enclosed space and provided with plenty of food and water. Their numbers increased and they quickly became overcrowded. Their food and water levels were maintained to keep them alive but the overcrowding resulted in males fighting over females, or over nothing at all, homosexual activity increased, eating of the young became commonplace and mental issues were observed wherein mice would perform repeated pointless actions. Does any of this sound familiar?
Every day we hear stories of increasingly extreme violence, we are surrounded by people suffering from mental health issues of one sort or another and everybody and their dog appears to be gay these days.
It’s about time that people woke up to the fact that the state of the planet and the state of society is largely down to over-crowding. The equation is simple. Fewer people would mean more space and less demand upon the planets limited resources.
Instead of encouraging parenthood it should be actively discouraged. People who manage to resist the strong biological drive towards becoming a parent should be rewarded for their strength and children should be educated towards leading a life without offspring. These are tough times and tough measures are required if the human race is to survive.
Anthony wrote,
I don’t think homosexuality has anything to do with our increasing population density, but despite that the rest of your points are correct.
Link | July 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
wannabeadesigirl wrote,
And then what do you do when the world population drops dramatically to the point that humans are on the verge of extinction? Who will be left to explain to the young children we have now, say the 3-5 year olds how to have babies when it’s time? Who’ll do the deliveries? Decrease the population ok, but when the population is decreased who will cause it to go BACK to a healthy level?
Or you could teach people how to use the resources of the earth wisely. Lower the western worlds dependance on oil gobblers, if not oil completely. Figure out how to create artificial rain in drought ridden lands like Ethiopia. And most importantly of all teach people how to take care of each other. Smack the western world over the head for ignoring the plight of third world countries. Kick third world dictators out of power. Hell there are a million better options than decreasing population.
Link | July 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Matt wrote,
Awesome, but impossible. Most of the “developed” (rich) world already has less then 2 babies. It is the lesser educated (poor) parts of the world that still have tons of babies out of necessity or ignorance. In Africa people used to riot because of rumors that Polio vaccines were really sterilizing them. Unless you want to go China on the third world there is little hope for this solution, although I wish we could make it happen. How about limiting to just 1 as a side question? That would decrease but you stil would have people throwing the girls in the rivers…shit.
Link | July 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Bubbles wrote,
Interesting but not practicle. Even establishing a 1 child policy such as in India and China has not been effective. Like Matt wrote, the less developed countries depand on children and it will be difficult to “educate ” them to stop at one.
Good point wannabeadesigirl, teaching people how to use the resources of the earth wisely would have a better and long term benefit instead of not reproducing at all. Moreover, better and effective use of the world’s limited is a must as the climate changes due to the green house effect and the depleteing ozone layer, indicate that actions must be taken NOW.
Link | July 31st, 2008 at 7:57 am
stonyhill wrote,
Insects outweigh humans by far, yet no one reasonably states that insects are using up all of our resources. Humans just need sustainable lifestyles. Start by eating lower on the food chain, from local sources, like your back yard.
Link | August 6th, 2008 at 7:41 am
jayzee wrote,
@wannabeadesigirl: You’re taking the point to an extreme. The author is not recommending we systematically reduce the human population to nothing. Do you have any clue how long it would take 6.5 billion people to reach a level even close to extinction? What we need is a combination of encouraging people to procreate less and a reality check as to what is a realistic lifestyle. We in the US consume roughly 25% of the worlds resource. That’s both obscene and embarrassing.
Link | August 6th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Tom wrote,
So being gay saves the world - yay!
Link | August 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
gerwen wrote,
A sort of echo to what Matt wrote above. People reading this are likely in countries where population growth is already at 0.
The way to control population growth is to industrialize the 3rd world, and bring them up to our standard of living.
Link | August 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Martin wrote,
You are comparing apples and oranges. A child in a rich country does not equal a child in a poor country. For example, in their life time each of our two children (in Canada) will use more resources, produce more greenhouse gases and more pollution than a hundred children in Nepal will in their life time.
So, to safe the planet it is more important to make our consumption in the rich countries more sustainable. China for example has reduced the number of children drastically, but their consumption increases faster than any other country. Of course, I think any human has the right to life comfortably. That’s why we have to find ways to live comfortably, without destroying the planet.
