Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

[Beany]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

[Roopee]

Hmmm thats interesting to say the least.

Probably a good thing that she doesnt have any kids- her attitude stinks.

[TeamAwesome]

I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

"We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.
"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa. "We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.





Fair enought if she doesn't want to have children. However, anyone who was truly committed to saving the planet wouldn't be justifying their right to take regular long haul flight through their "sacrifices" - they just wouldn't be taking long haul flights!

- Cat, Scotland, UK


I have to agree with the comment made by the reader! If they were truly all about saving the planet they wouldn't be flying period. And I noticed the first couple didn't mention their transport where as the second couple mentioned they didn't have cars and cycled everywhere.


I also agre with Roopee their attitude stinks

[shed]

I wonder who they are saving the planet for?

My little bloke doesn't take up much room anyway, so he's staying :wizard:

[reAllytee]

Interesting !

[Susan Mac]

I wonder who they are saving the planet for?

My little bloke doesn't take up much room anyway, so he's staying :wizard:


Exactly what I was thinking. :yes:

The first lady just seemed selfish to me. The second couple seemed genuine.

But if we never take long-haul flights, and I compost, recycle, and walk where I can, does that mean I CAN have babies? :detective:

[Mamalicious]

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."



Who is going to live on the earth if we don't have babies?
Not having a family isn't the answer to global warming, not by a long shot.

[Seekrit]

I wonder who they are saving the planet for?

My little bloke doesn't take up much room anyway, so he's staying :wizard:
:yes: Who ARE they saving it for?
Imagine if we had this beautiful, lush, green planet and no one to enjoy it because we decided not to have kids to 'keep' the earth that way.

blah.

[forbetoel]

*phew* thank God she doesn't want kids. Who is she bl00dy saving the planet for? NUTTER!!!

[Susan Mac]

*phew* thank God she doesn't want kids. Who is she bl00dy saving the planet for? NUTTER!!!

:laughing::laughing::laughing::yelclap:

[kymmy]

Yeah great an aging population....

[Freya]

"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.


:banghead::mad::thumbsdown: What a witch.


If she is so keen on 'saving' the planet maybe she should start by getting rid of that awful top.:barf:

[Freya]

"And a woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad


Wonder why?:detective::rolleyes:




Ibreally think it's great - less nuts about to breed and spread their lunacy to children.

- Crystal, USA


:laughing:

[Ffrenchknickers]

I wonder who they are saving the planet for?

Exactly:rolleyes:

[Mamaduke]

Good luck to her but I hope she doesn't expect any of my food munching, water guzzling, land grabbing, fossil fuel burning, polluting children to fix her ailments, write her prescriptions, operate on her bung hip, help her onto her commode, serve her at the chemist, change her linen in her nursing home, cut her hair, feed her, fix her plumbing, deliver her mail and/or bury her when she finally leaves this earth because she can get stuffed.

[MilkOnTap]

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

This is the same reason that my husband and I want to keep our family small - one or MAYBE two children.

BUT - THIS is absolutely ABSURD! To terminate a pregnancy because you feel you
see them as a sinister threat to the future is shocking and she really needs a head-check.

[OJandMe]

This is the same reason that my husband and I want to keep our family small - one or MAYBE two children.

BUT - THIS is absolutely ABSURD! To terminate a pregnancy because you feel you is shocking and she really needs a head-check.

So it's one or MAYBE two now is it??? :p


(and before Jedd was born you were so adamant it was only one...) :detective:


But little smiles are just so cute aren't they... :cloud9:

:D

[LovelyRita]

This is the same reason that my husband and I want to keep our family small - one or MAYBE two children.

BUT - THIS is absolutely ABSURD! To terminate a pregnancy because you feel you is shocking and she really needs a head-check.

