Posts
Is that why I'm not an environmentalist?
Jerry Steinberg of Vancouver is sick and tired of breeders neighbours who are rearing offspring.
Jerry Steinberg lives with his wife on a leafy family-friendly street in Vancouver. All very nice — except on garbage day, when the 62-year-old says he's disgusted by what he sees. "These families with children put out four or five cans of garbage and no recycling bin," he complains.
As for parents who are environmentally conscious? The "founding non-father" of No Kidding — an international organization for people who choose to be childless — says he believes that once you're a breeder, the damage is done. "I think environmentalists with children are hypocrites," he says. "It's like saying, 'I don't smoke but bring me another cigarette.' "
"Every living being on this planet consumes resources and creates pollution, whether it's a worm, rabbit or a human being. And no one consumes and pollutes as well as humans do," Mr. Steinberg says. "Rabbits don't drive cars. Worms don't throw garbage in the landfill. The fewer humans, the more we're doing to save the planet."
So, Jerry, what’s the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning? Come on, spit it out.
The neighbourly and charitable Mr Steinberg sounds like he agrees 100% with Charles Schulz’s saying, “I love mankind; it’s people I can’t stand”.
Leah McLaren devotes an entire feature-length column in today’s Globe and Mail to a sympathetic look at the tiny set of individuals who have chosen not to have children. She takes at face value their motivation as self-proclaimed Earth-lovers, but one doesn’t have to dig too far beneath the surface to find either fear of losing control or outright misanthropy. Mr Steinberg exemplifies the misanthropy. For the other, consider Vincent and Laura Ciaccio.
"There are a lot of reasons to be vegetarian and a lot of those translate into reasons to be child-free — choices like not supporting clear-cutting the rain forests to raise cattle," says Mr. Ciaccio, who currently lives in Boston, where his wife is at law school. "Being child-free means we don't run the risk of having children who won't be vegetarians and undo all the good choices we've made."
Every mother and father assumes risks by the mere fact of becoming parents. Every child causes some degree of inconvenience, disappointment, and pain for his or her parents. Nevertheless, in almost all families, the rewards far outweigh the costs. But if you’re absolutely and irrevocably convinced that your choices are the right ones for all people at all times and in all places, then, yeah, maybe you shouldn’t have kids.
Still, Mr and Mrs Ciaccio, you might want to ask yourself: Who will be watching over the environment in the next generation? Someone else’s kids, who haven’t had the benefit of learning what "the good choices" are. One could well argue that those who care about the long-term health of the environment should have many children and teach them carefully how to treat the planet.
Mr. Ciaccio conducted a study of "child freedom" (or the choice to remain childless) for his master's thesis in psychology at Iona College, N.Y., a couple of years ago. He found that 12 per cent of the child-free people he surveyed named overpopulation and concern for the environment as the biggest motivators for skipping parenthood.
That means that 88% cited motives other than environmental protection as the reason for deciding not to have children. The vast majority of childless adults cited personal reasons, such as maintaining an acceptable standard of living and desire to avoid the hassle of raising an initially helpless, and soon rebellious, human being.
In Mr Ciaccio's opinion, self-proclaimed environmentalists with “two or three children” are dishonest.
If you think Steinberg and Ciaccio are extremists, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Mathis Wackernagel, executive director of the Global Footprint Network, believes that overlooking the demographic aspect of human environmental impact “is essentially a crime against humanity." Bring on the forced abortions.
The phenomenon of married adults who remain childless by choice provides additional support for the view of James Burnham who, in his prophetic 1964 book The Suicide of the West, argued that liberalism is a pathology, “an ideology of suicide”, arising from failure of “the will to survive”.
Previous related posts:
- Your carbon footprint can make you crazy
- No time to waste in addressing Canada’s birth dearth
- Childless adults feeling oppressed
- Much of the western world will disappear in our lifetimes
- Canadian population rapidly aging
- Young Germans don’t want kids
UPDATE (24 Apr.): Jerry Steinberg has left a mini-manifesto in the comment box. He says he does not advocate the annihilation of the human race. I am so glad to hear that.
I can only shake my head and feel a bit sad for these pompous, self-righteous, self-congratulatory fools. What vacuous lives they lead.
Any living environmentalist who thinks that children are a burden should look in the mirror. The logical conclusion is to commit suicide to save the planet. And, apparently, some poor fools may well believe even this.
Who will be watching over the environment in the next generation? Someone else‚Äôs kids, who haven‚Äôt had the benefit of learning what “the good choices” are. One could well argue that those who care about the long-term health of the environment should have many children and teach them carefully how to treat the planet.
Exactly what I was thinking. These people are just plain goofy with their extremist thinking. They think you can only side with one or the other — the planet or humans. They don’t understand that both can coexist quite nicely.
The logical conclusion is to commit suicide to save the planet.
