If people naturally imitate each other, is it true that “green” Moms who have have 3+ kids are blameless?
Posted by admin
Benson asked:
I know everyone things they’re unique, but obviously, when all your friends are having umpteen kids, it makes you more comfortable doing the same, right? (If you really doubt this, travel and observe other cultures–we’re all conformists.)
I know everyone things they’re unique, but obviously, when all your friends are having umpteen kids, it makes you more comfortable doing the same, right? (If you really doubt this, travel and observe other cultures–we’re all conformists.)
So a Mom with lots of kids isn’t just adding more consumers to the earth, but also communicating an eco-destructive social norm to others, right?
I think I’m in trouble.
eastern european brides
April 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I dont think any parent is out there having children and thinking at the same time “i wonder if i am ruining the environment by procreating?”, anymore than a green person is actually saving the environment by not having their nationally average 2.5 kids.
So lets just drop the subject, no one wins.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Why do you think you’re in trouble?
First of all, I don’t think 3+ kids is a lot of children. Well, I guess it depends what the + stands for! My husband and I plan/hope to have 4 or 5 children. We also plan to use cloth diapers, cloth baby wipes, and homemade wipe solution. We of course will borrow clothes, and make the younger kids wear handmedowns.
I personally don’t think this is hypocritical or bad. In fact I think that I will be treating the earth better than someone who has 2 kids and disposable everything.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
It’s not the amount of consumed throw-away baby products that concerns me. What concerns me is people’s willingness to explode the population. There are too many of us now. If one couple has half a dozen children, it’s no big deal. But if 10 million families in the country do, we are talking about a great deal of expansion. From an ecological standpoint, it’s not our lifestyles that are so damaging, it’s that there are too many of us doing it. If we could practice a little self-restraint where procreation is concerned, we could live any way we like and not endanger the polar ice caps or increase the energy released by hurricanes. So, from a big picture standpoint, is it better to have less children than more? Yes.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Even if people had 3+ kids adding to the over-population, How many people die each day. In the USA? Annually, there is an estimated 43,000 people who die in car accidents. Child abuse takes another estimated 1500. Suicide take another 29,199 per year. Homicide takes 16,889 per year. Not to mention all the lives gone due to abortions, natural causes, old age, war and diseases. People are dying all over the place. I think that if someone wants a big family it’s their own business.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
actually, if you look it up, the procreation rate in the us right now is less than the replacement rate. that is, if everyone had the average (or less), we’d die out. and indeed, even with those of us with large families adding to the total, we’d ultimately die out if we keep the current average. (population is still going up in the u.s., but that’s because of immigration). that means that the social norm is *not* to be having a lot of kids. so while i agree that people are conformists about things like that, right now the big families are the nonconformists.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
In Australia our birth rate is not high enough to replace our current population.
Anyone who considers the birth of a child an Eco-destructive force should not have children.