Do you think having more than 1 child is killing the planet??

Sherri - posted on 02/14/2011 ( 160 moms have responded )

9,593

15

387

Okay on another thread it was brought up that having more than one child per parent is overpopulation and killing the planet. What are your views??

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Kylie - posted on 02/16/2011

2,391

81

190

"PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE CORPORATE WORLD:
It has come to our attention that there's an awful lot of thinking going on here. Stop this. Thinking is bad for you, TV is good for you. Go watch TV. Go watch TV and then buy the latest I-phone. Stay unaware of what's going on here. Stay focused buy an I-phone and 3D movies. Stop this thinking nonsense. You don't have to think. You don't even have to feed yourselves. Eat at Mc Donald's, order Dominoes, but under no circumstances should you actually think! And most of all, make babies. The "overpopulation" is a myth, do not think about that. The System needs more consumers. The System needs more and more hungry people so that Scarcity lasts. It is your RIGHT to make babies, it is your RIGHT to consume, it is your RIGHT to buy the latest iPhone, it is your RIGHT to be manipulated by religions and politicians. IT IS YOUR *RIGHT* NOT TO THINK! Don't let the thinking nonsense take your RIGHTS from you."

(I didn't write this but i thought i should share it here :p)

Kylie - posted on 02/17/2011

2,391

81

190

erm..you cannot have farmland and crops without fresh water and what comes with industrialized farming is the use of dangerous pesticides and fertilizers which leach into the water, air and food. Over population is not just an issue of space and being crowded, it's the issue of managing food shortages, scarce drinking water , rapidly diminishing natural resources, energy consumption, pollution etc etc. And where will all tons of waste that goes into land fill every day go Cyndel? Will it be shipped to poorer countries for them to deal with??
There needs to be a balance on earth because everything is connected. Humans have clearly upset the balance with over population and over consumption aka their carelessness. To say over population is cack is pure ignorance and its really disheartening to see so many human beings who cannot see beyond their own backyard or their own uterus.

LaCi - posted on 02/15/2011

3,361

3

171

More people=more flying, more computers, more toxins, so on, so forth. It's not just about reducing consumption. If we all use half of what we use now, but then bring twice as many people into the world we aren't improving anything. It takes both. Reducing the population, and fixing our own issues.

Merry - posted on 02/19/2011

9,274

169

248

15,000 is alot of money when I can conceive, carry, and birth my own baby for free..... Still worth looking into but dang, that's a lot of money!

Johnny - posted on 02/16/2011

8,686

26

318

Even a significant lessening of our standard of living will not help in the way that a level population will. To make even close to enough of a difference, we'd have to get rid of all water consuming industry, oil & gas production, building new homes, and basically go back to an agrarian lifestyle non-consumer lifestyle. We'd have to give up air conditioning, winter heating, electricity. If we want 5 or 6 babies so badly, I guess for some it would be a good trade-off? Somehow I doubt it.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

160 Comments

View replies by

Sarah - posted on 04/15/2012

219

5

14

Well if i believed that i would have killed the planet 3 times because i have 4 BEAUTIFUL and wonderful kids!. It's your choice whenever as long as you can afford and take care of them other people should mind their buisness! I dont see them paying my bills!

Ramona - posted on 02/27/2011

258

50

6

@ Laura and Sara, after spending $32 on half a tank, I bought all the supplies for cloth diapering yesterday and started her today. I am using flips system during the day and bumGenius pockets at night!

Michelle - posted on 02/27/2011

58

27

3

I am a Proud mom of 3. My husband wanted 6, I compromised! LOL...I feel 3 is enough for our family, but that is my family. I feel if you choose to have a big family, good for you if you are able to do it!!! I have to agree with Amy.

Kylie - posted on 02/24/2011

2,391

81

190

The earth is 4 billion years old. I think it will be here long after humans wipe themselves out and it will take thousands of years to repair the damage we have done in a few hundred.

