View Full Version : Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly
zxcire
11-29-2007, 11:36 AM
Jenny one thing you should understand is that not everybody wants to get pulled into one of your long drawn out twisted arguments in which you make it impossible to just have an opinion and express it.
Some people are not into huge debates like you are.
Jenny
11-29-2007, 11:41 AM
Sure - and when I'm not interested in intelligent discourse on a subject I usually don't post something like "she can kiss my ass" along with a mischaracterization of her argument. But I already agreed that there is no absolute requirement to make a reasonable and supported and good opinion as opposed to just an opinion.
Like I said - I was interested in a different point of view, and why I read something so radically different than someone else. I don't know that it merits a "fuck off, I don't have to prove anything to you, Jenny."
DJ Machismo
11-29-2007, 11:45 AM
Jenny one thing you should understand is that not everybody wants to get pulled into one of your long drawn out twisted arguments in which you make it impossible to just have an opinion and express it.
Some people are not into huge debates like you are.
Amen to that.
Also, since when is having a difference in opinion leading to a mischaracterization of thoughts? Just because I disagree with you I'm wrong unless I explain to you why you should think as I do?
Get over yourself.
Jenny
11-29-2007, 11:47 AM
Dude - I was just interested in what you thought. I'm sorry. I will never ask you what you think on a subject again. I really don't want to fight about it.
Well babies ad to the population which means more! More babies mean more people=more problems. I disagree with this. We have more disease and accidents killing us off as well as babies being born. Mother nature takes care of everything!
I believe if we stop our insane ways of living, i.e. a trillion automobiles, the earth will have a better chance of remaining a healthy planet. And gaining back what we take away.
People are the problem, but i can't say population is. We need to change our ways, the earth is big enough to take care of us all and more so!
Not having children to save the earth is what i hear. That's sad. We can have this eartth full of many many more people and not hurt it...it's our way of living on it that's destructive.
Yeah, sure the earth is big enough to take care of us all... at the expense of the environment and other species! Humans aren't the only species on the planet... we just act like it.
The people in the article weren't saying that EVERYONE needs to stop reproducing. They just made personal decisions not to add to the overpopulation of the planet. There are some 6.6 BILLION people on the planet right now, ( http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html ) continuously growing. I highly doubt that all of these people are going to stop reproducing and end the human race. But at least if some people choose not to reproduce, that helps lessen the burden to the planet. If humans keep reproducing at the rate we are, in the not-so-distant future we will run into shortages of good food, water, clean air, etc.
If you want to have kids responsibly, then by all means, go for it! If you're going to have only a few kids, and make sure to raise them well (ie intelligently and respectful of others and the planet), great! I personally do not want to add to the growing numbers of people on this planet when there are so many unwanted children as it is.
ETA: I do think Pamela has a good point about how our lifestyles play into the problem. 6 billion people is still a lot, but the problem is definitely made worse by our selfish ways, such as unnecessary gas usage, pollution, etc. Maybe if we all went back to pre-industrialized ways, 6 billion people could comfortably live on the planet without raping it like we are now... but I don't think anyone's going to want to do that.
ArmySGT.
11-30-2007, 05:23 PM
The only thing I want to add is this.
Sadly it is the educated and healthy living in first world Nations with every solace and amenity: choosing not to have children for their own and the greater good.
miabella
11-30-2007, 10:15 PM
if one is really concerned about pollution and excessive resource consumption, just nuking all americans and western europeans (20 percent of the world population) would leave enough for the remaining 5ish billion.
the earth can support plenty of people, so long as they don't live as lavishly as americans and western europeans do.
babies, particularly the little brown/yellow/black ones referenced as 'overpopulation' in these types of discussions, are simply not where the eco-unfriendliness lies. it's with the greedy consumers who complain that there is any overpopulation to begin with.
overpopulation is just a euphemism for 'there's too many of y'all and there oughta be or already is just enough of people what look like me'.
in conclusion, kill whitey and save mother gaia. ;D
krystalpink
09-10-2008, 10:51 PM
I doubt I will have children but if I do it will be only one.. even though my opinion isn't a very popular one I think it’s environmentally irresponsible to have many children. If it's an option it would be better to adopt a child.
At current growth rates, the world’s population is expected to reach about nine billion by 2050, a figure that environmentalists worry “will dramatically overtax the world’s resources and lead to growing conflict as well as potentially crippling climate change.”..
One child policy doesn't look so bad now..
I know a lot of people will disagree with my point of view but I agree with the lady in the article.
