I would like to say that if you have children, you will inherently pass certain world-perspectives to them. Of course, as they develop and learn on their own they will adopt their own values and personal perspectives -- something every human is entitled to, and should strive for.
However, if everyone alive today who chooses to have a child, makes it a point to teach them environmental consciousness, then perhaps the next waves of human beings will help repair some of the damage caused by the unconscious. There is no doubt, the next generation will be presented with many decisions relating to environmental stewardship. Best in life, tk. On Nov 28, 2007 4:34 PM, K Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I am pleased to see the childfree movement continuing to garner press > attention; a childfree lifestyle is one of many tools that may contribute to > a long-term balance in human demand on natural resources. (In order to > share experiences and ideas with others, childfree-leaning individuals need > not reproduce; communication without procreation can be sufficient...) > > Emily Gonzales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You said: > "All of the people who believed that they could help to save the > planet by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest > of the world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic > (and cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, > the human population grew even faster. Mike Marsh" > > Some of those childless people lived their life span - contributed > profoundly to the community through teaching, volunteerism, sharing > their knowledge and passion - then died. Producing children is not > the only contribution people make to the world (and for some, not > producing children is a wonderful contribution to make to the world). > > It is wonderful if people who care about the natural world are able > to pass those values onto their children. I have seen successes - but > also failures because pressing values onto children, especially > strongly held values, isn't well received by independent minds. > > Have children because it's a wonderful, rewarding experience. But > rationalizing that it is necessary to pass on your values to them (so > they can save the world?) is faulty logic. We have a population and > resource use problem. Fewer people using fewer resources will help > solve the problem. > > We could do greater good by devoting the time and resources spent > parenting into teaching, sharing our passion with others, > volunteering for community groups, conducting ecological research, > restoring habitats, spending time with nieces and nephews, etc... > > I believe human behaviour is strongly influenced by genes, however, > the decision to not have children is an intellectual and value-based > choice that can be quite distinct from our genetic (and cultural) > heritage. It is a difficult decision to be childless as social > pressure is strong, but obviously those who do so have made a > decision distinct from the values of their parents! > > Many of us came of our passion independent of our upbringing - > through teachers, experiences, and intrinsic values. It can and will > happen again. > > Emily Gonzales > > > > At 09:04 AM 11/28/2007, Mike Marsh wrote: > >All of the people who believed that they could help to save the > >planet by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest > >of the world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic > >(and cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, > >the human population grew even faster. > > > >Mike Marsh > >--------- > >Matheus Carvalho wrote: > > > >... to reduce her CO2 footprint. > > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879 > > Emily Gonzales, Ph.D. Candidate > Centre for Applied Conservation Research > 3041-2424 Main Mall, Forest Sciences > University of British Columbia > Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 > 604-822-1256 (office) >
