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.