Green Sex, Anyone?

Green Sex, Anyone?

By Dustin | Sex & Family Planning

Healthy Sex for a Healthy Planet

When I read an article on Natural Family Planning today in the online edition of Time Magazine, I knew I had to respond with a post here at Engaged Marriage.

First of all, I was delighted to see NFP discussed in a national magazine!  With the creation of this site and the obvious interest I have witnessed about Natural Family Planning, my antenna is probably a bit more in tune to the coverage of the topic online.  However, I see an article like this (however flawed it may be in some respects) as a breakthrough in spreading the message that Natural Family Planning exists as a responsible option.

The article actually does a pretty good job of describing NFP at a high level and letting the Average Joe or Jane know the basic premise behind the method (for more info check out a previous post here at EM).  And I am sure the author’s experience in the Pre-Cana program is a common reaction to an initial introduction to the topic.  My wife and I have heard similar reactions in the marriage preparation courses we have taught.

Green Sex?

I am also very pleased to hear Natural Family Planning discussed as a legitimate means of expressing environmental responsibility.  Hence, my tongue-cheek-title to this post: Green Sex!

Truth be told, NFP is, well, natural.  There is no doubt that the artificial hormones found in birth control pills are excreted and find their way into our environment; hence, the growing stories about three-eyed frogs and deformed fish in our waters.  And the chemicals used in spermicides, condoms, IUD’s and the like are anything but natural and harmless to the ecosystem.  This is not to mention the harmful effects to women’s health, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some “Fuzzy” Assertions

I do take exception with a few assertions made in this article.  Natural Family Planning is 99% effective (the same or better than artificial birth control), so to state that “it” results in larger families is false.  On average, NFP couples probably do have more children, but this is related to their openness to life and love of family.  Plenty of one and two-child NFP couples abound, my wife and I included (at least for the time being).

And the article’s final, and weak, statement that widespread adoption of Natural Family Planning is harmful to our planet because we’ll have a higher population, and therefore more greenhouse gases, is a bit of a stretch.  If the intentions for limited family size are left intact, NFP is not going to result in more babies.  Of course, I do not see more babies as a negative thing.  Following this line of thinking would also suggest that less abortions is a bad thing–after all that would also increase the world population.

Sensationalism about the need for population control has been around for a long time.  If you believed the hype of the population “experts” of the 1970’s, you would think the world would be in state of total chaos at this point due to the lack of food and natural resources.  Our world and our country have their problems, but overpopulation and an oversupply of babies is not one of them.

The Bottom Line

In closing, I would just like to say “hooray” for some national coverage of Natural Family Planning.  I welcome with an open heart those that may practice NFP for the environment, for Mother Nature, for health, or for liberation.  I do not expect everyone to share my moral beliefs, but I do sincerely hope that everyone will become aware that Natural Family Planning exists as a viable option for improving our marriages, our lives and our world.

Photo by woodleywonderworks

Follow

About the Author

Dustin Riechmann created Engaged Marriage to help other married couples live a life they love (especially) when they feel too busy to make it happen. He has many passions, including sharing ways to enjoy an awesome marriage in 15 minutes a day, but his heart belongs with his wife Bethany and their three young kids.

Leave a Comment:

(58) comments

crow

We have double our population form 3 billion people in the 70’s to almost 8 billion people today. We only have one little planet and we are using the natural resource up exponentally. I doubt if we have 40 years left for any mammals on this little planet. The big reason is population that creates global warming, the Pacfic Garbage Island or Gyre, the cutting down of the rain forest, the extinction of many animals all created by our human POPULATION. WE are going to double it again in the next few decades. Just think your children will have to live with with your shortsightness or should I say die because of your shortsightness.

Reply

So glad to hear that NFP’s really getting out there! It’s sad to know how many women still think that NFP is the outdated rhythm method (which I still see on NFP forums) and instead put themselves on harmful and unnatural birth control methods as their ‘only option’. With accurate information about NFP getting into the mainstream, we might really start to have a nation-wide respect for our bodies and marital sex… think of how beautiful and healthy that would be, mind, body and soul! Thanks for posting this! 🙂

Reply

[…] More here:  Green Sex, Anyone? […]

Reply

Kathryn,

Thank you for stopping by and commenting! And thank you for your continued support in the effort to raise awareness of NFP. I agree that world would be a much better place if it was the norm rather than the exception.

Reply

Crow,

Thanks for stopping by and sharing your differing opinions. There is no doubt that our population continues to grow at an exponential rate, accelerating over the past 30-40 years. An interesting thing to consider is that growth in the availability, acceptance and use of artificial contraceptives has exploded over this same period time. Clearly,that’s not the solution to what you feel is a huge problem.

I hope you will check back and offer a solution that will effectively curb population growth. Do you think governments should dictate family size like we see today in communist China? Should “lesser” peoples be sterilized or perhaps just killed so they don’t use up valuable resources? Forced abortions, juvenile genocide, nuclear warfare, purposeful spreading of pandemic diseases?

Clearly, these represent immoral methods to any reasonable person. I understand that you think that people like ME are going to cause my children to die in less than 40 years. I would like to better understand what people like YOU are doing to solve the “problem” and keep us safe from ourselves.

I opened the door to your comments on population issues and welcome them. However, my main point was that a widespread awareness and acceptance of Natural Family Planning is NOT, in itself, going to exacerbate any problems that could come with population growth.

While I don’t share your doomsday beliefs about the immediate future of our planet, I hope we can at least agree that NFP is not the problem. We’ve tried the contraceptive route as a country and world, and it’s gotten us not only the fastest rate of population growth but the fastest deterioration in marriages, families and morality.

Reply
crow

First of all I choose not to have kids to help with Zero Population Growth, which means if every family only reproduced themselves there would not be an increase in population(bottom line 2 children per family),I drive a car that does not need a lot of gas, I recycle, encourage others to do the same, give presentation to encourage people to do what they can to help mother earth, started the first earth day at my local high school for the first earth day in 1970, have a garden and eat very little meat to also help our environment, I could go on.
The Native Americans use herbs to prevent pregnancy and it works and does not affect our human eco-system or body. We are destroying the plankton in the ocean since the ocean tempatures have gone up by 1 degree and we have million of tons of plastic which is also destroy the plankton and baby when the plankton is gone which produces 70% of he oxygen we breath we are goners as well as any other species that needs oxygen to breath. We are like a gnat when the gnat finishes the banana they find another one, we don’t have another planet we can live on. During the last great ice age the over all temperatures of the earth dropped by on 3 degrees, we have already increased the world temperature by 1 degree a couple more degress and wahoo. The Maya civilation ceased because deforestation which caused great drought look at the drought we have in the southwest that have been going on for several years now. We the people of the world are doing the same the only problem now it is globalized not just one little country or area. The US uses 65% of the worlds resource and we are 5% of the worlds population and the rest of the world is now following the US in consumtion so it is just a matter of time.

Reply
crow

Current World Population
Aug 12 2009
The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2009, is estimated at 6,790,062,216.

The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.

World Population Growth
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
2025 8 billion
2050 9.4 billion

At the rate we are going it will be more than 9.4 million by 2050 if we all live that long.

Reply
crow

WE have collectively decided to create the population explosion by not limiting our families to two children. We have collectively created global warming by wanting more gas eating cars and the rest of the world is following suit. So we have decided more is better in a collective manner. We have chosen to cut down the forest of the world and have collectively created a drought. WE collective have chosen to continue to buy packages that have more than one wrapper. We have collectively chosen to buy water in plastic bottles, because of convenience which adds to the plastics in the oceans and land fills.
We have collective chosen to have disposable whatever which helps contribute to larger land fills and more polution. WE collective can chose not to do these things and think about future generation. But convenience is more important immediately, so our future generations will see the result of our greed. I HOPE you collective think about your childrens, grandchildrens and the next 7 generations when you make a decision for immediate wants and needs.

Reply

Crow,

Thank you for following up with such thorough information for myself and my readers. You obviously have a passion for preserving our planet, and I hope you can understand that I have that same level of passion for the sacrament of marriage, for family and for my children. I admire that you are willing to sacrifice, even to the point of choosing to have no children of your own, to do what you think is right for the future of civilization.

I agree with a lot of your thinking, and we do make a solid effort to be environmentally conscious. However, I obviously differ in the opinion that any limitations should be made on the number of children any couple may bring into the world based on their own moral judgments.

You seem to infer that parenthood is somehow a selfish act. To the contrary, a successful marriage requires two self-sacrificing individuals that agree to give up their individual lives to become one. Within this context, children are an extension of that selfless love, and trust me when I tell you that being a strong, involved father is ANYTHING BUT selfish!

Thanks again for sharing so much information. I hope you will continue to check in here and share your thoughts.

Reply
crow

Since you don’t believe in big pharma medicine and I personally don’t either. Since the 4th leading cause of death in the United States is properly prescribed and taken medicines. I can understand why.

Here is a link for natural birth control.

Neem and Birth Control
http://www.sisterzeus.com/neem.html

Queen Anne’s Lace / Wild Carrot
http://www.sisterzeus.com/qaluse.htm

These have been used for century by many cultures and have worked quite successfully. Much easier than trying to figure out when you are futile or not. Many people will still partake when passion rises,
regardless of the risk.

I decided not to have children because I didn’t want them growing up in a world where they had no future. We have seen the consequences of global warming in this country already with Katrina and the drought in the southwest. It is only going to get worse. I did not feel it was right or moral to do that to any human being. In some ways I do feel that parenthood is a selfish act that we as humans need to carry on our genes. I many times thought about adopting children who need a love home and family, but could not bring myself to leaving them here to have to survive the collapse of our eco-system. As my lovely boyfriend has repeated a few time about his mom who is also Catholic has said when the pope can have kids I will give up birth control. He has two lovely boys who are now 20 and has given them much love and affection which is needed for kids. I ask him often how he feels know the environmental issue at hand and he says sometime I just can’t think about it. He is a high school math teacher, since I know you can relate since you are an engineer. Interesting enough his brother is an engineer as well and his dad was a rock scientist. Unfortunately
if we don’t choose to keep our population down mother nature will find a way to say this little planet it mostly like will not include keeping mammals on this planet. The cockroach has survived for 250 million years and will most likely survive our existing and coming crises.

Here is one of my presentations and hopefully many will collectively think the next time we buy plastics and our impact on this little planet:

Small Acts, Big Impact

If we individually all do small acts to reduce using plastics, collectively it will have a
huge impact on this little planet we live on. There is a area in the Pacific Ocean between San Francisco and Hawaii that is twice the size of the continental US which has been called “The Pacific Garbage Island.” It is made of million of tons of floating plastics, and it is killing the ocean creatures and plants. There are ways we can solve this problem by each of us doing our small part.

How many of you saw the movie “American Beauty”? Remember that wonderfully romantic scene with the plastic bag floating around? It was beautiful. In reality the bag floats to the sewer, follows the storm drain to the sea, and then ends up in the “Pacific Garbage Island.” “The Great Pacific Garbage Patch” is an area in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii that is twice the size of the Continental US. Fifteen years ago it was twice the size of Texas. 80 per cent of the floating debris in this area is plastic.
It is estimated that the combined weight of the waste in this region is 3.5 million tons. This area is called no mans land because few people travel through this area. It is the center of a vortex that, due to very little wind and an extremely high pressure system, circulates slowly.

The “Garbage Patch” was discovered 15 years ago by Charles Moore, a sailor at the time. He was returning to California after a yacht race from California to Hawaii and decided to take a short cut through this area. He was disturbed when he saw plastic trash floating by for thousands of miles. Moore decided to become an Oceanographer, and has been studying this area now for 15years.

This trash vortex, is sometimes referred to as “plastic soup,” and is believed to have 100 million tons of plastic (flotsam) floating in it. If you scoop a jar of water from this area it looks like a jar full of plastic confetti. There is very little life in it. Charles Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer and leading authority on flotsam, says “the build up of plastics in ocean are like a living entity. It moves around like a big animal without a leash. When that animal comes to land like it does in Hawaii. The garbage patch barfs and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic.”

About 1/5th or 20 per cent of the debris includes everything from footballs, kayaks, Lego blocks, and carrier bags thrown off of ships or oil platforms. The other 4/5th or 80 per cent comes from the land. This slow circulating vortex of debris is expected to double in next decade. How could we humans have fouled up an area so large? Historically the debris that ended up in this area had been biodegradable, but plastics are so durable that plastics a half a century old have been found in the “Pacific Garbage Island.”

Plastic debris causes deaths of more than a million sea birds a year and 100,000
marine mammals. Turtles eat the plastic bags thinking they are jelly fish and die. Most birds and fish that consume the plastic will die of starvation because they can not pass the plastic. Syringes, cigarette lighters and toothbrushes, which have been mistaken for food, have been found in the stomach of dead sea birds.

Plastics make up 90 per cent of all the floating rubbish in the oceans. In 2006 it was estimated that every square mile of oceans contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic. Hundreds of millions tiny plastic pellets, the raw material for the plastic industry, are lost or spilled every year eventually working there way to the sea. These pellets act like a sponge, absorbing chemicals such as hydrocarbons and the pesticide DDT. They enter the food chain. What goes into the ocean, goes into to the fish and ultimately onto our dinner tables. It is just that simple.

We humans have created the Garbage Island, and by individually doing small acts we can collectively have a big impact towards solving this problem. What can we do?

Lets talk first about bottled water.
Tap water cost 0.002 cents per gallon compared to the $.89 to 8.26 per gallon charged for bottled water. If tap water cost what we pay for bottled water, our monthly water bill would be $9,000 a month.

88 per cent of empty water bottles are not recycled. This totals 30 million a day.

Plastic bottles can leach chemicals in the water if left in the sun, heated up or reused several times.

Production of the plastic bottles that we use daily in the US takes 17.6 million barrels of oil. That amount of oil could fuel 1 million vehicles, and that figure does not including the oil used to transport the bottles.

It takes 7 time the amount of water to produce a plastic bottle than the water in the bottle itself.

There are 37,800 semi’s driving around the US every week delivering water. All of them burning fuel.

The EPA sets much higher standards for tap water than the FDA does for bottled water.

One out of 6 people in the world do not have safe drinking water and about 3,000 children, that we know of, die daily from disease due to bad water.
Altogether, we Americans spend $16 billion a year on bottled water.

So what can we do? We can drink tap water instead of bottled water, use reusable container if we are going somewhere, and if we have to use plastic bottles we can recycle them.

What about the grocery store?

88% of groceries are taken home in plastic bags and that is not including all the groceries that are packaged in plastic or the produce we put in plastic bags.

Approx. 380 billion plastic bags are used in the US every year. That’s more than
1,200 bags per family

Approx. 100 billion of the 380 billion are plastic shopping bags

An estimated 12 million barrels of oil is used to make all those plastic bags

We can use reusable grocery bags when we shop, we can forget the plastic bag
for the produce, and we can buy items in larger containers to cut down on the amount of plastic used. You can wrap gifts in reusable grocery bags or you can have the gift be
a reusable grocery bag.

What we can do at home? We can stop using baggies and put our food in reusable containers. If we make a lunch for work use reusable containers, wrap items in paper towels or wax paper. Drink water from the tap. By all means, if you do have plastic bottles, containers, and packaging at home, recycle them.

What can we do if we are at the beach, social gathering or public place? Make
sure to throw away whatever you brought. If it is recyclable then recycle it.

EACH OF US can do small acts that can collectively have a big impact towards reducing the “Pacific Garbage Island.” With our awareness now, we can take action to make sure the vortex of Garbage doesn’t grow any larger. We can drink tap water, recycle, using reusable grocery bags and cut down on our plastic consumption. The oceans produces 70 percent of the oxygen on this planet. It is our best interest to keep them healthy. To conclude lets remember what Former Chief Wilma Mankiller had to say, “We are encouraged to remember seven generation in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making a decision. We can make the decision to do small act collectively to make a big impact for our future 7 generations.

Reply

Crow,

Thank you again for sharing such an incredible amount of information. Personally, my wife and I do not believe in any contraception, even if it is “natural” and we have used NFP very effectively. However, I thank you for sharing that information.

With regards to the Garbage Island, I found your report very eye-opening. We already do all of the “little things” that you suggested, but I certainly encourage others to follow suit and get away from throw-away plastics.

You obviously have a passion for the environment. I think you need to start a blog and share your message with the world!

Thanks again,
Dustin

Reply
crow

Hi Dustin,

I acturally ran across you blog going through the science section of digg. I was concerned when I read it because many people are not as responible as you and your wife. The concern was people will try this and not follow all the things necessary to prevent pregnancy, since we live in a society of immediate gratification. Which helps increase our population growth. One example that comes to mind immediately is my boyfriend sister who is well educated and asked me if I had some aspirin and I said I have willow bark which aspirin is made from and it works well and the pain relief is longer but it does not take immediate affect like aspirin, she responded by saying I want immediate relief. Most people in America think that way. I hope you and your wife keep your family to two children since population growth is a problem on this little planet we live on.

Am glad you found “Small Acts, Big Impact” eyeopening and am please you and your family are doing many of the suggestions that I put in there. Hopefully many more will chose to follow and help this little planet we live on.

I will consider your suggestion of a blog page on the environment.

Crow

Reply

Crow,

I’m glad that you found this site through Digg, and I hope you return often. If you decide to start a blog, you can do so for free through Blogger.com or WordPress.com and they are both great, easy-to-use platforms. This site is actually self-hosted (more flexibility but also more work to get going), but I use a WordPress interface for it.

Reply
nfpworks

Yikes. Crow, you’re basing your numbers and your demography off the science of a now-debunked economist (Malthus) and a butterfly expert (Erlich) who scared the world needlessly for the past 30 years. I’d suggest checking out the film Demographic Winter (www.demographicwinter.com) and the Population Research Institute http://www.pop.org .

Reply
crow

Woooo, no I am not. Where did you get that idea. We do have a population explosion on this planet and because we are living longer
today the increases the risk. I will get some numbers and post them for you. Although I did read the “Population Bomb” in the 70s and unfortunely since then our populuation of the world has doubled.

Reply
crow

Here is a link that has the world population growth as the first chart and the rest is about the US which is only about 5% of the worlds population:

http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html

This is from the United Nations”

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf

Bottom line WE (the world and individually) need to do our part to keep the population stable.

Reply
Nfpworks

I’ll check your links out, crow, if you check out mine.

Reply
crow

Checked your links out before I posted the above links.

Reply
crow

What’s Wrong With Us? Can We Fix It in Time to Survive?

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/wrong-fix-time-survive.html

Reply
crow

Unfortunately, if we had listen back in the 60’s and 70’s we would not be in the situation we are in today. We did for a short time have cars that got 30 miles to a gallon and then we ended up with SUV and etc and we continued the increase of green house gases. WE in the United States did take some action by waiting until later to have children and keep the family down to 2 children, but we increased our consumation rate at the same time using more natural resources. If we don’t take action today to do what we can for our little planet then yes we will be one of the extinct species on this planet. WE need to take immediate action to have an impact. Waiting un 2020 or 2050 will be to late. I have been following the environmental impact of the human species since the 70’s. I had great hope and was an idealist an felt we could do something for this little planet in the 70’s, but we have continued down a path of no return. We have algae plants that we could use for fuel today and the technology is out there, but we just aren’t using it to the full capacity like we need to be doing. My uncle started using wind energy on the farm in ND 40 years ago and had one of the first electric cars 40 years ago. They had the first electric cars back in the early 1900’s but oil companies pushed for gas cars. Unfortunately we are running out of resources and by using all these resources we created other environmental problems. We are clearing the rain forest of the world at a rapid rate and if we continue we will have major droughts and dust bowls like we had in the south in the 1900’s. It is time WE all step up to the table and take action to individual cut down on things we do not need. WE continue to allow manufactures to make things that last only a short time, so it has to replaced in a year or two. WE need to demand that a product lasts for decades. My parents washer and dryer were the same one we had as kids when they died (30yrs or more they lasted and we sold them) How long has your washer, dryer, refrig and etc lasted? Our TV lasted for 20 years. I also understand that our birth rate and death rate are also causing problems especially since us baby bomber like expectancy is much greater than our parents. Although I am not quite sure I buy all that since my grandparents lived to in their 90’s and 100’s on both sides. The Native life expectancy on the reservations is 52. Once the Native started eating refined, processed foods their life expectancy went down. Aah, I off on another tangent. WE can collectively on a individual basis do what we can, but unfortunately most people are more concerned with getting their new SUV, big screen TV and etc have no idea the impact they are collectively creating on a daily basis. LA adds 100,000 new cars to the road a week(you are an engineer multiply that out by 52 weeks in a year), what is the rest of world adding weekly? I advoid the local 405 freeway in LA at any cost if possible. A normal hour drive on the 405 will take anywhere from 2 or 3 hours. Sitting in stop and go traffic. What amount of exhause fumes are going in the air with hundreds of thousand cars doing the same thing on a daily basis. We are consuming faster and not finding ways to solve the problems and most importantly implementing new ideas. I could get into other environmental issues, but bottom line we have a population problems which creates all these issues and no one wants to actually thing about that.

Reply

I just wanted to jump in quickly to say that I love the deep and informative dialogue happening here in the comments for this post. It is great that there are those reading Engaged Marriage that have such passionate views. Who knew “Green Sex” would spark such an insightful debate?

Reply
crow

It is nice to see good dialogue. It is appreciated to have all kinds of ideas and beliefs expressed.

Reply
Valerie

Crow,

You say that people are the problem, but you never say that people can be the solution. There is evidence that sudden population growth has sparked innovation – we continually find ways to accomodate and take care of everyone (even being “green” is part of this!). However, we are not facing an overpopulation crisis – it is simply a myth used by richer nations to kill off poorer nations and poorer people. Japan, Germany, Russia, Norway, France, Belgium, and other nations are already paying women to have more children, or are looking into it due to dropping birth rates and dropping fertility rates. Developed nations are facing the crisis of underpopulation, not overpopulation.

China’s one-child policy in urban areas isn’t working so well, as now the sex ratio is greatly uneven and threatens to drop the population too far. However, look at China: it is a very large nation, yet most of the population lives in the eastern portion. Rural areas rarely have electricity, heating, or running water. Desertification is a problem because the communist regime does not allow “capitalist” innovation to help solve this problem. If the government allowed people more freedom, those people could devise a plan to fix the land and help provide for everyone. I have friends in China who despise the forced restrictions on parenthood. They tell me how lonely they were growing up as an only child, and how many of them want to leave China for good.

However, China’s large population was responsible for a very new method Chinese scientists developed to grow “super vegetables” – vegetables over twice their natural size. It was developed on a space shuttle, and China plans to utilize it to cut down starvation. And even here in America, there has been talk of making “super cities” in the future – cities that are self-contained, don’t pollute, and reach up into the sky instead of using up land. It’s amazing how much innovation comes from thinking of ways to take care of a growing population.

Not only would we make the need for innovation a moot point by believing in the overpopulation myth, but we would also prevent future innovators from being born. It makes one wonder if our revolutionary scientists, doctors, and teachers who weren’t allowed to be born could have given us many cures for diseases, made new inventions that improved the standards of living for people all over the world, contributed to world peace, and so many other things. How many people who weren’t allowed to be born will not be here to care for the sick and elderly, or be there to prevent someone from committing suicide or from harming themselves or others? Millions of people may be literally dying for food, but millions more are dying for just a bit of love!

We have enough resources to take care of everyone in the world including future people, but the problem is that many dictatorial governments are more concerned with power and money than taking care of their people. The world is only producing 33% of grains that it could fully produce with modern technology. We could feed billions more if we utilized better agricultural methods. Look at how many golf courses out there that “rape” the natural landscape or waste so much space that could be used for schools. The problem isn’t people collectively – the problem is people who are selfish and do not care, and people who would rather sacrifice others for their own pleasures and concerns…and many of us allow them to get away with it. Killing off the population or forcing people to have fewer children does not work and is not right. Who are we who are already born and living to decide who cannot come into this world? The solution should be to look at people with LOVE, not dollar signs and not as wasteful consumers. We should change ideas, not try to enslave humanity in misery.

Instead of pointing fingers and inciting fear, why don’t we look for solutions together and learn to love one another? Going green shouldn’t be used just to protect the environment – heck, the Earth has survived much worse than mere humans! – but we should use new ideas and inventions to better the lives of the poor and empower ourselves to make better lives for ourselves and our children.

Crow, I cannot help but wonder what you would think of me. I am the fifth child out of six children in my family. When my mother was pregnant with me, and even my older sister, she was harassed and verbally abused for being pregnant again, and even rudely suggested that she should have used birth control! Thankfully, she still gave birth to me. None of my siblings are “wasteful” and we give back to our communities in many ways. We’ve generally all done very well in school and have promising futures. At the same time, I also wonder how you value your own life, after all, you are no exception to your line of thinking. But your life, too, is very valuable, and you too contribute to our world!

To quote Mother Teresa, “How can there be too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers.”

Human life is a gift, Crow, not a burden nor a problem. You list how you have helped the environment, but when have you helped your fellow human being? The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, and will be here long after humanity is gone, or evolved. Humanity may not be here for very long, so we should consider what we are doing for our own people and for future generations so that they may have a bright future.

Reply
crow

Yes, overpopulation is the problem and yes people can be the solution if each individual makes the decision to limit their family to two children. Population has not created innovation, people have created innovation for centuries. We have increased our population from 1900 form 1.6 billion to 6.7 billion in 2009. Population explosion is not a myth. What has caused the infertility problems? http://www.resolve.org/site/DocServer/EnvironmentalFactors.pdf?docID=261 If you look at the actural population of Japan, Germany, Russia, Norway, France, Belgium, and other nations their actural population has increased.

The over use of pesticides, toxins, and etc have caused the infertility problems of all nations and has caused many people to become infertile, so there are now paying people to have children.
Check the upper reply on the growth of the population since 1900.
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
2025 8 billion
2050 9.4 billion

Yes, China government did enforced having only on child and did cause a sex ratio because if a girl was born they basically killed the girl. The ego got in the way because they wanted male children. That is the reason for the sex ratio being off balanced not because they regulated one child. China has gone to an extreme and after the hurricane that killed so many are rethinking the one child policy. Through education we can encourage people to limit their families to keep our population stable. Deforestation is not only a problem in China it is a problem all over the world including the United States. We have a problem with deforestation in Africa, South America need I go on.

Yes, I have seen many of the ideas for future cities, that is the problem future cities. We need to be doing that today. Just looked up super vegetables, since they don’t know why the seed mutate and what is creating the change I believe we need more research before they hit the market. Although they said they did take only the seed with them most nutriental value. They felt that GMO’s were also the solution and look what has happened with the nutriental value and risks. We have already waited long enough since “Silent Spring” first came out. Although that did stop DDT being legal. The sad thing is every living thing on this planet has traces of DDT in it body.
We are bombarded daily on TV, the radio, bill boards and etc that we need whatever product is the latest thing. WE soon believe we have to have that product. As a famous Lakota chief Sitting Bull said, “just because it is new does not mean it is better”, but we are taught daily that this new product is the best thing ever. The sad thing is no one questions it. I agree we need more love and less selfishness. My boyfriend and I were just talking yesterday how large cities like LA how the people are like caged animals in comparison to the small cities I grew up in. You find in large cities
it is a I, me, mine attitude. I need to get to that light first, I just left church but I need to get home so will cut you off even though I just heard a sermon on “do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you”. When I go home it is completely different you give the right away to the other person. No one is in a rush and is polite.

You believe that having as many children as necessary to create innovators is necessary why stop at 10 why not have 20 children. Yep, it is a moot point. There will always be innovators born regardless if you have 2 children or 20 children. My father was from a family of 10 kids he was in the middle. But decided to have only 3 children. Societies will always have innovators, people to care for the sick, and people to teach the next generation, doctors and etc. I myself am disabled and have a very loving and caring family. One brother who was a teacher for 30 years because he cares about kids and their future and another brother who is a physics who cares about this little planet and all the beings on it.

WE don’t have enough resources for future generation with the continued increase in population. I am well aware of the distribution of gains in the world. WE the in the United States are 5% of the world population and use 24% of the worlds resources and food. Government, big business have one goal profit and that creates our selfish attitute especially when we are shown how we need the latest new product from media (advertising), bill boards, radio, all the ads at the malls. I agree we do let people get away with the selfish attitudes. I don’t think it is the governments place to decide how many children a family should have either, but I do believe
we need to educate people on the problems of over population and let them decide for themselves as many of my friends and family have.

I am sorry you feel I am pointing fingers and inciting fear. My purpose is to educate so we can solve these problems and stablize our population. Not trying to incite fear just putting out stats. If I didn’t feel that way I would not be taking the time to write this. Yes, the earth has survived for million of years and it will keep surviving. But it will not be surviving with mammals or any creatures that require air to breath. I agree WE should be doing what we can for the future generations. Things are changing, but we need to be doing more than a few wind farms, a few solar panels and etc. WE need to take drastic action today, since we didn’t heed the warning of the past decades.

I think you are intelligent, well educated, and seem to think outside the box on some issues. I am glad you are here today as well as the rest of your family. But you are now an adult and make your own decision as well as your siblings. Population is a problem and what you chose will have an impact on the next 7 generations. I do value life that is why I fight so hard, because I don’t want to see people die because of the decision our generation makes. We loss people everyday because of environmental impact. Children in large cities today have asthma because of all of the pollution, people are infertile because of toxins, people are dyeing in many countries because of poor water supplies and food. Life is valuable, so lets do our best to keep the population stable, so we can solve the rest of the environmental problems.

A beautiful quote from Mother Teresa. Just remember when you have a small garden and it can’t handle all the plants they start dyeing off to accomodate the beauty of what is needed. The beautiful and sad part of the cycle of life.

Yes, human life is a gift. Lets keep it a gift by keeping our population stable so our next generations can have a beautiful, fulfilling life. Yes, I have helped my fellow human beings, I was an interpreter for the deaf, worked in special education, worked on the sucide prevention hot line, and could go on, but the point is WE have an over population problem in this world and I want to see the best for human kind, so lets all work together to keep our people here on this little planet.

It is appreciated that you are willing to have an open forum on this topic. I know it can be quite controversal and emotions fly on this topic. So thank you for listening and responding.

Crow

Reply
crow

Here are a few more articles I just ran across.

Now or Never – Why We Must Act50

http://hubpages.com/hub/Now-or-Never-Why-We-Must-Act

Let’s make this clear: Vertical farms don’t make sense

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/1219/let-s-make-this-clear-vertical-farms-don-t-make-sense.html

Four Degrees Warmer: An Interactive Map

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010671.html

Let’s start doing what we can today to make it liveable for the next generations.

Reply
crow

Unfortunately this did not happen in 77 and we are facing the consequences today.

The Tenth Principle, new sources of energy

http://www.examiner.com/x-4002-Milwaukee-Green-Living-Examiner~y2009m3d12-The-Tenth-Principle-new-sources-of-energy

Reply
crow

Here is what we are looking at in the near future for our worlds children.

Climate change could kill 250,000 children

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6469700/Climate-change-could-kill-250000-children.html

Reply
crow

Hopefully this will happen:

Forget about the hybrid auto — Shai Agassi shares his global electric car vision for a radical plan to take entire countries oil-free by 2020.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/11/shai-agassi-the-next-bill-gates-a-bold-plan-for-the-mass-adoption-of-electric-cars.html

Reply
crow

Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids

http://www.livescience.com/environment/090803-children-carbon-footprint.html

Another reason to limit your family to two children.
Crow

Reply
Nicholas

According to the U.S. Forest Service, our “forest inventory” has actually grown 39% since 1952. And we have just as much forest land in this country as we did 50 or 100 years ago (despite our population tripling). According to the Society of American Foresters, annual net growth of US forests is 36% higher than the volume of annual tree removals. The forest products industry plants more trees each year then it harvests.

In 2006, 53.4% of the paper consumed in the US was recovered for recycling. Over 36% of the fiber used to make new paper products in the US comes from recycled sources.

According to the EPA, two of the largest municipal waste sources are Food Scraps (18.3%) and Yard Trimmings (6.9%). Composting food scraps and mulching your grass clippings during mowing are two easy ways to help our environment!

Reply
crpw

The US Forest service may be replanting trees (which is a good thing) but the sad thing is that most of the trees they are cutting down are hundreds and some a thousand years old. The older trees give us softer toilet paper. WE need to find another solution to replace toilet paper. In India they actually use water to clean themselves. Just remember the trees they are planting will take hundreds of years to get to the same size of the ones that have been cut down.

WE are recycling paper more which is a good thing. Hopefully hemp paper will become the thing of the future. So we don’t need to be cutting down the old forests of the US and the world.

Some cities in the US today have started a compost recycling and hopefully many more cities will adopt the idea and follow suit. I personally use compose for my plants. My dad never used a grass catcher (if he did us a grass catcher he used it for compose) and he had the greenest lawn on the block and he raised his blade on the mower so it didn’t have to be watered as often. The best thing we can do is use drought resistant plants and not have as much lawn since it requires so much water.

Unfortunately we have done so much damage to so many eco-systems that just helping with the tree issue is not enough. As my boyfriend says ”
when you pull the right string on the spider web it collapses”.
Between global warming, over population, deforestation, the Pacific Garbage Island, pesticides and toxic chemicals, acid rain, coal plants, and I could go on. Unfortunately over population had been the cause of the above mentioned environmental problems. We are getting close to the point of pulling the right string on the spider web for collapse.

Reply
Nicholas

It’s an over-generalization to blame over population (if that actually exists) for all of these things. Technologically we did not have something more efficient than coal powered plants for many years. Over population was not the cause of this lack in technology. No one knew the effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals for many years, but over population was not the cause of this lack of knowledge. Etc, etc.

We are improving our way of treating the environment. We’re recycling more, we’re planting trees, we’re developing eco-friendly alternatives to plastics. We’re turning back the clock on much of the damage we’ve over the last several decades. Mass adoption of eco-friendly alternatives to much of what we consume is needed before we see many improvements, but the improvements are being made and people are required to make those changes.

Reply
crow

Let see we have gone from 1.6 billion people in 1900 to 6.7 billion today. I would call that a population explosion. Do we know the effect of new technology? No WE don’t. Even though hybrid cars are better for the environment there are problems with the batteries. So are we creating a future problem. 3rd world countries are beginning to consume like we are in the US. India has come out with the Nano car so millions of India’s can now afford a car. You have now increased the problem with air pollution, global warming and etc. That will increase the need to build more roads and etc. “Silent Spring” was released in the 60’s but DDT was not banned for at least another decade. WE now have millions of chemicals in the water due to all the medications people are taking what impact does that have on all animals and humans that require water to live. The hand santizers we use is made with pesticides to kill the germs (oop, bugs on our hands) and have now found the pesticide in dolphins and other sea animals. Hand santizers are creating super bugs that we don’t know how to combat that. Antibiotic have been overused and infection are becoming impossibe to cure. Just a small example that WE don’t know when we create something new and the impact it may have on people and the eco-system.

WE are thinking more about the environment but unfortunately this little planet only has so many resources and when they are gone that is it. Unfortunately we aren’t turning back the clock on the damage we have done because the undeveloped countries are now starting to follow suit by consuming more. Which isn’t even creating a balance.
Unfortunately if we don’t look at the population impact which is the number 1 problem and is creating all the other environmental problems. Mother Nature will find a way to take us out. We have already experienced Katrina and droughts here in the US which is minor compared to what other countries like Africa are experiencing. We will see the several delta’s in the US covered in water in the future due to the melting ice packs. Many deltas in the US are already seeing the problems. Just some trivial information if every spider on this planet died tomorrow we will all be gone in 8 days. Because the planet is warming we will see malaria in areas you have never seen it before. Big business in more interested in profit than helping the environment so the consumption will continue. Here is a good video to watch on “The Story of Stuff”:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS251US256&q=The+video++Story+of+Stuff&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=J4X8StnYEJDasgOwjJWEBw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQqwQwBA#

Bottom line the best thing WE can do is limit our families to 2 children and work on the environmental problems we have created due to overpopulation.

Crow

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

Overpopulation ‘is main threat to planet’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/overpopulation-is-main-threat-to-planet-521925.html

Overpopulation and Overconsumption:

Where Should We Focus

By Michael G. Hanauer

March 1998

——————————————————————————–

We Have So Many Choices

There are many pieces to our environmental puzzle, which when assembled can ensure that our planet and everything on it have a joyful ride now and into the indefinite future. We call that sustainability, and this is our work, our goal and our passion. But that sustainability can and must be achieved without each of us manipulating all of the puzzleâs pieces. Each of us must decide which pieces to focus on ö which ones we feel are overarching in their effect, which ones we as individuals and organizations can impact, and which are most overlooked. In science, there is a rule of thumb called the 20-80 rule which says that 20 percent of the underlying problems often cause 80 percent of the significant effects. To be successful in the longer term, an individual or organization needs to choose carefully.

Because the United States so severely aggravates so many of the worldâs environmental problems, because of our responsibility to set an example for the world, and because this is my home, I believe that we should place a significant emphasis on our domestic problems (but certainly not entirely). All solutions require support and action at the local level, whether you consider local to be a nation, or an individual community. ãThink Globally, Act Locallyä makes a lot of sense from any perspective.

Much of the environmental movement has chosen to pursue specific issues such as pollution, forests, global warming, species diversity or open space ö perhaps because these are the problems we each see in our own backyards. To those with a more overarching view, consumption and population issues stand out because they are largely local and because they are causal, that is they occur at a community level and tend to underlie or exacerbate many individual problems. Both of these pieces are important to our ride toward sustainability. Where should we place our emphasis and our resources?

How Do We Choose From the Causal Two?

There are many widely read books with titles like Fifty Easy Ways to Save the Earth. Almost all of these books approach issues from the point of view of reducing (over)consumption. We often hear how the U.S. has 5 percent of the worldâs population, yet consumes 25 percent of its resources. Itâs also true that the developed world, with 23 percent of the population, uses about 66 percent of the Earthâs resources. Yes, it can sound like just a consumption problem, but the magnitude of this consumption actually makes population even more important to preserving our environment and quality of life!

In many environmental and population circles, the traditional thinking dictates that the problem in developing countries is overpopulation, while in the developed world the bulk of the problem is overconsumption. This oversimplification, that the U.S. has mainly a consumption problem, purveys easy, feel-good answers to many environmentally conscious individuals and organizations. Such feel-good answers are dangerous because they lead to incomplete actions by masking the enduring effects of population growth. Letâs explore further.

In the developed world, per capita consumption levels are all within the same order of magnitude. Yes, in highly populated sections of Western Europe and Japan levels are somewhat lower than ours (often due to smaller and more expensive living spaces, higher energy costs, and fewer cars), but not vastly different. On the other hand, most third world consumption levels are between 0.5 and 5 percent of ours. This vast difference is not because these people recycle, use little plastic or donât drive a turbo-charged car ö it is because they have no car, no central heat, no refrigerator, and maybe no house at all!

It is this lack of the most basic items, items which most of us believe every human should be able to have, which make up most of the consumption difference between the haves and the have nots. In the developed world, even if every effort were made to cut frills and inefficient consumption, these basics still have us out consuming a third world citizen by a factor of five to fifty. Reasonable levels of consumption are not morally wrong, in fact most of us believe that they are desirable. We need to allow all of the worldâs citizens a reasonable lifestyle while at the same time heading toward sustainability. This will require a leap in consumption for developing countries, a practical and therefore smaller reduction in consumption for developed countries, and population stabilization or reduction for all. Population levels are critical to the dream and are too often overlooked.

What About the Effects of Conservation and Recycling?

In a broader sense, the idea of reducing consumption can and should incorporate the industrial processes that produce the goods and dispose of the pollutants, in addition to what and how much is consumed by individuals. Processes that will produce fewer waste byproducts, use more abundant or replaceable resources, or facilitate recycling can help to reduce environmental impact. In addition, affecting these kinds of changes may be done faster than changing population trends. But we must also recognize that with increasing population, gains from conservation and recycling are likely to be quickly overwhelmed. Still, such efforts are an important part of the solution.

Isnât Technology Our Ace in the Hole?

