I heard a religious man state that there is no population problem in this country. That all the people could be put in Texas if they stood shoulder to shoulder. Now consider the following: 1. How much land is needed to feed each person? 2. How much land is unusable(Death Vally, Mountains, etc)? 3. How much is needed for waste disposal? 4. How much is under water? 5. How about room for houses? 6. How about room for roads? 7. Would anyone want to move around a little? There are more questions but you get the idea. Total what is needed per person and multiply it times Texas. You mean we don't have 100 states? Oh Well!

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), October 25, 2000

Answers

I have often heard this "statistic" and it does include, believe it or not, 1200 square feet of living space for each person. This is only used as an example of how over-population scare tactics are used to scare people into thinking that we're all going to be starving in a few years. The federal government is grabbing up millions of acres of land, ostensibly to protect it, but what rich resources they are taking out of the hands of the public, whether it be for petroleum exploration or whatever. This planet can sustain many more people, if only land, especially in developing countries, were used more wisely for crops, i.e crop rotation were used, etc.

-- Christina W. (introibo@address.com), October 25, 2000.

While I find it interesting that so many "big wigs" are all concerned about overpopulation I also think there is another MAJOR problem that nobody seems to want to address. Clean water! After years and years of neglect and sometimes just downright illegal dumping, insecticides, herbacides etc, we've depleted our supply of clean, pure water. I read somewhere the other day that pure water had totally disappeared from America several years ago. Only polluted, "regurgatated sewerage" is available now to be cleaned up with even MORE chemicals! Make sense to you? Well, even the wolverine doesn't "spoil" his own home. People should be so smart! My water well is polluted by a nearby hog confinment [nitrates] but even before it came into being I still had a problem with saltwater and a taste of "petrouluem in the well. A nearby saltwater injection well for the oil companies contributed that little "gift". A reverse osmosis water purification system [$450. from Sears] has made it drinkable. Costs are not cheap to maintain the unit but with no options I figure it's a cheap price to pay to get to live where I do-- -IN THE COUNTRY! This old world has stood for many moons and only in the last century or so has man really increased his intelligence enough to destroy, pollute and misuse what our forfathers conserved for centurys! My $2.00 worth of opinion. old hoot gibson--the Illinois Hillbilly. Matt. 24:44

-- hoot (hoot@pcinetwork.com), October 25, 2000.

Hi Sharon! I love lots and lots of space so my answer is of course we have a terrible population problem! I used to fly in my 20s and I would look down at all the people and think it looks like our mother earth has a bad case of crabs!! Ha. I know we can throw out all kinds of facts and statistics but if we move on over to the right side of the brain I think most homesteaders would agree we would all be better off if a hole lot of people would disappear! Anyway I did my part gettin fixed after 2 kids. Hey I wish everyone would move to Texas that way I can have California to myself......Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Every single one of society's problems can be traced to overpopulation. Wars, poverty, famine, pollution... A nice plague would make 'em all go away.

-- Jim (catchthesun@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Everybody that wants to live shoulder to shoulder and in everybody elses wastes is welcome. (more room for me) I still believe in the adage, "if I can see smoke from anybody else's chimney then I am living too close." I suppose if one grew up in China or India or any huge city then one doesnt know any different and would accept it. I didnt and even small towns seem confining and claustrophobic to me.

And by the way I did my part and contributed to birth of ZERO children that will have to try to survive in any future human beehive.

-- Hermit John (hermit@hilltop_homestead.zzn.com), October 26, 2000.

Hopefully I won't get shot down in flames when I say this, but I have been wondering for a long time how it is that so many homesteaders want to have their own place of 20+/- acres and think it isn't enough, neighbors are too close, etc -- but the kicker for me is that they have 5, 6, 7, or more kids!!! They want to raise their kids to love nature and live a simple homestead lifestyle, but WHERE is the land going to come from for all those children to have their own homesteads? And what happens with THEIR children?

If every human in the US stood shoulder to shoulder in Texas, they couldn't lie down to sleep. This sounds like another fine case of trash science being used by religious fanatics to insist that their members have as many offspring as possible -- that, of course, means more money in THEIR coffers, more power with increased numbers.

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievious projects" James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), October 26, 2000.

Bravo Julie, I agree with you 100%, do not be afraid to speak what in your heart you think is truely right. We must be responsible in our actions and our deeds, including not producing more offspring than is required to replace ourselves, anything more than 2 is just an egotistical act for self promotion, be it religeous or otherwise. People should reproduce responsibly, not like unneutered cats or rabbits. If you care about the future of this planet, act accordingly! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), October 26, 2000.

To all of you who really think the world has too many people and that we would all be better off with less humans ( maybe you are even way wacked out to the point of thinking that the human being is a blight ) why not stop your hypocritical ways, put your " beliefs" in to action and set an example for us all by killing yourselves? You cannot complain about "overpopulation" if you wont do anything about it.The best part about those who are elitist in this area and treat others with such disdain is that you will not be adding your idiot genes to the gene pool.

-- mike (mstydale@aeroinc.net), October 26, 2000.

Kirk, you get everybody to move to Texas, and I'll be right down!!!! I have always thought that the only thing wrong with California is all the people. What a beautiful state...sunny, gorgeous mountains, incredible seacoasts, perfect! Can I pick any place I want?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 26, 2000.

