So I have been trying to Go Green--not trying hard or anything--just, you know, letting my produce roll around in the cart at the market instead of using bags, things like that. Those bags are hard to open anyway.I hadn't yet considered having fewer kids for the benefit of Mother Earth. It seems easy enough. Easier than the plastic bags, even. I am actually not being sarcastic. But it seems like faulty logic, in my situation, anyway. My family is not China. We are just three in a CO2-spewing 300 million Americans. What real difference could another couple of mouths make? Especially since with fewer kids we would have more money to spend on non-biodegradable toys for ourselves, and more time to drive around in our fancy cars.
Matt and I have already decided that we want to have more kids, so we're definitely not planning to Go Green in that particular way. But if other people want to limit their kids, fine. I mean I don't like carbon dioxide any more than the next person.
But thinking about this just made me think some more about my own efforts. I mean if I'm going to have as many kids as I want and let them breathe and drive cars and throw away trash, because I just don't care about population/the environment that much, then why am I letting my avocados and onions bump into each other on the bottom of my stinky cart? And limes, the limes roll everywhere. Since I'm already contributing ~4 diapers a day to landfills, does that cancel the plastic-bag effort out?
Then again I do recycle.
I recycle, and my avocados and onions bump into each other. And we don't smoke, and Matt takes the metro to work.
But we are going to have more kids, and also I'm not about to start scraping poop off of cloth diapers, not yet anyway. I am going to plant a garden next spring. Does that count for anything?
So basically I don't have an answer. Maybe I didn't really have a question. I don't remember.
12 comments:
I think you are doing just fine - if everyone just tried to do a few of the "green" things they thought they could do, it would make a significant difference.
I recycle, walk to work, write my kids assignments on the board so I don't have to run off lots of work sheets and email my co-workers instead of leaving notes in their mailboxes.
I try too!
I should point out that the whole reason I started thinking about population control and the environment, was the China article.
In case people were wondering (Matt was).
-Eliza
I think, once in awhile, how I am affecting (effecting?) the environment when I am scooping the cat box. What does that do and should I be doing something different? Oh well, I still love my cats and am not going to change, I guess. I agree with Eliza about cloth diapers, did that for about a week and it was disgusting, not to mention diaper rash was awful!
This article is misleading - the arguments against having more than 2 kids are much more complicated than just CO2. There's a really basic economic/environmental equation, I=PAT, which says that Impact = Population times Affluence times Technology, where the richer a population gets (i.e., the more mobile it is, and the more purchasing power it has), and the more people in it, the higher the environmental impact in all ways, not just climate change. That imapct includes using up essential resources like fresh water; air pollution with noxious substances other than carbon; loss of species diversity, etc.
Basically, the rule of thumb when gauging environmental impact is not to consider the direct impact of your actions, but the impact seven generations along. And seven generations of even just 3 or 4 kids per couple is a lot of "P" and "A".
Some people argue that humans can always innovate themselves out of their problems. The "T" for "technology" factor in this equation is key - maybe we CAN have a billion more people on earth and figure out how to technologically adjust our environment to fit them in in a sustainable way. I personally doubt it, but who knows.
The good news for the world is that as countries get more affluent, the trend seems to be that they have fewer kids on average. But that wreaks havoc on international politics (some countries are currently encouraging people to have MORE kids because they're afraid of immigrants outnumbering "natives"). So basically, we can't win. It's either environmental protection or social upheaval.
Can't we all just get along?
Sorry for the long post...
But interesting.
And cloth diapers are not that bad - I diapered 6 kids and only had a diaper service for 2 of them.
I think it keeps you close to your roots!!
i think we need to be wise with our resources because we need to be mindful of our posterity.
and as for the number of children - my line is - the world needs my children to balance out all the quacks out there.
and how do you only contribute 4 diapers a day? pretty good.
and disposables are not all that bad if you look at how much hot water and bleach are used to sanitize cloth diapers.
Alex, you lost me at I=PAT.
heh... just kiddin'. I am glad I have you to break it all down for me. Here at my blog I like to simplify things in order to make flippant black-and-white comments.
And...~4 is on a frugal day. It can be more, depending on what Theo eats and how much we are traveling around that day.
I don't really feel bad about disposable diapers. In fact the most compelling reason for me to use cloth (besides the $$ savings; I assume there would be some, if you don't count time and energy into the equation) would be the cute diaper covers they have now.
I should point out re: the China article that mostly I thought the whole thing was a tiny bit funny, I just imagined them all sitting down at a meeting and saying, "China, come on, you've got to get on board with this save-the-planet thing," and China saying, "Look, we've been restricting births since 1977, OK, so don't tell us we're not helping." Maybe I am the only one who imagines that scenario with any sort of humor. Not that it's not a serious subject, because it is.
Ha yeah sorry if I got carried away...didn't mean to be preachy. Just that population control is something I feel really strongly about, because it's only out kids who will suffer if (well, when) we exhaust our resources. And also because there are so many kids out there who already aren't taken care of. But there I go again.
Just to be clear, I think population control is a very good idea for those people who will not be taking care of their kids.
It's just that, well, I am planning to take care of mine.
Also into the equation is the commitment a family has to raising children that will be problem solvers and not problems creators. If caring, committed people reduce their numerical impact because of idealogical reasons, they may at the same time reduce a very real and positive influence on the future.
Ahhhh, good point, HPT.
Post a Comment