Digg

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Want To Go Green? Have Fewer Children

chicagotribune.com — There are dozens of ways to go green; however, one study proposes a controversial option for families to minimize their carbon footprint.

Bury

acmaurer 84 days ago, made popular 83 days ago

1029 diggs
digg it

474 Comments
Who Dugg It?

ColonelTribune, on 08/27/2008, -16/+34Should we follow China's lead?
- D14BL0, on 08/27/2008, -18/+9Hey there, Post Tribune shill. Welcome to digg.
  
  Quit commenting. Quit digging. Quit submitting.
- OneLess, on 08/28/2008, -6/+20Probably not, but it wouldn't hurt for people to voluntarily have fewer children. I've always thought adoption was a better option anyway since there's so many children out there already without homes.
  - kingmanic, on 08/28/2008, -6/+12Actually it would hurt. The best and the brightest tend to make this decision so for the future of "the west" we need to reverse this trend else we eliminate the top parts of our cultural and genetic pool.
    
    PS. Adoption of little babies is easy, very few get left out. The ones that due tend to be the ones with disabilities or problems like FAS. The older adoptees as well. Few people want these children.
  - demosthenes247, on 08/28/2008, -3/+1I agree with kingmanic about it potentially hurting the human race overall, Idiocracy anyone?
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3@kingmanic:
    
    "Brightness" is only partially genetic. If you want to fill the world with brighter kids, become a teacher.
  - philipl411, on 08/28/2008, -3/+4What? Euro-Americans are having FEWER babies. Mexican-American or African-American are having babies like there is no tomorrow. Hell look at Obama's brothers and sisters. His mom had two kids which is the national average, but dad kids are still being found to this day. Obama's dad may have had 10, 15, even more?
  - OneLess, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2This is all very Time Machine.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine
  - Stevethegreat, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4There is no such thing as "intelligent gene", sorry idiocracy got it wrong. The top tier of human societies is just that, people who where raised with the privilege of good education and upbringing. Of course not to discount the genetic influence t, but even that it is being dwindled very rapidly as soon as a couple of generations lived amidst the "top tier" part of the society. It has been shown again and again with minorities imigrating on the most advanced nations (by average IQ).
    
    So -no- there is no such thing as good parents have good kids, rather than good conditions of upbringing (better nutrition mostly) makes more intelligent people (even measured by average IQ). Thus don't worry about "messing" with the gene pool it was happening all the time during history and it continues to happen. After all most modern Europeans (and Caucasian Americans as a matter of fact) are descendants of those that shacked the Roman empire, those that were called barbarian hordes and I'm sure they were not named as such for their philosophers and scientists. Yet they became cultured and now they produce the best of intellectuals (their descendants I mean)....
  - kingmanic, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1HonestAbe:"Brightness" is only partially genetic. If you want to fill the world with brighter kids, become a teacher."
    
    Environment plays a factor too. The genetic component isn't marginal but neither is it total. Thus you provide both components when you have kids while you provide a small slice of one if you teach and only one slice if you adopt.
    
    As well the pool for adoption is not as great as many imagine. All the cute little "perfect" babies get adopted very fast while the not so perfect are the ones remaining. The FAS children, those with problems, or the older ones. If you have the compassion and patience then adoption works for those children. Generally people don't.
  - Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1@PhilipI411:
    Fly in the Euro-Americans-having-fewer-babies ointment: Mormons.
    Now, Europeans...yeah, they're having fewer babies. But take a wander through your local Costco if you want to see evidence of rampant off-the-hook breeding.
- vypergts, on 08/28/2008, -1/+11Meh, the Chinese weren't the first. Jonathan Swift was ahead of his time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
  - elizabethb221, on 08/28/2008, -1/+9Eating babies has always been my favorite population control option!
    
    Yum!
  - josephbloseph, on 08/28/2008, -2/+3 * "Hey Debbie, I have something for you."
    
    [Debbie] "What is it?"
    "A book."
    [Debbie] "What's the book?"
    "A Modest Proposal."
    [Debbie] "By whom?"
    "Johnathon Swift."
    [Debbie] "And what is the book about?"
    Long pause "Eating babies..."
  - revjustin2, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3Please, please, please, tell me that y'all are aware that that A Modest Proposal is satire. Please.
    
    You never know here on Digg.
  - Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Word to revjustin2.
    A Modest Proposal is a satire in bold type.
- TVarmy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+9I don't think it should be legally enforced, as that's pretty close to fascism in my mind. It's just as bad, if not worse, than trying to outlaw abortion, birth control, morning after pills, or sodomy. I'm not a libertarian, but even I am disgusted at the government trying to take control of people's reproductive rights.
  
  I think what's a better idea is public education and PSAs on the issue. The expense of a child is a major issue that effects individuals, and it's also a problem for the whole when overpopulation stretches resources thin and batter social services with too much demand. This seems like something both sides could agree on, as it discourages unprotected sex and encourages people to be smart about family planning (Not as in, getting abortions, but waiting until they're at the right point in life to support a child). There would be less abortions, as the concern about the impact of having a child would be enough to motivate people to either abstain or use proper birth control.
  
  Personally, I'd say I'm for adoption, but I can't say I'd never have a kid of my own. I'd probably keep to two kids or less, though, because I think we're at the point where we don't need to keep exceeding the replacement rate.
  - edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4There's also a freedom of religion issue here. Many religious sects including Catholicism shun birth control. Not saying said doctrines are correct, just saying that making it illegal to have more than X amount of children would open up a can of worms.
  - Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1We can avoid encouraging it, as a society.
    Right now, parents can take tax deductions for each child they have. If the government were to issue a policy along the lines of, "We'll give you tax breaks up to your second child. After that, you're on your own."
    No coercion, no alienation, fair and equitable judgment. Maybe if they want to make concessions, they can continue the tax breaks if the couple volunteer to get their tubes tied and/or pledge to adopt or foster a kid later on.
- executorzz, on 08/28/2008, -7/+7no
- PhilliesBlunt, on 08/28/2008, -6/+1Yes
  
  Next question.
- whorunbartertwn, on 08/28/2008, -3/+3Watch China in a decade or so when the one child policy really starts to be a kick in the ass for their workforce, it'll make the worker/retiree ratio problem in the United States look like something to envy.
  
  In a country where most elderly parents live with their children even the home-life of most couples caring for four grandparents in their home could become a burden.
  - roodammy44, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2You're right there.
    That's why they're expanding their economic control so much right now
- ieee, on 08/28/2008, -4/+4No.
  
  We aren't as bad off as China. We can get by with education rather the harsh laws they need.
- dropbox, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6The simple truth is the world is becoming increasing overpopulated and the environmental impact isn't the biggest side effect. America alone is getting to the point where we can't build schools quick enough. This leaves only two possible solutions, space colonization or limiting children to two per couple (regardless of sexuality). So either way, we are going to spread out among the stars or simply replace the existing population with each generation.
  
  That is unless something catastrophic happens to limit our numbers; a world wide plague or war for instance.
  - dropbox, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3You can digg me down all you want, but it's not going to change the facts. You can't fill a jar of a fixed size with an infinite amount of marbles -- it-is-just-not-possible. The only option is to stop pouring them in or find another container.
  - PhilliesBlunt, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3I'll dig you up all I want.
    
    You know, we asign all forms of population control theories to animals, and come up with plausible reasons to do so. Yet we never apply the same logic to ourselves.
    
    There was a particularly brilliant Calvin and Hobbes strip about it once, wish I could find it.
- Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1I don't think we need to be that drastic, and as we can see (via their air quality index) that it didn't work anyway.
  One easy benchmark to remember is ZPG's maxim, "Replace yourself."
  If you have parents that keep harping on you to "give them grandchildren," give them a couple, then they have no cause to complain.
  If you want more, foster or adopt, to make up for the idiots who don't want to listen to reason and just keep poppin' 'em out.
  With a "one birth per death" average, together with the efforts of those of us who opted out of the reproduction rigamarole, the population growth will level off and slowly, manageably taper down. Plummeting population growth is just as catastrophic as out-of-control upward spiral. Spikes in either direction are bad.
- LOPposse, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, Europeans are being socially selected against and will be replaced by other races that aren't imposing social pressures to limit children.
tonaros, on 08/27/2008, -25/+210What the ***** is controversial about NOT HAVING SO MANY DAMN KIDS??
- SeventhSon, on 08/27/2008, -9/+10I don't know, maybe the traits that evolution has passed on so well, such as have as many kids as you can?
  - fluxion, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1but nature is okay with the whole "increase population as much as possible until that population can no longer be sustained and end up dying off in huge numbers till equilibrium is reached" approach.
    
    for humans that would kind of suck. better that we anticipate that equilibrium in advance rather than reaching that inevitable point of starvation and strife.
- meuse, on 08/28/2008, -10/+107There's nothing controversial about saying white families should have fewer children. It's a very politically correct thing to say.
  
