Thursday 29 October 2009

Finally, proof!

Thanks to a recent tweet I was linked to this article from the LA Times. I've pasted it below for your benefit:

GREENSPACE, LA Times
August 07, 2009

Environmentalists tend to avoid the topic of population control. Too touchy. But the politically incorrect issue is becoming unavoidable as the global population lurches toward a predicted 9 billion people by mid-century. Will there be enough food? Enough water? Will planet-heating carbon dioxide gas become ever more uncontrollable?

Now comes a study by statisticians at Oregon State University focusing on the elephant in the room.

The findings: If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, think birth control.

The greenhouse gas effect of a child is almost 20 times more significant than the amount any American would save by such practices as driving a fuel-efficient car, recycling or using energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances, according to Paul Murtaugh, an Oregon State professor of statistics. Under current U.S. consumption patterns, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of an average parent -- about 5.7 times a person's lifetime emissions, he calculates.

Given the higher per-capita consumption of developed nations, the study found that the impact of a child born in the U.S., along with all his or her descendants, is more than 160 times that of a Bangladeshi child. And the long-term impact of a Chinese child is less than one-fifth the impact of a U.S.-born child. But as China, India and other developing nations hurtle toward prosperity, that is likely to change.

-- Margot Roosevelt

Study by statisticians at Oregon State University.


I have for a long time thought that we're breeding too much. Overpopulation, although not a sole cause, can be attributed to problems in unemployment and lack of housing, two issues rather close to my heart at the moment.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that with fewer people on the planet the net quality of life for us would improve.

The long term solution is obvious: have fewer children. But a short term solution isn't clear. Mass genocide isn't looked too kindly upon nowadays and far be it for me to wish another World War to happen.

The hippie in me thinks pandemics like bird-flu and swine-flu are natures way of keeping us in check: Survival of the fittest etc. If we keep extending our life expectancy there'll be no room left on this little planet for us to enjoy a quantum of solace every now and then.

Now, I'm not saying that we should just let nature take it's course, but we must realise that we can't have lots of children and live forever.

Balance must reign supreme. Yin and yang; black and white; 0 and 1... life is full of things that work only because there is balance.

To address this balance we can either try to come to a happy medium ourselves as individuals, living truly carbon neutral lifestyles (ha!) and agreeing not having children until we've sorted the problem, or we can work together and agree on certain principles.

However, now we get onto questions of freedom and moral rights: Do we prevent people breeding purely on the basis of their social status, wealth, race or skills? No, we can't. What, then, is the answer?

It's at this stage where I fall short of the mark. Obviously I wouldn't deserve to breed in my twisted Orwellian world. Probably a good thing, then, that I don't want kids for the reasons suggested by the LA Times.

No comments:

Post a Comment