| The Five-Year Baby Ban |
| Friday, 02 December 2011 00:00 | Written by Steven Kotler | Commentary |
|
A couple of years ago, I was talking to a friend about the $2 billion that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is spending to eradicate diseases plaguing the Third World. This number is not small change. The $800 million the Foundation donates each year for global health equals the total budget of the United Nations World Health Organization, comprised of 193 nations. “But you know the worst part?” my friend asked. “Most of that money is for fighting diseases in children. And unless something changes, we better hope they fail.” This might sound like awful cruelty; it’s also sad truth. The world’s population now exceeds 7 billion people. Every day, another 350,000 are born; every day another 150,000 die. The net result is that every 24 hours, brings another 200,000 people onto the planet. The United States population is currently 305 million and growing. California adds another 60 people every hour. According to the Pew Research Center, the US will reach 438 million by 2050. And it’s worse elsewhere. By 2050, Uganda’s population will grow from 27 million to 131 million. Niger from 14 to 50 million. Afghanistan from 30 to 82 million. In the next decade alone, Asia will add 500 million people. By 2050, India and China by themselves will have three billion—roughly the planet’s population in 1950, at a time when people were already beginning to worry about the planet’s overcrowding. By 2050, there will be 9.3 billion people. The worry will have long become fact. Here’s why overpopulation is so important. In the past few years, scientists have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out the earth’s “carrying capacity.” How many humans can actually live here in a sustainable fashion? They have come up with a variety of numbers, but the best guess is two billion. And if all of us insist on an American standard of living, that number shrinks to 200 million. MIT’s Marvin Minsky believes it’s 100 million. Even if we go by the most conservative estimates, there are still four-and-a-half billion too many of us. Scientists arrive at this figure by measuring resources and comparing them to our “ecological footprint.” As computed by the internationally based Global Footprint Network, the average American has an ecological footprint of 23.3 acres. By comparison, the average Haitian uses one-and-a-half acres. The reason environmentalists warn of the dangers of exporting American values is that if the rest of the world wants to live as we do, we’ll need five planets worth of resources to make it happen. The impact of population on our available resources is already apparent. Fifty percent of the world’s temperate and tropical forests are gone. Half of the planet’s wetlands are gone. Ninety percent of large predatory fish are gone, 75 percent of our marine fisheries are overfished or at capacity. Fifty percent of our coral reefs are gone. Species are disappearing at rates 1,000 times above normal. As Yale School of Forestry Dean James Gustav Speth recently pointed out, “The planet hasn’t seen such a spasm of extinction in 65 million years, since the dinosaurs vanished.” This does not bode well for our future. Concurrently, much has been made about the impact of global warming, but lesser known is the pressure it puts on our food supply. For every one degree the planet warms, we lose 10 percent of our global rice, corn and grain yields. This is why, in six of the last eight years, world grain production has fallen below consumption rates, and why 786 million people now go hungry. Fresh water is an even graver concern. Four out of every 10 people on the planet currently do not have enough to drink. Every year we lose an area the size of Nebraska to desertification. According to the UN, by 2025, two billion people will be living in countries with an “absolute water shortage,” meaning they’ll lack the water needed for healthy, hygienic living. If nothing changes and global standards of living were frozen today (from 2008 figures computed by the Global Footprint Network, the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London), by 2030 we’ll still need two earths to provide what we need to survive. So what do we do? In 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King said: “There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.” Which brings us back to that favor. It’s nothing anyone wants to say aloud. In fact, it’s something people have gone very far out of their way to avoid saying. But the time for that has passed, so here goes: Stop Having Children. Not indefinitely. Just for now. I call it the Five-Year Ban. For the next five years, let’s not have any kids. None of us. The whole freaking planet. I’m calling it the Five-Year Baby Ban, but I don’t mean an actual ban. I don’t think we need a top-down approach. I don’t mean a literal government prohibition, forced sterilization or mandatory birth control. I mean a voluntary, populist moratorium on childbirth. A grassroots movement of responsible adults behaving like responsible adults in order to stem our ongoing population explosion. Why five years? Because it’s a manageable number. Because it would mean a billion less people. Because a billion less people is a good place to start. I’m a big believer in human innovation. But we’ve made a big mess, and working our way out is going to take time. Giving the earth a short break would be a way of buying some more time. It’s a bit of breathing room to try solving the most dire threat our species has ever faced. Five years to jump-start an alternative-energy revolution, to stave off the resource wars most experts feel are coming. A billion less people. A good place to start. “There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available.” That remedy is available. A half-decade to help us help ourselves. A billion less people in exchange for the future of our species. Is that too much to ask? Additional resources: Help the Earth, Spread the Word: Share this article with family and friends by clicking on the "Email This" or "Share This" links below right. Then see TODAY'S TOP STORIES. Copyright EcoHearth. All rights reserved. Reprint Policy
Share This
Email This
Comments
(33)
Written by Sophia , April 28, 2013
Ask a parent who already has kids, if they are willing to give away any children they have over the next 5 years, before asking other not to have them. i can guarantee you unless you are willing to pay for them, they are not willing to give up their flesh and blood. also are you willing to give away any children you may have? if not, that's not something you can ask others to do under any circumstances.