GoldCoastGirl
09-11-2008, 02:10 AM
Actually, truth be told... the environmental impact one child (let alone more) has is one of the reasons why I'm quite happy to be a step mum and not give birth to any of my own.
Adoption or being a step parent :) is more eco friendly.
The resources his two children are consuming just when they are with him "on a weekend" (Fri night - Sunday afternoon) opens my eyes up... i mean in everything: food, clothing, toys, toilet, fuel, etc.... it's a lot !
I'll gladly help raise his two .. however.. hell no am I having any of my own.
I also don't want to reproduce because I know if I don't have children.. the human race isn't going to die tomorrow so I don't see the point. Mother Nature is strained enough as it is trying to keep up with us and how 'successful' we have become as a species (we are not dying off quicker than we are reproducing).
.... interesting this article came up now even tho' it is old and a lot of the original posters are no longer on this board (hahaha.. that's kinda funny).
now that I have read the article (as I posted prior to reading it).. I'm with the woman in the article on this:
"What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
"I've had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn't be with them long term,' says Sarah. -- I can so relate. There were more than a few men in my life that I knew I wouldn't be anything more than just FBs (fuck buddies) with due to us being different on this view. They wanted kids, I did not. Thankfully I have a man who has kids so he is totally understanding about my desire to not want any for all my varied reasons (one being environmental).
Perry
09-11-2008, 06:12 AM
I like that woman. I think I would feel guilty having kids, too. There are just so many already.
miabella
09-23-2008, 12:29 AM
i like the human race. i'm pretty glad there are 'so many kids already'. means humanity will continue on, not a bad thing at all. funny how some people want other animal species to propagate, but not their own.
GoldCoastGirl
09-23-2008, 12:55 AM
miabella ^^ http://www.worldometers.info/population/
I don't think we will be dying out anytime soon. Of course we will continue on! Fuck.. with 6 billion + and more constantly being born practically every second somewhere in this wide world... ah... yeah... of damn course I want other animal species to have a chance.
We kinda need the biodiversity to exist. Thus the reason why not everyone "should" be having babies. We need other animals to propagate in order for ourselves to ultimately survive. Plus the flora.
miabella
09-23-2008, 01:28 AM
we are not overpopulated. even the brown/black/yellow people who have all the babies that are being referred to when overpopulation comes up are not having ten babies apiece-- more like 2-4, very comfortable, non-insane population maintenance numbers.
where women are having 5-10 kids, it's usually a war zone, again not a situation where the population is going to get 'too large'.
humans are pretty tightly contained. most of the world is NOT populated with humans, even if they've walked around on it. our actions are drops in an ancient bucket that is well able to deal with a variety of species outcomes.
biodiversity is not at risk, if you really believe in evolution and natural selection and chaos theory. new species will turn up to replace what's lost and learn to thrive in the newer, stranger conditions.
for pitys' sake, there's bacteria that can survive the vacuum of deep freaking space. how awesome is that?!
i think the earth's flora and fauna will overcome any losses due to humans, since we are part of the framework, not interlopers. our impact on the ecosphere is just as natural as any other animals'.
krystalpink
09-29-2008, 12:44 PM
i think the earth's flora and fauna will overcome any losses due to humans, since we are part of the framework, not interlopers. our impact on the ecosphere is just as natural as any other animals'.
And if it doesn't overcome the losses due to humans??
No I think as humans it's time we take some responsibility and thought about something other then ourselves for a change.. ::)
I understand the couple in the article. Being childfree is a big decision, and it seems like it becomes a very public one when a woman wants to be sterilized. While the public at large can understand why someone would have 3, 4, 5, 10 kids, it becomes unthinkable to not have children at all. You are considered heartless or defective.
Choosing to not procreate for the sake of the Earth makes sense. It makes much more sense than choosing to have 18 kids just to see if you can run out of "J" names before your uterus explodes like an overinflated balloon. However, the Duggars get their own tv special and childfree people are made to feel like second-class citizens.
To be fair, there are too many people on this planet. The ecosystem was not designed to sustain this much human life, and it is only due to radical farming techniques that we have skirted along the brink of mass starvation this long. We over-farm, over-hunt, over-develop, overbreed, and overfeed, much to the detriment of other species. In light of this, being childfree to save the planet is a logical step for those who worry about (but don't want their genes to run around in) the future.
ScarletPhoenix
09-29-2008, 05:07 PM
She is a flippin NUT! We all stop having children, our species dies off.
What's so great about our species?
VegasPrincess
09-29-2008, 06:55 PM
I would love a permanent form of birth control, but I too have been told to wait til I'm thirty. Like something will magically change in four years and I will want kids.
I also wish my boyfriend would get a vasectomy bc its so much less of an invasive procedure for men, but it freaks him out. Right, I should keep pumping my body full of hormones for the next twenty five years, thats better... Jerk.
VegasPrincess
09-29-2008, 07:44 PM
^^^
off to google I dont even know what that is!
Looks awesome, do you really have had a baby to get it though?
Nope. No babies for me, got it at Planned Parenthood for $100. Going on 2 years with it. Best 100 I ever spent.
VegasPrincess
09-29-2008, 08:33 PM
^^^
Thanks I must look into that! That would be perfect and I like that there is no estrogen.
lmiller22134
09-26-2009, 01:33 PM
It pisses me off when people talk about how smart people need to reproduce.
Consider these two situations:
1) I house-sat for a famed surgeon and his wife who had a Master's. He had a 17-year old son who was the human equivalent of a pet rock and could not be trusted to house-sit. The kid was a spoiled little shit who was given a Mercedes for graduation, held pot parties at his house, left rolling papers in plain view, and flunked out of college. Occasioanlly he'd get grounded by taking his car away, which never lasted. Yep, the world needs more people like him. His high-IQ parents did a GREAT job raising him.
2) The famed neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was born to an illiterate mother in ghetto Detroit. Despite being born into this, his mother enforced schoolwork and curtailed TV. Even though she couldn't read his papers, she'd still go over his homework and make checkmarks. However, he went on to Yale and Johns Hopkins and became a successful neurosurgeon. Should his "stupid" mom not have bred?
What we need are GOOD PARENTS who are up to raising children to be upstanding people.
Being illiterate because you grew up without the opportunity to get an education does not make you stupid...
I think that it is disgusting for people to have 18 kids like the crazy Duggars in Arkansas.
THOSE are the types of people i would consider stupid...not someone who can't read because of poverty and segregation. Clearly the neurosurgeons mother wasn't stupid if she encouraged him to do well in school and such. A stupid mother wouldn't give a shit what her kid does.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 03:16 PM
I am sorry but I have to disagree. Having eighteen kids does not make you stupid. It simply says that you are enthusiastic about parenthood. There is nothing wrong with having eighteen kids if you can afford to take care of them well.
I've seen a few arguments here that I disagree with. First, that the Earth can support many more of us. It can't. The ocean's food chains are collapsing, and a large amount of global protein comes from the ocean. This protein is used not only for people, but also as feed for domesticated animals. The rainforests are being destroyed to create farms and pastures, but the soil there is so nutrient poor that little can grow on it beyond a few years.
Second, that biodiversity can adapt. Sure it can, if we have a few million years to wait. In the meantime, if the human race survives at all, it will be in a much less beautiful world.
Third, that mother nature will adjust. I believe this. The adjustment will come in the form of new epidimics, famine, water scarcity and increased natural disasters.
Sorry for the lengthy and gloomy post, however this is a subject that I feel strongly about.
Sad Sally
09-27-2009, 09:03 PM
Firstly, yes that article is totally biased against the couples not wanting kids. Poor journalism. Secondly, if doctors had just listened to her requests for sterilization to begin with she never would have had to have an abortion. Thirdly, just because someone has the opinion, Miabella that less children would help with over population (a sound arguement) doesn't mean you should suggest they commit suicide. If I were a moderator I'd kick you ass off this bored. >:(
Elvia
09-27-2009, 09:14 PM
^^^ this thread is extremely old. Maybe we don't need to raise an issue over a post made 1-2 years ago.
JayATee
09-27-2009, 10:53 PM
^^ Yeah would make sense to look at the thread dates before responding.
Cyril
09-29-2009, 04:52 PM
The issue at hand is still valid. So the date of origin of this thread is irrelevant.
Elvia
09-30-2009, 12:49 AM
yeah Cyril, we know you would love to see a fight start over digging up an extremely old comment, but those of us who aren't so into trolling (and understand that's not the purpose of this site) would rather not. Don't worry, you're perfectly capable of starting a bunch of pointless shit all on your own.
Cyril
09-30-2009, 03:14 PM
yeah Cyril, we know you would love to see a fight start over digging up an extremely old comment, but those of us who aren't so into trolling (and understand that's not the purpose of this site) would rather not. Don't worry, you're perfectly capable of starting a bunch of pointless shit all on your own.
I am sorry you feel that way. But hopefully you will see the wisdom one day.