Mike, you bring up an interesting point. I remember plenty of discussions in the early part of my life when we all talked about having kids. The concern was that for those who had good physical health, higher IQs, etc., that if they DIDN'T have children, the world would be populated with unhealthy, dim-witted people. Imagine that. Now, looking at the world at least a generation later, I wonder what the difference would have been. Many of my friends chose not to have families. I think about this from time to time...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 26, 2000.

Now y'all just stay where you are. We'd like for y'all to visit us here in Texas but then go home.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), October 26, 2000.

I'd say it's a distribution of resources problem, rather than a population problem. Granted, there are localized population density issues, but vast amounts of food and energy are wasted everyday because there is no way to evenly distribute them around the globe. Don't take this as a socialist rant, I believe that if you choose to bring life into this world it is your responsibility to provide for it. Lack of potable water is the single thing that worries me most. We currently have Perrier fighting local govt. and citizenship because they wish to drill high capacity wells that could deplete my aquifer so some pampered fools can pay $2 for a quart of water. Heck, maybe I should start auctioning my well water on E-bay.

-- ray (mmoetc@yahoo.com), October 26, 2000.

Where did all the people on this forum who have and love kids go?? Well, I'll tell you what,I've got 4 children of my own and I've got 3 stepchildren,too. Right now I'm holding the youngest one, just three months old. I was telling my husband the other day, that it's funny how things work. before, I would have thought that I could not have possibly loved a second, third, or fourth child as much as I loved my firstborn. After, all, after one or two, been there, done that, right? But the fact is that I actually love this baby more than I did my first at the time! With the first one or two, your ego is all wrapped up in having them fulfill your dream child ideals.By the time you have several, you finally realize that they are who they are, and the best you can do is to help them be themselves. I don't try to push them intellectually anymore, or hope they gropw up to be distinguished in whatever field;I just sit back and watch them develop into who they really are. And,all you selfish people who don't want to have more than one or two at the most, because you want a new car and a vacation home, because you have to do your thing, you go right ahead. The world has enough unhappy people whose parents are too wrapped up in themselves. We don't need any more of that kind growing up to be more selfcentered types, the kind that litter thinking someone else will clean it up, the kind who think the world should revolve around them because it always has. The public schools, daycares,juveneille detention halls, and prisons are full of kids whose parents didn't have the time for them, so don't make any more. The world needs the kind of people who can cooperate and work with one another, not selfish jerks who can only think about themselves. A few of us will keep raising families, keep homeschooling our children, keep reading to them from the bible,and teaching them to be responsible adultswho will in turn be good parents. We will keep rasing the Luther Burbanks, the Gregor Mendels, the Bachs and Beethovens and Mozarts of the world.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), October 26, 2000.

I think one of the big issues around how many children a couple produces is not that they choose to have a big family or limit their family to one or two but rather that they give no thought to it at all one way or the other and when the kids arrive just accept it. I would love to hear how many of the people with large families can say we planned to have eight children or nine children or whatever number. My guess is that they can't. They just had kids without any thought of how many they would stop at or whether they would ever stop. They take an attitude that "whatever God produces they will accept". To me that is a cop out. That is removing the responsibility for the decision from yourself. I wouldn't mind if people had large families because they made the choice to have a particular size family but they don't.

My husband and I made the choice to not have children, and in fact discussed it before marriage so we were both clear that we both felt that way although it was for very different reasons. It had nothing to do with whether or not we could have a bigger car or a larger house.

In my husband's case he personally knew of too many men who had been to Vietnam, as had he, and been exposed to agent orange which resulted in their producing children with handicaps. His anger about what Vietnam did to him was enough and he felt that if the war caused him to produce a handicapped child it would send him over the edge.

In my case, I have exactly zero maternal instinct. I have never liked babies at all, although I like children, and I felt that it would not be fair to a child to be born to a mother that had no interest in having them. I recognized my own shortcomings and made the choice to not have children. It had nothing to do with my having had a bad childhood because I actually had a wonderful childhood and was raised by two loving parents. And it is perhaps because of their exceptional skill as parents that I was able to recognize in myself that I did not have those same gifts. I do not know why I have no interest in babies, it is just the way I am. But I recognized it.

But how many people can say they honestly sat down and made a decision about having children and especially about how many? Most people don't even give it any thought. They just accept it as part of marriage and as something that is expected.

We had a young unmarried woman in our office a couple of years ago who got pregnant and all she could talk about was that she didn't like babies and had no interest in having a child. But she went ahead and had the baby and kept it. I can't help wondering what kind of life that child is having. (She doesn't work here anymore so I don't know the circumstances.) I asked her why she didn't give that some thought before she got pregnant. It never occurred to her to think about it first.

I guess my problem with how many babies are born is more about not so much how many but the fact that so many people don't even give it any thought until the baby is thrust upon them. They do not evaluate whether they can afford to care for the child or whether they should get financially or emotionally more stable first. They don't evaluate whether or not they have the skills to raise a child or whether they should get some training first. They don't give any thought to it at all.

Anyway, to those of you who are raising four children, you can count two of yours for the two we didn't produce to replace ourselves. ANd since one of my brothers didn't have children and my brother-in-law and his wife only had one, there are two more that can be given to you. LOL

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), October 26, 2000.

