Travelers in New York's Grand Central Terminal kick off Memorial Day weekend in 2008.
(Richard B. Levine/NEWSCOM/FILE)Photos (1 of 1)
Are we making too many Americans?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 03.20.09
They don’t work, they don’t pay taxes, and they don’t speak English. And according to federal data released Wednesday, some 4.3 million of them entered the United States in 2007, more than in any other year in the nation’s history.
We’re talking of course about babies. According to a new report [PDF] from the Centers for Disease Control, 4,317,11960 of these drooling homunculi came into existence within US borders that year, surpassing the previous record set in 1957 at the peak of America’s Baby Boom.
This fertility uptick isn’t unique to the US. Last week, the United Nations’ Population Division revised its “low variant” mid-century forecasts upward [PDF] by 117 million people because of an unanticipated increase in fertility in Europe, as well as in the US. As the Worldwatch Institute’s Ben Block explains, the average age of childbearing rose as women became more educated, resulting in fewer births. But now that average age has stopped rising, so the birthrate is now back on track.
All these additional First World babies have some environmentalists worried. Writing in Mother Jones’s environment blog, Julia Whitty points out that each one of those newborns arrives with a massive carbon price tag. (To reinforce her point that babies are climate-wrecking monsters, her post is accompanied by a photo of one making a face that would prompt Anne Geddes to consider a career change.)
Ms. Whitty cites a study by a pair of Oregon State statisticians that calculates the total carbon emissions of an American’s descendants. They conclude that each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the “carbon legacy” of the average US female, or 5.7 times her lifetime emissions.
By comparison, a Bangladeshi child adds only 56 metric tons of CO2 to a woman’s carbon legacy.
Whitty criticises tax incentives for having children. Noting that a “mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring and 1/4 the emissions of their grandchildren and so on forever or thereabouts,” Whitty concludes that:
The bottom line is that absolutely nothing else you can do — driving a more fuel efficient car, driving less, installing energy-efficient windows, replacing lightbulbs, replacing refrigerators, recycling — comes even close to simply not having that child. All those good things still add up to less than 500 metric tons of CO2 savings.
But can we really assign responsibility for emissions across generations? If we are responsible for our kids’ emissions, doesn’t it follow that our parents are responsible for ours? And if we’re to blame for the emissions of all of our progeny forever and ever, doesn’t blame equally fall upon our progenitors, going all the way back to a clump of self-replicating molecules some four billion years ago?
And is it really a wise strategy to deploy environmental stewardship to urge people to voluntarily stop having kids? Even if such a strategy worked (a big if), the only people to heed this advice be those who care about the environment, while those who don’t care about the environment would continue breeding as usual. Given that children generally tend to share the social beliefs of their parents, this starts to looks like a recipe for eliminating environmentalism from the gene pool.
In his online eco-mag, Worldchanging, environmental thinker Alex Steffen lays out an alternative vision of how we can protect the climate by curbing population growth: empower women. That means increasing their access to reproductive health choices, education, jobs, loans, and protection against violence. Everywhere this has happened, the birthrate has declined.
But in the end, it’s not really population itself that is inherently the problem. While there are no doubt physical limits to how many people can occupy the planet at one time, the real issue here is waste. If we continue with our current methods of production and consumption – extracting finite resources, rearranging their chemistry, and then dumping them into the sky, the sea, and the soil – then its almost inevitable that we will make the weather go all weird, poison our oceans, and consign our descendants to picking through our landfills.
But by upgrading our civilization to one that is sustainable, that is, closing the loops so that our “waste” becomes biological nutrients or feedstock for manufacturing, then we’ll not only replenish the natural environment, we’ll also be making more room for humans.
Update: Mother Jones’s Julia Whitty has posted a response to this post. Like her original post, it’s well worth reading.
<< Jack Bauer tackles global warming | MainComments
2. Jan | 03.20.09
You had a great article until the ending; why do you think it is possible for the current number of humans to live sustainably, let along MORE?
At our current numbers, we are continuing to destroy natural habitats. Life on Earth evolved as an interconnected web so that if a single strand is damaged, others can still support the structure.
Humans have tried to simplify systems, so that crops are grown in monocultures, fertilized with fossil plants and irrigated with mined water. We cut the ties that connect us with other life, losing our ability to maintain the whole.
Millions die each day from starvation, disease, war, water shortages and callous indifference. Adding more people to the planet only makes this worse. We have great rhetoric about the value of life, but in truth, human life is cheap — especially if it’s beyond our field of vision.
We are a part of the life on this planet, not above it. Until THAT idea becomes universal, we’ll continue to wipe out our life support system.
3. Eoin | 03.21.09
Jan, note that I didn’t say “room for more humans.” I said “more room for humans,” which I think we need right now because, as you pointed out, we are already seeing the devastating effects of overpopulation in some parts of the world.