Report abuse
Written by Kathy , April 03, 2013
This would work, but only if the people who can't support their children do it, such as third world countries and single welfare moms. We actually need more children of intelligent and responsible people to solve the problems of all the people who have so many kids they can't afford. Somebody has to work. Also people need reliable birth control and the willingness to use it. No offense meant to anybody, just reality.
Report abuse
Written by Olivia , December 21, 2012
Younger, I thoroughly believed I would never have a child because I didn't want to bring another being into this messed-up "everyone going to die from skin cancer, famine or thirst in 50 years world." However, I wanted to adopt, to help a child who had already been put into, what I believed to be, an unfortunate position.
Report abuse
My views changed on the matter when I met a certain someone who made me want to have his child. I also started to think of all the wonderful things I was lucky to experience in my life and hoped would be able to provide to a child. I have to admit I now find myself torn on the matter. I understand the environmental impact of having children, brilliantly outlined in the book Radical Simplicity for anyone interested, but it's a feeling that's hard to ignore for me. I still strongly believe in adoption and consider having one child and adopting another. I have, however, always had an issue with this "baby-ban" in that it suggests a ban on babies to countries and people already well below replacement fertility rates. Where I live, 1.3 children is the average, meaning a gradual decline in population since only 1 of 2 parents is being replaced. Therefore, I don't believe babies are the "third-world's" gravest environmental sin. Rather, we should be focusing on reducing our consumption, as well as the amount of resources used for these 1.3 babies. I think that is our gravest issue. Unfortunately, it's often said that environmentalism is a third-world luxury. Therefore, the countries that should be restricting childbirth do not have the means to do so. Birth rate tends to decline with "industrialism" or, rather, a rise in quality of life. I therefore hope that as countries improve their standards of life, birth rates will decline as has historically been observed.
Written by Nat , November 21, 2012
I don't agree with a 5 year ban, well, because that's a long time, but I get the point. If the government has not done so, they really need to consider passing a law where each family can have only two kids (perhaps?) or simply if you can't afford it, you can't have them. Stiff penalties for those that break the law since all their going to do is mulch on government assistance. It's crazy! People keep popping babies and can't do a good job taking care of them and don't have the money.
Report abuse
Written by Kiva , June 02, 2012
A provocative argument, thanks for sharing that. It is indeed one that people don't like to talk about, but so important to think about.
Report abuse
Written by snowpony , February 26, 2012
My spouse and I don't want kids ever. We get just as much fulfillment in life from our rescued animals. We are in our 30s and enjoying life to the fullest and taking advantage of our freedom. Not only are we helping the environment by choosing not to have children, but we are also free to pursue our interests, change occupations, travel, exercise, and enjoy our time and money as we want on ourselves and others. Having no children, we are also in great shape and are mistaken for being in our 20s. I have several friends who are also childfree who pass for 10+ years younger than they actually are and look great. I have found that people with children often condemn the childfree out of jealousy, which probably explains some of the negative comments from people with kids on this post. People with children are generally a miserable lot. They try to act as if a child is so great and try to talk the childfree into becoming a parent, when in reality they just want you to join their club of misery. Notice how people with kids have strained marriages, have no sex life, no time for themselves, no money, age badly, and often become overweight and flabby after having children. I am sure many of them have regretted their decision and probably miss all the freedoms of the childfree. I always laugh when they bring up a comment about who will take care of the childfree when they get old, and my response is friends, siblings, relatives, and myself since I saved hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have been spent on a kid. People seem to think having a kid is some sort of insurance that one will be taken care of in old age. If that were true, there wouldn't be nursing homes full of old people whose kids dumped them there because they are don't want to take care of old mom and dad.