  But try saying that single black women on welfare should have fewer children, and you'll invite the moral indignation of the politically correct.
  - Hosalabad, on 08/28/2008, -7/+28Well said.
  - MysticSavage, on 08/28/2008, -3/+59Like Chris Rock said "Bitch, stop *****!! Put the dick down!"
  - DreKor, on 08/28/2008, -25/+25*****. Race has nothing to do with it. Everyone, regardless of color, should live within their means and that, in turn, will reduce overall consumption. If you haven't figured it out yet, kids are ***** expensive.
  - xadious, on 08/28/2008, -28/+12The people who complain about PC are usually people who can't get away with racist insults like they used to, so instead of realising they're the problem, they love to throw around how the world has "gone insane with PC".
  - diceau, on 08/28/2008, -2/+24You can't be serious. We complain about PC because it gets taken to extremes and it's biased. As Bill Maher once made note of, when you say women are stronger than men, everyone cheers, but when you say men are stronger than women, everyone boos. That's bias anchored as far from reality as possible.
    
    The popular media and political correctness must die, neither are serving their purpose.
  - FTWmovin2canada, on 08/28/2008, -5/+13Because it isn't fair to single out a race. The issue may be correlated to race but the root cause is the social, economic, and educational shortcomings.
    
    If you just say "Families with lower education levels in low income situations should take more care to plan the decision to have children" then you come across as less ignorant and actually address the real issue.
  - Evilena, on 08/28/2008, -4/+21A single black women on welfare should have fewer children.
    Bring on the moral indignation of the politically correct.
  - CrazyZ, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6I wish I could digg you up 1000+
  - kuatto, on 08/28/2008, -4/+7what about the mexicans?
  - nmnnotmyname, on 08/28/2008, -2/+2A lot of people who are (would've been?) 'oppressed' (Just because your parents or grandparents were does not mean anything, either. My mother was beaten - I'm still not an abuse victim...) take advantage of the whole PC situation. Though singling out a certain race is racist, and there IS some minor racism going on, people can't continue to be so bitchy when there were no bad intentions or as if they're never wrong. People must stop raising their children to be racist against other races - or at least avoid the issue. (And that applies to everyone...)
  - Blandyman, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2FTWmovin2canada:
    
    --If you just say "Families with lower education levels in low income situations should take more care to plan the decision to have children" then you come across as less ignorant and actually address the real issue.--
    
    But how many of them would understand what you said?
    
    Problem is, you say whites are better than blacks, everyone gets pissed. Blacks are better than whites, everyone has a party. Women are stronger than men, parades are all over the streets. Men are stronger than women, misogynistic is the word.
    
    But what happens when you say everyone's equal? Anyone?
    
    NOTHING. WE ALL JUST SIT AROUND SCRATCHING OUR GENITALS GOING "Yeah, I guess you're right." But NOBODY spreads it out to everyone! It's always one extreme or another. Either they're the BEST or the WORST. No in-between, that's for chumps! Martin Luther King tried it and NOTHING happened. Why? Because people did nothing.
    
    Yeah, I'm ranting, but I hope it's understood... by just agreeing and not taking a radical stance on "WE'RE ALL THE SAME!" we continue retarded things like racism, sexism, and homophobia.
- sgtawol, on 08/28/2008, -14/+45I think a pre-requisite to going on welfare should be snippy snippy for both mom and dad.
  - Coffeedemon, on 08/28/2008, -8/+26Nice... will you be reading from Class-Based Eugenics at the local rally?
  - P1um, on 08/28/2008, -6/+9*cringe*
  - Hetman, on 08/28/2008, -5/+17It is not about Eugenics. It is about having only as many kids as you can afford to take care of. Most people who are rich tend to have less kids. Does that not ruin your whole Eugenics argument?
  - VintageMud, on 08/28/2008, -6/+22Where is he wrong? I mean seriously, if you can't afford to support yourself, how can you afford to support kids?
  - bratterscain, on 08/28/2008, -4/+14VintageMud, because snipping lasts a lifetime whereas welfare sometimes doesn't. Though I'd agree that if you can't finance kids, you shouldn't be having them.
  - MattB123, on 08/28/2008, -2/+18I think something less permanent, like birth control would be a better solution but it would be a touchy subject.
    Permanently sterilizing someone who may be have fallen on hard times temporarily does not seem reasonable.
  - sgtawol, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4Point taken that a permanent solution is not the correct amount of force in this situation. The procedure is reversible for men though isn't it?
    
    I can't agree with using birth control though as birth control is already available for free or very inexpensively for low income families. It's obviously not working.
  - BrainInAJar, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4sgtawol: vasectomy has a terrible reversal rate. Tubal ligation has a much better rate of reversal
    
    Also that vasectomy increases testicular cancer risk
    
    OT, but just thought I should point it out
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Or the pill.
    
    http://www.malecontraceptives.org/
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Or if they have kids while supported by the state, the kids become the property of the state. That'll get them to use contraception.
  - Blandyman, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3That would get them to snag a job, get pregnant, take maternity leave because they're still getting paid by their job AND by the state (because there's a minimum income to no longer need welfare) and then they just toss the baby to the tracks when it's out.
    
    Not that many people would do this, but it seems like a horrible idea.
    
    Idea: Mandatory, monthly birth control injections when you go to pick up your welfare check if you have two children or more already. Similar to the under-the-skin pill that women can get, that works for up to 3 months, except in a less potent fashion, to only work for one month, so not to cause long-term problems.
    
    It'd be a little dystopian, but if it's necessary, it should be done.
- Willy99, on 08/28/2008, -24/+6Be fruitful and multiply - is good advice. One's treasure in life is where the heart is, and kids make the heart sing with joy. And fill it with sorrows too. It goes hand in hand. Your concerns about the planet are to be honest, are a bunch of self absorbed, prideful arrogance. Find solace in knowing - you know less than God.
  - kayala, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7I know more than all fairy-tale creatures.
  - bratterscain, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4First part of your argument is opinion, as for the latter, there's so much wrong with it, I don't even know where to begin.
  - KSUdesigner, on 08/28/2008, -1/+6Actually I know more than God, because God is just a figment of your imagination.
  - FLUX, on 08/28/2008, -9/+2you forget that liberalism allows all religions but Christianity were evil and the cause of all human suffering. Then you have the so called we smarter than all you atheists who reject all religions but their own that they refuse to admit is a religion
  - TheInfamousOne, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5When i came in this story i was so going to say this with a /sarcasm tag.
    You beat me too it, although i think you forgot your tag......
  - Ladycomet, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4That comment made me want to put a gun in my mouth.
  - drgmdp, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4That comment made me want to put a gun in your mouth
  - kayala, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Flux: "liberalism" founded the society in which we live, you sorry buffoon. All religions are allowed here; when was the last time stormtroopers burst into your home while you were in mid-prayer and carted you off to a prison cell because you were talking to the wrong imaginary friend? You're just upset because Christianity doesn't get any special privileges to practice its nastier aspects without fear of consequences.
    As for atheism, I think it's quite obvious that everybody thinks their worldview is the correct one, and for each person, it is, because each person has a unique perspective. Christians think Buddhists are wrong, atheists think Hindus are wrong... it happens, you either put on your big girl panties and deal with it or throw temper tantrums whenever you're questioned about why you believe in this one particular imaginary friend but not another. Atheists are not religious people. Religion implies a belief in the supernatural, in deities from other dimensions, and describe an appropriate way of interacting with these supernatural creatures. Atheists do not waste their time giving credence to this nonsense, and therefore do not have a religion.
    Sometimes I wonder if people like you really, truly believe the things that you say.
- rv361162, on 08/28/2008, -17/+7The ***** reason it's controversial is that it limits your FAMILY size. Why the ***** do you want to limit the size of how many children I wish to have.
  
  This is a slippery slope. If you try to "encourage" and then "enforce" how many children I have, then you will force my wife to abort my 3rd child because some "genius" spouting off ***** says I can only have 2 children.
  
  If you support this, you go down the slippery slope of controlling every aspect of life. And yes, tanaros, you can kiss my ass if you think YOU or anyone else has the right to control my life.
  - kayala, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13This is a slippery-slope fallacy. Fallacies are generally not regarded favorably.
    It's not that anyone wants to actually forcefully stop you from having more than two or three kids. Your overemotional overreaction is completely unnecessary; it's merely a suggestion. Some people a little more cool-headed and rationally-minded might take this advice and choose to have three children instead of eight. We're already hovering around the "seven billion people on this planet" mark; do we really need so many more?
    TL;DR
    Control yourself. Emotional outbursts do not do you any good.
  - sodade, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Actually, if we could just limit this ONE ***** FACTOR, we could all have more freedoms. The bottom line is that every kid you spit out has a negative effect on all our freedoms. Beyond that, a world with 1/5 of the population could actually solve the problems we face.
  - FTWmovin2canada, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3This is how China started it. First it was encouraged. Then it was a tax if you had too many. Then it was a big deal. They had to ease it onto the population slowly.
    