Merry - posted on 02/24/2011

9,274

169

248

I'm going to be cloth diapering my baby when she is born, and I'm so strangely excited about it! It's a whole new world of cloth diapers and it's really fun yo plan it out and try something new. And the money I'll save is ridiculous. :)

Starr - posted on 02/24/2011

372

37

10

The earth wouldn't have been created to handle a select amount of people. It is our lifestyles and not the amount of kids we have that is killing the earth. But then again we are in the end days so I'm sure it's mapped out the way it is suppose to be. overpopulated or not.

Ramona - posted on 02/24/2011

258

50

6

Laura, I agree it's worth it! And Sara, considering I spent $32 yesterday to get just over half a tank....I am SERIOUSLY considering switching to cloth ASAP. Ridiculous...

Merry - posted on 02/24/2011

9,274

169

248

Ramona, I'm planning a home birth for this baby due in may, for us it's actually more expensive then the hospital! Cuz our state insurance pays for everything at the hospital, but doesn't cover a midwife :( but it's totally worth the 2000 some dollars to birth at home to me.

Sorry, off topic tangent!

Ramona - posted on 02/23/2011

258

50

6

I wish I was brave enough to birth at home... I may consider it for my next child because the only parts I didn't like about my first labor were the parts where hospital personnel were involved! My nurse put me on pitocin for no particular reason and I did an otherwise natural birth, so the last two hours of my labor was one long contraction, because the nurse wanted me to hurry up basically. Sorry, off topic.

Minnie - posted on 02/23/2011

7,076

9

786

Ramona: we live in NH. We just are very low-need for the first year regarding baby items and since we birth at home...not much expense there.

[deleted account]

Alecia, I don't think Jaime was twisting your words, I took the same thing from your first post as Jaime did - that you were down-playing the effect population has on the environment. I'm a little puzzled why that is offensive to you, if it wasn't what you meant a simple you've mis-understood my point this is what I meant was all that was needed to clear up the confusion and clarify your post, we all have to do it sometimes.

Oh and nobody thinks they can control the number of kids others can have, but this post has made at least a few of us think about the effect our children will have on the environment so it has worked in spreading education.

Ramona - posted on 02/22/2011

258

50

6

Sara, I looked into them. They are something I will consider after I graduate in May. Right now, I just can't do something like that, but when I don't have homework to worry about at night, it just may work! Thanks for the idea!

Jaime - posted on 02/22/2011

4,427

24

196

Dear Alecia...this is a debate...I took one of your quotes and I countered it with MY opinion. I didn't turn anything. In MY opinion your quote implied something and thus I interjected my viewpoint. I'm not quite sure why this is suddenly turning into a "I know what I said and obviously you don't get it" situation. I'm a bit puzzled to be honest.



I am not implying that I have the ability to stop people from having as many babies as they want...I'm aware that it's impossible. But I CAN impart knowledge and information on the subject in the hopes of helping people to understand just how serious the overpopulation of our planet is. It might not be the ONLY thing we need to focus on, but it's definitely at the forefront of the issues we are facing with the depletion of our planetary resources. If everyone sticks to one biological replacement, then it WILL cut back significantly on the rate at which our valuable resources are being used up.

Ramona - posted on 02/22/2011

258

50

6

I don't think anyone is trying to make anyone else not have kids, only to make people think about how the number of kids they have effects the planet....that's what I get out of this conversation, anyway.

Ramona - posted on 02/22/2011

258

50

6

Sara, I know what you are talking about....there is a child at Kiley's daycare who uses those. I just honestly haven't had the time to look into them! I may. I was just joking today that if gas keeps going up like it has been, I may just switch to cloth! I I do plan to switch to cloth diapers when she is with me at about 18 months to aid in potty training. (Less absorbent=less comfortable=motivation not to be in diapers. I have read about this method, not sure if it works but I thought I would try! If nothing else, I would save money...) I won't be in school then so I may have more time. We will see when the time comes. I will have to do some research about those g-diapers too!

