Green Living
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Population
Hi. I mostly lurk here, however, I would like to ask you a question about population. I believe the largest threat to the earth is over-population. I do not know a good way to address this problem. Streamlining the adoption process might be part of a solution. I dont think anybody(private, goverment, religion, ect) has the right to say who can have kids or who cant. Maybe more education on fertility.
What are your thoughts?
Sorry if this came out rambling.
Re: Population
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)
I think advocating for women's rights in developing countries would have the most impact.
In the North American context, less pressure to have children would be nice! A friend and I are childless by choice, and you cannot imagine the grief we get. She's not even married yet. I've been married for 5 years and am in my mid 30s so I think people have given up on us.
Nope, I agree that overpopulation is a problem, even now (just not enough for drastic measures). DH and I talk about this, and I think it's ridiculous people nowadays want 19 kids (Duggars). Or when people think 2 kids aren't enough and go through fertility procedures and end up with 8 total kids (Kate + 8). But we also agree no one (not government or anybody else) should actively prohibit people from having kids, or else we go down the human rights trail with China.
DH and I are getting to our mid-30s and I still do not know if I want one of my own. I just feel there are so many children out there that needs a good home. However, adoption is very expensive and time-consuming, not to mention heartbreaking at times (biological mom changes her mind, etc). So I do agree with the OP that the adoption process should probably be streamlined and maybe we can start focusing some education on this route to encourage more people to consider this.
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)
All good points: Adoption definitely can be less costly than fertility treatments and yes pregnancy itself can be heartbreak. I hope people keep all this in mind when they are going after their 5th or 6th child and can't seem to "naturally" produce.
That was interesting. Thanks for sharing.
I kind of have to agree with whoever said it has more to do with consumption than population. My husband and I were discussing this the other night. He was watching the PGA tour and I was blown away by the amount of money the winners were taking home. I mean, really? We're in the middle of this huge recession and there is still enough money out there to pay some guy $10mil+ to golf? Where are our values?
What is that stat- something like 2% of the population in America has 95% of the wealth? I'm sure if wealth in the world was more evenly distributed and put into creating more green and sustainable practices we probably could provide for everyone.
This.
My cousins who just had their 5th child consume much, much less then some people I know who either don't have any or only have 1 or 2. It's not about the size of the family but how the family consumes.
Insulting religions and groups of people isn't going to help anyone's cause. Quiverful is a religious choice. The Duggars didn't WANT 19 kids, it's what they believe GOD wanted for them (and in their religion, they don't argue with God). Some people chose not to adopt because they don't feel they can love an adopted child as much as a biological child. Would you really suggest to them that they adopt anyway and risk have a damaged child because of it? Really?
And suggesting that more evenly distributing wealth would help the "Green" cause is ridiculous as well. A lot of people are wealthy because they DON'T over consume. My Dad for one skimped and saved his whole life. My Christmas presents were wrapped in newspapers he took after his work threw them out. But he's rich now. You'd never know it by looking at his house, his car, his clothes, or even him. But he is. Heck, I didn't even know my family had money until my Mom insisted I ask my Dad for a business loan and the next day had an enormous sum of money in my bank account that I didn't even know was possible for them to do. Whereas a lot of people I know who never seem to have any money are the most wasteful people when it comes to consumption. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
If you were referring to my comment, I'm not sure you got all of what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that people who save should have their money ripped from them. I doubt your dad is in the top 2% of the population just by scrimping his whole life. I'm referring to the massive corporations- the charge-$150-for-Nikes-that-were-made-by-child-labourers-making-$2-per-shoe-and-ship-them-halfway-around-the-world corporations. Corporations, like oil companies, that are actually forking out money to block new, green technology. What I said was if we take some of this money and put it into green sustainable practices and technology we could do a lot more than we are doing now, in terms of providing for the world in an environmentally friendly manner. How is that not helping the green cause?
What I said was if we as society had different values we might be able to do a lot more than we do now. I'm just sick of hearing people, corporations, and governments say we can't afford to go green, but really, the money is out there. Our values need to shift.
We are childfree by choice, mainly due to this problem.
IMO, streamlining the adoption process would not help- a large percentage of people do NOT want to adopt, they want a biological child. Even if you streamlined it and made it free, people would still continue to reproduce because they want "their own child" that looks like them, etc. At one point, we were looking into adopting and our agency said 99% of their clients are only adopting because they can't have biological children, that we were the exception- it is rare to have a couple decide to build their family through adoption as a first choice.
Also, I think (for the most part) population growth is DIRECTLY related to consumption. Sure, you could have the occassional family of 12 that consumes little and a family of three that wastes and consumes lots, but I would imagine that would be the exception, not the rule.
Good topic bellee! I agree with missflip. I don't remember the exact statistic, but the United States is something like 10% of the world's population but we consume 50% of the world's resources. It's not just overpopulation that's the problem, it's also that developed countries consume resources at a dispproportionate rate.
For the population issue, I agree that adoption should be easier. I also think the government of any nation, including ours, should encourage sustainable family sizes (1-2 kids). Give tax breaks for reasonable sized families, rathen that increasing tax breaks the more children you have. Make state-run subsidies like WIC harder to get the more children you have. Fund and promote family planning rather than "abstinence only" programs, which are STUPID.
For the consumption issue, American corporations in particular are only going to move to greener options once the regular options aren't so profitable. STOP the taxpayer-funded subsidies to Big Agriculture and Big Oil. I still can't wrap my head around those. These are some of the biggest, richest, multi-national companies in the world, why do they need tax breaks? Give tax breaks to companies that invest in green technology and reducing waste. If you make going green profitable, companies will start doing it. I don't know enough about the political systems of other nations to speak to their problems with consumption, but the American problem is greed.
