Dear Geoff, How nice that you're not against people having children, provided it's not more than two. Neither is the Communist Chinese government. And who is doing any underestimating? Are you only now becoming aware of this issue, now that you've been through the diaper years? Like it or not, demographics rules the world. Which part of the world is currently experiencing the largest demographic increases as a consequence of child-birth? It's not the US. The author's criticism of the birth rate in the US (it's a 1994 article) misses one small point. If people in the United States stop having babies, then eventually there won't be a United States or the United States will begin (and by some accounts has already begun) to become the dis-United States as more people come to this country that choose not to assimilate. In other words, there won't be enough people born into this culture (by any race) who grow up to appreciate and value it. (Don't suggest that I'm bashing anyone here. It boils down to a sense of ownership. Generally speaking, when someone has a sense of ownership they value that thing more than if it were common property.) Look at the demographics of Western Europe. They stopped having babies at their replacement rate a long time ago. If you want to read something, go read about the impact of demographic changes that Europe is now experiencing. Here are two quotes from The Population Media Center (http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/demographics.html#popgrowth): "For at least 25 years, 20 European countries and Japan have had below replacement-level fertility rates (2.1 children per woman). By now a total of 44 countries have fertility levels that low. Without the projected gain of 2 million immigrants a year from developing countries, many industrial nations would shortly experience population declines." "The 48 countries classified as least developed have even more rapid population growth. If current trends continue, the combined populations of these nations will almost triple by mid-century-from 658 million to 1.8 billion. Among the 16 countries with extremely high fertility rates (seven children or more per woman) are Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, and Yemen." It would be nice if the world operated by a few simple rules or solving one particular problem would be the keystone to solving everything else, but then there are always unintended consequences. What will be the (unintended) consequences of these demographic trends? What consequences would you like to discuss: political, societal, environmental, cultural, religious, (have I left anything out)? It would be nice if birth rates in all countries could be lowered, some have but many have not. But people will be people, influenced by factors other than "environmental footprints" and babies will be produced (let's not forget the possible unintended consequence of sex-selective infanticide in countries where birth control is mandated). And, unless you live in Communist China where having more than two babies could get you jail time (or worse, tell me if I'm wrong), reducing the number of babies is an entirely volunteer effort counter to biological imperative. For a couple lying together, hearts racing, palms (and other places) sweaty with anticipation, what's the incentive to deny the biological imperative of reproducing the species? (If contraception were the answer, would we be having this discussion?) Edward Sismour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geoffrey Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A thought provoking reference regarding the environmental effects of having a child:
A SPECIAL SECTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE AND CONTROVERSY - THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING A BABY IN THE UNITED-STATES Author(s): HALL CAS, PONTIUS RG, COLEMAN L, KO JY Source: POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT 15 (6): 505-524 JUL 1994 Abstract: This paper gives crude estimates of the environmental consequences associated with the birth of one baby in the United States. We calculate the magnitude of one hundred environmental impacts which one American born today will cause over a lifetime. The impacts are grouped under five headings: waste generation, mineral consumption, energy consumption, ecosystem alteration, and food consumption. We also consider, but do not quantify, impacts on extinctions of species and indigenous cultures. Our purpose is to emphasize the role of population growth in the creation of environmental problems, and to make potential parents aware of their ability to impact the global environment. We conclude that one especially effective way for individuals to protect the national and global environment, and hence protect the wellbeing of all existing people, is to stop creating more humans. --------------- I am not against people having (up to two) children. I have a 2-year-old daughter myself. But let's not underestimate the "environmental footprint" of a baby born in the U.S. -Geoff Poole