And while I agree that there are limits to the number of how many humans can occupy this planet at any given time, I do hope that we can extend the run of our species as long as we can into the future, thereby maximizing the number of humans who have the opportunity to live. But doing so will require us to give up trying to run linear systems of production and consumption in a finite world.
4. shadowsprite | 03.21.09
One of the things that can enter the equation is that several of today’s babies may grow up to solve many of the world’s future woes. So their birth is truly a blessing.
The other thing to consider in comparison is how much havoc will be caused to the environment if Mount Rainier or any other active volcano blows in the next 20 years.
A woman’s carbon legacy is minuscule if you look at the effects of natural ‘disasters’ that may happen in the near future.
5. Blue Beech | 03.21.09
In thinking about humans and their numbers it is important to consider the human role in the earth’s ecosystems. Humans are one of the, if not the most, adaptable organism to evolve. As such we have occupied every habitat that will sustain us and in every case have had a negative ecological effect on that habitat and the other species that also depend on that habitat. Humans are not essential to the earth and, with the exception of domestic animals and some parasites, no species depends on humans. Ostensibly the most intelligent animal(as we define intelligence) man still steadily degrades his/her habitat. Humans, like every other organism continue to reproduce until the environment fails under the sheer weight of the human demands for food, water, and shelter. Absent significant world wide cultural and economic changes the aggregating human population will continue to destroy the other species on the planet. The only approach that has been successful in both limiting human population and increasing human welfare is the education of, and supporting women (see Grameen banking and similar programs). The issue is not how many humans can exist at some level, it is does the rest of the world, all those other species that the world really needs, have any oportunity to exist at all. Evolution, or God if you will, has created an ecosystem that humans share with all “creation” but humans are steadily destroying it. To get a sense of how to think about this, ask yourself what essential ecological role does a human fill? Ask the same question of an earthworm (read Darwin), or a hawk, or almost any other organism.
6. Mike | 03.22.09
When thinking about the motivation for procreation, most, if not all, religions, cultures, and individuals procreate as a means of imortality. That is one reason that we are rarely provided the opportunity to critique such philosophies in the national or international media. It is also one of many reasons that we are fortunate to have a highly regarded publication (The CSM) publish articles. Thank you, CSM!
And to Eoin, it would be interesting to note which States are increasing and which are decreasing so that we may have a better understanding of who is supported by the pro-population-growth tax laws.
7. JS | 03.22.09
I used to live on an island in the south Pacific. Even back then, it was uncrowded but not self-sustaining. Without bringing in materials from the outside, we’d have starved.
Now the population on that island is three times what it was when I lived there. It is a mess.
Look on Google Maps for the island of Majuro. It is completely filled with people. All the trees are cut down. They only reason these people survive are because of resources brought in by the US to Kwajalein.
The earth similarly is an island, albeit a larger one. If we don’t control our own growth, nature will do this for us. And we can’t import food and resources from anywhere else.
One woman’s carbon miniscule IS minimal. However, we don’t have just one woman; we have 3.1 BILLION women, most of whom are having children. That effect is NOT minimal.
8. Xav | 03.23.09
Shadowsprite, your children may grow up to become the next Hitler. So their birth is truly a curse.
And your point about a volcano causing more havoc then an individual is like saying that you shouldn’t lead healthy lives because you could get run over by a bus.
Eoin, I’m not sure about “children generally tend to share the social beliefs of their parents”. One of the major difference between humans and other animals is that instead of being shaped only by our genes, we are also shaped by the culture left by other humans. Socrates didn’t have any children, but his thought had a major influence. Teachers can have much more influence on children than parents.
9. Eoin | 03.23.09
Xav, I wouldn’t be so quick to downplay the contribution that genetics has in transmission of social attitudes. Studies of monozygotic twins reared separately indicate that there is a strong biological basis for our opinions.
As for Socrates, he actually had three sons: Lamprocles, Sophroniscus, and Menexenus. But your point is taken: Aristotle noted in his Rhetoric that Socrates’ descendants were “silly and dull.”
10. Alan | 03.23.09
Those that feel the world is over populated should off themselves. Humans can adapt the world to suit them, unlike any other species. We don’t know what the maximum density of humans could be. We know that if we live like we did say, 400 years ago, that density is much lower than if we live like we can now.
11. chkpointe | 03.23.09
As I child, I was exposed to the family story of one the bachelor farmers. It was said that when one of the aunts admonished him that he didn’t have enough chairs, his comment was “I have plenty of chairs, just too damm much company!” The planet is like that, no matter how conscientiously individuals may live, there just will never be enough room, enough resources, etc. Right now a good old fashioned plaque might help the poor old planet out.
12. dawn | 03.23.09
Imagine how much more overpopulated the world would be if China had not instituted its one-child policy years ago. Too bad putting society before one’s individual desires is anathema to most Americans. The tragedy of the commons continues…
13. blogger | 03.23.09
Without Immigration the US growth rate would still be lower that replacement level. The real problem is a higher birthrate and increasing immigration. At it present rate of increase the population will reach a billion in about 120 years. It is politically incorrect to question immigration but it is the real issue and need to be addressed. Either reduce the birthrate or immigration you can’t have both, it is demographic suicide.
