Today's letter to my local paper

[thatcrazycajun]

Editorial Page Editor
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 Marietta St. NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Editor:

Ellen Goodman's syndicated column in your paper today was very well written and timely, and made an almost airtight case for tying reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to reductions in human population growth. I write "almost" because she neglected to mention what may be the single most compelling reason this idea seems to be such a taboo in the climate-change policy debate.

For many, human life and reproduction and policy relating thereto are religious and moral issues. From the controversy surrounding the Pill's debut nearly half a century ago to more recent pronouncements from the Vatican that "every sexual act must remain open to the transmission of life," birth control has always been among the hottest of hot-button topics. And discussion of controlling population at the end of life is no easier, leading as it inevitably does to fearful talk of the "slippery slope" to euthanasia and/or assisted suicide for the elderly and infirm.

Ms. Goodman is absolutely right that there can be no serious discussion of reducing human pollution absent a discussion of reducing human numbers, or at the very least of slowing their growth. But until debate on population control can be decoupled from the religious and ethical qualms many people have around it, such a serious discussion can never take place.

Sincerely,
TCC

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

'scuzi? There is a reason the Founding Fathers wrote PROVIDE for the common Defence and PROMOTE the general Welfare. If government (in the generic sense) wants to *encourage* folks to have *sustainable* families (and if the adults can *earn* enough to pay for eight kids, FINE), that's just ducky. Anything else, anything that gets even close to population control at gunpoint, and somebody's gonna find themselves unexpectedly looking at the wrong end of the weapon.

GTFS "quid custodes" for why.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Nobody around here's proposing "population control at gunpoint," friend. But whether or not any couple can afford to pay for eight kids, that's still six more than they should be having if we want to have any hope of getting a handle on not only the pollution problem (eight kids = eight more people using resources and thereby generating waste and pollution), but also the problem of adequate allocation of Mother Earth's resources...which, despite what some people apparently choose to believe, are decidedly NOT infinite or all renewable.

No couple should have more kids than is necessary to replace themselves when they die, i.e., two. Insisting on anything beyond that is being a part of the problem rather than the solution. (And yes, I do intend to have a talk about this with my younger brother, father of no less than five, when I go home next week.)

[baka-kit.livejournal.com]

No couple should have more kids than is necessary to replace themselves when they die, i.e., two.

I'd quibble on a few points; first, the assumption that kids will be produced exclusively by couples could make things interesting when a couple had one of their kids, split, and both went on to second, childless partners, and second, that everybody wants kids.

If everybody needs to breed enough to replace themselves, does that mean that my decision not to reproduce puts society at a net population loss?

In the current situation, people like me are balanced out by people who are reproducing more than only their replacements.

I'd also argue the point that any offspring = any other offspring in the use of resources. At a guess, I'd think that any single celebrity offspring would use several times the resources as your brother's whole brood.

Also, there's the matter of the other end of life. My grandmother will be 94 in less than a month. She has at least one doctor's appointment a week; often quite a few more. For several years, she's been having, on a weekly basis, shots that cost the taxpayer something like a thousand dollars each.

How many vaccinations, how much prenatal and infant care, how much nutritional support, could that $52,000 a year provide?

How many children could be healthier, more productive citizens in the future, for the cost of extending a 94-year-old woman's life a few months or years?

TL,DR: while I believe that the conversation is necessary, I don't think that restrictions on childbearing (through whatever means) will be the magic bullet that makes our problem go away.

[filkferengi]

If you want to talk about it, put it in terms of being concerned: can you afford that many? Or possibly amusement: thank you for taking the pressure off me to make the folks grandparents. You may want to use phrases like "enough is as good as a feast" or "sufficient for our needs." Or maybe, just enjoy your family.

I hope y'all have a big time & a happy Christmas!