Report abuse
Written by Sal , November 29, 2011
Having children is environmental, not biological. Get that in your f*ing heads. I hope that all the breeders get a disease and die.
Report abuse
Written by sarah , June 11, 2011
Justme, I appreciate your reasoned response to the commentary, however, I stronger differ with you in three important respects:
Report abuse
1) Just as folks should take responsibility for using protection if they don't want children, we all need to take responsibility for the planet, which has reached its carrying capacity. A decision to have a child affects not only the immediate family of the person making the decision, but the planet and the quality of life of all who live on the planet. 2) Just because the women you know regretted their decisions to have an abortion, doesn't mean all women do. In many cases, the decision was best for the women and the potential child since the woman was emotionally and/or economically unable to support a child. 3) How anyone who considers him or heself an environmentalist can support the GOP is beyond ludicrous. The GOP is pro big business at all costs. They have consistently supported the gutting of environmental regulations across the board. Not to mention their other faults. If the GOP ruled, the planet would be trashed even more than it is, and as a bonus there would be no workers' rights to unionize, no social security, no Medicare, no workplace safety regulations, no consumer protection, and there would still be segregation.
Written by justme , June 11, 2011
I will continue to have children because I believe they are a blessing from God and I will be overjoyed accepting as many blessings as He plans on showering on my family and I. I do need to relieve you from some common misconceptions about right wingers, though:
Report abuse
1)We are not ALL crazy! I don't want to shoot OBGYN's who perform abortions, I don't hate Muslims, and I don't hate homosexuals. What they do in their bedroom is their business. 2)We're not ALL of bunch of uneducated ignoramae. I have 2 masters degrees: One in Nursing, and one in Business Management. Yet, I still find my fulfillment in "breeding". Such a shallow term for the meeting of the minds, the hearts, the souls (and yes, the genitals) of two people committed to each other in love! To have that union blessed with a precious life entrusted to us is not just fulfilling, it is humbling. I learn so much from my children. 3)We don't ALL think "going green" or being "eco conscious" is batty! In fact, I grow my own organic garden, make my own cleaning supplies from all natural ingredients, recycle, don't use paper towels (ever), have solar panels on my house, drive a hybrid vehicle, only use cloth diapers for my babies, and have used the (now trendy) reusable cloth grocery bags for YEARS (still can't bring myself to buy unpasteurized milk from a farm...I just...can't.)! I could go on and on! So I find all this nonsense about how those on the right think those who want to preserve our planet are batty, just a bit insulting! A lot of my left leaning friends think I take my eco consciousness too far. My 8 year old recently lost all computer and PS3 privileges because I saw him litter. Bet he won't be throwing candy (organic, thank you) wrappers on the ground again anytime soon! 4)We REALLY DON'T hate women, or their reproductive rights. I'm a woman. I have exercised my right to choose, and I choose life. Period. I hate abortion because I have seen how women who have had them regret their choice and the emotional and psychological ramifications of said choice. I hate abortion because I feel it is the destruction of innocent and precious life, made in our Creator's image! But do I hate the women who have them or the doctors who perform them? No. I think people who don't want to have children should exercise some self control and use protection and birth control, and suffer the consequences like adults if they don't. 5)We don't always tow the party line. Sarah Palin will NEVER EVER (underline never, triple underline ever!) have my vote. She is a nut, and an embarrassment to the GOP. 6)This isn't a misconception you have, this is just the truth...we DO really abhor being told (or asked) not to have children, because frankly it's none of anybody's business how many children ANYBODY has or doesn't have! The world should be happy there are at least a few of us churning out compassionate, responsible, productive, creative, intelligent, QUALITY people for our planet. Here endeth my rant.