Lots of good posts here...

TO SHOOTER: "all the people could be put in Texas if they stood shoulder to shoulder". Okay, I won't overstay my visit. A room at the Embassy Suites in Dallas, Northwest corner of the building. Thank you.

TO RAY & HOOT: Remember the campaign slogan "It's the economy stupid"? I agree with you about water and resources. The campaign phrase of the future will be "It's the WATER, stupid." Nothing will put the skids on population growth faster than the lack of good water. Keep an eye on Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tuscon. Where's all the water coming from that they're using on green lawns and golf courses? I believe there are plans for building desalinization plants in Texas? Arizona? Someone may want to check me on that. One thing's for sure. The water isn't going to come from the Great Lakes states. The governors of those states jumped down the throats of a group that wanted to export water from the lakes in tankers. I live in the country, but am only about 15 miles from Lake Erie. Let's see, does Home Depot carry that much PVC pipe?

JIM - Getting rid of the population through plagues. Already been tried, ala bubonic style. But maybe AIDS will be more successful. It's really not too much of a stretch to think that the human population of Africa could beat the black rhino into extinction.

JULIE, ANNIE & REBEKAH - Interesting sentiments from both sides of the population debate. Isn't it nice that you still have the CHOICE? The family size of the future will be determined more and more by economics. Fewer resources, higher prices. Simple arithmetic. During my stint in the Navy, I visited Japan several times. After what I saw there I can understand why the Japanese snap up land in the western U.S. and Canada. The whole Tokyo Bay region makes New York look like Tombstone, Arizona.

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), October 26, 2000.

Good post Sharon. Check out the letter "Too many children" on page 26 of the Sept/Oct issue of Countryside. Large families can be very comforting, however having a large family now days is just plain selfish (unless they are adopted). I vowed never to reproduce when I was 9 years old. I'm now 42 and don't regret that decision for a second. At least I practice what I preach.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), October 26, 2000.

Debra, you bring up a very GOOD point, I can understand that some women require more than two children to satisfy their maternal instincts,but why not adopt or bring foster children into their family instead of having more of their own? There are SO MANY children out there just praying for someone to take them into their hearts and homes; I think it is downright selfish and cruel to continue to produce your own when there are so many in need of a loving home. To everyone who has adopted or taken in foster children, a big thank you and God Bless You !!! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), October 26, 2000.

Craig- did you know that Japan is currently paying women to have children? Less and less Japanese women are interested in having babies and apparently the government is concerned about it. Several other countries,many of the European, including Germany, have a negative poulation growth. There is some concern that as the baby boomers grow old, we will have insufficient taxpayers to support them, thanks to Roe vs Wade. And, yes, I did choose to have four children, have wanted four children ever since I can remember! Even for those on birth control, accidents should happen. Are we being selfish if this occurs and we decide to allow the child to be born and not to kill it? About having a CHOICE; I happen to think that there are those in favor of doing away with that choice,ala Nazi Germany ,where people who were not considered to be good breeders were forcibly sterilized( or just exterminated). Maybe if we were all more responsible about the way that we live and about how much we consume, resources wouldn't be such a problem. But, people would rather keep eating meat 3 X a day while others don't eat at all, and squander the worlds resources thoughtlessly. And then call those of us who don't want to murder our own offspring selfish!

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), October 26, 2000.

Mike,

You need to learn to express yourself. Holding it all in can only hurt you. Tell us what you really think.

-- William in WI (thetoebes@webtv.net), October 26, 2000.

Mike, you say, "why not stop your hypocritical ways, put your " beliefs" in to action and set an example for us all by killing yourselves? " Well, Mike, I believe it would be more effective if we killed YOU, and your ilk. After all, if I were to kill myself, it would only reduce the population by one person. If I kill you, I could also your wife, your kids, and all your progeny.

To all the SERIOUS posters, though, thanks for some thoughtful opinions. A common thread among many of them is that there is enough resources to go around, just not a way to distribute them. I suppose that this is sort of true, if we all decide to live in extreme poverty.

The water issue, for instance: rather than saying we don't have enough water to support another few billion people, we could look at it that we have enough water, and we only need to share it better. Like don't ever take a shower, don't wash clothes, and certainly don't wash your car or water your lawn!

The other option, of course, is to voluntarily limit our fecundity to two kids or less per family. Then we could have more water (and other resources) to share per person, forever. Duh!

Hoot, you say, "While I find it interesting that so many "big wigs" are all concerned about overpopulation I also think there is another MAJOR problem that nobody seems to want to address. Clean water!" I don't get it, Hoot. Isn't the clean water issue another facet of overpopulation?

You also say, "This old world has stood for many moons and only in the last century or so has man really increased his intelligence enough to destroy, pollute and misuse what our forfathers conserved for centurys!" Guess what; it is more than coincidence that this is the same period of time during which the population of the Earth has increased from just over one billion to over six billion people.