14. Keith Keplinger | 03.23.09
Overpopulation, for a variety of reasons, is the 800 pound gorilla that so many people would rather ignore or downplay. Malthus wasn’t wrong, but just before his time. While technology and human innovation have made laudable advances that have allowed mankind to add ever more numbers to the planet and have allowed a fraction of those to live in relative luxery (e.g., us), at some point, more or less absolute limits will be reached. But may I retorically ask, “Why take it to the limit? Why do we need to see how many humans we can cram onto this planet? What about all the other lifeforms on this planet? Don’t they deserve a place, too? Doesn’t our species have enough common sense and humanity to limit our own numbers?” More and more, humans are monopolizing the productive capacity of planet earth, replacing diversity with monoculture, causing species to go extinct, and diminishing the beauty of this planet for all of us. For so long, many persons and interests ignored, downplayed, and denied the existence of global warming (a phenomenon closely tied to human population growth). So too, the issue of human overpopulation is so daunting and controversial that it doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. The proximate cause of overpopulation is the human tendency to act in ways benecifial to themselves regardless of the impacts on others or the environment. Educating the coming generation can have a big impact but it is doubtful the education alone is the entire solution. We need to develop new mechanisms to internalize the social and environmental costs of private actions, so that our self interests can be channeled into protecting rather than in destroying our beautiful planet.
15. Chris | 03.24.09
Alan, what a terrible thing to so, first off. And yes, we can adapt(some can if they have the resources which many do not)…but is it sustainable or healthy?…and what about the other millions of species that may be harmed by our actions? It isn’t all about humans like some seem to think. Plus, the more people on earth, the more poverty persists. But I will agree with the mathemeticians, and say that with our consumption habits and lifestyles we are not far from our max.
16. Perdidochas | 03.24.09
Jan,
Your type of thinking has been proven wrong since the days of Malthus. The earth can sustain a lot of people. In the 1960s, people with your attitude thought that by the 1980s, the earth would all be starving. In reality, the percentage of starving people in the world has gone down since then.
17. Guy Thompto | 03.25.09
The comparison of the “carbon footprint” of US babies versus Bangladesh babies is ludicrous. This comparison shows the total lack of understanding that the left has of the human condition. Sure, all babies could have the same “carbon footprint” as babies in Bangladesh. This would require that we follow the wishes of the left and become destitute. What a wonderful world that would be.
18. Bob | 03.25.09
We need more eco-friendly, socially responsible Americans. A recommendation for cutting down the birth rate among educated, successful people sounds scary to me. Eco friendly people share their mindset through public education, certainly, but they also make an important contribution by raising earth-conscious, eco-minded children to become adult leaders.
19. Keith Keplinger | 03.26.09
Just thought I’d mention that my 03.23.09 comments were general and directed to the global level. As for this country, I concur with “blogger” that run-away immigration needs to be addressed so that we can stabilize the population of this country at a reasonable level (and maybe even reduce it), even as we work with other countries to improve the lives of poor people throughout the world.
We need to be clear that those who advocate responsible population policy are at least every bit the humanitarians as others, and perhaps more far-sighted and better at math (e.g., the repercussions or exponential growth).
20. Georgie Bright Kunkel | 03.27.09
In the first place the term America is not acceptable to
mean USA. There are North, South, and Central Americans who resent
the people in this country coopting this term America to mean just USA.
If we are to “get it” in our boasting about this country being the so-called
greatest country in the world and always thinking that we are the best and keep calling ourselves Americans, we are pompous and do not really believe
in cooperation with others around the world.
It is time that we shed this thinking and began to cooperate with the
United Nations which needs to be the body to decide when to do police actions around the world, not the US. If we had done all this earlier, then we would not have had a depression after spending trillions in a useless war with Iraq and Afghanistan and the war with Vietnam and Korea.
Let’s not make these mistakes again. Instead of bailing out capitalism again, we need to control natural resources that are needed for all citizens of the world and provide food, clothing, shelter, education and health care for everyone without the profit makers always getting their cut first.
21. Pat M | 03.31.09
I’m wondering about the possibilities that come from the empowerment of women, referenced in the article. For cultures that have predominantly male-centric thinking and more conservative views than what we are used to in the U.S., it will take a lot of time, investment, and diplomacy to change views and expecations of a woman’s capabilities and choices. Surely convincing many people that having too many children is inherently wrong and poisonous to our earth will certainly be a titanic effort.
22. Sureshchander | 05.06.09
There is a school that thinks earth can sustain around 7 billion people. Thereafter, a new life cycle will start.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Beth Robelia | 03.20.09
There are ways for babies to have less of an impact on the planet. If we all live more lightly there will be room and resources for all of us. See some tips at http://apps.facebook.com/hotdish .