We Must Preserve the Earth's Dwindling Resources for My Five Children

[Withywindle]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-must-preserve-the-earths-dwindling-resources-fo,11239/


Happy Earth Day!

(edit: Note: From The Onion. Therefore it's satire. However, good satire works when it hits a nerve.)


"We must take steps immediately to devise safe, alternative energy sources that my future offspring can safely consume. If we don't develop new fuels now, there will be none left for those who issue from my loins to burn and continue to burn for all time. I don't want my 625-odd great-grandchildren to have to wait 20 or 30 precious seconds for their toilets to flush. I don't want their 3,125 children to live in a hellish society where they cannot own their own snowmobiles. And I shudder to think that my 15,625 great-great-great-grandchildren may not be able to have TVs in every room that they can leave on all day and all night. Is it our right to deny my progeny of their gargantuan RVs and motorboats, as well? Of course not.

We cannot, in good conscience, lay such a burden on tomorrow's generations of Melfords. My children are the future. And at the end of the day, isn't it family—my family—that truly matters?"

[kestrel91316]

1. Snap!

[Skittles]

2. I remember a neighbor of mine with 8 kids complaining about rush hour traffic

HELLO

[Withywindle]

3. Class, and availability of public transit, really is an issue.

If all 8 kids when they grow up will take the bus or train and be cool with it, then it's REALLY not as big a drain on the rest of the world as if all 8 of them expect to own their own cars, that they will OF COURSE drive to work alone.

[loudsue]

6. As long as they don't require food, grown on depleted soil and the fuel it takes to bring it to the

table, PLUS the (dwindling resource) water to grow the crops. Well, then there's also the paper products to blow their noses, wipe their mouths, hands and asses, and all of the pollution and depletion of natural resources that that causes. Then there are the aluminum cans, plastic bottles, plastic packaging for all their toys, cd's, lunch snacks, candy wrappers.

Yes. Even one person on this planet leaves a huge footprint. When someone has a whole slew of kids, they are using up resources. The ocean can't hardly contain all the waste that has been discarded, both human and chemical/industrial. The earth cannot replenish its natural resources as fast as people are being born and using them up.

[Withywindle]

8. I totally agree with you, I was just trying to be diplomatic.

My parents had one child, I have none, and I'm fine with that. :hi:

I do think that ridiculously wasteful standards of living are a problem, especially when combined with rampant population growth. Since when did we get the idea that being able to live with all-disposable products was a natural birthright? That sense of privilege was a brief blip in human history, and it's over now.

[Zhade]

23. I won't be so kind: SUCH PEOPLE ARE SELFISH ENTITLED ASSHOLES.

NT!

[hfojvt]

10. some of that depends on income

I cannot remember the exact numbers but in the Mother Jones population issue they should the footprint of two or three American grandkids was greater than that of about 150 grandkids in India.

Plus, I currently have about 110 pounds of aluminium that will be recycled that my grandmother's grandchild picked up off the streets after other people's grandkids had casually discarded it.

[hfojvt]

9. bah, busses

One time just for fun, I waved goodbye to my roommate as he went to the bus stop to goto work. Then I got on my bike, took a back street, went past the place where he worked and got to the bus stop a couple minutes before his bus did. Even funnier, he walked right past me without even noticing, until I called his name.

[Withywindle]

13. bah, bikes

:blush:

I never learned to ride one. There are a couple reasons. An inner-ear balance-related birth defect is one. (No, I will never be able to skate--roller or ice--either. I can barely walk a straight line dead sober.) The other is growing up in a rural area with very few paved roads, very little horizontal land, and no sidewalks whatsoever.

Biking is awesome for those who can, but don't assume everyone can. Even people who aren't obviously visually disabled may not be able to pull it off. don't judge non-bikers, because you don't even KNOW, do you?

[Aerows]

18. They make three wheel bikes

They actually look kind of cool. They are called recumbent bikes and can actually be faster than a normal bike, and they have a seat you lean back in. Then of course, there are the regular three wheel bikes.

