Childfree and Painting the World Green

Global warming sucks. Every time I turn on the news, it seems there is yet more bad news about the state of our planet: the melting of ice caps, the warming of our climate, the rising of sea levels, the predictions of entire shorelines being washed away in the not-too-distant future (there go my trips to the Maryland shore) - non-stop doom and gloom. It is so depressing, that I confess...when I come across news on this issue, I turn the page, or turn off the television. I feel anxious and helpless. I do what I can to save energy and to live as green as I can, but I am not kidding myself. How much difference can one person really make?

Well, according to a new study from statisticians at Oregon State University, apparently I make a big difference, simply because I am childfree.

The carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

In other words, a typical American who tries to live as green as possible - driving a fuel-efficient car, recycling, using efficient light bulbs, using energy-saving appliances, etc. - undoes the positive impact of his green efforts 40 times over by having 2 children - increasing his carbon footprint 40 times.

The researchers smartly point out that curbing population growth is rarely addressed in discussions about climate change:

In this debate, very little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice...When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent –about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

While the researchers do not advocate for government regulation of reproduction, they do hope to educate people on the environmental consequences of reproducing.

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their 'carbon footprint' on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child.

I'll take it a step further. Consider not having any children at all and you'll really do the Earth a big favor.

(Thank you Amy and CFVixen for forwarding me this study).

Keep Running (it prevents thinking)

Sometimes I have this thought about people who have kids and I wonder if it is just my own prejudice or if I am on to something. My thought is that many people have kids because they are lazy and want an easy way to create a life for themselves. They don't have anything interesting going on, and are too lazy to put real thought or effort into creating a meaningful life for themselves. Becoming a parent is an easy way to create an instant sense of purpose in their lives.

This thought occurs to me frequently when I observe the lifestyles of people with children. The constant on-the-go, hyperactive, rat-on-a-treadmill, day-in-day-out doing doing doing, running running running from dawn until dusk, keeps peoples' focus permanently off themselves, off the greater good, off introspection, off the pursuit of self actualization, off personal, intellectual and spiritual growth. Those who have children would argue that being a parent is a means to self-actualization, achieving a higher purpose in life and contributing to the greater good. Of course it's easy to maintain this idea when it's so heavily reinforced in our pronatalist culture. But I disagree with this on a fundamental level.

The fact is, in thinking objectively about all the people in my life who are parents, my assessment is that aside from raising children, they have nothing else going on. They are busy, busy, busy and doing, doing, doing, but what does all this busyness and doing amount to? It amounts to expending one's entire life energies solely to raise a child who will grow up to become a parent who will be busy, busy, busy, doing, doing doing and the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum. And for what purpose? What purpose does all this serve aside from keeping humanity going?

Keeping humanity going is seen as the greatest purpose in life and parents are ascribed hero status for doing their share toward contributing to this most selfless of goals. But for the sake of argument, I would like to ask a question which never gets asked: why do we assume that the continuation of the human species is a heroic goal? Or even a worthwhile goal? Are humans so egocentric and self important that we cannot imagine a world without ourselves, or see how much of our planet would benefit from a reduction in our numbers? Do we really believe that the earth would cease to exist without us in it?

Even if one ascribes to the idea that continuing the human species is important, the world is already severely overpopulated. Environmental resources are strained. The earth is overheated and polluted. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. There are millions upon millions of poor and starving human beings inhabiting our planet, many in our own country. Do we really need to add more? Given the fact that the earth is teetering on the edge of extinction thanks to mankind and the exploding population, perhaps the mandate that we each replicate ourselves is not only outdated, it's dangerous to our very existence.

The parental rat-on-a-treadmill existence may keep minds occupied, calendars booked, mini vans running, wallets emptied and consumerism in high gear, but aside from that, I think the question really needs to be asked of what the greater purpose of all this really is and why we are so easily brainwashed into the idea that reproduction is the highest of human aspirations. In reality, having children is the path of least resistance, of greatest reinforcement and when all is said and done, it's no great accomplishment. So why do we continue to treat it like it is?