Totally agree. I can completely understand their reasoning behind not wanting children for the environments sake, but this woman is a bit of a nutter. They always pick the most extreme examples of people for these types of articles.... :rolleyes:

[MilkOnTap]

So it's one or MAYBE two now is it??? :p


(and before Jedd was born you were so adamant it was only one...) :detective:


But little smiles are just so cute aren't they... :cloud9:

:D

LMAO - Your right - we are leaning towards a second now. Okay - I'M leaning towards a second (Hubby is yet to be convinced).

I feel sorry for the woman in this article - as she is even MORE adamant than what I had been - yet she is now never going to have the opportunity to discover how wonderful motherhood is :(

[nats]

I think she's a great environmentalist! :yes: And she'd make good compost,as she's full of **** :p

[SassyMummy]

I could respect that she doesn't want children for environmental issues... but she doesn't seem all that committed to planet-saving (just more committed to not having children).

Why go on long-haul flights every year if you're planning on saving the planet?

It sounded to me like she wanted to use a good excuse to stay childless... too bad her reasoning doesn't apply to the rest of her life.

She sounds like an absolute nutbag who really COULDN'T care less about the planet at all...

If anything, I'd think it'd be better to breed children to spread the word and fight for a healthier planet... rather than just not having children at all.


"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.


Yeah... when I want to have another baby, it's just to continue my genetic line. No other reason. :dizzy: What an idiot.

[Sheer Bliss]

I am at a lost for words....well, almost. :eek: :eek:

It probablyis a good thing she can't have kids, her attitutde towards a child sounds less than desirable, and i guess I can respect her decision not to have a child based on her beleifs, but to terminate based on them - that is just sad, sad, sad. I am not anti-abortion, but to have such a narrow field of vision that results in the loss of a life - makes me very very sad.

nats - LOVE the compost comment! :yelclap:

[Meemo]

Good luck to her but I hope she doesn't expect any of my food munching, water guzzling, land grabbing, fossil fuel burning, polluting children to fix her ailments, write her prescriptions, operate on her bung hip, help her onto her commode, serve her at the chemist, change her linen in her nursing home, cut her hair, feed her, fix her plumbing, deliver her mail and/or bury her when she finally leaves this earth because she can get stuffed.

:iagree:
:yelclap::yelclap::yelclap:

[shed]

I think she's a great environmentalist! :yes: And she'd make good compost,as she's full of **** :p

:laughing: love it

[Blueberry Crumble]

What a LOSSSSEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrr

[V8]

Hmm, strange, didn't really want to read the article, but it does sound quite over the top.

[SixtiesChild]

Has the earth become their God? :barf:

[metalhead713]

.................................................. ..............
Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population'


:geek: maybe she should exterminate herself and do the planet a favour? *smiles sweetly*

what a freakin whacko!!!

:rolleyes:

[Ashleigh<3]

I think she's a great environmentalist! :yes: And she'd make good compost,as she's full of **** :p

:laughing::laughing:

[forbetoel]

Well I have 4 kids and thinking about the 5th...to anyone who looks at my family and their first thoughts ar 'bad for the enviroment' need to get a life. The enviroment is a huge issue in our home, and I am bringing up 4 little greenies, how is that any worse than someone having one, who may not even give a stuff about the enviroment.

[metalhead713]

you know i just had a thought..
Wouldnt it be a GOOD idea to breed a new generation and teach them better ways to look after the earth once we are all gone? Or is this womans plan to run it down til its dead and gone, until we are dead and gone, and then not worry about it anymore?

[Becteria]

I feel embaressed for her. How terrible that she thinks it's a better idea to kill the human race out by not breeding?!

[Beany]

I have to say, the environment is the least of my concerns when contemplating a second child. I'm more preoccupied with my vagina to worry about greenhouse emissions.

All the last trimester farting would probably rip the ozone a new one, too.

[mumofKieran]

What a strange way to look at having children! I never realised I was so selfish for having a baby! But really, it's better that people who don't want children don't have them, I think, so good on her for admitting that, no matter what her wacky reasoning.

[SilverStarfish]

*shrug* I'll be the first to agree that the first woman in particular sounds like a right loon, however she's also not hurting anyone else by choosing not to have kids - regardless of how completely stupid I might consider her reasons to be.

