Scientists: Save the planet-have fewe...

Scientists: Save the planet-have fewer kids

There are 645 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Aug 26, 2008, titled Scientists: Save the planet-have fewer kids. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

There are plenty of ways to cut your carbon footprint, whether it's driving less or buying an energy-efficient refrigerator.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 33
Next Last
Wednesday

Romeoville, IL

#1 Aug 27, 2008
The world-populating Duggar family could learn a thing or two from this article. 17 kids and counting!!!!
Danaidh

Chicago, IL

#5 Aug 27, 2008
People who cannot afford them (without help from the government) should have fewer kids.
J in KC

Jefferson City, MO

#6 Aug 27, 2008
Liberals...are you listening?
maria

Skokie, IL

#8 Aug 27, 2008
Now if someone would just tell the US Hispanic population, which the US Census reports is on the cusp of exploding to 30% of our national population.
Chris

Plainfield, IL

#11 Aug 27, 2008
Kojo wrote:
More silly b.s., how 'bout less scientists?
1. How "'bout" you learn English? It's "fewer scientists."

2. And that goes to my next point. Is there a way such that stupid people and poor people have fewer children and smarter people and people with actual resources have more children? That seems to me to be the true problem. I do not care if Western Europe, or the United States, for that matter, becomes primarily Hispanic (or whatever 'scary' ethnicity people worry about) due to birth rates -- but only if these children are being born into families with resources and have the opportunity to become educated, contributing members to an advancing society. A country full of unskilled labor (and, in turn, no scientists) is not be useful to anyone.
marie s

Chicago, IL

#13 Aug 27, 2008
Thank you!!!! Finally someone mentions population control. You always hear environmentalists yak about "going green" and they provide every thinkable solution from expensive electric cars to never using grocery bags, but no one ever points out that having more babies is just producing more polluters.

Population control was huge and talked about in the 70s...let's hear more of it now.
marie s

Chicago, IL

#14 Aug 27, 2008
Danaidh wrote:
People who cannot afford them (without help from the government) should have fewer kids.
agreed! i am tired of paying my taxes to support non-citizens and welfare-users who just keep having more babies who in turn will not contribute to society.
zoe moore

Skokie, IL

#15 Aug 27, 2008
Wouldn't it also help if people had fewer dogs as pets?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the dog population in Chicago alone is something like 400,000. And it's getting more and more common to see people owning two and three dogs.

Come on dog owners, show some concern for our planet!
A Chicagoan

United States

#21 Aug 27, 2008
Good gracious. Someone has made headlines with an ideal I've lived by for years!
When and if we want children, we'll opt for adoption.
There are millions of children in the world at any given time in need of a home, loving care, and family.
viv

Wilmette, IL

#24 Aug 27, 2008
Danaidh wrote:
People who cannot afford them (without help from the government) should have fewer kids.
word
JustEnoughOfUToo ManyOfYou

Chicago, IL

#25 Aug 27, 2008
"I might inform those humanitarians who have a nightmare of new and needless babies (for some humanitarians have that sort of horror of humanity) that if the recent decline in the birth-rate were continued for a certain time, it might end in there being no babies at all; which would console them very much"
Joe

United States

#26 Aug 27, 2008
Actually, a large reason white people tend to be wealthier than minorities is that yes, they tend to have only 2 children, and they wait until they're in their mid to later 20's to have them. In contrast, and I speak from experience, latinos feel as though they're "missing the boat" if they wait that long. I say this with all love and respect for my latino friends. OF COURSE, there are exceptions.
Catlady

Philadelphia, PA

#27 Aug 27, 2008
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>
2. And that goes to my next point. Is there a way such that stupid people and poor people have fewer children and smarter people and people with actual resources have more children? That seems to me to be the true problem. I do not care if Western Europe, or the United States, for that matter, becomes primarily Hispanic (or whatever 'scary' ethnicity people worry about) due to birth rates -- but only if these children are being born into families with resources and have the opportunity to become educated, contributing members to an advancing society. A country full of unskilled labor (and, in turn, no scientists) is not be useful to anyone.
Exactly correct. See the movie "Idiocracy"...
noneoftheabove

Melrose Park, IL

#28 Aug 27, 2008
First thing- stop the goverment from subsidizing the growth of the poor. If these people are on welfare or other goverment programs - they should not be allowed to have children that they cannot provide for. If you look at the latest growth statistics, it clearly shows certain classes growing at 20% while others are only growing 2% - which is why they say the white majority will be gone in 2048.

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#32 Aug 27, 2008
Too funny.

Thanks for cracking me up in the middle of such a serious topic.

:)

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#34 Aug 27, 2008
Ooops...

Too funny KOJO, that is.

Thanks for cracking me up in the middle of such a serious topic.

:)
Dee

Palatine, IL

#35 Aug 27, 2008
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>

2. And that goes to my next point. Is there a way such that stupid people and poor people have fewer children and smarter people and people with actual resources have more children? That seems to me to be the true problem. I do not care if Western Europe, or the United States, for that matter, becomes primarily Hispanic (or whatever 'scary' ethnicity people worry about) due to birth rates -- but only if these children are being born into families with resources and have the opportunity to become educated, contributing members to an advancing society. A country full of unskilled labor (and, in turn, no scientists) is not be useful to anyone.
Yeah, who would decide who's smart. Everyone has a place in this world and most people can be smart if you add education and subtract crime and poverty.
Heathen_children _maker

Newark, NJ

#36 Aug 27, 2008
ok so here's the deal, now i'm being told to stop having kids to save the planet. That's great, makes sense to me. Problem is that as an rationalist, I understand these arguments and would have limited my offspring to 1.5 or whatever, but all the churchies aren't rationalist or they wouldn't be following the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply". So we made a conscious decision to have more than our allotted 1.5 offspring to counterbalance the folks that lack a firm grip on reality believing their imaginary friend in the sky will keep the planet nice and healthy for their 8 undisciplined children. If the heathens don't have more children who will take care of the Earth in the future? And besides, once the "rapture" comes we'll need to have enough children to assure we can keep the world running.

PJW

“Ta da!!!”

Since: Jan 08

Alexandria

#37 Aug 27, 2008
Another important factor is that children from small families simply do better in life than children from larger ones given the same income and general environment. "Middle child" syndromes is recognizable at three kids. The reason is quite simple and well-documented: kids that get more one-on-one time with parents do better than those that do not. This translates into better intellectual development (paying off in better school performance and better job prospects) and better emotional development (paying off in happier people in general).

And, of course, we cannot overlook the benefit to parents, particularly women. Women with too many kids cannot lead intellectually satisfactory lives. There is a reason why all of those housewives in the 1950's and 1960's were stoned on valium and booze all of the time: they led lives that were less intellectually stimulating that those led by monkeys in zoo cages.(Most of those monkeys are insane, by the way.)

Coming from a large family myself, I have to admit: I cannot think of a single advantage that it provided me, whereas the disadvantages that it placed in front of me creates a list so long that it is pretty darn depressing to even contemplate!
Rob

Skokie, IL

#38 Aug 27, 2008
I completely agree. Every single problem facing the world can be traced to one thing - people.

The tough question becomes how to effectively implement population control.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 33
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Billoozefartsface 65,083
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 7 hr Anti-Know Nothing... 42,372
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming (Mar '18) 7 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 509
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 7 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 5,800
News Government climate report contradicts Trump, wa... Mon Uncle tony 28
News Inslee wants 100 percent clean energy in Washin... Dec 14 ThomasA 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Dec 12 hojo 12,455