Kirk, I doubt if everyone is going to move to Texas, but maybe a few of them would volunteer. We're getting serious growing pains here in Oregon from California's population refugees.:)

Hermit John, thank you very much for doing your part; I stopped at one (and adopted two WONDERFUL kids, now 25 and 28 years old.) Perhaps all the folks who think we don't have a population problem, and insist on cranking out kids like bunnies should all live in one part of the world, and we who don't want to overpopulate could live in another. They get Texas, Oklahoma, and the Southeast, and we get the West Coast, ok?

Julie, perhaps these folks are math challenged. After all, if they have say six, kids and their offspring continued in this irresponsible habit of having six kids each, there'd be 36 grandkids, 216 great grandkids, 1296 great great grandkids, and so forth. In a mere six generations, they would be able to "contribute" enough people to provide us with another city of almost two and a half million people. Eight generations would give us enough people (5 plus billion) to overpopulate another earth size planet. Yippee.

Rebekah, you're reading responses from people who love kids, and babies. That's why we are concerned about what we're doing to our beloved planet where we live. We want to leave it in at least as good shape when we pass on as when we got here. But we are failing, and one reason we are failing is because there are just too many people getting born. Believe me, we're not limiting our family size in exchange for a "new car", or any other material thing. We are preserving OUR world, AND YOUR KIDS' WORLD TOO! By the way, Rebekah, part of the problem here is that the US government, like the Japanese government, if you are correct, PAYS women to have more kids. (Check out how many tax breaks you get for having kids, for crisakes.)

Colleen, I feel bad enough about people such as you describe, but they are only ignorant. The ones who really piss me off is the willfully ignorant--those who refuse to see what lies in store for us because it is not what they want reality to be, in their closed in little sphere of reality, and continue on cranking out kids with abandon.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 26, 2000.

Just to set the record straight-I did not start this post. It was a clandestine government plot to steal my idenity and use it for purposes unbeknownst to me........ Actually it was my husband who posted it unwittingly using my default email, and he did used to work for the goverment!!!!!

Anyway,I agree with much of what's been said, esp. on water. We test streams a part of a watershed group. You would think the lovely little mnt. stream running nearby,spilling over a 100 foot waterfalls then finishing it's journey into the lake, surrounded by National forest, would be pretty clean,right?.We thought so too, til we got in it to check for critters. You could SMELL that there was going to be a problem. Ended up being very high in coliform bacteria.Top 25% that were tested statewide. Straightline sewer pipes from mobile home. So again where is the waste going to go? Why right in to our water, of course.What are we going to drink? What they drink here,municipal water so loaded with chlorine that you can smell it. And this is in the sparsely populated country, folks, not the 'burbs.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), October 26, 2000.

Using clean water for lawns is a very good example of thoughtless waste of resources. Why don't people plant and tend something edible, or at least halfway interesting? Think how much more food could be grown if most folks planted a garden rather than a lawn. I won't even go into the billions we spend on pet dogs... I don't make enough $ to pay taxes, so no, I don't get any tax breaks. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we are spending the same or less on our four children than many americans do on one.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), October 26, 2000.

Just wanted you to know that I did it. But it is to show what the future holds. After all who is selfish the one that controls now to help those in the future or those that have no restraint and steal from those in the future? How many have to die for what you waste today? We have used over 90 % of available food sources from the sea. Think about that. Size of catches grows smaller each year. Some areas are destroyed completely. Where will the people of the future find food,water and air. Most government lands would not support much life so what they have is very little. The reason is water. You can't make new water.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), October 26, 2000.

Rebekah, my point about tax breaks was pointing out that the government gives mothers money to have more kids. It was not directed at any specific mom.

Sharon, I'm interested in your watershed group. I've just been asked to join a committee which our local Board of Commissioners is starting to study groundwater and surface water issues, and I'd be very interested in what direction your group is taking.

By the way, just to give you a bit of encouragement (maybe), there is no such thing as a surface water source which does not have coliform bacteria. There never has been. But it depends on what you are calling "coliform bacteria" There are tests for "total coliform" and also "fecal coliform". Positive tests for total coliform are pretty meaningless in surface water, since a single leaf, a bit of topsoil, and so forth, will cause a positive reading. On the other hand, fecal coliform indicates that there has been contamination from a warm blooded animal's feces. All warm blooded animals have fecal coliform in their guts. Even us humans. The coliform help digest our food.

Again, though, even fecal coliform are common in surface waters. If you have beavers, for instance, or river otters, in your stream, you will have fecal coliform counts. If you have had a heavy enough rain to cause runoff from the forest, or farms, into the stream, you will have fecal coliform, due to the poop from deer, racoon, mice, and cows. If you have fecal coliform you'll also have total coliform.

Coliform has been used as an indicator species for many years. When I first started sampling streams and wells for coliform, back in the sixties, I was told that coliform is totally harmless. Unfortunately, about that same time, we were hearing a lot of concern about coliform being used as the first species for genetic engineering. Lots of folks were afraid that the genetically altered bacteria could get into the environment, possibly causing incurable diseases, since the human body (and other animals' as well, I suppose) might not be able to fight them.

Of course, we were told that the precautions being taken to avoid these bacteria excaping from the testing laboratories were so foolproof that we had nothing to worry about.

NOW, we are hearing of strains of coliform killing people. Coliform in beef. In mayonaisse, in fruit juice, for crisakes!

Is this a coincidence? Or have the genetically altered coliform somehow escaped from the labs after all?