    Don't worry, I'm sure we're due for another epidemic that is going to reduce the world's population a fair amount.
  - BrainInAJar, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4FTWmovin2canada :
    
    Actually it's still just a fine in China... there's no forced abortions or whatever hairbrained jingoistic anti-communist propaganda you've been fed by vindictive authority figures.
    
    Rich Chinese that still want > 1 child just pay the fine and continue
- ZeeZee2k, on 08/28/2008, -16/+4How about this, you cannot have a child unless you're married?
  - kayala, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4I'd like to see you enforce that.
  - drgmdp, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2what if you want to have a kid but you think that marriage is a stupid, out of time tradition?
- harrisbradley, on 08/28/2008, -17/+17It's not controversial to not have so many kids. Its controversial to tell someone to not have kids for stupid reasons like this, when we can reduce our carbon footprint in many other ways. I have four kids, and we recycle, I carpool to work, I work with organizations that helps clean up the environment. Not bragging at all, just giving a simple example of what (IMO) is a better alternative to limiting your children if you goal is being green.
  - AchaIemoipas, on 08/28/2008, -1/+12Your 4 kids will go on to have 10 kids, those will go on to have 20.
    
    Your recycling water bottles doesn't even come close.
    
    We're overpopulated by 4 billion people.
  - axiomflash, on 08/28/2008, -2/+12You don't get the ***** point do you?
    All of your 4 kids are going to spend their lifetimes consuming. Creative twice as much waste and taking up twice as much space as you and your wife.
  - BrainInAJar, on 08/28/2008, -4/+5Yeah, you like your crotch droppings, we get that.
    
    Your "better" alternative, as has been pointed out, doesn't even begin to offset the effects of you having a swarm of children. Telling people "maybe limit yourself to 2" for the sake of the future isn't controversial
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -4/+5Does anyone know how many foreign children will starve to death as a result of harrisbradley having 4 kids? There's gotta be some studies done on this.
  - themapleleaf, on 08/29/2008, -0/+0Why did those foreigners have so many kids they couldn't afford to feed them? It isn't his fault that they were careless and probably didn't care about how their kids would find food. He is a responsible father who could afford to have 4 kids so he did, and fed them on his own earnings. His children's children will probably be fed by their parents as well, could you say the same about those foreign children's children? Or will they still be asking for handouts at your expense?
- pinchduck, on 08/28/2008, -0/+12Same reason that limiting your speech, right to assemble, or to buy and sell property is controversial: It takes away a basic human right from the individual and gives it to an easily corruptible body (any government office).
  - penkwin, on 08/28/2008, -2/+3Are we proposing legislation? No. Are we proposing responsibility? Yes.
- kerosion, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1I've long had an idea tickling at the base of my brain-stem that the differing educations offered to children around the world are at the core of many of the problems we face.
  
  When someone has lived their entire life with the model that it is morally right to have as many children as possible, because any form of sex not for the intent of having children is wrong, or birth-control is wrong, there is going to be a strong probability of perpetuating this belief. Especially when alternative outlooks have rarely if ever been presented, and critical thinking has not been encouraged in the individual.
  
  This same scenario where alternative outlook, and critical thinking skills are suppressed, can be rehashed to instill the message that Western cultures are decadent and many of societies ills stem from their actions. That the only way to live a morally just life is to strive against the West and somehow things will be easier for your descendants.
  
  I really don't understand why many of the problems we face aren't met with some form of educational aspect geared toward children.
- billbugger, on 08/28/2008, -6/+5Proven fact: The most polluting thing a single person (rather 2 people ) and produce ever in their life is another person.
  
  Anyone see this? http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/Mag1/humanfootpri ...
- whiteguysamurai, on 08/28/2008, -5/+8It pisses the religious crowd off.
  Have lot's of kids, ***** up the planet..... then Jesus comes and makes everything OK!
  - fluxion, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2i can imagine the scene...
    
    "My children! I have come to save you....omg...wtf did you guys do?! i can't fix this *****!"
- pearcewg, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7Well, a few controversial items:
  
  1. who gets to decide who is allowed to have them and not?
  2. why is someone else allowed to decide that for you?
  3. what happens if something goes wrong? what defines a kid?
  4. what is the value of a child? Do both genders count the same?
  5. what if the parents divorce and remarry. does the number effect 2nd marraiges?
  6. what if other countries don't follow the rules?
  7. what if the rule is discriminatory against different ethnic groups? just because causasian americans think that way doesn't mean it is right
  8. we need the labor...do we continue to import people?
  
  I could think of many more; these are just examples. Not mine, per se, just examples.
- Lonergan, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1Hypocrisy is the problem in telling people not to have kids. Hypocrisy from whatever group is preaching sex on demand, any time any where with anything that moves. Regardless of one's social or moral leanings, not to mention religious views, the media and Western society as a whole has been preaching free love for 40 years now. Sex is UNLEASHED! SET FREE! from the confines of marriage. That is, SEX! is natural and no one should be denied their natural animalistic right to have it when they want it, from casual partners to porn to whatever. Do it do it do it! I'd bet there are fewer than 50 people on this site who would disagree with this. By that I mean, fewer than 50 people who believe that sex is meant to be in marrige only with one person blah blah blah.
  
  If this is so, if sex ought to be free and open like our evolutionary ancestors and brethren (read all other animals) then what crazy logic can one clearly argue against the NATURAL and ANIMALISTIC rights and desires of procreating which is the driving force behind sex? Locked in our DNA is the drive to mass produce. This is the reason sex is so sought after. That desire is ingrained in us ONLY to reproduce. If we have let the beast out, if we have set it free in permitting everyone to just do it on demand, then why can't we also live by the other instincts? One can't begin placing social constraints on certain drives and instincts while denying social empirical data while hyping up other social empirical data and urging what amounts to brutal contraints.
  
  In effect, if this is a left-leaning social agenda, they can't have it both ways. Free sex = free reproduction. The power to do it means the power to create it and by all accounts legally the power to kill it.
  
  No one can tell anyone else what they can and can't do with their bodies. PERIOD. That ship has sailed. Bodies and government intervention is a 1950's and earlier phenomenon. "Government stay out of my bedroom!" we heard! "Government leave my womb alone!" we read! So be it then! From abortion to procreation, the Government must be neutral.
  
  If people want to do away with welfare, then lobby congress to change the rules!
  - Garlyc, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1So should this also include our natural instincts to kill? Other animals defend their young, food supplies and homes to the death.
    
    So if your above statements ring true, then our instincts to murder, kill, rape, pillage and otherwise look out only ourselves and our own, should also be recognized and accepted.
    
    But guess what -- they arent! and why you ask? Because we are logical intelligent beings that have learned self control and through a series of laws and legislation we attempt to curb our natural instincts. So through the same intelligence, why cant we use unnatural means, such as contraceptives to curb this instinct?
  - Lonergan, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1In response to Garlyc:
    
    You mix two points and come up with erroneous arguments based on a fallacy which you attempt to mingle with hard fact.
    
    Do animals have a natural tendency to "DEFEND" yes!! And so should we and we should never be barred from this. Hence the US' SECOND AMENDMENT. There would be no need to carry firearms if everyone was gentle and peace-loving. The fact that this reality is not true requires measures of self defense. Carrying a weapon is a means of such self defense and it is permissable by law. Such as animals in the wild defend themselves.
    
    There are no instincts to rape and murder, nor pillage. There are instincts to have sex, to kill for food and kill when in danger. All such acts are permissable in all countries. There is no discussing these points we agree! We breed and kill animals, we permit hunting. Killing to eat happens every second of every day and is legal! Killing to kill, even in the animal kingdom is seen as off in most cases. The vast majority of animals NEVER kill unless prompted by danger disease or prey. Murder doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. It is a disinctly human failing. So is rape and pillaging. Nothing about it is "natural." Your argument is flawed baseless and factless.
    
    However, you rightly claim we are logical intelligent beings that have learned self control. The problem is that society has argued that we are at our base, animals that have needs and desires and that the government should have no say in how such acts and desires are played out so long as they don't hurt anyone else. It is the liberal libertarian point of view! We don't NEED self control when it comes to sex, in fact, NO self control is the
    ideology du jour! Hell not just of the day, but of the entire last half century! We can have sex as much as we want with who we want how we want any time we want. There are NO reprocussions because even if contraception is not used, women are permitted to have an abortion. The consequences save for STD's and perhaps interralational hardships are ZERO should someone choose to terminate the pregnancy. This is THE LAW! Because of this, all self constraints, all need for learned logical self control have been legally abandonned. Championed by the left ages ago and lived by both right and left today. Yet, just like the actual act of copulation, the very natural act of having children should come with the same free reign as it has in ALL OTHER AGES before it and for ALL OTHER CREATURES. What right does anyone have to tell me or anyone else I should curb my enthusiasm for children. I don't curb anyone's enthusiasm for sex or abortions! Stay outta my bedroom, stay outta my womb! The mantra lives on and can't be diluted by ignorance and hypocrisy.
    
