"Tiniest of Baby Booms" A Monster

Barry wrote: "Your religion of Carbonology, whose High Priests include Al Gore and a host of others seeking to make their fortunes on this band wagon, is shaping your values." With all due respect, sir, you are an idiot.

Let's keep in mind that the real reason for sustainable development and good environmental practices is for the well-being of future generations-Julia, I hope your post is at least a little tounge-in-cheek; otherwise I think you're missing the big picture.

We don't have to commit ourselves to mass self-extinctions. The unraveling web of life -- the unfolding of mass extinctions of other species -- could doom our own, whether physically or psychically (a psychic pall already affects those who don't get outside and really use their senses to observe what's there). Of course, various species are always arising and passing, but the pace of the change is what's alarming. Who's surprised by overpopulation? As a species we've evolved in the last 10,000 years into believing that we can get something for nothing -- whether that means more grain for storage, more people, more autos, more interest, more bubbles. That mindset, too, is changing, though it may not change quickly enough to help us or any other species. If I had to bet, the mycelia will probably inherit the earth. I won't be passing along my genes and that is partly by choice and partly by circumstance. Occasionally, that saddens me, but mostly it's OK. I can find plenty of other ways to express myself.

I thought maybe Ms. Whitty's piece was tongue-in-cheek in the great tradition of writers like Jonathan Swift, but after seeing a comment that is presumably from her, now I'm wondering if maybe she isn't really just being a callous rhymes-with-itch. If we take her argument to its logical conclusion, we should simply distribute a few billion swords and ritually extinct ourselves. Or if we want to be sure we remove even the most incalcitrant, a good old-fashioned all-out nuclear war should pretty much do the trick. It may take awhile, but the planet will eventually right itself. Ms. Whitty's piece, moreover, does not address the importance of children in any other context than climate change, and offers nothing at all by way of a solution other than not having children. And how realistic is it to expect that low-carbon Bangladeshi child - who probably grew up in abject poverty - to turn down an opportunity to migrate to a first-world country, work like hell (and probably at an environmentally unfriendly profession like medicine - have you seen all the waste that industry generates in the name of minimizing bio-hazards?), take a spouse and pop out a brood that would make the Octo-Mom jealous??? Another option - how about capping human lifespan, Logan's Run style? We'll have our insurance folks crunch the numbers and come up with an optimum age at which the allocation of resources for the care and maintenance of a declining human body no longer justify the expense, in dollars and in environmental damage. I'm guessing, given the greater burden the average woman places on the medical system, that men would be Soylent-Greened around age 62 and women at about 58. And yes, I referenced the movie in which the dead are processed to feed the living. From a carbon footprint standpoint, that's far more efficient after all. Or how about this as a personal solution for Ms. Whitty as her evolution of thinking trumps biology - take your brood to Bangladesh, live just like the current average Bangladeshi lives, and that way you can bring your carbon footprint down to current Bangladeshi levels. Of course, as the average Bangladeshi probably doesn't have 24/7 high-speed Internet access, we'll only hear about your noble self-sacrifice in sporadic spurts.

It is people like you, Ms Whitty that give people like me (who do care about the environment very dearly) a wrong image. I dont know where you are getting your numbers from, but the numbers of us 850 million "western/european" people are already dwindling at an average of 1.65 children per woman. So why should we start with us? I would rather start with the 1.2 billion Indians, the 1.3 billion Chinese, the 2 billion african and middle eastern people and all the others that are actually showing climbing (some alarmingly!!! climbing) population numbers. They also care rather little about the environment compared to us. Just look at the polution in China. Plus the rice fields there produce huge amounts of green house gasses (e.g. methane). Anyway once they get their birth rates down to ours, I am willing to revisit your ideas. Otherwise I think they are very unfair und also not beneficial for the environment. Currently, we (850 million western european people) are the ones that care about the environment the most. Have us replaced by the others and you have a world full of non carers. I dont think that that would do any good. Further, you can easily compensate for your children by driving a car half as big as the one you currently own. By doing or financing or lobbying for research that will replace carbon emitting energy production with clean methods. Maybe the child you are not having will find the break through in fusion energy, or will develop the perfect solar cell? By living responsibly and passing on your ideals to your children that will then help you spread the word, you can contribute more than by not having children at all. As a sidenote: If you dont have children, you play dinosaur and die out. It is that simple. You end a continuous line that started with the first cell that decided to divide. Up to you, all your ancestors fought hard and did their best to make sure they would survive long enough to pass on their genes and some of them also fought for their offspring and died for it. I am not sure whether a idea like yours is fair to them.

Anonymous wrote: "Maybe the child you are not having will find the break through in fusion energy, or will develop the perfect solar cell? By living responsibly and passing on your ideals to your children that will then help you spread the word, you can contribute more than by not having children at all. "As a sidenote: If you dont have children, you play dinosaur and die out. It is that simple. You end a continuous line that started with the first cell that decided to divide. Up to you, all your ancestors fought hard and did their best to make sure they would survive long enough to pass on their genes and some of them also fought for their offspring and died for it. "I am not sure whether a idea like yours is fair to them." I have given much thought to just this sort of thing...having children really is like rolling dice. If you grow up in poor emotional/mental circumstances, you could end up the next Hitler or Stalin. Or in good circumstances, but with spiritually cold parents and relatives, maybe you'll just be an even-keeled contributor. Or maybe you have the best of the world and you still end up a white-collar crook who steals people's life savings. I've been told in years past (by men) that I should have children to ensure that my intellect and whatever else, not just ideals, get passed along. I don't like the idea; it smacks of a certain sort of tyranny. No one should feel compelled to bring a child into this world just to pass along ideals. What about a nihilist? Should he or she pass along his/her ideals? My point is, it's really not up to anyone else to choose for anyone else. But the veneer of plenty that we in the States live with is just that, a veneer. So, we DO need to think about what we and the earth can support. And I don't just mean what can support Homo sapiens, but all others whose home is Earth. And I don't believe that when we die, that's it. If I have my way, I will become food for all the carrion eaters and the worms and then, as Edward Hoagland wrote about recently in Harper's, the "I" that's no longer an "I" will be carried back to the sea whence those first cells that decided to divide came. So, the cycle does NOT end just because I am not passing along my genes. Yes, I've marveled at all it took to bring me to this particular point in time and place, but guess what? I exist and am aware of that. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't know any better. And that's what people, especially, don't seem to get. I don't bemoan the loss of the dinosaurs. I do bemoan the loss of the Dusky Seaside sparrows, because they went extinct in my lifetime and the space program -- about which there are many things to admire -- helped to cause that extinction. It's our psychic loss that I'm talking about...a real grief that, the more we lose, if we're aware of it, the more keenly we'll feel it.