Her husband supports her choice and there are many couples out there who have chosen not to have a family for "better" reasons.

I'd have serious issues if she was out there campaigning, trying to convince other women to terminate for the same reason she did.

But so long as she more or less keeps to herself after this 15 seconds of fame, then I'm happy to just leave her be - evolution will certainly win out in the end ;)

[Pippi Longstocking]

I have to say, the environment is the least of my concerns when contemplating a second child. I'm more preoccupied with my vagina to worry about greenhouse emissions.

All the last trimester farting would probably rip the ozone a new one, too.

Beany, articulate as always! :laughing:


Buuuutttt....am I the only one (y'know, me the chick with the bazillion kids) that can see her point?! The article was clearly emotively written and worded in such a way to make people think she is just a weirdy beardy fruitloop. A wee bit o' critical reading never goes astray and that article reeks of cr@p journalism.

Children do pose a threat to the environment. It is an ecologically sound decision to not have them. Personally, I justified my decision to have lotsa luffly squishy babies with the view that if I raised them as greenies they will hopefully do more good than bad. But I do respect those that choose not to procreate for environmental reasons. It just means I can have another to make up for 'em :laughing:

[LovelyRita]

Children do pose a threat to the environment. It is an ecologically sound decision to not have them. Personally, I justified my decision to have lotsa luffly squishy babies with the view that if I raised them as greenies they will hopefully do more good than bad. But I do respect those that choose not to procreate for environmental reasons. It just means I can have another to make up for 'em :laughing:

Yep, I can totally see her point. I know people that aren't having kids and that is a big part of their reasoning. Overpopulation is a huge environmental issue.

Now, please return a few of those gazillion kids before they ruin our environment. :p

[Ana Gram]

I kind of get the impression that she doesn't want kids but felt she needed a valid reason. Especially as she has been sterilised at age 27. It is almost impossible to find a doctor who will do it (I know), and they certainly don't accept "I don't want kids" as a reason. It took her 8 years to find a doctor who would sterilise her, so it makes me wonder if she found a reason one deemed valid enough to do it.

[stellarella]

ROFL....well going by this theory I'm not eco friendly either so I better go top myself!

What a nutter!

And I agree with everyone else...who on earth is she conserving the planet for???? The future generations who she doesn't want to be born!


ROFL...

[Tulp]

Hey it's a choice she's made and she'd made that choice out of her own reasoning. So be it. I don't doubt we've been called nutters by some of the choices we've made. Such is life. :)

[missie_mack]

Im astounded that either woman knew so early what they wanted in life. I didnt then and still dont always know.

Really seems such a shame they (particularly the first one) has blamed the environment for their decision not to have children... but each to their own. At least that is one or two children less who wont need councelling from having nutters for parents lol

[Harlequin]

I kind of get the impression that she doesn't want kids but felt she needed a valid reason. Especially as she has been sterilised at age 27. It is almost impossible to find a doctor who will do it (I know), and they certainly don't accept "I don't want kids" as a reason. It took her 8 years to find a doctor who would sterilise her, so it makes me wonder if she found a reason one deemed valid enough to do it.

That's what I was thinking Chelle.

[Acacia]

*phew* thank God she doesn't want kids. Who is she bl00dy saving the planet for? NUTTER!!!

What is with this idea that the planet is for humans? We are just one species out of millions...maybe they would appreciate having a planet to live on. There is no doubt that babies put extra stress on the planet. Having a child was probably the most hypocritical thing i could have done, and i wont be having anymore, but i have had a child and im going to do everything possible to limit our eco footprints. I think people that chose to not have children for environmental reasons are very honorable.

Ive got a friend who fought to be sterilised at a young age for the same reason...he did achieve it, but the doctors made him wait for a couple of years.

[canberramomma]

The whole stress on the planet thing is one of the reasons that I am reluctant to commit to having another child. I have already been very selfish in this respect, but the maternal instinct is very strong.