Alecia - posted on 02/22/2011

644

21

43

uh, no....my quote did not imply anything. i was stating that there needs to be multiple ways in handling our earth, and being smart about how many kids u have is ONE and is not a complete answer. id love to see how successful u are in getting people to not have kids. its not gonna happen....w/e. u seem to be the kind of person that takes information and turn it however u want to make ur point. im not arugeing with u anymore because I know what i said and what i meant...and u obvisiouly, do not.

Jaime - posted on 02/22/2011

4,427

24

196

Relax Alecia...if you read what I wrote, it says that population is a MASS part of the problem. Not sure where I turned around any of what you were saying. Your quote implies that population growth is not an issue if we use our resources efficiently, because you state that the planet has been dealing with population for years. And you are right in saying that...but the earth will reach a point where it can no longer sustain the exponential rate of population growth before we run out of resources (recycled or otherwise). THAT was my point and I hope that clears it up for you.

Alecia - posted on 02/22/2011

644

21

43

Wow Jamie...what a way to take half of what i said and turn it around. that is such shit. i didnt say population WASNT a prblm. i said it wasnt ALL of the prblm. i ALSO said "i feel that 3 kids max is a good number for us and for others. i have a 2 friends who arent having kids, so my 'extra' baby that i want makes up for the 4 kids they arent going to have. i do feel that families like the Duggars are selfish....does anyone really need 19 kids?? that does make a big impact on the environement." so why dont u learn to read and then comprehend what u read. OF COURSE population is a big factor...but so were factories that burned coal and flung all those pollutants into the air, cars before there were standards put all kinds of harmful chemicals into the air. there has to be responsibility towards the way we use certian things. u cant tell everyone now to not have kids or to give up one or 2....so u have to compromise and use mulitple methods to try and lessen the damage we've done....people...seriously

[deleted account]

Ramona, maybe you can do cloth part-time. I recently met someone that does this. When your child is in your care, put him in cloth. Granted, I'm fairly new to this, but I haven't found the extra load of laundry to be much of a burden. Also, have you looked into g-diapers? From what I understand, they cost about the same as disposables, but much better on the environment. Some childcare providers will accept g-diapers if they don't accept cloth.

Ramona - posted on 02/22/2011

258

50

6

Laura: I agree with you completely! I breastfeed as well. Wish I could use cloth diapers, but I am single and a full time student and just don't have the time to keep up with it! Lisa, where do you live?

Minnie - posted on 02/22/2011

7,076

9

786

Yeah- our child tax deductions actually cover all the expenses for the first year including the birth. My husband used to say we'd just keep having kids so we could get paid for it (joking obviously).

Merry - posted on 02/22/2011

9,274

169

248

Ramona, for me it's free cuz I conceived the old fashioned way, and I am covered by state health insurance so all medical bills are covered. And since I breastfeed there's no formula cost, and now I'm cloth diapering which is practically free in comparison to disposables. Also we buy second hand so all our clothes toys furniture appliances etc are fractions of the cost.

If I couldn't conceive naturally I wouldn't pay for fertility treatments, I'd just adopt.

Dawn - posted on 02/21/2011

832

13

163

There is a good article about this in the January 2011 issue of National Geographic.....I found it very interesting and urge everyone to read it (I am unsure if you can get it on their website, sorry!). I will leave this quote to sum-up my opinion:

"It's too late to keep the middle class of 2030 from being born. But it's not too late to change the ways we all consume"

Jaime - posted on 02/21/2011

4,427

24

196

"its also not all about population...for YEARS (like way before i was born) this poor planet has dealt with pollution. we need as a society to take responsibility and start creating better technology to use infinite resources...like wind, solar power, etc. and there is technology out there that takes nasty, infected water, and makes it 100% safe and drinkable. so really, that shouldnt be an issue."

I promise you that overpopulation is a MASS part of the issue. If there are too many people than the planet can sustain (whether there's 100% safe, drinkable recycled water or not) it's not going to matter what technological resources are created...the Earth's resources are not infinite if we use up more than we can reproduce to counteract the exponential population growth. We're at 7 billion now...we're projected to have DOUBLE that amount in 30 years or so...so how exactly is population not the problem?