A clue: my niece was conducting genetic alteration experiments when I visited her two or three years ago. No big deal, right? Well, the interesting thing is that she was only twelve or thirteen years old at the time. She was not working in a "secure" laboratory; she was working in her eighth grade science class lab.

What do y'all think? Does anyone know why coliform is now considered dangerous?

We have water out here where I live that is so pure I drank it straight from the creeks for almost twenty years. Then we started finding guiardia parasites in various streams, and I stopped doing so. I don't recommend any surface water source, though, even if there is no guardia, since any surface water source is easily contaminated by many different agents.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 26, 2000.

I love children. I'm not sure I would have been a good mom, though, and pretty sure that my husband would have been a lousy father (he claims so). However, we both get along great with kids.

We thought for literally years about whether or not to have a family. We felt that it was one of the most important decisions we could ever make. Mostly, it was that we didn't want to have children, but we felt like biological weirdos for feeling that way. I can absolutely guarantee to you that it had NOTHING to do with amassing material wealth!!!! Sometimes it seemed like it would be nice to have a family, but I never felt any maternal calling, per se. I never did understand if feeling an urge to "nest" was supposed to really happen, or if women were just strongly socialized to feel that way. I still don't know. (I never had any hesitation about the "practicing" part of making babies, though!)

Anyway, the choice got de-selected for us as I had some medical problems that led to surgery which pre-empted the option for me, at least...guess my husband can still think about it, though!

Women out there: Did you feel some kind of physical need to have babies? How about any family pressures? Did you ever consider what your life would look like if you didn't have a family? Did you ever imagine the option of not having babies? Now, be honest! I'm counting on your sincere replies. This is not a loaded question. Thanks!

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 26, 2000.

All you folks out there who chose to have no kids, at least my five kids will be working to pay your social security twenty years from now! This country is now at below replacement level. Not all of my kids will get married and have 5 or 6 kids. Some might remain single, and/or look to the religious life. All I can say, at least it's the Godly folks that are still reproducing, because 100 years from now, we'll outnumber the zero-population folks!

-- Christina W. (introibo@address.com), October 26, 2000.

Christina, some of us don't buy into the Social Security pyramid scam as much as you seem to.

Personally, I don't need your kids to pay my social security. I've put aside enough money, and invested in enough property, and built enough rental houses, to cover all my physical needs without their help. Momma's going to have all our medical expenses covered by insurance from her employer in six more years.

One reason we have been able to do this is we've both been hard working contributors to society. One reason is we have managed to avoid contributing to overpopulation--this has had the side benefit of enabling us to take care of ourselves and our kids better than we'd have been able to if we'd cranked out a whole fleet of kids. (Sheepish, I, too have not stopped "trying" to have kids :) I actually think I've tried harder than ever before, since getting "fixed" almost thirty years ago. And boy, did I get popular with the girls when they found our I was "safe"!

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 26, 2000.

Jumpoffjoe, I want to thank you for speaking so eloquently and logically. If you hadn't posted, I might have been tempted to draw swords with one or two of the people in this thread, just to get it said. Glad I don't have to now -your style is much better than mine.

-- Leslie A. (lesliea@home.com), October 26, 2000.

Yes, I second that, thanks for making most of the points for me, J O Joe. This is a very emotional issue for most people -- but I believe that trying to be unemotional while considering the issue is very important.

I expected to have children. I even wanted them. But for many complicated and various reasons, I didn't have any. And now I am glad that I didn't. I'd like to direct you to a website that addresses many of the concerns of both the childless and the childplus:
No Simple Answer

As you might guess, it makes the position that population control is not the main answer. Please read it.

The following article is from the same site: Birth, Sex, & Dying Saluting The Childless
Jim Schenk

Choosing to lower our population flies in the face of a basic drive in all species, that of survival. The drives to sexual intercourse and to have children are very basic and closely intertwined physiological urges. They are also part of our mores - the morality of many religions insists that the sexual act not be interfered with to prevent procreation. In the United States, the law rewards us for having children by giving us tax deductions.

It is in the face of all this that I sit here trembling as I write these words, for I have reached the point where I must say that sustainability requires that we have less children. No, I must say more: the ideal for the planet at this time is for residents of the US and other overdeveloped countries not to have any children. The reasons:

1. The planet's ability to sustain us with the number of people we have presently is waning. The Earth cannot sustain humans at the level we are now consuming resources.

2. The average child born in the US will consume 5 to 10 times more than the average child living in other countries.

For these reasons, I salute those who have no children in this society. You are the ones who make sustainability most possible. All the conserving of resources that I may do will not come close to saving what one less human does. I salute you because you are flying in the face of both physical drive and cultural mores. I salute you because I know intellectually that it is right, and also because I know how difficult this whole concept of voluntary childlessness is for me. I had my two children before this realization entered my consciousness, so who am I to speak? Tears come to my eyes as I imagine what it would be like not to have my children, Megan and Devin, in my life. Tears come to my eyes as I think of saying to them, do not have children of your own, give up this wonderful, magnificent experience. Tears come to my eyes as I think of not having grandchildren. Other aspects of a sustainable lifestyle pale in comparison to how this one affects me personally.