What, exactly, is logical about an inability to see a positive/negative distinction? Failing to see the difference between accepting a harm that is already impending, and creating more harm?
By your logic, someone who refrains from taking a cross-country road trip because they are concerned about emissions and gas consumption is a hypocrite if they don’t take a hammer and smash the car they use to get to work.
LawGeek,
Sorry, but your logic escapes me.
Jerry Steinberg said, “The fewer humans, the more we’re doing to save the planet.” Clearly, a recommendation to commit mass suicide for the good of the planet.
Sorry, but your logic escapes me.
That is quite clear.
Jerry Steinberg said, “The fewer humans, the more we’re doing to save the planet.” Clearly, a recommendation to commit mass suicide for the good of the planet.
Yes. So is never leaving your house. It is all a matter of striking a balance between how much a particular act/omission will harm the planet and how much that act/omission will cost an individual.
There are rational reasons to draw the line between contributing to overpopulation with the positive act of procreation, and the negative act of failing to commit suicide. There is a logical distinction between act and omission.
Your post implied there is only one ‘logical conclusion’. In the words of the great Andre the Giant “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”
I understand the difference between act and omission, but that distinction does not appear anywhere in the article that was the subject of my blog post. The idea of “striking a balance” is conspicuous by its absence from the statements quoted in the article.
So, it seems to me that you are defending people who show little or no indication that they recognise, never mind accept, the concept of balance in environmental protection. Jerry Steinberg, again: ‚ÄúEnvironmentalists with children are hypocrites‚Äù. Where‚Äôs the ‚Äúbalance‚Äù there? I am not persuaded that my original conclusion—that his opinion logically points to mass suicide—is incorrect.
The Ciaccios have decided not have any children at all because they don’t want to take the chance that one of their kids may grow up to eat meat. Where’s the balance there?
When my wife and I decided to have kids, we did not for one second consider the environmental impact, and I’ll bet the vast majority of parents would say the same thing. According to Mathis Wackernagel, we are guilty of “a crime against humanity”. I think not. I could understand a recommendation to take such impact into account, but “a crime against humanity”? That’s away over the top.
The idea of “balance” in environmental policy is, of course, simple common sense. That’s exactly what is missing from the opinions of those quoted in the article.
I understand the difference between act and omission, but that distinction does not appear anywhere in the article that was the subject of my blog post.
It didn’t need to. It was you that brought up suicide, and it is only then that we wander into the realm of condemning people for their omissions.
I am not persuaded that my original conclusion—that his opinion logically points to mass suicide—is incorrect.
His opinion doesn’t logically point to mass suicide because his position does not necessitate taking every possible step, no matter how extreme, to protect the earth. In his opinion, refraining from having children is not extreme. You can disagree with that without exaggerating his point.
The Ciaccios have decided not have any children at all because they don’t want to take the chance that one of their kids may grow up to eat meat. Where’s the balance there?
Simple. Animal rights is very important to them. It would be if you believe that animals are sentient beings who should not suffer, just as fighting abortion is very important to someone who believes a fetus/unborn baby is a sacred human life. Again, you can disagree with the normative values in these positions without having to conclude that the means one takes to defend them is unwarranted.
As a counter-balance, having a child is less important to them. The balance weighs in favor of no kids.
And just as Ciaccio’s study showed, the decision not to have children involves many factors. The more factors you have on the side of not procreating, the less far you have to go to say it is justified by the cause (animals/environment) you believe in.
When my wife and I decided to have kids, we did not for one second consider the environmental impact, and I’ll bet the vast majority of parents would say the same thing.
I think that was the point the article was trying to make.
According to Mathis Wackernagel, we are guilty of “a crime against humanity”. I think not. I could understand a recommendation to take such impact into account, but “a crime against humanity”? That’s away over the top.
And that is where we agree. Of course, he is not the first person to use extreme rhetoric and hyperbole in an argument.
If you do understand a recommendation to take it into account, then I think you understand one of the points of the article, or at least the movement.
The idea of “balance” in environmental policy is, of course, simple common sense. That’s exactly what is missing from the opinions of those quoted in the article.
It is missing from both sides. Those who do not consider the huge environmental impact of having a child are not striking a balance between the value they place on being parents and the value they place on preserving the earth. They are simply ignoring another side.
As for whether the childfree are missing the balance, you are going by a few hand-picked quotes in an article. You can fault the article for failing to find that balance, but do not have enough information to claim what you are. It is possible to do a balancing test and come to the conclusions quoted in the article.
Here are some of my thoughts regarding babies and the environment:
You’ve probably heard of development protestor Betty Krawczyk. Betty has protested numerous developments in British Columbia and has defied numerous court injunctions to desist. She is now in jail.
What you may not know is that Betty has eight children.
She is definitely not an environmentalist — or an “eco-granny” — as the media have labelled her.