Ramona - posted on 02/21/2011

258

50

6

I am going to say one more thing, then shut up. I don't see why people NEED to have a whole bunch of kids. Why are 5 kids better than 2? I feel like my life is SO much brighter with just one! I want to give her all the time and love and attention she needs. How could I do that with 6, 7, 8, 9 children? I believe she deserves more of her mother's time, finances, and attention than that. Three will be my max, natural OR adopted, because I think my child and any children I may have in the future deserve the best! I want to try to give them a better planet and a better home than what I fear they will be left with.

Ramona - posted on 02/21/2011

258

50

6

Laura, how is carrying and birthing your baby free? If that's true, you are lucky! Most children cost about six figures to raise! I see what you are saying and I guess that would be $15,000 more you would have to spend in that child's lifetime, but I was more referring to people who cannot conceive and, rather than adopting, spend probably well OVER $15,000 with fertility treatments, etc. I guess it's hard for me to comprehend that, since I am able to conceive naturally and on birth control no less, but that's how I see it.

Ramona - posted on 02/21/2011

258

50

6

Laura, I wouldn't think you were selfish at all for adopting so many children! I would think that was WONDERFUL!

Minnie - posted on 02/21/2011

7,076

9

786

Thank you- things are much better now. This thread has just helped with a different perspective.

Minnie - posted on 02/21/2011

7,076

9

786

Interesting. this debate is interesting -- definitely got me thinking. thanks, ladies.

Me too. In a way, reading through this thread has helped me deal with my miscarriage a bit better. It was devastating- and would have been our third child. But as I heal emotionally, I am beginning to feel that maybe we don't need another- that we can be happy with our girls and focus all the more on them. Having a third child at this time in our life would have been a huge strain for us- we are beginning homeschooling officially soon and I don't feel that I could give my eldest what she needs with a newborn.

And now I'm starting to feel that yes, I can be satisfied with two. And that there is a good reason to be OK with it. :)

Alecia - posted on 02/21/2011

644

21

43

well ive read through over half of the comments and see re-occuring themes. I think every couple has the right to chose how big there family is...biological or not. for me and my hubby we could NEVER afford to adopt a child .it is ridiculous the process u have to go through (though when my kids are older i want to be a foster mom and maybe adopt that way). i feel that 3 kids max is a good number for us and for others. i have a 2 friends who arent having kids, so my 'extra' baby that i want makes up for the 4 kids they arent going to have. i do feel that families like the Duggars are selfish....does anyone really need 19 kids?? that does make a big impact on the environement. but its also not all about population...for YEARS (like way before i was born) this poor planet has dealt with pollution. we need as a society to take responsibility and start creating better technology to use infinite resources...like wind, solar power, etc. and there is technology out there that takes nasty, infected water, and makes it 100% safe and drinkable. so really, that shouldnt be an issue. I have one daughter already and am ttc. we might stop at 2 but might have 3. no more, but i certianly would feel my family is incomplete without one more. and we are currently purchasing 5.5 acres of land so we can have a garden for food, plant trees and raise our own beef and pork. and yes...every single person who lives in a "green" manner DOES help. even one person....that is that much less affect on the planet. u cant just say "well everyone else is an ass, so i should be too." what kind of sense does that make?? so yeah, i feel people should fufill their own needs while taking responsibility for this planet (though someday in the faaaaaaar away future our whole universe will end...what then? ;p )

Merry - posted on 02/19/2011

9,274

169

248

My mom did that when we were young, she had a total of 25 babies over about 6 years!
It's how we paid for a small family vacation every summer because my mom was so thrifty in using the money well.
And my little brother started out as a foster baby! His medical condition along with his race had him heading for state foster system and my parents said no way! So we adopted him. He's like my son, and he's the biggest influence in my mind that makes me want to adopt one day.