    So, in the case of sex, sex is fine so long as the other person is consenting. Sex all day long every day in any way! So long as the other person is consenting (and able to consent, therefore kids and animals are generally off the list of most sane countries). Life is terminable so long as it exists in the mother, this is the law in most countries. Until the creature breaths it's own O2 it ain't a person. The government turns a blind eye to it all. Given this, the government is in no position to tell people they can't have children. They've set the precedent in all other forms of sex and procreation that they don't have a say. They can't come down hard on the final object of it all.
    
    What they can do is refuse social assistance to people and in so doing, indirectly curb procreation. This could be spun to be conforming to a plan, the government and medical plans both cover abortions and delivery care. Once the kid is out, it is the parent's responsibility. This is the only way to fly outside of hypocrisy and it is the only way to fly if one wants to avoid going backwards in terms of fornication and abortion laws. Limit the right to procreate and the arguments by even a halfway retarded lawyer will be sufficient to turn back the clock and permit the Government access into our bedrooms once again.
- hiikeeba, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Are you going to decide how many is too many? Here's an idea to be green: Only have one TV. Have only one phone. Have only one car.
- pilgrim3970, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2because it really isn't any of your business how many kids another family chooses to have.
- tobikow, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Want to go green? commit suicide!
wrxpert, on 08/27/2008, -14/+83I wish people would more often consider not having children or just having less children.
- thePhallex, on 08/28/2008, -3/+16Seriously. Not trying to put blame in one area, but I've noticed lots of religious families have waaaaaaaaayyy to many babies, and for what?
  - ThaDRD, on 08/28/2008, -4/+20Because its easier to indoctrinate a child into a religion than it is to go out and try to recruit/convince people to convert. Children are automatic members of whatever church their parents are members of.
  - naner, on 08/28/2008, -1/+12To increase the size of God's army!
  - sodade, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7It is social warfare - eventually, they will have enough voters to make abortion illegal. Then we'll all be *****.
  - CedarPark, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Who in this thread has kids? Let's see a show of hands.
  - edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Catholics shun birth control.
  - userperson, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1If we don't outbreed them, they win. /s
  - OdinThor, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1"Catholics shun birth control."
    
    That is a generalization. Not all Catholics shun birth control, it is the institutional Catholic Church that proscribes it.
    
    Do you think go-to-mass-every-Sunday Catholics like Michael Moore and Stephen Colbert (who is actually a Sunday school teacher) believe in shunning birth control? At the very least they don't believe in telling everybody else that it is wrong.
- VigRoco, on 08/28/2008, -4/+13I refuse to have children.
  - naner, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13And believe me when I say we all appreciate it.
  - VigRoco, on 08/28/2008, -0/+8They taste terrible anyway....
- leposava, on 08/28/2008, -3/+14I agree. I also notice something of a trend towards the most unsavory people being the ones who crank out the most.
  - edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -0/+7Yeah....this is the basis for the movie "idiocracy."
  - Kayakityak, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2The first 5 or so minutes of that movie are just perfect!!!
- roodammy44, on 08/28/2008, -0/+9I just wish stupid people would consider having less children
- joeanon, on 08/28/2008, -4/+11The type of people who bother to consider having children or not....are EXACTLY the type of people we need to breed more often not less often.
  
  The idiots who breed accidentally, they are the ones who need to stop with the children.
  
  I say we tax people harder if they go above a certain child number and if they can't afford it ***** EM we'll take their kids if they are so stupid they can't help but breed out of control and go into constant poverty.
  
  Think about it, if dumb people just breed like rabbits, they can destroy the country and under these dumb ***** anti-birth control Christian majority theological ***** laws the government can't enforce any population control other than raise the price of goods for everyone.
  
  So single child families are all helping to support the idiots with 6 kids and ***** jobs.
  
  There should be a government enforced negative to this lifestyle beside simply being a loser. The world has limited resources and having so many children forces other to have less so it effectively takes away another persons freedom and liberty when you take more than your share, especially in the sense of children because rarely do we just let a child starve in the streets. It becomes a public problem fairly quickly.
  
  Child license ? I mean, it's odd we need a license to drive but not to have children when in fact we need to drive to be able to afford the child. They can take your license away, wait until your poor and then take your kids away too. So I'm not sure you should have a legal right to limit someones ability to seek gainful employment and drivers licenses do just that without any proven advantage to a licensing program other than generating money for the state.
  
  To drive should be a right because you must be guaranteed a chance to at leas seek gainful employment and I can't see in America in many rural places that being possible without car. Which, is likely why we have so many unlicensed drivers and rather minor fines.
  
  How about we have national health care and if you have more than two kids you have to start paying the health costs.
  
  OR... we just ***** you on taxes for having too many children because every child is a drain on infrastructure.
  
  We definitely need to present some type of real negative stimulus to remind people having kids when you can't afford them is EVERYBODY'S problem.
  
  But on the same note.. if smart people would just have more kids, there would be less opportunities for dumb families to flourish. So... education education education.. make em smarter, but don't take away their desire to reproduce under the guise of energy conservation.
  
  Take it away under the guise of... your a ***** ***** for having 3 kids you can't afford you dumb slut. Get on birth control and get off welfare.
  
  Too many people are getting a free ride using their unregulated reproductive organs while people with real health problems and disabilities suffer because we 'can't afford' national health care.
  
  We can't afford all the leaches who barely work and have 5 children. We need to cut them loose, give them opportunities and if the fail too bad, we can build better orphanages, we can build GREAT orphanages. We can't make people into good parents. We can try to educate them, but you can't force them to be good parents.
  
  So, I believe we should be taking kids from parents more readily when the situations is clearly and constantly downhill.
  
  It's sad, but it's democracy and we need to do whats best for the whole not the radical religious or the super wealthy. Breeding smart people is what's best, and much more education is the most likely way to do that without some Fascist like master race system.
  
  A better unemployment office with career brokers and finance experts would be a great start. Then people who do actually have the desire could at least learn the path of least resistance, which without help might take them all their lives to not find.
  
  One of the reasons the rich do so well is because everything is setup and explained and presented in a way for them to succeed. You can't offer the masses all the luxuries of wealth, but you can offer them a fair shot at a career.
  
  The result is of course, less crime, more innovation, more productive workers and better parents because a parent with a healthy career will almost always do better and provide a better example than one without. Not just because of money, but because healthy careera make people happy and ***** jobs make people alcoholics and alcoholics are generally not the best parents. Lack of healthy careers is always a major wedge in many marriages or relationships which helps lead to single parent families.
  
  So in a Democracy, it's up to the smart people, to enforce some realistic limit on the dumb people or else share a unified fate to some degree such as constant deficit spending and mass ignorance as smart people are bred out of society by their own doing.
  
  I mean, *****, why have a kid in this mess of a world anyway. Ignorance is bliss and bliss is like sex and things like sex make people wanna *****. So ignorance is like sex fuel. Lets tax ignorance.
  - revjustin2, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4It's amazing that you had that many words inside you. Thanks for sneezing them out all over my Digg.
  - obamayomama, on 08/28/2008, -3/+0joeanon how about castration as a solution- can we start with you?
- lukas88, on 08/28/2008, -2/+9This message is very self defeating. All the socially conscious people have less kids which means less people predisposed to being socially conscious. What do you have then? People who don't give a ***** with kids who don't give a *****.
  
  Maybe it is not the total amount of people that is the problem, maybe it is the proportion of people who don't give a *****.
  
  America is not even close to being overcrowded, have kids as you see fit, just teach them how to live responsibly.
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Social consciousness is not genetic. If you want more kids to grow up socially conscious, become a teacher.
  - lukas88, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1You make a good point about being a teacher, but no one has the potential to effect the opinions and ideas of children more than their parents.
    
    And I don't think you can rule out social responsibility as being at least partially genetically determined. Predisposition to empathy can be tied to genetics, so in an indirect way, so can social responsibility and altruism. Basically, it would be premature to say that ANY behavior isn't at least partially determined by genetics.
  - Squidwalk, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I see what you're saying lukas88, and I agree with you that responsible people would try to teach these values to their kids, should they have them. But even very responsible adults and kids in the US produce a huge carbon footprint.
- forsight, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3ADOPT PPL
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2ADOPT PPL, PPL
  - userperson, on 08/28/2008, -2/+2Cool I'm not gonna bother with birth control anymore ... people can just adopt my kids. /s
    See... you just made things worse.
    Let the unclaimed children fend for themselves. /s
- Auxon, on 08/28/2008, -2/+2I wish you'd mind your own business.
- DrHoliday, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1If you've ever thought about the number of kids you have and the impact it has on the environment, then by all means go ahead and have tons of kids.
  