So it’s about how we achieve that comfort rather than how many kids we have.
Link | August 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Yodood wrote,
You didn’t mention the most relevant biological fact of populations of any living species will increase to match its food supply. Man has been increasing his food supply ever since the use of totalitarian agriculture to answer the call of the inevitable increase in staarving when the population more than keeps up with the supply. The UN just decided to make the earth yield 50% more food which can only lead to 50% more people including 50% more starving people. If we learn to distribute food more efficiently by adopting a person garden responsibility instead of waiting for the silo to open without another square foot of wilderness being sacrificed for corn, soy, etc. the population would stabilize at that point and the evils of the growth industries would have no justification for mindless manufacture to keep up.
Link | August 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
McCow wrote,
Sterilize anyone with an IQ less than 140…………..
Link | August 7th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Peter wrote,
Wouldn’t rewarding those people who resist biological urges to reproduce simply select those individuals with stronger biological urges? This trait would be passed down to subsequent generations, populating the human race with individuals ruled (to an even greater extent than the present) by their hormones rather than reason.
Link | August 7th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Kirke wrote,
wannabeadesigirl, we already know how to create artificial rain, seeding clouds with silver compounds. People messed around with that in the last century and it doesn’t seem like a good solution. The fact is that there are too many people living in too many parts of the world, and by that I mean neither is sustainable. You mentioning an arid region with water resource issues such as Ethiopia is very appropriate because it’s the other piece of this problem. We have many other regions in the world, like Jordan and Israel as well as the southwest United States, where not many people at all should be living. People are only able to live in these places now because fossil fuels have allowed us the extra energy and questionable (i.e. possibly unsustainable) geomorphic engineering and water transport allow these areas to import or create sufficient fresh water supplies. Everything in this world is budgeted. As we continue to better understand our spending limits on resources, it is vital (literally) that we adjust our livelihoods to fit within those limits.
Link | August 7th, 2008 at 7:33 am
lesbox wrote,
While I do agree the population is getting out of control. I don’t understand the rationality of you including homosexuality as part of your argument. Homosexuality is a natural form of population control.
Link | August 7th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Elathen wrote,
This violates every genetic imperative we have as a species. People will breed if they have the resources to do so. The problem is our artificial manipulation of food resources. If you want to decrease population slowly over time, slowly begin removing food from the “cage”.
Link | August 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am
claire wrote,
adopt a child if you must have kids.
Link | August 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Nathaniel wrote,
The experiment is being used in a misleading way and is thus in accurate when compared to humans and the Earth.
Reasons why humans and mice are different.
1. Mice don’t build factories or large scale economies (this is a big thing to think about).
2. Mice don’t use up food for fun-we use our cars (and their fuel) as well as many other resources for things we don’t need to survive.
3. The Mice don’t produce pollution like to do with our cars, factories, and large scale economies. It is our pollution that does so much ecological harm (like global warming), this experiment ignores that very important issue.
4. Pollution and resource use don’t relate to how many children you have. China is an example of a place where when people started having fewer children they started using more resources and polluting more. China has had more people than the USA for a long time, but it has only started to surpass the USA in pollution emitted (like CO2) years after it started a population control program to limit the number of children people have.
5 (or maybe 4.1 as it relates to the last point). China has been having fewer and fewer children as each year passes, eventually this number will be lower than the number of people in China who die and thus China’s population will fall. However, as China has been having fewer children each year the amount of resources used and pollution generated has increased each year-having fewer children doesn’t save the planet.
Link | August 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Nathaniel wrote,
Elathen, the author was trying to make a point about the problems that will happen if we run out of resources. I disagree with the Chief Surgeon on if this relates to population size.
However, what you are advocating with removing the “food” is making the same problems happen (just a little bit sooner) and thus isn’t a solution.
Link | August 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Marta from International Calling Card wrote,
When it comes to having a baby it’s better not to conceive if the sole aim is to save the planet. At least, it would make the baby miserable.
Link | November 6th, 2008 at 8:07 pm