And so I salute you and honor you who do not have children. It is you we must emulate in this society - you, who have had to deal with the biological and cultural pressures: "Suzy, when are you going to make us grandparents?" "Poor Suzy, she doesn't have children yet, I wonder if she can't have them." It is you who must deal with the continued conversations about our children. I also want to salute those who have only one child, or who stopped at two children - I salute each of you, no matter how many children you have, if you have controlled the drive to have more children. We must hold you as heroes of the sustainability movement.

Let each of us honor someone who does not have children. Let us make their lives easier. Let them know we believe they are courageous, even as we look at our own children and feel the tears well up in our eyes.

Excerpted from the IMAGO Newsletter, 553 Enright Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45205.

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), October 26, 2000.

As stated, this is a very emotional issue. I personally believe what it all comes down to is educating the next generation. Teaching them how to take care of the planet and it's resources. Teaching them to think for themselves about procreation and not let society decide what's right for them. Let's teach the next generation how to think, research and decide for themselves, without taking everything at face value like we were taught to do. Remember "kids are to be seen and not heard"? Why???? This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If our kids don't question things at an early age, we're doing something wrong. Unfortunately, public schools encourage and promote this type of behavior and thinking. "Just do it because I said to." Do we really want another generation who reacts to the situation instead of acting on the situation? I encourage my kids to question adults and anyone they are not sure of, even when it gets them in trouble. I'd rather have them know what they stand for than follow others and not know what or who they're following.

Let's take a good long look at what we're teaching the next generation and stop trying to point fingers and figure out who had too many kids.

-- Amber (mikeandamberq@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.

JOJ As i posted to you seperately, the coliform in our pretty mountain stream was fecal,was VERY high and was 50% human. Other 50% was mostly from large number of dogs our coonhunter neighbor kept tied near stream. So close that three of them were swept away and went over the falls two years ago, in our flood.

The watershed group tests for each parameter for the purpose of determining the likely source. Compiling info, to give our state direction on what is really needed. Got the school kids testing water ,to see what's in there, this year. It's a start.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), October 26, 2000.

Christina, RE: Godlessness and Social Security:

As a Christian, and an active one at that, I can assure you that some of these choices people made by taking faith in hand. From one perspective, it might be even more praiseworthy that some folks took their God-given free will and made some tough choices. But, I think I can see where you are coming from. At my church, we are encouraged to think about, and even challenge assumptions, as experience has shown such a process to actually strengthen one's faith. Jacob didn't wrestle with that Angel for nothing! So I have to admire those who wrestled with this issue.

As to Social Security, my husband and I have made our retirement plans expecting it not to be there for us. Given that, and based on our sometimes significant earnings, it may just turn out that we have actually paid more than our share and will actually support several people. Who knows? I can definitely say that about the share of the taxes we have paid! I don't worry about it. My offerings at church are sometimes the same way, too. I don't stop to count it all up.

Just one more small note: Christians are just as amazingly varied as the rest of the population. Thank God....

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 26, 2000.

Sheepish, here is my answer to your question:

"If I hadn't had children I probably would have had more money and material things. I probably would have gone more places, gotten more sleep and pampered myself more. My life would have been much more boring and predictable. As a result of being a parent I have laughed harder and cried more often. I have worried more and hurried more. I've had less sleep, but, somehow I've had more fun. I've learned more and grown more. My heart has ached harder, and I've loved to a capacity beyond my imagination. I've given more of myself, but I've derived more meaning from my life."Author unknown! I have three kids, two step and one biological, and I love them all. They have been my greatest teachers. But that was my chosen path - noone can chose another's path for them, every one has to do what they feel is right for them whether it's to have children or not to have them.

-- kathy h (saddlebronc@msn.com), October 27, 2000.

Christina, I found your comment interesting about social security and how your children will be paying for those of us that didn't have children. I, too, will not be using social security. In fact, I have earned exactly two quarters towards it. I have, instead, chosen other ways to ensure that I am taken care of in my senior years. This seems to be the same comment made by some of the other childless couples and it makes me wonder if it is because those of us that make a decision not to have children, make decisions about other things in life instead of just following everybody else. I would never dream of having social security support me in my old age. It was never intended to be a retirement system. It was supposed to supplement other retirement options/plans but people now see it as their retirement plan and it is woefully inadequate. So don't worry too much about your children having to work to support us childless ones. Instead, you are more likely to find they will be working to support those that had lots of children and therefore were not able to financially make other plans.

Also, just because we choose not to have children, does not make us Godless. In my mind, it just means we made decisions for ourselves instead of letting society tell us what to do. Something I wish more people were willing to do.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), October 27, 2000.

I decided to try and actually answer the questions. Most of what is attributed to the demon of over-population, is really a multitude of problems that have little relation to the number of earths citizens and everything to do with a number of problems much more concerning than the population of individuals on the earth. These are, mismanagement of resources, agricultural mismanagement, food and water distribution problems, uneven distribution of humanity across the globe, and waste. All of these things should and could be adress and would be a much better use of our time than trying to control the birth rate as they would not only help future generations, but also people today. 1. How much land is needed to feed each person? This is extremely variable. It depends on what a person eats. If one was to eat a vegetarian diet, then it would be much less than if one was to eat an animal based diet. In our consumerist society we seem to think hamburger helper is necessary to the support of life. If people were to eat a basic nutritious diet of whole grains, fresh vegetables and fruit, and small amounts of animal protein, it would take very little land to feed them. The problem is most of what is consumed in America is overprocessed and nutritionally sterile. 2. How much land is unusable(Death Vally, Mountains, etc)? This too is variable. Much of what is considered arable farmland today is the land that can be farmed mechanically. We have the technology to farm vast amounts of land that is currently not under cultivation. The problem is that this requires the desire to do so. For instance, the appalachian mountains are not considered arable and yet they supported a whole society of people in the last century. The Thing is that most americans seem to think that they should be able to continue in their wasteful style of living at the expense of others. This is what overpopulation critics are really asking for. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I honestly think that the world might be a little better of if it was more crowded, because then rather than starve people would do what it took to manage their resources more responsibly. It is amazing what a motivator hunger and thirst can be. The truth is that Americans today are on a luxury binge. There is no better thing that could happen than for Americans to come back to reality and fight for the basic necessities. There is so much land that can be used that isn't. The first unused resource is in our yards. How much food could be produced if every street tree produced a crop and if every yard was a vegetable garden? The shameful waste of our society is appalling. Could your town feed themselves if every yard was planted with food crops? Probably. http://www.comptons.com/encyclopedia/ARTICLES/0100/01047040_A.html 3. How much is needed for waste disposal? This is a good question. It depends on how much waste is generated. We can certainly generate a lot less that is for sure. If everyone lived by the adage, "Use it up, make it do, wear it out." Perhaps we might actually be able to cut this down to all most nothing. But see the problem is no one wants anything to interupt their hedonistic lifestyle. Heaven forbid we should have to do anything differently than to waste waste waste. 4. How much is under water? This is a funny question to me, because everyone down the line is talking about having enough water. We have a lot of water. Most of it is just not ground water. Much of our problems could be solved if the coastal states would open some desalization plants. We have oceans full of water. Most of the major populations of people are in the coastal areas of the country anyway. Why can't they start looking at using some of the water in the oceans instead of stealing it from the rest of us. 5. How about room for houses? 6. How about room for roads? 7. Would anyone want to move around a little? These three questions are summed up above, because no one is actually suggesting that we cram the worlds population into Texas. I would much rather leave things as they are now with the worlds population spread over the whole earth. This gives all of us some breathing room. I would however like to see changes, but this has to do with the attitudes of people. I would like to see people recognize that a simpler lifestyle could actually make them healthier and happier. I would like to see a more even distribution of land in the US. Much of this could be resolved by turning all government owned land into the hands of the private ownership, except for perhaps the National parks. This was the original intent for all of that land anyway and should be given back to the people. I also think that there ought to be high taxation for people who own more than a certain amount of land say more than 200 hundred acres. This would encourage small family owned farms. I am very hesitant about any kind of taxes but at least this would take us in the right direction. I also think it should illegal for corporations to own property. I believe that only actual humans should be able to possess land. This would insure that farms remain farms and would restrict uncessary development. Besides once you dissolved all other forms of taxes, with the exception of those constitutionally required, People would have a lot more money in their pockets and would want to keep it. The Many of the problems above could be solved if distribution of food was on a local level for the most part. We have the technology to do this for most areas of the US. In addition it would put the farmer back in the place he or she should occupy. Of course, I would only be in favor of any of this things being put into place by the democratic constitutional sytem of government that our founders established. Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), October 27, 2000.

Jumpin of Joe your statement: ". . . the willfully ignorant--those who refuse to see what lies in store for us because it is not what they want reality to be, in their closed in little sphere of reality, and continue on cranking out kids with abandon".

Wise and profound words.

Blessings

-- judymurray (nomifyle@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Little Bit-THANK YOU! I had such a hard time replying in a civil and objective manner because I feel so stongly about this issue. You articulated so well what I was thinking, without getting nasty.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), October 27, 2000.

Thank you Little Bit Farm and Rebekah. You both have your heads screwed on right.

I think that most of us have the same goal (a planet that is taken care of rather than raped). It is the way to achieve that goal that is on question.

I am tired of people pointing a finger at my four child family when their one or two child family is using up resources faster. We have a smaller house, buy used items, drive older vehicles, grow more of our own food.

Yes, if the typical yuppie family were to have 4 children they might have more impact than a 2 yuppie child family. But if instead they lived like many homestead or environmentally aware families, their impact would be less than many childless couples.

Amy

-- Amy Richards (tiggerwife@aol.com), October 27, 2000.

Take it as youwill, but sitting here looking at the 3 kids, I can't imagine it any other way. I did have this argument with a friend who was deadset against kids and such I suggested that he get fixed but somehow he didn't like that idea.

-- Tom (Calfarm@msn.com), October 29, 2000.

This might be the stupidest thing I've done in at least, oh, five or ten minutes, but I'm gonna stick my humble two cents worth in this conversation, if y'all don't mind.