Frequently, we believe that technology can solve any problem. The inherent fallacy in this approach is that the greatest cause of new problems is techno-fix solutions to old problems. Even our present population growth was brought on by technology which prevented or cured disease and allowed large gains in food productivity (often by increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, and cruel treatment of farm animals). But, the most important implication here is that technology rarely produces lasting solutions, only additional difficult choices and tradeoffs. An example is the solar or electric automobile. The batteries are polluting in production and disposal. The solar panels are polluting to produce, the power generated to charge the vehicle usually requires power plants, and we still keep gaining more cars.

And what about the choices for those power plants? Burning fossil fuel uses (foreign) oil and contributes to the greenhouse effect, nuclear generation involves safety concerns and the problems of spent fuel disposal, hydroelectric plants and their associated dams spoil our riversâ natural beauty and harm wildlife ö and raise the question of just how many dams can be built? What about solar, fusion, and power too cheap to meter? Even if such methods can one day produce meaningful amounts of energy, what are the side effects and other tradeoffs?

Technology usually provides many options, each of which has different side effects. Making a choice often requires selecting the lesser of a number of evils. Today, because of higher population levels, the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome makes it nearly impossible to rationally choose — often none are really acceptable. Almost every choice involves leaving something behind in somebodyâs backyard.

Population Size Matters Most to the Big Picture and Over the Longer Term

Even where new technology or reduced consumption might help, consider the following:

1. Population growth directly drives increasing overall consumption, but not vice versa. The existence of a person necessarily consumes resources, takes up space, and disposes of waste products. In the poorest regions of the world, localized destruction is taking place due primarily to overpopulation because per capita consumption is at subsistence levels. When we talk about the affluent U.S., consumption takes on even more significance. But, by accepting that ãreasonableä levels of consumption are O.K., we must bring population into the formula since each additional person has a much more significant impact on the ecosystem. Overpopulation actually occurs at a lower point with a higher standard of living.

2. Population growth creates problems beyond the impacts of excess consumption. Will just decreasing consumption have an appreciable or lasting effect on reducing the crowds at our national parks or our loss of open space? Can just dealing with consumption halt the loss of personal freedoms, privacy, the loss of direct political representation, the inability to find solitude or the reduction of stress or crime? Can dealing with consumption alone reduce traffic or lines at the mall or supermarket, or will it just reduce the amount people buy per trip? Will just reducing
consumption stop urban sprawl, or just alter the form and time it takes to happen? Will only reducing consumption keep our communities from raising taxes to continually provide more infrastructure, more services, and more schools?

3. Overpopulation has many additional social impacts as well. Wilderness, quiet, privacy and the need for occasional solitude are important to individuals in a civilized society. These are all things we lose as the population expands and takes up more habitat. More than simply concern for an excessive ãecological footprint,ä we need wild spaces and living space to nurture our spirit.

4. Pushing people together also perpetuates a loss of personal freedom. Just because we can live in a small cluster home, survive with more traffic, cope with more regulations or tolerate a government with a more diluted political representation, does not mean that we should. How long can our society tolerate ever increasing population? Donât we want a quality of life for ourselves and future generations that is much better than just tolerable?

5. Conflict and stresses are much more likely when people are pushed closer together. When
we are in a denser environment, our neighborâs actions have a more adverse impact upon us. We are forced to limit our actions with respect to the rights of others, to put up with losing some rights, or having additional regulations to enforce our rights. This conundrum is further aggravated as resources become more scarce.

6. Just reducing consumption will do relatively little over the long term to save the 20 thousand species of plants and animals we are pushing off the planet each year. Habitat loss, probably the biggest direct problem, is impacted by our individual ecological footprints. While reducing consumption will reduce the size of that footprint, the total habitat loss will only grow if population continues to grow. Much of the worldâs habitat loss is greatly aggravated by U.S. population growth.

7. Like other discrete environmental issues, overconsumption has many components, each of which will need to be confronted with analysis, committees, bureaucratic agencies, standards, regulations and funding. Population stabilization (or eventual reduction), which will alleviate so many other underlying problems, is actually easier and less expensive to accomplish if we just acknowledge its impact and make the effort to do so.

Population is not getting the attention it should. There are many organizations with programs aimed at reducing consumption. Because many people choose to believe that dealing with consumption is
the answer ö they often donât acknowledge that stopping population growth is a necessary component of the solution. While two countries (China and India) have larger populations than the U.S., from the point of view of global environmental impact it is the U.S. that is the most overpopulated. Many of the most intractable global environmental problems, such as the greenhouse effect and ocean pollution, are largely caused by the U.S. and the developed world. With per capita consumption levels likely to grow significantly worldwide, and likely to shrink only marginally here, the multiplier effect of each U.S. resident continually becomes ever more critical.

Population Matters Most to a Practical Solution

In a survey by Utne Reader of its own (very environmentally concerned) readers, only 21 percent said they would be willing to do without a car and only 13 percent would forgo their Quarter-Pounders with cheese. With a major effort we might be able to marginally lower U.S. consumption rates, but that reduction will be (and has been) overwhelmed by population increases. Between 1970 and 1990, 93 percent of the increase in U.S. energy use was due to population growth.

Meat, fish, low-yield vegetables, shrink wrap, paper, autos, and personal computers are not morally wrong. The higher the population, the more personal choices we must give up and the lower the resulting quality of life. Just reducing consumption here without bringing it to third-world levels will do little to lower our impact if population keeps growing. Those fifty, easy, feel-good ways to save the earth are worthwhile, and are even an important part of our total ride toward sustainability. But when those easy answers publicly mask the need to ask and resolve hard questions about our nationâs population growth, those answers become a problem in themselves.

U.S. population is now at 269 million. Census Bureau projections indicate that our population is likely to surpass one-half billion in the coming century. Important analysis and calculations from the biological and physical sciences support the contention that U.S. population is now at about double the sustainable level. Attainable reductions in consumption will not do the job if we do not also stop population growth. We all want a truly sustainable world which can support a reasonable standard of living with reasonable levels of consumption for all.

Population growth is important in itself, and in its effect on overall consumption growth. In the long term, stopping population growth is a necessary part of the sustainability equation. All environmental organizations need to incorporate the population connection into their programs or all will ultimately fail.

If population organizations and activists donât keep the population issue front and center, who will?

Reply
Nicholas

“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.”

According to numbers Crow provider earlier, the Earth’s population was already 2-20 times over populated in the year 1 when the world’s population was 200 million.

Limiting births to 2 per family is not the answer according to these scientists. With ideal population counts ranging from 10 million to 1.32 billion depending on what scientist you ask, we will always have an over population problem on Earth. At this rate all life will cease to exist at some point, so do we reduce the number of people allowed to enjoy life on Earth through population control or do we allow children to be freely born since the fate will be the same no matter what?