Written by Rick , September 02, 2010
Goodbye, Pro-creator. I don't see any value in debating people who get their information by listening to the echo of their empty minds on FOX News.
Report abuse
Written by Pro-creator , September 02, 2010
And besides, Einstein, if the people with the means and blessing of a career and home stop procreating, who is going to continue to foot the bill for the 90% that continue to pop out babies?
Report abuse
Written by Pro-creator , September 02, 2010
Great idea, Rick. The world will be a better place with your spawn crumpled in a biodegradable kleenex in the trash.
Report abuse
Written by Rick , September 02, 2010
Why is it that right wingers always label people looking out for the earth as nuts? It seems pretty shortsighted to accept pollution and destruction of the womb that sustains you. Birthrates, by the way, are not a function of race, but of economics. Improved socioeconomic status always leads to lower birthrates because people don't need kids to help them farm the land or take care of them when they are ill or old. Also because they become educated and thus can understand birth control, lose their religious superstitions about it, etc. And when they have economic opportunity, they can be fulfilled by gainful (and hopefully creative) employment, instead of through breeding.
Report abuse
Believe me, hearing from you, I'm so happy I've decided not to have children. I wouldn't want them growing up in a world run--and overrun--by ignorant individuals who don't know we must protect the earth to preserve our quality of life, if not our very survival as a species. I do feel sorry for your kids, however, having to grow up being guided by a dolt like you.
Written by Pro-creator , September 02, 2010
Well, after reading this article my wife has stopped using the pill and we plan on having at least 1, possibly 2, more children. We plan on "cancelling out" a few environmental nutcases in the process. Pretty soon we will have a filibuster-proof congress with an obvious rightward slant. The progressive movement is 1 or 2 generations away from extinction. Take Europe and Russia, for example, with their 1.4 and 1.6 (or thereabouts) population growth rates. Indeed, the Angloeuropean race is near extinction and rapidly being replaced by immigrants from Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. I look at this as a good thing, because any group of people who doesn't want to continue the species deserves to be extinct anyway. Your redneck cousins in the US will pick up your slack.
Report abuse
Written by ingrid , May 07, 2010
I thank you -- and anyone -- for taking on the issue of population and environment. The negative responses here probably explain why mainstream media is so reluctant to address this important facet of global ecology and habitat preservation.
Report abuse
I understand that many people have strong visceral ties to the idea of family and children, which is why these discussions get so heated. And why they often de-evolve into ad hominem attacks and a total misconstruing of points made for illustration -- like JC Skinner's comment "you wish to see humans culled down to a few hundred million." I guess the concept of a flawed syllogism is lost on JC. I chose not to have children, primarily for environmental reasons. Frankly, my husband and I didn't feel the need to replace ourselves, seeing as how we wouldn't have been doing anyone any favors. :) But that aside, because of our choice, I approach this issue from a different perspective -- one, admittedly, as laden with emotion as a parent's. In my volunteer work with wildlife, it's almost unbearable to see the effects of human population and expansion on habitat, wild animals, and all aspects of nature. It's difficult not to feel a sense of frustration and sometimes abject grief over the fact that many people don't see the connection between human over-population and the devastation of this beautiful but fragile place. It's unfathomable to me that global population has doubled since the year of my birth. I don't think you're asking a lot -- to get people to at least ruminate on the effects of our expansion on the rest of the planet. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose solutions that have the intent of preserving the earth's health, and ensuring the future well-being of humans and the non-human animals with whom we share this space. The sad thing is, those who fight for their right to have more and more children are missing the point that their children, living in an increasingly over-burdened world will be fighting, instead, for their right to breathe clean air, drink fresh water, eat healthful food, and live free of pollution and toxins. Because when you add it all up, there is simply no way around that outcome -- as long as this exponential growth continues. Never mind that most of nature and wildlife will be decimated by our increasing numbers and our voracious need to consume.
