After an impromptu meeting with our vice-chair elect in the library the other day, I was left wondering whether we should actually feel guilty about having more than two children in our families. I also noticed earlier, the report that came out from some ‘green’ organisation that it was in fact selfish to have more than two children and more of us should consider having no children at all because of their carbon footprints.
I come from a family of three children, and upon pondering this idea it struck me that if the authors of this report had their way I would not have the younger brother I adore today. What is worth more, him or his carbon footprint? It strikes me as odd that these people would value human life purely in terms of tonnes of prospective CO2 emissions, surely we are worth more than that as humans?
How could this plan be implemented? If it were voluntary surely no-one would follow it unless they valued the environment (in a very tenuous way I might add) more than the life of another child that they could have if they so felt inclined? Would this be an enforced law saying ‘you are not allowed any more children’, through which we lose benefits for children, or get fined, or even more extremely like in China have forced abortions? I would hate to be part of any Neo-Marxist state that implented any of the latter.
It is not the West that are causing world wide population issues, it is developing nations in Africa, South America and parts of Asia. These people rely on their children to support their families, as it is poverty that causes population pressures, not the ‘irresponsible’ people of Western nations choosing out of emotion, not neccessity to have children. The only way to relieve population pressure on the environment is to provide economic support to the people of developing nations so that the people do not need to have so many children, and eventually to aid their development for the prosperity of all.
Well I don’t want kids, anyone want to bid for my right to have two? Think of it as buying carbon credits
We’ll open at £1000 a child, anyone?
You shouldn’t frame it as a sacrifice of human life or an “exchange”, as the life would never have existed in the first place, therefore it’s rather a lack of creation – very different. If we start thinking like that what about the failure to create a fourth child, or a fifth? What about every opportunity that wasn’t taken to create further children? Does that not show a blatant disregard for “the life of another child” also?
In your line of thinking we’d end up implementing the very same style “neo-marxist” policies and punishments on contraception, masturbation, non-procreative sex, with mass censorship and a secret police to capture all wrong doers; oh I am sorry this isn’t Neo-marxist this is Roman Catholic.
In any case, the argument isn’t about the number of people it’s about the CO2 they produce. Each person in the western world consumes far more energy and therefore produces far more CO2 than most given persons in the third world, balancing the scales very much against the people of the western world (us).
The trouble with “prosperity for all” is it will result in mass energy consumption for all, therefore care in exactly how prosperity is gained. Also, is it not a little condescending to assume we are the ones who will lift the developing world into prosperity? Large parts of the developing world might not be in sure dire poverty if it were not for western intervention and exploitation. The issue of western sweatshops, for example. This may seem a simple issue, but if we established universal fair trade would it not tear our economy apart? As one group rises the other will fall…
But getting back to the original question: Is having more than two kids selfish? From one point of view – of course it is. Climate change will cause rising sea levels likely displacing millions and especially vulnerable are those who don’t have billions to build huge flood defence structures to prevent the submergence of their cities. The majority of these people will be located in developing nations. Therefore, using your framework, is one child worth the creation of millions of refugees, putting the developing world back years and the deaths of thousands, tens, hundreds, of thousands of people?
Then again, there are, perhaps, more effective ways to reduce our carbon footprints. We also have to give people a choice. Although, note worthy is the unwillingness to make sacrifices for the benefit of the wider community, a prevalent and disquieting theme.