She produced eight children, and if her children and grandchildren follow her example, she could be sharing this planet and competing for its dwindling resources with 584 direct descendants during her lifetime (8 children could produce 64 grandchildren, who could produce 512 great-grandchildren; 8 + 64 + 512 = 584).
That’s not a family, that’s a town!
Don’t those people need a place to live? Don’t trees have to be cut down to make those places and to make room for those places? Won’t every one of those people consume resources and produce pollution just like every other living being on Earth?
A true environmentalist has one child or none, because every child is a polluting-consumer, from conception to death.
I believe that if a supernatural being ever told believers to “be fruitful and multiply,” it was said when the population of our planet was two. Now that we have over six and a half billion humans crowded onto our tiny orb, I’m sure that being would now be screaming “Enough already!”.
If you believe that our planet is not overpopulated, ask yourself why so many people (billions of them, in fact) live in places that are frequently subjected to various natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, droughts, typhoons, and diseases (such as malaria, tuberculosis, dengue fever, leprosy, etc.). Ask why they live in coastal cities that are at or below sea level, right next to noisy airports, active volcanoes and contaminated industrial lands, hillsides that have been shaved of trees causing landslides, etc. Ask why they suffer repeated unimaginable calamities, then stay and rebuild in the same location as soon as that particular catastrophe is over.
The reason: There’s no other place to live. In other words, our population is continuing to burgeon, while the amount of habitable and arable land remains constant.
How long does your daily commute take? How long did it take ten years ago? I’ll bet it’s more than doubled. We add 20,000 more vehicles to Lower Mainland roads every year. What about Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Halifax, Winnipeg, New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo, Mexico City, Beijing, Calcutta, Seoul, Bombay, Sao Paulo, Moscow, Cairo, etc.?
Every baby in developed countries contributes 8,000 to 10,000 diapers to the landfills. Hundreds, if not thousands, of their toys will find their way to the dump, as well. And clothes, shoes (many with toxic batteries), furniture, computers, etc. Millions of litres of gasoline will be burned driving each of those children to and from school, sports activities, friends’ homes, etc. And most of those children will grow up to be consuming polluters, just like you and me.
Since the inception of Earth Day in 1970, we have added 3 billion people to our planet (increasing it from 3.5 billion to 6.5 billion people), almost doubling its population.
Over the years, I have asked numerous environmental organizations how many children someone concerned about our environment should have. I’m still waiting for an answer.
I ask you: Which is more damaging to our planet — six and a half billion humans flushing toilets, driving cars, and consuming natural resources, or twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four billion humans flushing toilets, driving cars, and consuming natural resources?
I do wish, though, that people would stop putting words in my mouth. I have never advocated for the annihilation of the human race, but for a slowing down of our burgeoning numbers. The population of Canada has grown from 13,648,000 in 1951 to 32,248,600 in 2006, and the world’s population has multiplied from 2,535,093,000 to 6,514,756,000 over the same time period, while the amount of natural resources, including habitable and arable land, have not grown, but have diminished.
Overpopulation is a fact! How dense can we get?
Jerry Steinberg
Founding Non-Father of NO KIDDING!
The international social club for childless and childfree couples and singles
Box 2802, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 3X2
Tel: 1-604-538-7736 [24 hours]
http://www.nokidding.net; info@nokidding.net
“LawGeek”,
On top of everything else, we obviously have different ideas as to what “balance” entails in this context. Your logic is still abstruse, but I think I understand enough to be able to see that you are “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel”.
Mr Ciaccio’s study found that, for 88% of childless-by-choice adults, the environment was not a factor in their decision. Except for the very few with serious genetic disorders they are concerned about passing on children, that leaves personal reasons for, say, 80-85%. They don’t want their lives upset by messy, dirty, noisy, demanding children. Their “cause” is personal comfort and convenience.
Such people probably shouldn’t have children, so I don’t necessarily disagree with their choice, but it does not reflect well on those who make it.
In any case, as I pointed out in my post, your strategy is self-defeating, for the environmental overseers of the next generation will be the offspring of those of us who commit “a crime against humanity” by not caring enough about the planet to take the environmental impact of procreation into account. Not a very promising bunch of stewards of the Earth, from your point of view, I would think. To reiterate, again, the long-term health of the environment (as you understand that) would be better served by people with your views having children and teaching them how properly to care for the Earth.
By the by, since your IP address is located in Cambridge, Mass., where the Ciaccios currently reside, I request that, if you wish to comment further, you supply a real name and a verifiable e-mail address (the latter will not be published). Sorry for any inconvenience.
Having children to solve the overpopulation problem (and the problems it creates) is tantamount to trying to extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
Suffering from eco-anxiety? You need eco-therapy from an eco-psychologist…
Some people are worried about their impact on the environment. Others are so choked about everyone else’s carbon footprint that they are paralysed with dread.
For some people, however, the terrifying prospects of rising CO2 levels, ice cap …