Children ‘Bad For Planet’

Post Reply New Topic

Children 'bad for planet' says environmentalist group

The London Times | May 07, 2007
Sarah-Kate Templeton

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.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

<snip>

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

Good. The world needs fewer English people.

Hypothetical......

The only people who are likely to read this and be influenced by it in their concern for the planet and humanity....are likely to be better educated,living in more technologically advanced societies and living in an environment that is better prepared to support a larger population because of an advanced social infrastructure.

The people less likely to read this and be less influenced by this "think tank" then their own cultural beliefs and traditions are more lkkley to live in less educated,poor economies,less access to birth control or have religious beliefs that do not support use of birth control.

What will be the end result of such an inbalance of people who follow or refuse to follow this advice.......?A larger percentage of people reproducing in societies that have more poverty,less education benifits,poorer health services.

How do you think this will assist the over all human population and evolution in general ,having people with more resources and better education decreasing their population while the rest of the world increases theirs?Hummmm

yeah you got that right kid

The world needs fewer people. Who gives a sh*t if they're English?

My Grand parents had 4 kids

4/4 = off spring each



My parents have 4 biological children.

4/2 = off spring each

Of those:

Me and one sister likely will never have children. And my brother has 4 kids and my sister will have her third next month.

7/6 = off spring each

So thats 1,2, 1.2

Wealthy generally have in lower birth rates. Effective economic systems results in wealth. But the developing world does not have as much in effective economics. They also face stringent restrictions on technologies. The western world was built on dirty unclear power plants, and industry but now via technological advancements generated over time from rich economies power generation, and industry are became cleaner and more effective. China will soon overtake the United States in emissions of Greenhouse Gas, with only a third of it's economic production, yet to reverse it's economic liberalizations would result also reverse it's improvements in energy efficiency.

The third world can also follow the same path if only the elite and comfortable in the west stop believing the illusion that poverty is merely a "lifestyle," a product of "diversity."

3/4 children per family limit, large families tend to be troublesome in many ways. This, of course, is not possible in a LEDC.

the English - lol

Now do i take offense at that?

I agree, we're not all that great.

Why the hell did you say the world need less english people!! !!E#@3412
I know the chavs yes but there are some nice people, just like theres nasty americans and nasty muslims, theres nice ones too
its just too single minded to say that only english people are nasty, just a load of F***ing Bulls*** In my opinion

I just like making fun of myself. After all, PC means that we can't mention the nasty you-know-whos so....

Sounds like conumisim to me. Seems like it'd actualy be better for the earth if the people would teach their kids things and actualy ENFORCE them such as recycling, eating organic food and simple things like that. It's not hard people. Is it just me or are NT's getting stupiter the more I read about them and see them?

Hmm maybe we should all have a one child policy like they have in china, the policy limits couples to one child, sounds like one child too many to me. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization like an animal, accompanied by second or subsequent pregnancies. That sounds fantastic. The government should take control over the population and cleanse the earth of all the disgusting
Humans. Boy this global warming agenda is becoming way out of hand. The only people I see that drive gas guzzling cars are rich families that have only one child ,the people that actually have more then one kid can't afford a giant gas guzzling car. And recycled paper bags are better for the environment they give out less toxins

Last edited by TheResistance on 09 May 2007, 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its a fact all over the world, that the more educated a population is, the lower the smaller the family size.

As the cost:benefit of children increases (the greater the cost of raising children v the economic payoff) the fewer children. In 3rd world countries, children are a cheap source of labour that has a relatively quick economic payback (kids are economically productive after a few years). In western countries, kids are not economically productive for upwards of 20 years.

This is how the world works.