Written by jspellman , March 07, 2010
JC Skinner, name calling is not political discourse. You also missed that the author was using hyperbole to make a point. Any closed system has limits to the outputs it can handle. Cancer eventually destroys the body it feeds off of, thereby also killing itself. Bacteria spreads in a Petri dish ad infinitum until the entire colony dies from lack of food and being poisoned by its own waste. The same will happen with humans on the earth, which is also a closed system with limited resources. That is why we should limit our population.
Report abuse
Written by JC Skinner , March 06, 2010
You extremists are pretty scary, but I do thank you for your honesty in admitting you wish to see humans culled down to a few hundred million.
Report abuse
Now that you're openly admitting your anti-human agenda, hopefully more of the public will see you for the lunatics you are instead of the bleeding heart animal lovers you pose as.
Written by Phoenix , February 20, 2010
BRAVO!!!!!!! 5 years may not be enough. Perhaps 5 with a break and then another 5. This would give those that really really want to have 1 child a chance to do so. During the first 5 some may realize that adoption is far more sensible and helpful.
Report abuse
P.
Written by Cicada , December 04, 2009
I had thought of a similar idea years ago and began telling people about it (a one year moratorium) and received all sorts of critical comments. It challenges a lot of peoples notions of their rights within their own culture. I wholeheartedly support this proposal. In peace,
Report abuse
Cicada
Written by Anne , October 26, 2009
I agree with all of those who say that moderating lifestyle is a much better solution than not having children. The idea of forcing people to not have kids is almost the same as forcing people to die at a predetermined age. It is ridiculous. Obviously the idea hasn't been given much thought.
Report abuse
Not only would it be bad economically as teachers and any other child and education related professions would be guaranteed to be jobless at some point for up to 5 years, but it would also be worse for the environment. When people have other factors to consider, like children, they are less likely to spend money frivolously. Being responsible for another life and realizing that the impact on the environment effects YOUR child impacts, hopefully for the better, how you treat the environment. Not all people need a child to live a more eco-friendly lifestyle, but many do and will. This isn't even taking into account the fact that there will be more genetic diseases and birth defects because people will have had to wait to have children. Problems such as autism, schizophrenia, Down's Syndrome and mental retardation have all been linked to advanced paternal and maternal age. Do the research before proposing such a radical (and impractical) plan.
Written by StacktheBlocks , June 25, 2009
I believe that with regards to the Gates' donations, saving lives is never a bad thing. But there is a problem, and the way to help solve it is through patient education of those that are ignorant to the problem. Growing up in Montana, the general population always felt that liberal environmentalists were ruining the livelihoods of the people, taking away our jobs because they were bad for the environment. But if we can educate the people whose jobs are causing environmental damage and train them in other trades, they would be happy to have the work and the earth would be better off. I think this applies to economies worldwide. People need a why, and a how, to change current practices.
Report abuse
Written by babyless?? , April 28, 2009
It sounds good in theory... I suppose you've never faced the choice of abortion. Or heard of acts by the Chinese government which forcibly aborts women's babies. Pregnancies happen. So you'd rather create a population of devastated, childless women? It's not the number of people... it's the lifestyles we pursue. It's very easy to sit on your high horse as a MAN with an upper middle class existence and try to tell poor women or other disenfranchised populations what to do. How about you modify your own consumption before you run around advising mothers to kill their pregnancies, which is, in essence, what would wind up happening. Because, people will always make love -- will always want to bear children with their loved ones -- will want a family to give meaning to their otherwise thin lives, lives stripped of rich purpose by the labor divisions of globalization... So while your commentary is true, understand what you're actually suggesting: mass genocide. It will take A LOT more deaths than simply stopping births to get that "population problem" under control, if it's REALLY the reason we're having problems. A one-acre plot, properly managed, can feed a family of ten or more. If ONLY the teenagers don't grow up to want boob jobs and sports cars... the earth just might survive.
Report abuse
Having seen friends deal with abortion, I am appalled at any more people who suggest the key to the world's problems is preventing the miracle of birth. I agree with Tricia that raising a responsible child who appreciates the earth and can educate and inspire others is an important mission. The next generation of children will change their habits, I have no doubt. Not only will they have to, but they will come to want to, because they will understand how little time is left. Population control advocates sure are popular at rich people's cocktail parties --- but I hope you understand that the full ramification means worldwide genocide. Just so you know exactly what you're proposing....
Written by Shantastic , February 27, 2009
I just saw on the news the other day that India is having discussions on legislating surrogate motherhood. They want to prevent poor women from being exploited as 'baby farms'. In a country litterally riddled with orphans, why is this going on? Does anyone see a problem with this?
Report abuse
Written by Shantastic , February 27, 2009
A 5 year ban on breeding is a great idea. But let's not stop with people. Let's cease all breeding of cattle, sheep, chickens, dogs, exotic birds, cats, mice, rats, farmed fish and every other creature that we deliberately or irresponsibly overproduce.
Report abuse
After the 5 year ban, allow human procreation on even numbered years only.
Written by Jenny , February 25, 2009
Tricia, thank you so much for the resource suggestions!
Report abuse
Written by Tricia , February 24, 2009
Re: Jenny's inquiry on vegan pregnancies and children, here are some resources:
Report abuse
1) The American Dietetic Association endorses a vegan diet for all stages of life (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm) 2) The last edition of "Dr. Spock's Baby and Childcare" endorses a vegan diet for babies and children (http://www.drspock.com/) 3) "Skinny Bitch: Bun in the Oven" is a great option for pregnant vegan women, and it's a funny read: http://www.skinnybitch.net/bun/index.html 4)The Vegetarian Resource Group has a good nutrition outline for expecting mothers: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/veganpregnancy.htm 5)Recently someone sent me this article from Natural News, as well, that may be of interest: http://www.naturalnews.com/025563.html 6) You can also find a lot of resources here: http://www.vegforlife.org/kid_parents.htm As with any diet, proper nutrition is key. I love my organic greens, walnuts, flaxseeds, avocados, dried fruit, pumpkin seeds, fortified rice milk and nutritional yeast and I faithfully take my prenatal vitamin. My midwife tells me that as a vegan, I'm healthier than about 90% of the women she sees.
Written by KristaF , February 24, 2009
I feel that if more women around the world had real social power, they would probably have a lot less children. But to point the finger back at ourselves, why don't we talk more about unwanted teenage pregnancies as an environmental issue as well as a social one?
Report abuse
Written by Jenny , February 24, 2009
Tricia, do you intend to raise your baby as a vegan? Can you recommend any books on the subject, especially in regard to whether a vegan or vegetarian diet is nutritionally adequate for a baby? Thank you.
Report abuse
Written by Hear Again , February 24, 2009
hear the words of the misanthrope, "Most of that money is for fighting diseases in children... And unless something changes, we better hope they fail... a billion less people is a great place to start..."
Report abuse
Written by Tricia , February 24, 2009
I am pregnant right now with my first, and possibly only child, hence my feeling the need to contribute to this conversation. I don't think there is one solution and it's a bit unrealistic to expect humans to stop procreating for any length of time, but I do see the vital need to offset what we take from this earth. As a vegan, my footprint on this earth is about as tiny as it can possibly be. I see little harm in replacing myself, particularly if I'm raising a child to care deeply for this planet and respect those with whom we share it. Let's start thinking more realistic about what burdens we place on this earth and how we can offset those burdens with a better, more sustainable way of co-habitation.
Report abuse
Written by Karen Elliott , February 23, 2009
I think this ban is a wonderful idea. If I didn't have a kid already, I might feel otherwise.
Report abuse
Written by James Blaine , February 23, 2009
I think we should jail Nadya Suleman for child abuse and take all but one of her kids away. There is no way she can properly raise so many children--either financially or emotionally. And her fertility doctor should have his medical license revoked. Embryo implants are supposed to be used for people who can't have kids and want them, not those who already have several.
Report abuse
|
I’m about to ask you for a favor. It’s a big favor, maybe the biggest favor you’ve ever been asked for. Most likely you’re not going to want to grant it. Perhaps you won’t like me for asking. So before I begin, I’d like to tell you a little about why I’m asking.
Show/Hide comments