Merry - posted on 02/19/2011

9,274

169

248

Maybe if adoption wasn't so darn expensive and tedious and nit picky more people would adopt. But then all the crazies would also be able to adopt.....I understand why it is the way it is, but honestly the system is the only thing standing in my way of adopting! Well that and my husband worrying he wouldn't love the child....but I think that's a common fear, but usually is not something that actually happens after a placement.

So, if I were to birth two kids, then adopt 8 more no one here would say that's wrong right? ;) I seriously want 8 or more kids, but now I'm thinking about adopting the majority of them......

Oh, and yes I'm selfish, I want lots of kids :)

[deleted account]

Yep, Jaime summed it up. While adopting is not a negative thing, it still fulfills the need for a child.

Jaime - posted on 02/19/2011

4,427

24

196

Ramona, adopting a child is selfish because it's a self-serving act. I want a child and can't have one naturally, so I will adopt to get what I want. It's not a negative selfishness...but it's still self-serving.

Jaime - posted on 02/19/2011

4,427

24

196

I agree Dana. There really aren't any selfless acts. Everything we do serves the self in some way or another. I think that it's the degree of selfishness that becomes the issue when it comes to making decisions. At the very least, we should all give a shit...that's pretty much what it comes down to. Regardless of the 'rights' we all possess, we should all give a shit about the impact we make on the lives of our family and friends, the environment and the entire planet. If we don't give a shit, then we have no business making decisions that will impact more than just ourselves.

[deleted account]

I just want to point out that having children, whether it's naturally, by adoption, or through artificial insemination, is selfish. I don't think there are ANY truly selfless acts.

Ramona - posted on 02/19/2011

258

50

6

On the topic, I think that no matter the amount of children you have, it's important to make them aware of the impact of their actions on the planet. I think that the world has gotten to a point where it is important to consider the number of children that you have because each person requires resources to survive, whether they use a minimal amount or not. I would rather have less children (2-3) that can use a little more resources to have a good quality of life than have 6 children that have to use less resources per person to make the same environmental impact and have a lower quality of life. I think 3 is a good limit for ME and would be a good limit for others, but I don't think it should be something that is regulated by the government. In fact, I have considered only having one more (would have 2) and then adopting a third- a toddler or something, for exactly this reason. To think more people doesn't mean a larger impact, in my mind, is just ignoring the facts.

I also don't believe that anyone who actually adopted a child and raised that child and would honestly not love that child as their own. I love my horse almost as much as I love my child, and she's a horse! I find it hard to fathom not loving a human child you have raised just like the other ones you have raised. But that's just me. To each their own.

Ramona - posted on 02/18/2011

258

50

6

I should clarify by saying that I don't necessarily think it's wrong just because it's selfish. Anyone, if they look at it critically, would admit the decision is selfish. It is based on self, on your own perceived needs to procreate moreso than based on the possible impact. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Ramona - posted on 02/18/2011

258

50

6

If I were unable to conceive, I would not feel right receiving fertility treatments or artificial insemination knowing all the children out there who already need good homes. I feel that it's selfish. Does that mean I think it should be regulated or not allowed? Absolutely not. I think that it is up to the individual to make that choice, but for me, I would have to choose adoption rather than going to all that length. I would feel as though it's God's way of saying there is a different path for me.

Charlie - posted on 02/18/2011

11,203

111

401

Wendy .........I hope that was a joke ..... A lame one at that .

Wendy - posted on 02/18/2011

108

0

5

Having more than one child is only bad when he/she turns out to be an environmentalist.

Jaime - posted on 02/18/2011

4,427

24

196

And I don't think the point IS to deny anyone the right to have a biological child or two (depending on whether you're single or coupled). The entire point of limiting your biological offspring is to decrease the severe negative impact that overpopulation will have on our planetary resources. If I want to have more children in the future, I plan to adopt children...not babies. I have always insisted on adopting children because they are most in need of a loving, supportive home. This is also why I support abortion...the world doesn't need an influx of babies born into the foster care system. And if nothing else comes of this debate, I hope that people will, at the very least, consider that the amount of biological offspring they have DOES now and will forever impact the earth, it's resources and sustainability.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms