Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids: US News and World Report

[NG]

Statistical study finds having children has long-term environmental impact.

For people who are looking for ways to reduce their "carbon footprint," here's one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives — things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/science/environment/2009/08/03/save-the-planet-have-fewer-kids.html

Sounds good to me!

[Baseball_Boy]

Sponsored by Trojan condoms :twisted:

[45ED]

Fewer children equals saving the planet? Based on this, it would mean that China's on the forefront of Planet-friendliness...

[Peckerwood]

Why not just kill all of the old people?

http://usera.ImageCave.com/peckerwood2/LogansRun.jpg

The planet does not need saving...it is just fine.

[45ED]

Why not just kill all of the old people?

The planet does not need saving...it is just fine.

George Carlin
Skit: The Planet Is Fine

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ****ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ****ing planet?

I'm getting tired of that ****. Tired of that ****. I'm tired of ****ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a **** about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

[...]

(Source (http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html))

[Peckerwood]

Carlin was good...gonna miss him

[NG]

George Carlin
Skit: The Planet Is Fine



(Source (http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html))

He's right. We're going on a road where the planet won't be able to sustain any of us.

So it's better to keep reproducing like rabbits to stop the ability of the planet to sustain us that control our population better?

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8529/204913772a9449bef98.jpg (http://img291.imageshack.us/i/204913772a9449bef98.jpg/)

[Peckerwood]

So you want to save the planet?

Or you want to save ourselves?

Make up your mind already.

[NG]

So you want to save the planet?

Or you want to save ourselves?

Make up your mind already.

The whole "saving the planet" movement is about sustaining the earth's ability to support human life. Imho you're arguing semantics now.

[Troodon]

Sounds good to me!

Who's going to pay for the healthcare for old people if they don't have kids? Who's going to pay taxes for general welfare?

[Setz]

Should screen people ala Gattaca and only keep the real achievers.

[brunes]

This is a stupid pointless report. The "population explosion" myth is old hat frmom the 70s and has bedebunked many times, as it is no longer accurate at all.

The US, Canada, and pretty much every country in the EU are already *WAY* below replacement fertility levels of 2.2 children per two adults, and have been for 10+ years.

As countries get more developed, the number of children per couple shrinks. I tis starting to happen in China (doesn't help that it is being endorsed by the government as well) and even India is seeing it's birth rate start to come down.

"According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until around 2050. The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. World births have levelled off at about 134-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 57 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040."

Countries by fertility rate (remember 2.2 in a country with life expectancy of 50+ is "replacement", everything lower than that means population shrinking, everything higher than that means population growing)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png

[The_Madz]

I think the problem is more so as highlighted in the movie idiocracy that in the future stupid people have outbred intelligent people.

besides, the only places where they still breed like bunnies are undeveloped countries.

in fact if it wasn't because we are humanitarian and provide food and medicine to these places to keep the population going i'm sure nature would take care of the "issue" for us.

[SteamWhistle]

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/gallerypictures/3494L.jpg

More people = more waste. Less people = less waste. (http://enviralment.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/the-best-way-to-go-green-stop-fcking/)

Suspect news such as this comes from the media that wains painful and irrelevant stories to keep the ticker running.

[xstatik]

:idea: We can start with less environmentalists :D

[NG]

Who's going to pay for the healthcare for old people if they don't have kids? Who's going to pay taxes for general welfare?

Immigration has been working fine for that.

This is a stupid pointless report. The "population explosion" myth is old hat frmom the 70s and has bedebunked many times, as it is no longer accurate at all.

The US, Canada, and pretty much every country in the EU are already *WAY* below replacement fertility levels of 2.2 children per two adults, and have been for 10+ years.

As countries get more developed, the number of children per couple shrinks. I tis starting to happen in China (doesn't help that it is being endorsed by the government as well) and even India is seeing it's birth rate start to come down.

"According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until around 2050]. The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. World births have levelled off at about 134-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 57 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world's population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040."

Countries by fertility rate (remember 2.2 in a country with life expectancy of 50+ is "replacement", everything lower than that means population shrinking, everything higher than that means population growing)

So there'll be 9 billion by 2040
Now there's just under 7 billion
In 1970 there were just under 4 billion.
[Source] (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop)

We're already having issues with the planet sustaining the numbers we have now and we'll be adding 2 billion more in only 30 years when only 40 years ago we only had 4 billion?

How many people do you think will be too much before it'll be too much for the planet to sustain all of us?