[vim876]

39. The problem with recumbent trikes is that they are really expen$ive.

Like, 4 figures expensive. And not everyone can use even those. They're also harder to store in limited spaces. Withywindle's point still stands. Some people are never going to be able to use user-powered modes of transit, and it's important to account for that when planning major transportation changes.

[blondeatlast]

12. I would have had to bite part of my tongue off to keep from laughing in her face.

I just don't have that kind of self-restraint.

[freshwest]

4. 15,625! Mother Earth loves nookie!

[Gregorian]

5. It takes the Onion to do this. Weird.

Only the most serious and important subject. And only the Onion can get the message across. They're doing better than I can, with my serious method of trying to get people to see.

Thanks for posting. I'd recommend this 7 billion times if I could.

[Withywindle]

14. Thanks for reccing.

It's a VERY important issue, and everyone seems to think it applies to THOSE OTHER PEOPLE OVER THERE, not them.


Which was the whole point of the satire.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

17. yeah, really

This is THE biggest threat, at the root of every crisis, really.... OVERPOPULATION.



Anne Geddes, the famous baby photographer who does calendars and books and such, had one of a baby dressed in a panda outfit, with the caption, "Please Save the Earth"...or something similar..... The ignorance of that made me want to SCREAM. It's the goddammed relentless, exponential increase of humans--more and more and more "cute babeez, oh they're so adorable".

We are the "exterminator species" as National Geographic has said.


We are SO out of balance with the planet, it's ridiculous.
and people hate you for recognizing it, and don't dare mention it......

I hate the breeders, truly...

and I expect to get flamed for saying so. Boy oh boy, do a post about breeding and selfishness if you want to start a flame war-- or get yourself banned (*ahem* not that I would personally know anything about that...)

[Gregorian]

19. Aha!

I'm so glad I caught your post. Music to my ears. I don't say that frivolously either. This is a rare occasion. Seldom do I meet someone who sees, and is willing to communicate it.

Thanks for your reply. I thought I was one of about three people here who are constantly trying to get everyone to see the light. I will never understand the mentality.

There isn't much else to say, since we're both on the same wavelength. Nice to meet you. Cheers. Etc...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. Hello Gregorian!

Yes, it's the biggest elephant in the room, I'd say.

I am sooo on the same page as you.

In my department at work, we're mostly women, and there's a large number who are of childbearing age. The default mentality, the coo-fests, the nearly universal encouragement of total submersion in SELF ABSORBED urges is one I separate myself from as much as possible, since I don't fake that kind of emotion very well. General consensus is I'm a rotten old bizatch! *snort*

Back when I was of the proper age, I went through a brief time of wanting to get pregs. But I thank all that is sacred that it didn't happen, since my motivation was completely self-absorbed: I wanted to be a part of the club, I wanted the attention, I wanted to be that special, special princess (unique and special like every single other one of them--billions and billions of very special mommeez), who is fussed over at parties and the passive recipient of cooing and attention simply for carrying out a bodily function!

Rarely does anyone stop and really understand the fact that the period of sparkly fantasy lasts about as long as a used placenta dropped on a desert rock at midday!

Babymaking is really about romanticized fantasies and giving oneself up to biology--sad for women, since many who choose to give in to the biological imperative give UP their individuality, their identity, their creativity, their interests, careers, their unique selves in exchange for a thankless existence of drudgery, mindless rule-enforcement, endless repetitive chores, submission and sacrifice to broods of completely self-centered demand-machines. I've met many haggard women whose misery from decades of self-abnegation simmered mightily under the lead weight of guilty obligation. (Have you ever heard the refrain, "Well, I was starting XYZ career and really loved it, but then the kids came...."? Yeah, like they came of their own volition, you had nothing to do with it :eyes: )

For most, it is most certainly NOT about imagining taking on the 30 year or more responsibility to nurture a life. The broodmares will protest to the ends of the earth how they crave raising and guiding new life, etc etc., but if that were really so, they would adopt, since there are warehouses full of souls in dire need.