I agree that both population and consumption have some influence. However, I think that overpopulation is the more critical factor.
H and I both work in labs where we grow cells, and with limited oxygen, nutrients, etc. they will always die - regardless of consumption rate - it may just take longer if they consumer slower. I fully believe human population will do the same eventually. With limited natural resources, at some point we will hit critical mass for the population that our alloted resources can handle, regardless of consumption rate. Unless we can adapt or come up with a new source of natural resources...
This is the typical (theoretical) cell growth curve.
This!! When I travel to other countries, I am always amazed at the abundance of stuff we Americans have!! Our comfort level has been so elevated that we feel like we need it.
Yes, but humans aren't cells. We're not just consuming food (energy), water, and space... we consume a lot of natural resources that go far beyond our basic needs for survival. For example - watering our lawns just to keep them green and pretty, or driving fuel-inefficient vehicles, or using fertilizers (lots of fossil fuels used and greenhouse gasses generated), running electrical appliances, etc. etc. With humans, "consumption" includes a much broader array of natural resource use (and the resulting pollution, fragmentation, erosion, and the overall "ecological footprint" of our consumption patterns).
The planet could sustain a larger population if we were all just living a basic subsistence living. It can't sustain that same sized population if we're all living a typical US lifestyle. This is why it's important to address both population AND consumption.
I dont think we could support a larger population by subsistence living. Hunter-garthers have a much lower population density than agricultural societies(if Im remembering Guns, Germs and Steel right)
While people arent cells, humans are a still animals. Why would we not be subject to the same resource limiting laws of other living things? Especially when we are not using them wisely.
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)
But everything has limits. I dont think people can indefinately overcome resource limits. Just because you can use some fertilizer now doesnt mean that is a long term solution. In fact, by artificially increasing resources, we are able to increase population. Once that crashes, I would expect an even larger population crash.
momentary tangent...we should really quit putting houses in fertile valleys.
PS My husband works at a coal mine.
But everything has limits. I dont think people can indefinately overcome resource limits. Just because you can use some fertilizer now doesnt mean that is a long term solution. In fact, by artificially increasing resources, we are able to increase population. Once that crashes, I would expect an even larger population crash.
momentary tangent...we should really quit putting houses in fertile valleys.
PS My husband works at a coal mine.
Just to clarify: I didn't mean a larger population than we currently have. I meant a relatively larger population than one with a high consumption rate. A finite amount of resources could support a larger population that consumes less (less resources per individual), OR a smaller population that consumes more (per individual). Both the overall rates of population growth AND the individual rates of consumption matter in how quickly the resource supply is depleted.
ETA: Also, it's true that technology and cultural changes (i.e. farming) have expanded our resource base, which allows us to achieve higher overall populations and densities than we might otherwise achieve. But there are trade-offs to those practices--higher rates of pollution, greenhouse gasses, habitat fragmentation, etc. So I agree that even with this expanding resources base, there are limits to what our planet can sustain. And before we even get to limits in the most extreme sense (population collapse), there will likely be overall declines in our quality of life that won't be a lot of fun...
I was noting how much worse our patterns of consumption are than those of other species. Our consumption (even when curbed) is much more environmentally taxing than that of other populations because of what we "require" and can attain (socially and materially). We have a different population curve from typical large mammal curves, and much more extensive damage for the environment to bounce back from than when, say, a population of deer gets too large for the area and the extent of damage is foliage loss. We find ways to get to more resources, but the extraction of those resources is increasingly damaging, and supports a yet larger/more consumptive population of humans. It's not infinite... in fact, the more it seems to be, the less it is. (I hope that makes more sense.)
Best sound ever: baby's heartbeat! (Heard @ 10w1d)
Because America isn't a Communist or a socialist country.
Basically what you are saying is "If you are a multi-billion dollar corporation you have to give X% of you gross income to green technology". It sounds good on paper, it really does. But what it usually translates into is "Company X gives X% of their money to Green technology and then lays off X% of their employees because the guys at the top don't want to take the hit. Now the government is paying out so much in unemployment and welfare to families desperately in need because they relied on their income from Company X that all of the money given to Green Technology is now going there".
It sounds nice and pretty on paper, but doesn't work. Rather, what you SHOULD do (and what I think everyone on this board strives to do) is to learn all you can about companies and make purchases based on their contribution to Green Technology. Then they are getting more money and have more money to hire more employees and give us more Green Technology. At least in theory. But it's always best to learn who's doing what and choose companies based on how closely their beliefs match yours.
A good example- I am a photographer and for my albums I use Finao. For one, they are AMAZING albums and for second, they are a "green" company. At least, they are trying their best to be. I also use a company called Wild Magnolia for the same reason but they charge too much for the average person. Anywho, by buying my albums from them (along with thousands of other photographers) this little album company has exploded in the past few years. They have hired more employees, offer more options (including vegan options!) and are just an all around great company. I just wish the Average Joe could print with them (they are pros only) but at the same time I don't because my clients love them and can't get them themselves. Haha! But... you get where I'm going, right?
That's actually not what I'm suggesting. It's one option, and I'm not horribly opposed to it, but I'm not trying to say that's what SHOULD happen.
This is more what I was getting at with the constant "our values need to shift." More people need to a) care about green values, and b) vote with their dollars. Like I've said a few times- the money is out there. The big corporations I referred to earlier only have a chunk of that money because we as consumers are giving it to them. If society's values shifted, these corporations wouldn't have the money and power they have now- at least, not without shifting their own values and practices correspondingly.