I applaud you for being willing to comment on RHReality Check. I made that mistake once and was attacked by many of the same folks who attacked you - I'm not willing to use that kind of emotional life energy again. It is a very, very hostile place unless you subscribe to some of the commentators' (not sure their affiliation with the site) brand of "feminism" or "reproductive rights". It is sad really, because the articles on the site are generally thought provoking and cover a variety of issues that need to be talked about.

Human fertility and population growth rates are dropping rapidly around the world. In the early 1950s, when we began to hear echoes of Thomas Malthus in warnings of an impending population explosion, the global total fertility rate (the number of children per woman) was five, more than double the replacement rate of 2.1 (the number that gives a stable population size over time).3 By the late 1970s the total fertility rate had fallen to four, and by the mid-1990s it was 2.8 and dropping. In the U.S. it's been flat at 2 since the 90s.

You can see the global fertility rate (or by country) here: World Bank, World Development Indicators

I completely agree with you, and I applaud you for writing such a reasonable and non-accusatory post. This discussion reminded me of this website I stumbled upon recently: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Our effect on the planet is the result of so many factors, including personal choices and the culture/society we live in. Family size is only a part of that. Besides, if everyone stopped having kids, humankind would eventually die off. We *need* families to have 2, 3, 4 kids just to *replace* our population (since not everyone has kids, some families need to have more than just 2).

What makes this so difficult is that there's really no denying that the environmentalists have a point on this issue. The Earth simply cannot sustain an infinite number of people -- and even if every American managed to reduce their carbon footprint to that of an Ethiopian (to use her example), that basic fact wouldn't change.

That being said, it's a bit strange that people like this seem to think that they're somehow making a difference by shaming those of us privileged enough to care about the environment. Rather than smugly flaunting their child-free status and trying to guilt others into the same lifestyle choice, it seems like the more useful thing would be to better support those women who already aren't interested in having children. This would mean fighting harder to help provide them with any resources they may need (sex education, contraception, easy access to abortion) as well as continuously challenging any cultural or religious expectations that settling down and having babies is just what every woman should do by default.

(Yes, I realize that some of that was in the original article, but it seemed to me that it kind of got buried in the smug.)

Agree with all of that, ofcourse. Except for when you dropped this bomb:
"But, The Establishment doesn’t want us talking about the real issues. They don’t want us to stop consuming. They don’t want us to recognize and legitimize the family status of all people. Instead, they’d rather have the feminists pointing fingers at each other’s used or unused wombs, and shouting, “You’re the problem with the world!”"

Can we be sure the entire "establishment" is against us, wishing us to have no more children? I don't think so.

Great post otherwise.

I agree with you that it's about choice. It's entirely possible for a large family to be way "greener" than a child free one. Or not. It's about personal decisions from start to finish.

I've already gotten criticism for our childbearing choices. I've even gotten the "you're not getting any younger." I'm 25!! It's gotten to the point where when people ask when we're going to have kids I say, "I don't know but we sure are practicing a lot."

I understand her decision to stay child free and I support that. But she in turn should support someone else's decision to have as many children as they choose.

Good reply to that article. Here in Australia there is a bit of a populaion debate going on at the moment...I can see it is true that poeple use the earth's resources but I get annoyed at people suggesting we should not have kids when there is so much we could do to use earth's resources more responsibly....so much positive revolution could happen in that area all over the world!

I am pregnant with my fifth and am dreading the critcisms once I am showing....FB is right....it is no one else's business at all. And yes, in my early twenties I was a lesbian doing Women's Studies at University and so determined that I would never EVER have kids. Met the perfect man for me and it all changed in an instant!

I lovingly refer to my kids as little environmental disasters and I realize that the planet would probably be a little better off without them. It really comes down to supporting women, allowing them to make their own decisions, and not using issues, such as the environment, to simultaneously justify your view and criticize another's.

I think it could also be a matter of thinking that we are doing things right and everyone doing less is just wrong, selfish, or in this case, hates the planet. I made the choice to have children knowing that it would have been eco-friendlier to skip it. I drive a Prius and have solar panels on the roof. Does that mean it would be productive for me to criticize everyone I view as an environmental nightmare? Not so much. The author should realize that judging an entire group of people doesn't get us any closer to the mutual goal of being kind to the earth. Support people, work together and then you may see some positive change.

On another note, I love that my childless-by-choice friends have made the best decisions for themselves and hate that people would ever pressure someone to take on the hardest job on the planet. I also let them know that they have my support in the face of constantly being told that their choice isn't valid, they will change their mind, and so on. In other words, that they are just plain wrong. Not cool.

In a women's studies class many many years ago we read a very enlightening article on the myth of overpopulation. I cannot recall the author, or the title but I do remember the point made was that 80% of our resources are used by 20% of the population, and 80% of the population share the remaining 20%. The solution is not to tell the 80% of the population to stop having kids- the solution is a better allocation of resources and corporate responsibility and regulation. The author drove home the point by looking at the resources used by a very large family in a third world country. They used one cooking pot, and created virtually no trash or waste. They were not to blame for environmental destruction and lack of adequate resources, but victims of.

As a side note, I went to a liberal summer camp in Malibu as a child and one summer we had a presentation by someone from the show Baywatch [the tall woman with short hair whose name I don't remember- not Pamela] and she talked about how over population was destroying the earth. Had maps showing the shrinking resources and everything. She ended the presentation by saying over and over DON'T HAVE KIDS. Even then I thought it was really odd but it apparently stuck with me all these years.

Cheers!