I do know a few parents who ARE outstanding in their roles, but still---why the necessity to produce yet another burden on the planet, rather than take those skills and give them where there is true need? Take truly responsible, courageous and compassionate action? Like, adopt an older child, or a non-white one, or a disabled one, for example.

Well, Gregorian, hahah.....looks like finding a kindred soul set me off on a little spontaneous combustion here; next time I'll tell ya how I REALLY feel!!! :rofl: !!! Haa, I could have gone on longer, too! :P

I guess this is what happens when there's something that needs to get talked about but social pressure to shut up and grin stupidly is overwhelming!! So feel free to drop me a line anytime :hi:

[Gregorian]

21. Such an interesting subject.

I've honestly spent the last 40 years living around it. I wanted to reply because something interesting happened that I wanted to pass on to you. I got an email from a guy I was in a high school English class with. He's now a small time producer in Hollywood. And yet another person I know who isn't married. 55, and still single. Of all the people I grew up with almost none are married, or with children. I guess I had an intelligent neighborhood. When my best friend called me up to tell me he had just produced a child, it was to apologize. It's funny because we both spent much of our youths lamenting the loss of what was a beautiful area, to those who wanted to crush it with concrete and cars. He's only having one. And it's because of a very special reason. His wife lost both her brother and father to recent suicides. They just felt like they could...ah, I'm blabbing.

So my long lost friend from high school sent me a Bill Hicks video you might like. Pretty vile, but also along the same context as our discussion here.

What I find so odd is how people like us are in such the small minority. It's growing. But it's still some kind of nesting instinct that gets people reproducing. And some kind of blindness to the connection between numbers of humans and ugliness and destruction. As someone who grew up around engineering, I see the workings behind the scenes that make this modern society run. Every gear in every transmission that is mined, machined, marketed. And it's this observation that reveals the truth of the limitation on growth. And, having a collection of real estate ventures that revealed stories from older people who saw what was. Who saw the San Francisco area before subdivisions. Or the northern California area before massive logging turned it into what it is now. And then there is just aesthetics. A field I used to play in is now an H-P parking lot. I see the connection.

There is another side to this topic that I find more distressing than anything. But it's just whining, since there isn't a solution. Life can be unfair. It often has been. But how does one cope with this situation in which we find ourselves. See, this is why I asked the mods for a population forum. I've had a very difficult time with this. I wanted to live where I grew up. But the field where I used to practice my trumpet while watching the pheasants is the Google campus site. No more pheasants. I had a pretty good life. It's like I was excommunicated. Yes, it's kind of like whining. So I'll go tend to my day here. But I suppose you know that when you find someone who understands, you talk. For what it's worth, that's kind of what I have done here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqtcb66Yeyo

[BlancheSplanchnik]

26. naw, not blabbing at all!

I believe that the loss of beauty factors in to violence and disrespect for life.


It's also true that human greed, anger, and stupidity destroys, while human wisdom, courage and compassion helps--both on the macro and the micro levels.

This is short because I gotta run, but I love Bill Hicks and will check that vid later!

:hi:

[blueamy66]

22. Hey, I have to endure it from a GUY.

He's an Indian in his early 30s. They're having their first kid. Of course Mom and Dad are here from India to take care of the baby for the first year. And when they leave, her Mom and Sister are coming for 6 months to take care of the baby then. How the hell does a parent bond with a child when they never have to take care of it? I have no problem with other traditions, but he is not living in my world. I work 40+ hours a week.....my fiance is on the road every week.

Anyway, he keeps bugging ME to have a child. Hey, I'm 44 years old, my fiance is 52 and he has a 19 year old child that we are still paying child support for. How the hell does he think I am gonna be able to raise a child? I can't afford what we have now. My fiance would be in his 70s when the kid graduated from HS.

How do you tell people like this to shut the hell up?

[Lance_Boyle]

28. How do you pay child support on an adult (19 y.o.)?

Strange.

