Sideways News

“The single most meaningful contribution I can make to a cleaner, greener world is not to have children,” writes Lisa Hymas of environmental news site Grist.

With an ever-increasing population, stretched food supplies, and, according to a 2009 study in Global Environmental Change taking into account the long-term impact of Americans' descendants, each child adding an estimated 9,441 metric tonnes of CO2 to a parent's carbon legacy, Hymas' statement is perhaps not so far-fetched.

Paul Murtaugh, professor of statistics at Oregon State University, writes in a report released by the university:

"Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

Yet, although population expansion might be a serious issue, we’re talking about children, not bank balances. The choice to have children or not is hardly comparable to choosing to use a hybrid car or energy efficient light bulbs.

“Here's a simple truth,” writes Hymas. “For an average person like me — someone who doesn't have the ability of an Al Gore to reach millions, or of a Nancy Pelosi to advance (if not actually enact) landmark environmental legislation, [...] the single most meaningful contribution I can make to a cleaner, greener world is to not have children.”

Does Hymas have a point? Is her extreme lifestyle choice the ultimate sacrifice?

“I am thoroughly delighted by the fact that the most humane thing for me to do is to have no children at all,” writes Hymas. “Making the green choice too often feels like a sacrifice or a hassle or an expense. In this case, it feels like a luxurious indulgence that just so happens to cost a lot less for me and weigh a lot less on the carbon-bloated atmosphere.”

The author highlights benefits such as saved time, emotional energy, uninterrupted grown-up conversation, eight hours sleep, nights out. She may be tongue in cheek but the irony can’t be evaded.

Isn’t the root – in its most simplistic form – of climate change man’s selfishness?

“Careful studies of how women feel as they go about their daily activities show that they are less happy when taking care of their children than when eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television. Indeed looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing housework,” writes Harvard Psychology Professor Daniel Gilbert in his 2006 book Stumbling On Happiness.

“None of this should surprise us. Every parent knows that children are a lot of work -- a lot of really hard work -- and although parenting has many rewarding moments, the vast majority of its moments involve dull and selfless service to people who will take decades to become even begrudgingly grateful for what we are doing.”

Gilbert, extreme as his views may be, voices an entirely selfish opinion. Surely, not having children as a sacrificial stand against climate change needs to be just that, a sacrifice. Otherwise we’re simply sticking a moralistic tag on our own desires.

And is, motivations aside, not having children the best option? A blog response to Hymas’ article suggests the best option is to have children and to bring them up to make a difference.

“The best thing you could do for the environment (now I'm not urging you to have children, I'm not one of those people that says everyone should...) is to raise at least one healthy, well balanced, earth loving activist to take up the cause when you're no longer around to fight,” writes the bloggist.

In this case, is cure better than prevention?