Self Enforced Extinction
There's an entire movement out there of people who think you should not have children. There's a lot of varying reasons for it. But enviornmentalists say it's bad for the enviornment.
A lot of people aren't having babies. Italian women are not having babies (more recent article: NYT). So much so, that men can't find a woman who will take care of them like mommy does, so they are staying at home until their parents die, and no one is having babies. The birth rate across Europe right now is 1.3. That means in 45 years, the population will be cut in half.
(Side note: the only groups that are having babies (not looking at Africa) are Muslims and Hispanics. And Muslims are outproducing everyone.)
In the United States we tell our citizens that if we have another child, we're going to kill the enviornment. Don't create another carbon body! Enviornmentalists have gotten so involved in the conversation of procreation, that we have articles like this one, which says this:
Birth rates hit an all time low several years ago (in the US) and as of 2007 they had finally climbed to where it needed to be to "replace" the current population, 2.1 children per woman. We are (were?) the only developed nation that is at that level. European countries (as mentioned earlier) are on the brink of a crisis as regards population. China, through abhorrent practices of sending baby girls to be adopted and only keeping boys, will have an unstable population in several years. A country full of men (gasp) is no better than a country with half a population.
I feel as if we are discouraging couples / women from having babies. Children weigh you down, children are codependent, children use all your money, children are demanding, giving birth is painful, morning sickness sucks, your body is never the same, your life changes dramatically, you need a house, you need a better job, you need savings, you need a bigger car, you need a better school district, you need, you need, you need ...
When Global Warming and carbon emissions are an idea of the past, I wonder what we will say. When the baby boomers are straining social security to the point of breaking, and the working population can't sustain them, what will we do? There will not be enough taxes to support that generation, because for a decade fewer and fewer people were born.
So you have to wonder ... is the enviornmental objective to remove humans from the planet? Are we suppose to shrink in population until we are no more? Or until there is a sustainable amount? And what is that amount? Who decides?
A lot of people aren't having babies. Italian women are not having babies (more recent article: NYT). So much so, that men can't find a woman who will take care of them like mommy does, so they are staying at home until their parents die, and no one is having babies. The birth rate across Europe right now is 1.3. That means in 45 years, the population will be cut in half.
(Side note: the only groups that are having babies (not looking at Africa) are Muslims and Hispanics. And Muslims are outproducing everyone.)
In the United States we tell our citizens that if we have another child, we're going to kill the enviornment. Don't create another carbon body! Enviornmentalists have gotten so involved in the conversation of procreation, that we have articles like this one, which says this:
We do know that women, if given full rights not only to control their fertility but to participate in the public sphere as citizens, tend to limit their family sizes.This is unattributed, of course. What does "control their fertility" really mean anyway? Does that mean birth control? Or abortions? Does that apply only to the United States? Or to the entire world? It makes sense in the global world. 3rd world countries have explosive birth rates because women have no access to birth control. And apparently, have no choice when they have sex? I don't know ... that's not a point I'm willing to argue.
Birth rates hit an all time low several years ago (in the US) and as of 2007 they had finally climbed to where it needed to be to "replace" the current population, 2.1 children per woman. We are (were?) the only developed nation that is at that level. European countries (as mentioned earlier) are on the brink of a crisis as regards population. China, through abhorrent practices of sending baby girls to be adopted and only keeping boys, will have an unstable population in several years. A country full of men (gasp) is no better than a country with half a population.
I feel as if we are discouraging couples / women from having babies. Children weigh you down, children are codependent, children use all your money, children are demanding, giving birth is painful, morning sickness sucks, your body is never the same, your life changes dramatically, you need a house, you need a better job, you need savings, you need a bigger car, you need a better school district, you need, you need, you need ...
When Global Warming and carbon emissions are an idea of the past, I wonder what we will say. When the baby boomers are straining social security to the point of breaking, and the working population can't sustain them, what will we do? There will not be enough taxes to support that generation, because for a decade fewer and fewer people were born.
So you have to wonder ... is the enviornmental objective to remove humans from the planet? Are we suppose to shrink in population until we are no more? Or until there is a sustainable amount? And what is that amount? Who decides?
Comments
Children weigh you down – they do want to be carried and loved;
Children are codependent – they need lots of support as you teach them to be self-reliant;
Children use all your money – and what is money for if not to provide for those you love? Children are demanding – so are husbands/wives, friends, parents, even pets – get over it.
Giving birth is painful – but the joy of holding your own child quickly replaces the pain otherwise no family would have more than one child
Morning sickness sucks – so does motion sickness but that doesn’t stop us from taking cruises, flying in a plane, or riding a roller coaster. We do the human thing, we take pills to allow us to enjoy these things
Your body is never the same – since when is your body the same – is it the same as you were when you were 17, or 7, 7 months, or will be when you are 37, or 77 – change happens get something good out of it, and children are good
Your life changes dramatically – see above
You need a house – not really there are lots of children raised in apartments, condos, mobile homes, huts, cardboard boxes, etc. – what you need is a home and a home is wherever
You need a better job – don’t we all?
You need savings – again, don’t we all?
You need a bigger car – so? Cars can be expensive so do your research and get what you can afford which might be a used bigger car that has had plenty of experience with children.
You need a better school district – any school district becomes better when parents are involved, so be involved
There are lots of perceived down sides to having children but if these down sides were really that important why would we keep having children? Those individuals that say having a child is bad for the environment are just as sad as the teenage boy last month that had to be taken to the hospital because he refused to drink anything because the world would run out of water if he drank anything. And maybe those sad people should not reproduce – there are enough crazies in the world without adding more to the gene pool.
Children cause sadness, concern, and even pain but the first time the child rushes home with a picture that has a sticker on it, and says “We had to draw a picture of the most important person in the world and I drew a picture of you.” Your heart will burst and tears will run down your face as you proudly put it on the refrigerator. At that moment (just like many others you will discover), who cares about all the “reasons” not to have a child – children are enough of a reason to have children.