  We need (more of) you.
- enri, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Idiocracy
thankuvrylittle, on 08/27/2008, -23/+9Jeez...and everybody wonders why Obama is for abortion...
- bpotts, on 08/28/2008, -8/+6There is a big difference between not having children by using birth control and having an abortion after you already made the baby...
  - Narcism, on 08/28/2008, -6/+15Oh I understand. Killing thousands of sperm cells is okay. Killing ovules is okay. But as soon as the sperm enters an ovule and it's killed, it's murder? How many times does that cell have to reproduce until it's considered lifeful? 4 cells? 8 cells? 30?
  - JR__, on 08/28/2008, -1/+8Narcism, how dare you use logic! ;)
  - sdevinen, on 08/28/2008, -2/+2In some cases, abortion should always be considered a valid option, at any age! May be you should consider volunteering. to prove your point!
  - jamesdew, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3Narcism, that's pretty much exactly what I was going to post here, may you and your unfertilised children receive many diggs
  - SupremeBeing, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3Humans are just clumps of cells. I think that we should be allowed to eradicate those cells at anytime. They are just cells after all. No one will miss them.
- DreKor, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5I have never heard anyone, including him, make a pro-abortion argument.
  - bpotts, on 08/28/2008, -4/+1Nor an anti-abortion argument...
  - DreKor, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2I've heard plenty of anti-abortion arguments from lots of people.
  - TVarmy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6He is pro-choice, but that is hardly pro-abortion. Pro-choice means giving women the option to have a safe abortion. It does not mean encouraging people to have more abortions to keep the population in check. I guess if you cut out some euphemisms, he's pro-legalized-and-regulated-abortion-as-an-option.
- MattB123, on 08/28/2008, -1/+13Pro choice isn't necessarily pro abortion.
- Garlyc, on 08/28/2008, -0/+0to narcissm:
  
  okay wait just a damn minute...
  
  birth control does not kill ovules or sperm. sperm are slated to die anyways. they do it within the male gonads even. their life expectancy is severely limited and even more so outside of the human body... so that would be like saying masturbation is killing sperm. jeez louis. and pills dont kill ovules either. it simply restricts the release of said eggs into the womb each month.
  
  please please research before making ignorant comparisons.
populistless, on 08/27/2008, -13/+24because the way to save the world is to let the religious right have all the kids, sounds reasonable
- trogdor282, on 08/28/2008, -1/+9Heh, reminds me of Idiocracy. I'm just glad a large percentage of human bad choices have a negative impact on sperm count.
meuse, on 08/28/2008, -21/+56This is political correctness taken to ludicrous lengths. The native-born population in both Britain and the U.S. is breeding at below-replacement levels, and immigration is responsible for all growth. If the true goal of the environmentalists was to reduce carbon emissions, they would advocating limiting immigration.

Importing millions of highly-fertile immigrants from the developing world will increase the carbon footprint much, much more than convincing a few white families to have one fewer child will reduce it. That's just common sense. The true goal here is not to reduce the carbon footprint, but to reduce the European genetic footprint.
- IHaveIssues, on 08/28/2008, -10/+7How do you define "highly-fertile"?
  - Narcism, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6Close your eyes and open your mouth. I'll let you find out.
  - eryximachus, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Try your nation's census bureau or the UN demographics department. Fertility is a demographic measurement, within the context of the OP's argument.
- nastronomical, on 08/28/2008, -9/+17Your undeniable logic will fall on deaf ears.
  - kayala, on 08/28/2008, -8/+10You mean undeniable white supremacist mentality? meuse is well-known for his (or her) diatribes against people of other races.
  - fwertz, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3It's not supremacy at ***** all. It's totally true regardless on what nationality you are. This article, though stupid, obvious, and annoying, is true in that of more kids, means more consumption. Sure, we're the biggest consumers, but it's not us that need to lesser our amount of children. We do have a negative birthrate much like European nations and still manage to break even with immigration. From all nation/states mind you. If you put yourself in the shoe of a 3rd world patron, all you want is good health long life and prosperity. You'd dream of a life in America, whereas, we're trying to reverse your dreams to save the planet from warming. A concept that is probably totally native to you (as a third world patron). Which directly links the large majority of the world to this article. As more people want to consume in the poorer nations, they have more children. Why? Just about all of them are agricultural peoples whom rely on their direct descendants to work and create a living for the family. These few generations (because of short lifespan) will eventually start living longer and consuming more.
    
    So I'd stop worrying about child policy just in this country, and focus more on educating (which means somehow not going to war with. I know I know, tough...) other people of this world to try and stop this big bad "warming monster" together. And if you could, stop saying "carbon footprint". You're starting to make scientific issues you don't fully comprehend sound trendy, and albeit sound like my Aunt from Jersey. You don't want that.
- mchisari, on 08/28/2008, -17/+21
  "The true goal here is not to reduce the carbon footprint, but to reduce the European genetic footprint."
  
  The stormfront forums called, they want their racist paranoia back.
  - rex84, on 08/28/2008, -11/+7Al Sharpton called, he wants his race card back.
- kd36, on 08/28/2008, -3/+12You do realize that regardless of where your "highly fertile immigrants" are living they will still be contributing to the global carbon footprint. You point is only valid if you are looking to reduce the carbon produced by European/American counties.
  - frishack, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2No, because they won't have welfare taking care of all those children in the other countries.
  - meuse, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2FTA: "each child born in a rich country like Britain or the United States is likely to be responsible for 160 times as much carbon emitted as a child born in Ethiopia"
    
    When Ethiopians immigrate to US, the 160:1 ratio no longer holds, and the carbon footprint of their American-born children will be much closer to the American average than the Ethiopian average. They might not attain an Al Gore-sized carbon footprint, but they'll still be responsible for many times the emissions than had they been born in Ethiopia.
- xadious, on 08/28/2008, -11/+8George Galloway responds to people like you the best way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXOs7UvoVFQ
  
  "Native born", "European genetics", "indigenous brits" - you sound like a white supremacist paranoid about how all the "pure white race" is being wiped out.
  - meuse, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1There's no such thing as a "pure white race". I didn't use that term.
- trevorcarpenter, on 08/28/2008, -4/+10Thank you! We're brave enough to think we have the right to tell families not to have children, but not brave enough close or limit our borders.
  
  Have you seen the American Southwest? Over run, with Mexican immigrants. Have you talked with our British brethren? Over run, with immigrants.
- Samurai77, on 08/28/2008, -7/+3Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!!!!!!!! you fail at checking your data!
- blackdaisies, on 08/28/2008, -8/+1Screw the anti-immigrant motion. I'm an immigrant... folks came over (legally!) so i can have a better life. I think I've done well here and contributed my part. And I'm not "highly fertile" yet however it wouldn't be so bad to have 1 or 2 kids to cancel out the assholes of our current society.
- revjustin2, on 08/28/2008, -5/+4You bring up some interesting points, but you come off as a little two...well..White Supremest for me to be comfortable. Please move to Idaho and/or grow the ***** up.
  - revjustin2, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I guess Idahoians took offense.
- Speaking, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Not only that, but per person emmissions in large families are almost always much lower, the solutions is for some people to have no kids, and those that do to have a ton.
- Dalhectar, on 08/28/2008, -2/+2It must be so hard being a white man in this country. I pray for you daily.
  
  /s
meuse, on 08/28/2008, -10/+5Similar thread from a month ago:

Should Parents Stop at two Children to Save the World?
http://digg.com/environment/Should_Parents_Stop_at ...
stonebear, on 08/28/2008, -3/+18Good luck with that.
- jzuska, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3i'm doin my part.
  
  Zero.
  - BeardDob, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2not like you had a choice
greengardenchic, on 08/28/2008, -10/+92It's not that Mexican immigrants are more fertile. They're Catholics. Breeders by religious expectations. A group of people who have been taught that any form or birth control is bad.