Being from Eugene, (Attach the word hippie to any other word and toss it my way. I'm sure I've heard it lobbed at my town before.) my husband and I run into this argument a lot. All of the OBVIOUS truths about leaving women the eff alone about their own organs aside, I always say the same thing to naysayers and child-haters. If only the people who care about the environment stop having children, what do you think will happen in 100, or even 50 years?

I agree, the issue at hand is respecting a women's right to decide how many children is right for her.

I spent 9 adult, mostly married years of my life saying I was NEVER having a child (for my own personal reasons). And many people who asked me felt the need to criticize my choice not to have children.

Then things changed and I now have one child. And for personal reasons (see, again, "personal reasons") we decided for the first couple years she would be the only one we were having. Again, many people felt the need to criticize my choice of having only one child.

I have a friend who has six kids and is pregnant with number seven. She is constantly criticized for her choices.

Quite frankly, people seem to think there is only one perfect family size and it's whatever THEY believe is best for YOU. It's pretty sad.

I've gone back and forth with this argument. I TOTALLY understand what the author is saying, I read about this kind of perspective in a book and it really floored me then. I am a mom though, and I'll be honest, it is one of the few things that I am genuinely SKILLED at. Mankind not reproducing doesn't seem like the answer. Mankind making the transition into making responsible decisions is the answer.

I 100% agree with you that being child-free is a personal/private decision that is something that no one has any right to judge one way or another. To defend yourself by putting the choices of another down and making them seem like irresponsible and bad people is silly though.

It took a long time for me to realize how I felt this issue should be advocated. It is becoming more and more socially acceptable (even if it is still considered controversial) to be child-free, which is an awesome start. For the many who still want and desire children though, it is important to continue advocating "green" and environmentally responsible lifestyles. That way our children are more aware, we shouldn't just stop having children.

Amen Sistah!

First, I have to say that I totally understand the sentiments when someone says that they never want kids. That was me too. I was determined to be a dog-owning hipster who only tolerated other people's children. And here I am now - blubbering over the WIC commercials for breastfeeding and parading around my cloth diaper stash on every family outing. No matter what decision you make regarding your reproductive organs, there will be someone there with an opposing argument. People don't seem to take in to consideration what a deeply personal decision it is to be or not to be a mother (yes, I am aware that I sort of through a piece of Shakespeare in there). A woman should not have to defend this decision. On the flip side of that, a woman should not put others down for not making the same decision that she does.

Anyways though, to the point. The author of the original article would have a point in the green debate if it were true that all non-breeders made constant life decisions that promoted sustainability and preservation. However, in my experience, that does not happen. People without children have more leftover income at the end of the day, and disposable incomes often equal purchasing more stuff and that in turn leads to a bigger carbon footprint. This is not to say that people with children are always perfect and practice the 3 Rs religiously; I have seen families that do nothing but add to our earth's growing problems. But, to generalize (I know there are exceptions to everything!), families tend to have to do more with less financially and spatially so we practice habits that in turn are more "green"; we also often find, as parents, that we want to protect our children's current safety and their future. This causes many of us to "convert" to more conscientious habits - breastfeeding, cloth diapers, and choosing hygiene products that are chemical-free. It is true that humans add to the environmental crisis - our cars, factories, waste, and treatment of every non-human living thing is not short of heinous. But, many of us are trying to reform our ways and if everyone stops breeding - humanity will cease to exist. Is that truly the best answer for our planet? I would have to say no to that.

I took part in an article in Glamour Magazine earlier this year on this topic: http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2011/02/my-baby-decision. I was really thrilled with how the article came out as a whole and my piece in particular (we're story #5). I agree that women have the right (and responsibility) to make their own conscious decisions regarding their reproductive lives. The most important component in the argument to me is that women make *informed* decisions.

All that being said, I personally thought that the profile of the woman who chose not to have children was the weakest link in the article. She came across as selfish and immature. I personally know women who have made the decision not to have children--and their vacation plans were not the determining factor. Neither was the environment.

When people throw out reasons like these for making important life decisions I know it's because there's a deeper factor they don't want to face--and I suspect it is fear. And I think that is absolutely the saddest reason not to do something and the one most likely to cause regret later in life.

I agree with both of you in a way. My husband and I hang out with punks (not the kind you'll ever really see on tv or in MTV music videos...the underground kind) When we had our baby all of our friends were happy for us, but there are some out their who accuse us of being breeders in a bad way.
I assume this is because they believe that any addition to the population is wrong. Wrong in the way that we are yet another addition to the population that is stealing habitats, polluting, and generally taking up space/hurting other living beings on this planet, that I personally think deserve our planet more than we do considering they do not treat us like commodities. It's a much bigger picture than what we do to the environmental. It's what we do to ourselves, the environment, and all the other living beings on this planet. We cause A LOT of suffering every day. We slaughter other living beings for food in horrifying conditions. We stick them in cages without veterinary care, without enough food or water, and torture them to test our products. We do not treat these living beings like we would treat ourselves, and many people do not even treat other humans any good either. The uneducated, and the ones who just don't care harm everything in their path, and although an earth conscious person will try to raise their children to do the same, there are chances it may not work. I'm not saying that how we raise our children won't make a difference, but the people that negatively call my husband and I breeders are thinking every single human being is no good and that the world could do without us for the way we treat everything.
I do agree with this. I think it is very possible that we will doom our planet and exhaust it of all it's goodness. I also believe that the world is headed for a lot of doom whether we're here or not, over and over again until it's completely exhausted. You only live once, so make the best of it. Try to make a difference so that when something like what happened to the dinosaurs happens to us the world can maybe renew itself and something else can take over the planet. The harder we work for ourselves and the world, the longer we'll be here, and maybe one day something will look at the rocks on this planet and be able to tell we were here.