[blueamy66]

30. He is going to college

nt

[Lance_Boyle]

31. I can see that, but you're 'helping with college expenses' and not paying CS, right?

Because the state can't mandate that you pay to support another adult, unless you used to be married to him/her, and even that is (thankfully!) a rarity in these days of dual incomes. I would honestly be shocked to find out that "attending college" is a valid reason for the state to enforce child support beyond the age of 18. Hell, custodial parents are under no financial obligation to finance their kids' college - I can't imagine that non-custodial parents could be.

[blueamy66]

33. No, still paying support.

It's on the Custody and Support paperwork. Not all states consider the age of maturity for CS issues to be 18.

The $ is going from Mom to the child for expenses though.

[Zhade]

24. This is an outstanding post. I salute you.

I wish more were like you!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

27. thanks :)

I appreciate that!

I wish more people got the message too.......



I seem to remember that there's a quote from Martin Luther King Jr about the dangers of overpopulation and the need for people to wise up....but he had four kids

[Withywindle]

25. AAAARRGGGHH!!

Anne Geddes, the famous baby photographer who does calendars and books and such, had one of a baby dressed in a panda outfit, with the caption, "Please Save the Earth"...or something similar..... The ignorance of that made me want to SCREAM. It's the goddammed relentless, exponential increase of humans--more and more and more "cute babeez, oh they're so adorable".


That is the worst of all possible worlds, isn't it? Cute-bebbeh kitsch combined with some kind of feel-good/do-nothing "earth-friendly" message...that somehow manages to imply that we should "save the earth" because--of human babies?

No. We should save the earth because we fucking live here, and if it dies, so do we. We should save pandas not just because they're cute, but because they have a right to live on their own terms--as do all species, not just the cute ones. I wouldn't call us the "exterminator species"; that gives us too much predatory glamor. I'd call us the "rampant destructive cell reproduction species." Like cancer.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

40. exactly, Withywindle

E. X. A. C. T. L. Y.

yes, "feel-good/do-nothing" ---- but feel virtuous in your 30 seconds of "concern".

:eyes:



yes, every time I see her work (and I must say, it IS aesthetically remarkable. Very very beautiful.), I'm torn between awe at the visual beauty and gagging at the message of it.


hmmmm, we are behaving, as a species, like cancer: completely renouncing the function of our intellect, or just plain ol' common sense.
So I wonder, is there a connection, on a metaphysical level, with the frequency of cancer? If we behave like it........ ?

[hfojvt]

7. yeah, five-five-five does work out that way

except for the fact that they skipped a generation.
5 - children
25 - grandchildren
125 - great grandchildren
625 - great-great grandchildren
3125 - great-great-great grandchildren

Also, in practice, nobody does that "well". One actual example, that I have a fair amount of knowledge of. My own patriarchal great-great-great grandparents, Jeremiah and Mary. He born in 1811 and she in 1820 and married in 1838. Not 5 children, but 13 children!!

How many grandchildren? Not 169, but only 72. An average of 5.5 per kid.

How many great-grandchildren? Not 2197. Or even 396. But only 217. An average of 3 per kid.

You can figure out why, just by looking at Jeremiah and Mary's kids. The youngest died as an infant, the 2nd youngest never married or had kids. The 4th oldest died in the Civil War, unmarried. And the 5th died at age 24 with only one child.

Even look at my father's parents. 3 children and 14 grandchildren and 28 great-grandchildren. The grandchildren are sorta running at replacement rate if you include the spouses.

[Withywindle]

11. Well, you never know.

My paternal grandparents' line will die out soon, because my grandparents on that side had only two children (my dad and his sister), both of whom had one daughter each 4 years apart; those daughters are now 42 and 38, never married, and totally uninterested in bebbehs.

My mother's side of the family....well, it doesn't matter if I breed or not, because the genes I share with her will be passed on regardless. She has a ridiculous number of brothers* who have fathered and grandfathered LOTS of kids by now. (In fact, one of my uncles had two families at once, unbeknownst to his legal wife).



*IMO, Exhibit A for why I'm an only child.

[Gregorian]

15. My grandmother had 12. But even at two, we stay at 7 billion!

So my point is I feel we passed the safe amount at the 1900 mark in time. Safe meaning we can all live in comfort without destroying the planet. That doesn't seem like such a wacky notion does it?

