Is not breeding (having children) the biggest step you can take to reduce your carbon footprint?

Question

redypys, You are right in everything but as to the drop in the ocean thing, compared to some things that people pat themselves on the back for, like unplugging their cellphone chargers from the wall- not having kids, or having only one kid would actually make a much greater difference.

Answer 1

I think you should start this movement. It's adult swim time, please step out of the gene pool.

Answer 2

it would help reduce your carbon footprint because many resources are needed to have a child.  if you really want to give birth to a child other steps can be taken including public transportation, planting trees etc.

Also if you want children but dont want to increase your carbon footprint, you can adopt a child instead of giving birth to one.

Answer 3

in 'developed' countries where consumption is unsustainable, yes.

first answer (annie) is a classic excuse;

'My child could find a way to save the world.'

"Mother of God" complex. (Also applies to men).

If you want something done right, do it yourself.

http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#babies

Answer 4

No! This is horribly selfish- refusing to giving birth to new life because of some mantra which is overexaggerated! If everybody thought this way, the human species would be extinct.

Answer 5

No.  My reasoning is this, if you are that concerned about your carbon footprint, that will be what you keep in mind when you raise a child.  Through responsible parenting we can change the world.  Your child can become the one to spread the word to others and can therefor lessen the carbon footprint of others.  Your child can be the next Al Gore...

Answer 6

There is a group called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement that is advocating that.  Its members should be commended for improving the human gene pool by removing themselves from it.

Answer 7

Yes. It's a chain reaction. You create a life that needs x number of resources. Regardless of any circumstances, the life that you create is going to need a certain amount of energy to survive. By creating life you are creating the need for more consumption.

Even if you can magically feed/clothe/educate/provide medical care for less than $1 a day you are still creating the need for more resource.

That said, one person deciding to not have a child is a drop in the ocean. To have non-procreation become a viable means of saving the environment a large amount of the population of the world would need to be forcibly sterilized. This is definitely not the way to go.

The only thing that choosing not to have a child to reduce the carbon footprint brings is a peace of mind to the person making that decision.

Answer 8

The Corbin foot print is a lie by stupids.

Answer 9

Did you really have to put "having children" in parentheses after the word "breeding"? People don't know what breeding is?

Im glad littlerobbergirl is part of VHEMT

Answer 10

Yes.  But it not going to stop climate change, because the climate changes all of the time.  It would be unnatural if the climate stayed the same.