I can see both sides, however, I agree that a person who is that passionate about saving the earth should probably reconsider flying on a regular basis.


To me, not have children because of environmental reasons, then to travel by air regularly is a little blinkered IMO.

[Tulp]

Well at least these ladies know what they want or don't want. It's called being responsible.

It's better than having a child and later deciding it was a mistake and deciding to end his life and making excuses for it. Just read today's news and am still feeling upset over it. Sorry ladies. Carry on.

[Harlequin]

I think anything is better than that outcome.

These women just seem a bit odd to me. The flying thing doesn't add up.
I think they just feel the need to have an interesting excuse for not wanting kids.
If that woman seriously didn't want to impact the planet she wouldn't be flying fullstop.

[mama anne]

Im astounded that either woman knew so early what they wanted in life. I didnt then and still dont always know.
:iagree:

[lilpearl]

I think she's a tad insane. I mean, if everyone just stopped having children, what's the point in being alive anyway??????? Children ARE life.

Oh, and her clothing and hair dye don't look too eco friendly, either.

[fludo]

I think there is a big issue with overpopulating the planet, but I think if you just have 2 kids, one for each of you, you are just "replacing" yourselves, and not increasing the population long term. If we are going to get serious about reducing or maintaining the population, something needs to be done in countries like Africa where birth control is limited and women are having lots of babies.

[frippet]

I'm kind of surprised how angry this story has made people. Seems like for those who do have kids, this should be good news - the fewer babies people have the fewer people will be competing with your kids for increasingly scare resources. Anyway, I'm one of those people who decided not to have kids because I think it's something I can do for the future health of the planet - thought I should pop in and speak for the women in the article, who can't speak up for themselves. I'm married and fertile, so it has been an actual choice. I don't assume that everyone else will do what I'm doing, so I certainly don't think it means there will be no people left on earth in a few generations - but if enough people do do it, there might be a better earth around for future generations (and other species) to enjoy. In the meantime, I try to do what I can to support other people's kids - help pay for their educations, in my spare time I teach help out kids in vulnerable situations, that kind of thing. I don't think I'm nuts, but you guys doubtless disagree!

Interesting comment above about how more needs to be done to reduce populations in developing countries. It's true, but it's also worth considering that, for example, a person in Bangladesh will use 1/71th the resources a person in Australia will use in their lifetime. (Currently their birth rate is seven times higher than ours, not 71.) So one less person in Australia could be seen as equal to 71 fewer people in Bangladesh, as far as resource use goes.

PS. No kids? What the heck am I doing here then? Good question: I write for a parenting website, so I like to know what issues parents are thinking and worrying about.

[squiglet]

I wonder though, if she really whanted to reduce her carbon footprint:footinmouth::raspberry:................. ........

[Teley]

Having a child was probably the most hypocritical thing i could have done, and i wont be having anymore, but i have had a child and im going to do everything possible to limit our eco footprints. I think people that chose to not have children for environmental reasons are very honorable.

Ive got a friend who fought to be sterilised at a young age for the same reason...he did achieve it, but the doctors made him wait for a couple of years.

And to give my thoughts on that most ridiculous waste of sentences, I'm going to quote someone else:

I think she's a tad insane. I mean, if everyone just stopped having children, what's the point in being alive anyway??????? Children ARE life.

Oh, and her clothing and hair dye don't look too eco friendly, either.

Oh, and by the way, all you 'eco-friendly people', did you know that a family consumes less energy than just people living by themselves? Why? Because it's the most conservation-friendly way of living. NATURE made it that way, that's just how it's supposed to be.
I'm sorry, but I think a few people out there have their heads screwed on a little too tight. Sorry, but that's my honest opinion. If you don't want kids, don't have kids, but don't make up stupid half-truths and excuses to justify it.

[Teley]

One more thing also, stop blaming people in the 'third world' (what a horrible term). They don't live ridiculous lifestyles like a childless couple in the West would, they don't have a penthouse that has air-conditioning going through it day and night, and two plasma TVs and they don't drive to everywhere in their own nice little private car, just to name a few things.
And they complain, surprisingly, less also:yes:!

[HelenHasTwins]

She is a bloody nutter... Bet she regrets it one day:no:

[Funkychicken]

One more thing also, stop blaming people in the 'third world' (what a horrible term). They don't live ridiculous lifestyles like a childless couple in the West would, they don't have a penthouse that has air-conditioning going through it day and night, and two plasma TVs and they don't drive to everywhere in their own nice little private car, just to name a few things.
And they complain, surprisingly, less also:yes:!

Exactly! And they also don't have the luxury of knowing that all of their children will survive past the age of two as we do, barring a very small percentage.
These families know that to ensure the survival of their lineage, they must have as many children as they are blessed with.

[DQ]

I have 5 kids and I want another one, so how many trees will I need to plant to counteract our footprints?? :eek:

Wow I bet Al Gore wants to kick my butt!! :laughing::p:D

[OJandMe]

My family of 5 (soon to be 6) has an eco footprint that is UNDER HALF of what my Father, his wife and their late life son's is.

And he is an 'only child'... but they have a 6 bedroom house, 3 computers, 2 cars (A 4WD and a V6), 3 TV's, aircon, dishwasher, eat take away more often than home cooked food...I could go on.

Whereas we have one 4 cylinder car but my husband rides his bike to work and uni, 3 bedroom house, use cloth nappies, eat fresh non-processed foods, have one TV.. (that's never on anyway) use fans, open windows and natural shade and strip off to keep cool.

yet he thinks that having more children is bad for the planet. Yeah, if they all lived like HIM!

I think that adding 6 environmentally concious people to the world, for the future, is MUCH better than adding 2 consumerists who don't give a damn about the planet as long as the trees don't interfere with their digital TV signal, or drop leaves on their gas-guzzler.

[DQ]

I think that adding 6 environmentally concious people to the world, for the future, is MUCH better than adding 2 consumerists who don't give a damn about the planet as long as the trees don't interfere with there digital TV signal, or drop leaves on there gas0guzzler.


Well said!!!! :iagree:

[raisingthree]

I can't believe these people! If they don't want to have kids then so be it but don't judge people for wanting kids. Notice how Toni says that people stare at her when she says she doesn't want to have kids like a murderer - well how does she think us mothers feel when she makes the comment that "having children is selfish" I think she is selfish - its not about the environment its ALL ABOUT HER AND HER LOVELY PEACEFUL LIFESTYLE!

Travel away Toni, have some lovely holidays and when you are old and grey and my grandchildren are sitting on my lap playing, you can sit there alone.

I am not trying to be mean but honestly have your opinion but don't ridicule other people for wanting something different. I don't go in a magazine and say I'm having kids for this reason or that.

[our little treasures]

I actually don't think they really decided not to have children for the environment:no: I think they did it for the lifestyle and so they could continue living for themselfs, which I think is incredibly selfish:yes::thumbsdown:

[MummaBear03]

She claims to so set on reducing her carbon footprint on the planet, yet she take flights, she uses medical intervention for sterilisation and terminations, and she is going public about it, using the media which is not eco friendly. Which is worse, doing what she's doing or having kids that can be educated on how to care for the environment? I think if she was so set on living life that way, she would live in a little shack in the woods with no power, certainly no internet or anything. I bet she has a spa in her bathroom!

[Billy]

For people who don't like to be judged for having children you sure are making a lot of rash judgements of her... ;) You know nothing other than what has been portrayed in that article about how she lives.


I don't see it as a judgement on everyone who does have children, just a choice she has made for herself. I actually don't see it as big news either- kids aren't really eco-friendly in a broad sense, but whether that is her reasoning or not does it matter? How does it really effect you? Why get angry because that is her reasoning... *shrugs*

I think she is much better off not having children since she so obviously doesn't want them, if it makes people think a little more about their impact on the Earth then great, if not then so be it. Her not having children makes little difference to me.


I was thinking initially that she wanted to preserve the Earth for no one to enjoy also, but the post made by Frippet on page 5 (yes forgot to quote :p) made a lot of sense to me.

So hey, yeah I agree with Guv. :D

[raisingthree]

I think its a very personal decision whether or not to have kids and the article about her not having them itself is fine.

BUT to pass judgement on women who want to have a family is wrong, to put it out there and tell us we are being selfish is not an opinion I want to hear. My point is that whatever I think about her not having kids I would never put someone down or call them selfish for it and I don't appreciate her saying that in the article.

[Teley]

I think its a very personal decision whether or not to have kids and the article about her not having them itself is fine.

BUT to pass judgement on women who want to have a family is wrong, to put it out there and tell us we are being selfish is not an opinion I want to hear. My point is that whatever I think about her not having kids I would never put someone down or call them selfish for it and I don't appreciate her saying that in the article

I sooooooo :iagree:!

[Teley]

I actually don't see it as big news either- kids aren't really eco-friendly in a broad sense,

Ah, I see. We should all die out. Maybe when there's no humans on earth then the earth will be eco-friendly. Yes good idea, I see where this is going now....
Aren't we getting a bit radical when we say, don't have kids, it's better to let us as a species die out?

[Billy]

Ah, I see. We should all die out. Maybe when there's no humans on earth then the earth will be eco-friendly. Yes good idea, I see where this is going now....
Aren't we getting a bit radical when we say, don't have kids, it's better to let us as a species die out?

Well if you quote only a little part of a sentence to challenge of course it's not going to make sense. Please consider reading the rest of my post, and also perhaps the one below which I have now quoted for your convenience... ;)



I'm kind of surprised how angry this story has made people. Seems like for those who do have kids, this should be good news - the fewer babies people have the fewer people will be competing with your kids for increasingly scare resources. Anyway, I'm one of those people who decided not to have kids because I think it's something I can do for the future health of the planet - thought I should pop in and speak for the women in the article, who can't speak up for themselves. I'm married and fertile, so it has been an actual choice. I don't assume that everyone else will do what I'm doing, so I certainly don't think it means there will be no people left on earth in a few generations - but if enough people do do it, there might be a better earth around for future generations (and other species) to enjoy. In the meantime, I try to do what I can to support other people's kids - help pay for their educations, in my spare time I teach help out kids in vulnerable situations, that kind of thing. I don't think I'm nuts, but you guys doubtless disagree!

[MummaBear03]

Ah, I see. We should all die out. Maybe when there's no humans on earth then the earth will be eco-friendly. Yes good idea, I see where this is going now....
Aren't we getting a bit radical when we say, don't have kids, it's better to let us as a species die out?
It probably is one way of fixing the earth. Or we could just have kids so that we can educate them on the importance of caring for the environment.

[Ashleigh<3]

Ah, I see. We should all die out. Maybe when there's no humans on earth then the earth will be eco-friendly. Yes good idea, I see where this is going now....
Aren't we getting a bit radical when we say, don't have kids, it's better to let us as a species die out?

I guarantee, if you say, "Don't have kids", people will not comply.
I don't think that's the message that the woman was trying to get across either.

As billy said, Children aren't exactly eco-friendly.
Doesn't mean she's saying we should all stop reproducing. She's just saying she respects the Womans desires for not reproducing because she cares about the environment.

One woman not wanting kids is not going to have some widespread effect where humans are going to start disappearing from the earth.

[Teley]

Well if you quote only a little part of a sentence to challenge of course it's not going to make sense. Please consider reading the rest of my post, and also perhaps the one below which I have now quoted for your convenience... ;)

It's just that that little part there made sense if you take it in a sense what that woman is saying and trying to convince people of. Other than being just plain rude, when she says people are selfish for having kids, that's basically her saying, 'let's all die out', just phrased in a more politically correct way:laughing:. Sorry if I offended you by taking that bit out of your post without putting in everything you said, but once you start saying things like kids really aren't eco-friendly, it kind of leads to that thought, that since they aren't eco-friendly, let's not have them.
And also, as I mentioned above, the family unit consumes less energy than other living arrangments:yes:.