[mountainlion55]

16. Good one

:applause:

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. It's funny, but population growth in the US is not driven by birth rates

The us fertility rate is 2.1 - essentially replacement.

[Missy Vixen]

32. Thirteen million childfree adults in the United States

ensure at least twenty-six million will not be born.

We're doing our part.

:woohoo:

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Yours is a perfectly valid choice.

Since population is not growing at all from fertility so is the choice to have kids.

Population pressure from new kids is a problem in other countries.

[vim876]

38. Many childfree adults...

also help ensure that the children who ARE born (their nieces, nephews, fairy godchildren, etc.) have more adults looking out for their well-being. It's a great deal for everyone.

[vim876]

35. There is a middle path.

It seems like a lot of commenters here think that the only options are to remain childfree or have giant litters. Having 1-2 kids seems like a sensible middle ground. You will never convince most people not to reproduce, since it's one of those basic instinct things. It's kind of like when right wingers basically suggest we get young people to give up sex. Fat chance. What you can do is teach people to do what they will do in a way that has fewer impacts on the earth. Have one or two biological kids. If you want 8 kids, have 2 and adopt 6. Or raise children communally. Or take a greater role in your nieces'/nephews' lives. I don't see why this is so hard. And to those of you who hate "breeders" (a disgusting pejorative term no matter the context), remember that if everyone were childfree, it would wipe out the human race completely. If that doesn't bother you, you aren't going to listen to anything I say here anyway. If it does, please stop hating people who make different choices than you do.

[Missy Vixen]

36. You first

>If it does, please stop hating people who make different choices than you do.<

I don't believe I've ever used the word "breeders" on this website. I haven't seen that word used by anyone else besides parents who are denigrating the childfree, and our choice to remain so.

Here are facts: There are too many people on the planet. Those who excuse their large families by "well, the earth will die out/who will take care of you when you're old/bla bla bla" - it's an excuse. Just admit that you are more interested in propagating your DNA.

There are 250,000 foster kids in the USA. Still.

[vim876]

37. Right.

"I don't believe I've ever used the word "breeders" on this website. I haven't seen that word used by anyone else besides parents who are denigrating the childfree, and our choice to remain so.""

How about comment #17 on this very thread, by BlancheSplanchnik: "I hate the breeders, truly..."? I'm glad you don't personally use that word, in which case that comment wasn't aimed at you.

There are too many people on the planet. You are absolutely right. That doesn't mean that everyone has to completely stop reproducing. It means we need to start reproducing at below replacement rate. And adoption is a beautiful and wonderful thing that more people should do. But the ability to reproduce is one of the functions that defines us as living things. Most people won't give that up. And of course I want to propagate my DNA (though I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have a large family, as I currently have no children). That's how life works; creatures want to propagate their DNA, so they reproduce. If you want to make your arguments against all reproduction, I won't stop you. However, you are shooting yourself (and a lot of other people) in the foot. People won't take a movement seriously whose main argument is that people shouldn't reproduce at all. Not going to happen. Those of us who believe in population control through lower-than-replacement-rate reproduction (for those who want to reproduce) will be drowned out by people like you, and most people will end up not listening to any of us. Getting down on potential allies just seems like a crap strategy to me.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

42. I'll own up to it. I said "breeders", and I expressed my anger

This IS exactly what makes me so angry, as you said very well, MissyVixen, "Here are facts: There are too many people on the planet. Those who excuse their large families by "well, the earth will die out/who will take care of you when you're old/bla bla bla" - it's an excuse. Just admit that you are more interested in propagating your DNA."


Vim876, yes, I know it's an offensive remark I made----well..... I apply it to those who wallow in mindless complacency as they worsen the problem, people like MissyVixen described above. And yeah, anger makes people say bad words, sometimes. I'm sure I'll say it again, when I boil over.

Actually, I absolutely agree with your views on how we could achieve some balance in this situation. Reduce family size, establish more communal ways of living---result would be a much higher quality of life for all, too. If I could find a communal living opportunity, I would totally do it.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.