Reply
Crow

Mark my word. Your generation and the next generation will be feeling the extreme impact of the population explosion. I hate to see
that. Mother nature is being seeing the impact of population explosion by all the environment problems we have. I was hopeful in the 70’s that this would not happen, but watching it now for 40 years am no longer hopeful. WE have over used all of our natural resources and have continued to destroy the environment. The more kids we bring into this world them more they will suffer. Hope some people and animals will survive to carry on. Why does anyone want to bring a child into this world with all the future problems of starvation, lack of water, major droughts, many areas of land being covered by water due to the melting ice caps, air quality getting worse and creating all sorts of health problems and etc is beyond me. WHY would WE want to put our children through that???

Reply

Crow,

With all due respect, you have provided a lot of information throughout the comment section of this post. You are very passionate about the environment and the cause of preserving our planet. You are articulate and steadfast in your beliefs. In fact, I support your underlying plea for environmental responsibility and conservation.

But I still disagree with your basic premise that some (yet unnamed) entity should be limiting the number of children we have in an effort to advance the greater good of society and the world. If you chose not to have children, I respect that choice. If you can convince 100 others to make that same decision for themselves, I have no problem there.

However, the freedom to have children as we choose is a basic, fundamental human right that is given to us by God. No government, no environmentalist and no threat of death or suffering can take this most precious of rights away from me or those who hold our belief in it so dearly.

Frankly, what clarified my thoughts more than anything was your final question/challenge. Why would we want to bring children into this (doomed, crazy, insufferable) world of ours?

Because we love them. We want them to exist. We know first-hand that the love between a child and their parent is like no other, and it is the closest we can come to understanding the love our God has for us. I have faith in the human race, and I strongly support a previous comment that stated it is us and our children who will solve the problems that our planet faces.

And frankly, if I have to choose between living in the love of my full family for 20 years or living alone for 100 years, I will choose the former every time. To love is to live.

Reply
Crow

So why not adopt children who don’t have a loving home? There are millions of children who need a loving family and home. My brother chose not to have kids, but wanted to do what he could so he became a teacher to spread his love and knowledge. There are many way you can do the same.

Reply

I think adopting children is a fantastic option!

You had mentioned in an earlier comment about considering adoption but you chose not to, and it seemed it was somehow connected to your environmental concerns. I would be curious to hear why adoption was a drag on the planet if that was what you meant. It seems to me that the orphaned children are already here, so they would not be a “negative” from an environmental standpoint.

Reply
Crow

I personally would find too heart breaking for the child as well as myself if something happened to that child because of the environment.

You feel differently so why not adopt and give a child a happy, loving,
home and life? My boyfriends brother and his family have done that. They have two beautiful children and they are excellent parents. He is the one who is also an engineer.

I always question why do we have the need to become pregant when their are millions of children out there that need a loving home. My cousin is adopted and was raised Catholic as well. My aunt and uncle gave her a loving and caring home and she adopted 3 beautiful children.

Reply
Crow

If you ever do decide to adopt let me tell you a story about my cousin.
Polly was 6 when my aunt and uncle adopted her. My aunt was getting ready to take a bunch of old clothes to the goodwill and my mom just happened to be there. Polly told my mom I hope she doesn’t get rid of that coat because that was the coat she had on they day they took me home. Mom let my aunt know and she took it out and gave the coat to Polly and she has it to this day. Then when she had her kids she was almost complusive about taking pictures when they were young, so we asked why so many pictures and she said I dont have any pictures of myself before I was taken home. So keep that in mind.

I tear up everytime I think about this. Those things were important to her and we never would of known if she had not been willing to share.

Reply
Guggie Daly

Wow, what a discussion! I guess someone forget to check out the rates in the rest of the developed world…aka across the pond…some countries have such horrid birth rates that they won’t exist by 2050. LOL Overpopulation teehee

Reply
crow

Did you check out why they have such horrid birth rates?? You will be surprised why. Again created by envirornmental problems that have been created by people and over-population.

Reply
crow

The over use of pesticides, toxins, and etc have caused the infertility problems of all nations and has caused many people to become infertile, so there are now paying people to have children.

Reply

We at the Chicago chapter of the Couple to Couple League were also impressed with the Time magazine article that talked about NFP. Our chapter coordinator in fact, got a phone call from a TV station here noting the Time article. It’s good to see a national media outlet giving credit to this normal and natural form of birth regulation. Maybe they will find out how the other half lives.
Read our article on the Time article on our website at http://tinyurl.com/yc7aznr.
Also, keep up your good work on this blog!

Reply

    Thank you Kevin!

    I just clicked over to your site and remembered I had read that article before. You guys at the Chicago chapter of CCL do a fantastic job in promoting your classes as well as your articles, as I stumble upon them frequently. If only every chapter took your approach!

    By the way, I noticed you mentioned Jessica Smith from Madison in your article. I’m not sure if you are aware, but she is now away from that post and has her own great blog on NFP. The address is http://nfpworksblog.com if you want to check it out. She also frequently adds awesome comments on NFP-related posts here.

    Reply

Well gosh! It seems like I missed one rockin’ party here. I had what might amount to a stupid question, but one that no one has yet asked. What happens in 2051? Or 2075? Because as far as I can tell, population growth rates are expected to PEAK in 2050, then begin declining. God bless our grandkids who will be on the bottom of an increasingly heavy inverted pyramid of population.
.-= Sarah´s last blog ..Is There Room for College Women…and Their Babies? =-.

Reply

    It’s a great question, Sarah, and maybe one Crow will come back around to address. It’s my understanding that much of western civilization is already at even (U.S.) or negative (Europe) population growth rates. I would assume that as the developing world “matures” their birth rates will also level off to some extent, confirming the scenario you noted. Of course, I don’t use world population rates as a basis for my own family planning decisions as I’ve noted several times throughout these comments. It is a fascinating topic, though!

    Reply
pet supplies

I found this topic very interesting but I would like to know where did you find your facts? Just wondering.

Reply

    Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Pet Supplies! There are a ton of “facts” stated here throughout the 50+ comments pus those in the article itself. Which specific facts were you curious about?

    Reply
crow

Hi Sarah and Dustin,

I will address your question Sarah, but am on dial-up right now so will get back to all of you this weekend. But unfortunately it will most likely peak due to the environment and many illness due to
malaria increase and other illnessness due to global warming. No because we did anything to keep the population stable.

Crow

Reply
crow

I have been studying population explosion and environmental problems for 40 years now and was hopeful back in the 70 and 80 but am not hopeful anymore. Also do a lot of research on these problems on a daily basis.

Reply
crow

A beautiful video by Jane Goodall who studied chimps in Africa. Hope for the environment in the future.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_goodall_at_tedglobal_07.html

Reply
Amanda

This is just a shout-out from a two-child NFP couple. Yes, we do exist! We have used NFP exclusively since we were married nearly eight years ago, and we have just two kids. We actually WANT more, but have been unable to conceive since our youngest (now four years old) was born. Proof of God’s plan in action, imo.

Reply
Add Your Reply

Leave a Comment:

24 Shares
Pin
Share24
Tweet