Try to change that belief and you might have some real results.
- thePhallex, on 08/28/2008, -0/+21Sometimes around town I see hispanic mothers with several crying babies around them -- they never look happy. It's sad. To think that it all could've been prevented with simple birth control...
  - kayala, on 08/28/2008, -4/+12But it's a SIN! God HATES women that choose how many children they want!
- ZeeZee2k, on 08/28/2008, -9/+4Birth control might be bad, but for a over populated country like China, we have no choice.
- susilou, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6The pope needs to get on board wtih this. Condoms are not a sin!
- skyz, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3beliefs are irrational
  
  it is almost impossible to get people to change their beliefs
  
  almost but if they are offered reasons why it benefits them then it is possible
UltramegaOK, on 08/28/2008, -18/+44It seems that many people refuse to recognize that we have reached a point in human evolution where having children is not a necessity for survival. If people love children so much, why not adopt one who doesn't have a family? It's usually because they think the world needs a "mini-me" of themselves because they would be a gift for us all and an asset for humanity.
- sodade, on 08/28/2008, -5/+9Breeders are selfish.
  - userperson, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2... and being selfish is bad. /s
    You should never want things for other people, never yourself, that's greedy.
    You should really just want things for the world in general. To put your people or people you know above others is also selfish/greedy. /s
- FLUX, on 08/28/2008, -12/+2because if the OBAMAS of the world had their way there would not be any children to adopt they would have all been aborted
  - warhem, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2you are a stupid idiot. Read about him before you judge you dummy.
  - rvandy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+3OBAMA WANTS TO ABORT ALL CHILDREN!!!!! IF YOU LET THEM LIVE HE'LL SEND THEM TO THE SALT MINES!!!!! MCCAIN 08!!!!!!!!
  - FLUX, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1I have you moron he voted against a bill that would protect live born children during a late term abortions claiming it was different from the federal version but it was identical
    
    so who is the idiot now quit drinking the juice and think for your self dont let some one do it for you
  - edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2STFU
  - BrainInAJar, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Obama didn't vote for a bill that says "all foetuses must be aborted"... people will still choose to have children, retard. Allowing abortion isn't the same as requiring abortion
- diceau, on 08/28/2008, -2/+2There's that, then there are mistakes, and then there's the problem of people feeling physically in need of having children ... remember it's not really by choice a lot of the time that people have children, or it is but that choice is born of emotions.
- Auxon, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5I want to have lots of children so there are more people like me, and less like you.
- robstpumprnickl, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3It's all about the great tax exemptions, cheap labor and training a "mini-me" bartender. Sign me up.
- Coolkid11, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3You want to know why? Because we keep adopting and feeding these impoverished kids and their parents keep on breeding. The cycle continues and continues.
SteelChicken, on 08/28/2008, -11/+24no more kids. adopt.
this one problem causes SO many others.
- enotswhat, on 08/28/2008, -8/+6lol @ children being a "problem"
- diceau, on 08/28/2008, -3/+2I'm not adopting someone else's problem ... they shouldn't have had kids in the first place. Why the hell would you encourage the growth of a child that came from a couple that couldn't even take care of it?
  
  If they lost their parents tragically fair enough, but that's rarely the case.
  - revjustin2, on 08/28/2008, -4/+1You are such an *****.
  - diceau, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4Oh, you're right, revjustin2 (religious?), so we should just let all the under achievers of society have millions of children and only the people who SHOULD BE having children adopt them and not have any of their own, thus the poor gene pools become successful and the human race fails.
    
    Keep your insults to yourself until you become educated, thanks.
- userperson, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Adopting only encourages people to have more children they do not take care of. /s
  Instead, people should be neutered at birth. /s
- daveconrey, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4So you're telling us to buy recycled children then?
Lucas123, on 08/28/2008, -6/+52I'm doing my part. So far, none.
- billbugger, on 08/28/2008, -2/+10You need to emerge from mom's basement first.
  
  // sorry, too easy
- edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5same here, though, I guess one has to have sex in order to breed.
  - Squidwalk, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2Fertility clinics get a lot of business...
- o0joshua0o, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2You fail evolution.
- Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Climbed out of the gene pool three years ago with a surgical sterilization and haven't regretted a minute of it.
  The meme of reproduction-as-optional needs to circulate more thoroughly than it is at present. There will always be buttheads who deny it, unfortunately; one person's sacrifice of their tubes and/or uterus can be nullified by one Mormon or Xtian fundie couple, several times over.
  - BeardDob, on 08/28/2008, -1/+0let people live their lives and stop being such a condescending prick.
suckanucka, on 08/28/2008, -8/+22If the stereotypical pro-science pro-environment people don't have more kids, then the the % of pro-religion people will continue to overtake the united states... cause they're having tons of kids (and indoctrinating them in vacation bible school at birth)
- sodade, on 08/28/2008, -4/+5This has been happening for at least 20 years - we're *****.
- diceau, on 08/28/2008, -3/+4Eugenics FTW.
  
  I don't know about everyone else, but I want to make sure my children are healthy, good looking and intelligent.
- userperson, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Non-religious people -- have more kids! We're losing the game! /s
- unitedatheism, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Well, all these people you've named already count their children in one hand, they're just calling for the rest of the (unaware) people.
Vzylexy, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7Someone needs to relate this story to the Duggers.
- KidDynamo0, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3I cannot stand watching those jackasses on TV. "Tee Hee Hee...we done squeezed out another idiot kid. Tee Hee Hee"
- HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3http://www.duggarfamily.com/
  
  OMFG
  - Harbinger1080, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2HonestAbe: "OMFG"
    ... quoted for truth.
    
    OMFG
    ... repeated for emphasis.
- Squidwalk, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Haha, the Duggers alone are probably responsible for a greater carbon footprint than an undeveloped nation.
  
  ...aw, I made myself sad.
CoMpUtErITGuY, on 08/28/2008, -14/+22Want To Go Green? Have Fewer Children.

Want To Go Green? Stop Buying SUV's and Driving 90mph in a 55mph zone.
- o0joshua0o, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1Want to go Green? Live like a caveman while China, India, and the multinational corporations screw up the environment anyway!
- logic07, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1Want To Go Green? Kill Yourself
pintomp3, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7tell that to these guys:
http://www.quiverfull.com/
- brbubba, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6Favorite headline from that site, "Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? by Randy Alcorn"
  - TVarmy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2I kinda wanted to see his moon-logic, but the article was down. Any guess to how the hell that would work? That'd be LESS embryos, so ergo, less abortions. Birth control pills barely fail, so they seem to prevent more abortions. In fact, I'd say it'd be wise for a girl to take birth control pills even if she is abstinent (by choice or otherwise), just because they offer benefits other than birth control (regularity, clearer complexion, etc), and precaution is a good thing.
    
    I have to say, I think they would pragmatically agree a woman not ovulating in the first place is better than a woman accidentally getting pregnant and getting an abortion. I feel both should be legal options, but I much prefer the first scenario.
  - omgwtflawl, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Actually, TVarmy, its a bit deeper then that. A morning after pill is sort of the same thing as the birth control pill, it is just more potent (or so I've read). So, potentially the birth control pill gets rid of eggs which have actually been fertilized. Doesn't make much sense railing against something which happens all the time anyway naturally, but not much makes sense in the religious whackjob camp.
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2They say that birth control pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. Since Jesus comes down and uses his magical syringe to inject a soul into the egg right when the sperm enters it, the fertilized egg is a complete human being with a right to life, and you're committing murder by preventing it from implanting.
- DreKor, on 08/28/2008, -1/+8Screw those guys. If they want to raise up an army against Islam, they can go right ahead. I'll be on the sidelines with my disposable income and a wife who doesn't have to wear a skirt every day.
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1I'm not planning on having any kids, but what the hell do you have against skirts?
    
    Mmmmm skirts...
chrissku, on 08/28/2008, -8/+19Population control will come naturally. Life has an Eb and flow. It will balance itself out.
- bratterscain, on 08/28/2008, -2/+13Yes, but do you want it to come naturally in the form of disease or lack or resources rather than limiting child births?
- smurfsahoy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+4Life will find a way.
  - TrevorBradley, on 08/28/2008, -2/+4It has. It's called "Famine". Happens in nature all the time.
    
    Exponential growth, Limited Resources. Do the math on how much suffering that will cause.
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2Life will find a way: death.
- funk13, on 08/28/2008, -1/+12What does an E-flat have to do with life?
  
  Seriously, though, life will balance out but it is going to take a lot of death (read: wars, disease, and all things unpleasant) to which all of us are susceptible. So life balancing the effects of over-population is not going to come without its share of pain and agony.
  - Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1In that regard, abortion and making vigourous use of condoms is a damn gentle way of doing that.
    I have to wonder why the Theocratic Right prefer war to abortion and birth control as a means of curbing population growth?
- TVarmy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+13Population balances itself out with war and starvation. Frankly, I'd rather just use a condom and cut off a bit of sensation instead of running out of food or having to die in war.
- fidoda, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5But when that will happen... It will not be pretty to see.
- susilou, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3We work so hard to stop that eb you're talking about. People are living longer and mortality rates among infants are so low, something else has to be done. People need to limit the number of kids they have.
- HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3"Hey man, when they put rats in a confined environment and let them breed, the population growth stops after a while. So it's not a big deal! Nature will take care of the overpopulation problem."
  
  Nevermind the fact that the population growth stopped because the rats are mauling and eating each other.
- Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2Granted, but how many of us want to see that hypothesis in real-world action?
  Looked at Ethiopia, Mozambique and Zimbabwe lately?
- fluxion, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1through starvation, murder, and strife. personally, i'd rather avoid triggering such "balances"
- criticalunity, on 09/01/2008, -0/+0Tell that to the New World Order gang of Rockafellas, etc...
  Look at this:
  
  http://www.fdrs.org/quotes_on_population_control.h ...
  
  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
  
  and then: http://criticalunity.org - For all need to know info!
doremon313, on 08/28/2008, -4/+9saving the world one condom at a time.
SushiCW, on 08/28/2008, -14/+47If we avoid having kids to save the planet, who are we saving it for?
- sponeil, on 08/28/2008, -12/+6The religious nuts who will refuse to stop cranking out babies. Remember, whoever has the most followers when the Apocalypse comes wins!
- arunforce, on 08/28/2008, -5/+14We're not avoiding to have kids, we're avoiding more kids.
- Myztry, on 08/28/2008, -6/+4What is left of thousands of other less destructive species...
  Locust aren't the only creatures capable of becoming a plague.
  Breeding restrictions are preferable to culling of the problem species...
- Tehzz, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5If you have one or two healthy kids, that's good and fine.
  
  If you have six or seven kids, and you take them all to McDonald's on a daily ***** basis, then you might be pushing it.
- TrevorBradley, on 08/28/2008, -5/+5False Dichotomy = FAIL.
- userperson, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7mother earth ... humans are a disease, a scourge, a problem. /s
  - tobikow, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1The human species ends with my generation. My generation ends with me. anyone else can have as many kids as they want.
  - userperson, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1The species?
    Unless you've got several nuclear devices, or know something more than this article, I think it's a tad presumptuous of you.
    Your family sure ... maybe mine too.
- PixelPusher74, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2wow... that's just a dumb extrapolation of a good idea. We aren't saying "stop having kids until the human race is wiped out." TRY READING THE FRIGGING ARTICLE!
- Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1Ourselves.
  Very occasionally, self-centredness can be a virtue.
kingmanic, on 08/28/2008, -17/+18If you want to help the environment. Have more kids and teach them to be decent human beings. Anyone who'd seriously consider this option probably has all the right values and ought to have more children. The only ones to consider this advice would be the ecologically minded. It's more important for them to pass their mindset down then not have children. If those with good enviromental values don't pass them on, then the ones who don't give two ***** will outnumber those who care eventually.

This is terrible advice. If you want the environment in the ***** for sure, don't' have children. If you want to make a difference, raise smart children.

Also, there is a trend in the west against having children. I'm 28 and many of my friends don't' consider it an option. The thing is their all engineers, lawyers, doctors, programmers, and academics. The world would be better off if these people had kids and passed on their personal culture and genes. We don't need 3 more Britney Spears rug ratts, we need the economic and intellectual elite to breed. It's best for the economics and ecology.
- oneaye, on 08/28/2008, -4/+5Of course, the intellectual and economic elite can adopt and educate the underprivileged. In doing so, they might also prevent the underprivileged from having so many children.
- TVarmy, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2I've heard that argument before, but I don't know how likely it is for humans to have positive environmental impact. Seems to me we use a ton of resoucres that we aren't smart enough to replace no matter what we do. I'd say we'd be smart to keep the population at or just bellow the replacement rate until we come across some sort of solution, be it something relatively simple like practical nuclear fusion or far out like space colonies.
  - rvandy, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2ADOPT
- Voltalocke, on 08/28/2008, -2/+3Gosh, this kind of comment really bugs me. It's amazing how classist we can be- do you really think that children can have a "mindset" passed down to them through genetics? If not, then how can you not think that you would do far more good by NOT producing another human on this planet, but instead using the time you would have spent raising this child with your supposed "superior mindset" and teaching others from less educated families how to do their part to create a better world? Adoption, non-profit educational programs, etc...these seem like far better options.
  - kingmanic, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Look into the adoption rates. Any "normal" child is adopted very quickly. It's the older ones and ones with health and mental problems remaining. The pool for adoption isn't deep. The real difference it would make negligible.
    
    When you have a child you contribute both strong environmental and genetic factors. Classiest is not PC but not necessarily wrong. Above average families raise above average children. Adopted or biological. Engineers and scientists of all stripe should be encouraged to raise more children. Adopted or biological. As a nation it helps.
    
    I'm not talking about this whole white vs non white ***** either. We should actively encourage people to have children because the ones who have opted out of that idea are the educated. regardless of ethnicity. The better educated have a culture that discourages more children. They think like you. This is bad. This will be a long term problem. Call me a classist but the solution is to shift the culture to encourage more children from those who do have money/education.
- HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2If you want to help the environment, adopt all your kids, become a school teacher, and teach dozens of children to be decent human beings at the same time.
  
  Genes have a small effect on behavior. Education has a much bigger effect.
WHOOMP, on 08/28/2008, -9/+4what if we just have more children but dont feed them or dress them or anything
portilaj, on 08/28/2008, -12/+6This is the genocide of our descendants!!
aupton, on 08/28/2008, -13/+5America is over populated... It's impossible to travel anywhere in the North East these days... Take away seat belt laws and let the heard thin out by natural selection.
- PennFarmer, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Great idea. Let's start with people that can't spell herd properly first.
- edwartica, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1Or how about mandatory re-location. If the NE is full, relocate people to cities that aren't so full. There's plenty of room left in the United States.
RevAradia, on 08/28/2008, -10/+17Anything I could say here has already BEEN said. Bless you all that are for having less children.
friz, on 08/28/2008, -8/+8This is a great article to show my girlfriend (future wife?). Another reason to add to the list of: Save money, don't have the responsibility, etc. But how is this news in the fact that if there's less people to consume, less waste, should be common sense.
- smurfsahoy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1I'm guessing probably not on the whole "future wife?" thing if you need to have a running list of points you present to her about why kids are evil. That's not really something you draw up bullet points for.
- sodade, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2Women are the problem. They have a voice in their heads screaming "baby baby baby - must make BABY"
  
  Why is it that I have to ignore the voice in my head that tells me to bop people on the head that piss me off if women don't have to ignore their instincts?
  - HonestAbe, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.malecontraceptives.org/
  - sodade, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1Or better yet, just get snipped when you turn 18. Save some cum in the freezer if you are really concerned about cutting off your future choices.
PeanutCheeseBar, on 08/28/2008, -9/+3Well, looks like China found another way to screw the planet over just a little more...
zenithmbr, on 08/28/2008, -9/+18there are already too many people on this earth. why not take care of the ones that are already living rather than having your own for some false feeling of fulfillment or pride that youd get from it.
- oneaye, on 08/28/2008, -1/+0yes, adopt and donate $ to those in need! ah, the selfish gene...
- ninepointfive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1Because I want more of the rationals like myself to continue the species, while all you dumb ***** idiot greenies continue to die out of existence.
  
  And this is coming from someone who respects the environment.
  - zenithmbr, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3clearly you're not so rational if you think the world needs to be sewn with your seed. you're a part of the problem, not the solution.
- mustbepatient, on 08/28/2008, -1/+3You think having kids gives you a *false* sense of pride and fulfillment?
  
  Sometimes this site amazes me! Contrary to the belief of many on this site, people with kids are generally happier and live longer.
  - xexx, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Oh look, you're a sentimental fool who doesn't know what they're talking about!
    
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792/page/1
  - sadrobot, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1[citation needed]
- ozborn, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1"False feeling"?
  
  There is nothing false about it - raising kids isn't a spectator sport where fans take pride in the accomplishments of their team although they do nothing but watch the game on TV. Good parents actively participate in child rearing and they should have pride in raising good kids if they are actually doing a good job. What's false about that?
- BeardDob, on 08/29/2008, -0/+0There is nothing false about the love I have for my sons and the joy in their eyes when we play together. They are beautiful and sweet, a source of joy to those around them in this often miserable world. They love their lives.
  
  Stop being such a condescending prick.
  - zenithmbr, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1you sound more like a child molester than a father
fluoro, on 08/28/2008, -4/+10I think the people who have the most kids are not exactly the ones who are paying much attention to the environment anyway. :/
ruddy, on 08/28/2008, -11/+6Now we can solve over population AND global warming!
/loves global boogie men
radiofrequency, on 08/28/2008, -11/+37Eco-facism is going mainstream.
- alk509, on 08/28/2008, -1/+1Who or what is the "facism?"
  - cromptonenator, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Some scientists thinking they have the right to say how many children I should have.
  - fluxion, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1some scientists are disillusioned into thinking we're rational enough to act of our own free will for the benefit of our progeny, and merely stating a simple fact.
    
    the reality that a government would undoubtedly need to enforce such a policy is where fascism comes into play, and that is beyond the realm of science and logic.
chadpryor, on 08/28/2008, -4/+21"Even in the United States, birthrates, which had fallen to around 1.85 children per non-Hispanic white woman, are now about 2.1 children per U.S. couple, thanks to Hispanic migration."

Did anyone else catch this at the end of the article? There's hardly any subtlety to it, the writer might as well be saying: "Hey Mexicans, thanks for popping out kids like a factory line."
- emalen, on 08/28/2008, -0/+14Except that what the writer said is correct - it's not based on racial bias but fact.
- tomarocco, on 08/28/2008, -5/+1If we make it compulsory to sterilize illegal immigrants...who don't have the rights of normal citizens... those birthrates will normalize and much of the problem will be solved domestically. Not mention it would be quite the deterrent to entering this country illegally: if you get caught the penalty is a free castration or hysterectomy courtesy of Uncle Sam.
- Coolkid11, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1Well Mexicans DO have a problem with overpopulating everywhere they go. In Texas, you see this Latino families that have 8 or more children. The whites here generally have 2-3 kids.
timewarp424, on 08/28/2008, -9/+22Instead of having fewer children, just don't have any. Let the human race die off and then we'll have a carbon footprint of zero. Is this really what you want? Are humans beings less important than "saving" the Planet Earth? I thought the whole point of saving the Earth was to save it for the future generations to come. I'm not advocating against the green movement, but I am advocating against these extremist positions. Humans cause pollution, but it's more important that we exist than "saving" the Earth.
- iidoxe, on 08/28/2008, -6/+5What's your definition of important?
  
  Humans have only been here for 200,000 years or so, while the rest of life has been around for 3 billion years and the universe has existed for 14 billion. Even if we consume the entire biosphere (that includes all plants and animals) we've only got hold of less than %1 of the material in our tiny solar system. In terms of time, matter, and almost any other non-selfish measure, we are not important at all.
  
  And even if you take the selfish stance and say that 'the only thing that matters is my own survival', Your logic still doesn't work out. You will die, just like me and everyone else, and after that what does it matter to you whether humanity goes on another 1,000,000 years or not?
  
  It's ignorant people like you that have gotten us into this mess (6 billion people) in the first place.
  - timewarp424, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1You're a very smart person; I'm surprised you don't see the problem in your argument. The only things or creatures that we know that can possibly ask the question what's important is humans. We contain an intellect that animals and inanimate just don't have. That intellect has created more, discovered more, taught more than any other animal or inanimate object ever has. If we're the only one's who could fathom the question "what's important?" than we really are at least somewhat important.
    
    I haven't had any kids yet, so I'm not sure how I've gotten us into any mess. I don't think having a very important discussion makes me ignorant or a destroyer of the world. Next time, let's talk about things before we start name calling.
- PennFarmer, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4There is actually a movement in place that advocates voluntary extinction through having no more children. Somehow I don't expect that movement to last more than a generation or so....
- sodade, on 08/28/2008, -3/+4Oh ***** off. There are way too many ***** people on this planet and when someone suggests the most rational solution, you freak out and talk about the doom of mankind. BTW, the point isn't saving planet earth, the point is saving the environment we (and our descendants) have to live in. I don't want to live in a sewer world thanks.
- brettg102, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1***** if I care I'll be dead.
cartman005, on 08/28/2008, -6/+14There is nothing wrong with having one or two kids, its these people who just won't stop having babies, enough is enough. Then they want the state to support their family and feel bad for them because they don't understand how to use condoms and birth control.
- URnotheonly1, on 08/28/2008, -6/+1who are you? Some sort of God?
- oneaye, on 08/28/2008, -4/+5There is something wrong with having kids when there are so many people in need and the world is overpopulated. Additional mouths are unnecessary . Just adopt. Get past the selfish gene...
  - rkzda, on 08/28/2008, -2/+3Do you call your female friends that have kids, selfish, to their face, and that their kids are unnecessary?
  - oneaye, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1I've said as much to a few friends and even my father. (By the way, I happen to have a set of useless ovaries myself.)
nastronomical, on 08/28/2008, -15/+14Liberal buffoonery.
- rvandy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1This is buffoonery? I suppose you think we should go forth a multiply, huh? So, how many people would you like to see on the earth? 100 billion? a trillion? That way we can fight over resources even more than we do now and bring about the end of human civilization, which is something you'd probably like to see.
  - AmericanParty, on 08/28/2008, -1/+0Wow. Way to take what that person said and blow it out of proportion.
    This is why liberals will always be seen as douche bags.
  - Zaeboes, on 08/28/2008, -0/+0@ rvandy
    There is more than enough land in the mainland U.S. to support well over 6 times our current population. Personally, I think doing so would be in our best interests because we would have the taxes and cause to produce tons of nuclear power plants and higher speed internet.
Adahn, on 08/28/2008, -3/+25Spay and neuter, folks. Spay and neuter.
URnotheonly1, on 08/28/2008, -14/+11So we must stop having kids and adopt socialism?
- KidDynamo0, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5What the hell does suggesting that people have less kids have to do with socialism! Please educate yourself. No one said to not have any kids, they said LESS kids, and that's a choice. Not a rule. Thanks for once again muddying the adult conversation with a child like perspective.
- sodade, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1No - the only way to avoid socialism is to have a reduced population. Capitalism doesn't work when the system is overloaded with mouths to feed.
  - revjustin2, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Your priorities are a little skewed. Making money is more important than people?
  - BrainInAJar, on 08/28/2008, -0/+2people that don't exist yet?
    
    umm... yes.
- greengardenchic, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1We already are socialists. Public schools, libraries, parks... Where have you been?
  - URnotheonly1, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1not really, but nice try. Parks, Schools, libraries, c'mon fool
  - greengardenchic, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1You should look up the definition for a socialist.
ButterLoyalist, on 08/28/2008, -22/+3"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." -Genesis 1:28
- alk509, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5I was totally digging the article, but then I read your comment and was all like "Holy *****! That's bullet-proof logic right there!" Thanks, will digg aain. A++++++
- rvandy, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3and destroy it and end human civilization. You know, humans need to exist to worship your imaginary god. If we keep breeding at current rates we'd go extinct.
- Ladycomet, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Another comment that makes me want to put a gun in my mouth.
cloudcity, on 08/28/2008, -7/+4The great thing about this kind of thinking is that the people that advance it don't usually pass the meme along. No kids and all...
- rvandy, on 08/28/2008, -1/+2Actually, not everyone is an automaton who parrots back what their parents have taught them. Some people are able to think for themselves, and believe it or not, some people even care about other people and the future of human civilization.
  - cloudcity, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1"some people even care about other people and the future of human civilization."
    
    That's not what my dad told me.
MetalXSlug, on 08/28/2008, -6/+9I'm not really worried about Christian parents ruining the world because of too many wacky kids. We need Christian parents to raise up the next generation of Atheists anyway. Think about it, a ruined environment and tons of unhappy people from Christian homes? The amount of Atheists will probably quadruple in a single generation.

So I ask all you fundamentalist Christians to go forth and multiply, build me an army of Atheists like the world has never seen.
- UltramegaOK, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1I would pray that you're being sarcastic, but I'm an Atheist.
Hetman, on 08/28/2008, -5/+25I am just so confused. I do not understand why people go bat ***** crazy when you tell them they should not reproduce like a bunch of animals. We have rational thought for a reason. If you cannot afford to take care of kids thier are many different kinds of birth control you can use not to have kids. It is really that simple.
- revjustin2, on 08/28/2008, -3/+1I go bat-***** crazy when people start talking about parents as if they are criminals/moral degenerates. This particular issue is not about people who can't take care of their kids. It's about having kids in general. When people start giving me ***** because I simply have children, that tends to piss me off. How does that work? It was okay for your parents to reproduce and create your golden little life, but when I want to reproduce it's a ***** crime against humanity. I am no fan of people having more children than they can support and I despise these people who come on to Digg and start rallying against parents and kids in some vain attempt to seem superior to everyone else. It's just obvious that these people have no clue what the ***** they are talking about and the amount of bile that they spew is hard to take.
  - Hetman, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3You know if you want to have kids. That's great I know many parents who are happily married with kids and they are capable of supporting them. I still do not believe however that parents really need to have over 2 kids. It is not a bad thing to control population growth. I am not going to think you are a bad person if you have 3,4 or even 5 kids if you want. I just do not think it is very necessary to do so. But neither is 90% of the things I do.
  - Gemfinder, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4When my parents had kids, the world population was half of what it is today. Overpopulation was only just beginning to be a problem.

Want To Go Green? Have Fewer Children