First off, population in first world countries (Europe, Japan, etc) is actually falling, for any number of reasons. Only immigration (and the children immigrants have) keeps US population numbers rising. That's one reason the Sierra Club faced a highly emotional vote last year on whether it should address immigration as an environmental issue in the US. Most of the world population increase is in countries where the parents have traditionally relied upon their children for security in their old age (Africa and India, i.e.) and where men measure their virility by the number of children they sire. (some Islamic and "old Catholic" nations, for example)

Water is and will be a major problem, tho I'm not sure it will be a limiting factor for population. We North Americans are spoiled in our water usage. Daily showers are unheard-of in most of the world, and watering lawns would be considered insane.

The real limiting factor will be petroleum, IMO. The Green Revolution that feeds all those billions of people in hugely dependent on petroleum and natural gas for fertilizer, pesticides, transportation, cultivation. And world oil propduction is scheduled to peak in this decade. Non-OPEC oil production will probably peak this year or next. When we hit the downside of that cycle, well, be happy you can grow your own food.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), October 29, 2000.

Those concerned about water should buy a water filter and set up a cistern system. Practice what you preach. Those concerned about those of us who choose to have children and more than two children should not worry. You will be dead and in your graves before overpopulation becomes a problem. So mind your own flipping business.

-- tiredofthisforum'sBS (sickof you all@hatmail.com), October 29, 2000.

Shouldn't that address be hatemail? Is this just a bad hair day for you or is this your everyday personality? Does your minister encourage you to be that agressive, esp. on Sunday? Just curious.I do want to make sure I steer clear of your church, if that is the case.

Nick brought me the Sunday paper this morning, and in it he had tucked a calendula flower, tough little plant and a nice symbol to start my bad. Ain't he a sweetie? Thank you for making me appreciate the person I share my life with, even more.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), October 29, 2000.

Did you ever notice how people assume that everyone else is living a certain way. For your information I got fixed long long ago and I have helped set up several recycling programs and have even become a Master Water educator to help people understand the water problems of today. I did use a cistern for many years,but as you proably know is very prone to bacteria buildup without constant care.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), October 29, 2000.

I do believe that previous post that was so rude is entirely fictitious, probably from the bored people in the RV parked next to Joel's place, you know, the government goons? They must be going stir crazy by now, having to monitor something as exciting as this all day. Perhaps we should try to E-mail him and let him know how we feel about his rudeness. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), October 29, 2000.

Sick, Some of us do practice what we preach. I also want to point out to you that there already IS a population, and if you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.

Also, some of us are concerned about our kids' and grandkids' (and yes, even your kidss and grandkids') future. So even if we're long gone, it will be nice to know that we've done our best to be good stewards of the earth for future generations.

To all of you who had kind words for me--THANK YOU! You made my day!

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), October 29, 2000.

There are a lot of people who put their names out here on what they believe, whether you agree with them or not, it says something about anyone who posts like that and their intelligence level that they keep coming back to read this thread...If the poster was murdered, should we be unconcerned since it's none of our business? Should we mind our own business when we see a man on the side of the road, beaten and robbed and pass him by, or should we remember the lesson of The Good Samaritan?

It isn't my business if someone wants to dump their sewage into your water supply. It isn't my business to support legislation so that you have a legal recourse to make them stop. It isn't my business to stop them if they want to molest your children. Why should I care? Because I have a moral conscience. And parents smart enough to teach me the value of stewardship as opposed to the ego of 'I want'.

By the current growth curve, we will double the world population to 12 BILLION in a short 25 years. I will not be in my grave then, unless short-sightedness and self-gratification has killed off the entire human species. The cockroaches should enjoy the earth then.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), October 30, 2000.

I think we would all be better off if we worried about what we were doing and not what other people are doing. And all of us have room for improvement. It seems one of the biggest problems in this world is the if it feels good do it attitude. I am not a proponent of having no kids or 20 I just feel it's more important for all of us to look inward. After all when you point your finger at others there are 3 pointing back at you. Also some people may not care to have children but some people yearn for them. I couldn't get pregnant and then tried to adopt. I spent thousands and it never worked out. So don't try the "just adopt" line of thinking. It is no one elses business to tell a person to have or not have kids. You have to thoughtfully do the right thing for yourself and family and God. Only you know what that is. PS I did eventually concieve on my own in case you were wondering.

-- evelyn Bergdoll (peontoo@yahoo.com), October 31, 2000.

Evelyn, blessings to you.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 31, 2000.

Evelyn What is it you can do that will not affect anyone else? For every action there is a reaction. This is more true then at any other time and it is getting worse. Put a pipe into the local stream from your house and your neighbor down stream will drink it. Use chem-lawn on your property and the ground water will give some to everyone with a well in that area. The people that created Love canal did as they wanted and look what that got(by the way nobody paid any attention to what they were doing). How many have to put up with sickness and death before we start paying attention to what others are doing. Even our constitution tells you you can do what you want only if it does not adversly affect someone else. Can you see the difference in what can be done with 20 people per square miles compared to 50,000 per square mile. The more people the less rights you have. Also a lesser quality of life.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), November 01, 2000.

Well said, Nick!

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), November 01, 2000.

Sheepish- To answer your questions- I have never once had any desire whatsoever to reproduce. Sex yes- reproduce no. Sure my parents (adoptive) wanted me to get married and have kids, but I knew in my heart it was wrong for me.

Has anyone ever considered that humans are the ONLY animals who can CHOOSE not to reproduce? Why not exercise that choice?

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), November 02, 2000.