[mrsd]

My family of 5 (soon to be 6) has an eco footprint that is UNDER HALF of what my Father, his wife and their late life son's is.

And he is an 'only child'... but they have a 6 bedroom house, 3 computers, 2 cars (A 4WD and a V6), 3 TV's, aircon, dishwasher, eat take away more often than home cooked food...I could go on.

Whereas we have one 4 cylinder car but my husband rides his bike to work and uni, 3 bedroom house, use cloth nappies, eat fresh non-processed foods, have one TV.. (that's never on anyway) use fans, open windows and natural shade and strip off to keep cool.

yet he thinks that having more children is bad for the planet. Yeah, if they all lived like HIM!

I think that adding 6 environmentally concious people to the world, for the future, is MUCH better than adding 2 consumerists who don't give a damn about the planet as long as the trees don't interfere with their digital TV signal, or drop leaves on their gas-guzzler.

:yelclap: Exactly what I would have said.

AND I am unashamedly racist - I am quite happy to put the human race before others ! :D We eat meat and use animals as pets and for utility eg. horses - I'm not handing the earth over to them, sorry.

I reckon each to their own about the no. of children they have, generally speaking - I don't want people telling me how many I can have so I don't want to tell anyone else - but :

a) I think we have a responsibility to accept those we are given - I think the child that was terminated has just as much right to make an environmental impact as her Mum has !

b) I can't see why western nations point the finger at Africa and India and Asia and say "something needs to be done about them" - why have they any less right to breed than we do ? If western nations choose to have less children, there'll be all the more to go around for our African / Indian / Asian brothers and sisters !

c) The whole world needs to be sharing our resources ! I can't understand why there's such a fuss from radicals about Globalisation - if we truly were globalised and were one big villlage, treating everyone fairly and making sure everyone had enough for their needs (without us being greedy), there'd not only be enough to go around but we'd be a much happier planet !:yes:

[OJandMe]

:b) I can't see why western nations point the finger at Africa and India and Asia and say "something needs to be done about them" - why have they any less right to breed than we do ? If western nations choose to have less children, there'll be all the more to go around for our African / Indian / Asian brothers and sisters !

c) The whole world needs to be sharing our resources ! I can't understand why there's such a fuss from radicals about Globalisation - if we truly were globalised and were one big villlage, treating everyone fairly and making sure everyone had enough for their needs (without us being greedy), there'd not only be enough to go around but we'd be a much happier planet !:yes:

What makes me so angry about 'the third world' argument is that they don't have nearly as much impact on the environment as the 'first world' does.

Who is adding the most carbon to our atmosphere? The first world

logging? the first world

energy consumption- the first world

non renewable resources? the first world

environmental destruction- the first world.

monopolising the worlds funds- the first world.


An average person in India eats 17 times LESS than what we do... so imagine how much landfill we'd save on if we started eating properly, instead of indulging.

[ThomasMum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

Good for them I say, we are all entitled to our opinion etc...

[Mum&bubs]

Ummmm.....


and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

How would they know?

[blessedmummy]

hmmm i see children as a blessing from God, given to us to love and cherish forever, God did say, be fruitful and multiply, not have no children. i love my girls,:bee: and couldnt imagine life without them!

[canberramomma]

What makes me so angry about 'the third world' argument is that they don't have nearly as much impact on the environment as the 'first world' does.

Who is adding the most carbon to our atmosphere? The first world

logging? the first world

energy consumption- the first world

non renewable resources? the first world

environmental destruction- the first world.

monopolising the worlds funds- the first world.


An average person in India eats 17 times LESS than what we do... so imagine how much landfill we'd save on if we started eating properly, instead of indulging.
:yelclap: