Subscribe
Previous Post
When Stella McCartney gave birth to her fourth child last week, we wondered if her child-bearing record makes Stella an eco-hypocrite — does having four kids really match up with her environmental advocacy? Some readers disagreed with the logic, citing her ability to pay for her offspring and applauding her for raising more like-minded, earth-conscious children, but other readers agreed that, despite her eco-friendly words and vegan fashion designs, at the end of the day, four kids per family simply isn’t eco-friendly.
Population growth has long been the concern of environmentalists who worry that the more kids we have, the more we sap environmental resources, produce waste, and strain the earth in order to maintain our current quality of life. According to goodplanet.org, world population growth reached its peak in the 1990s, with an increase of 82 million children per year. Currently, the average number of children born per woman is three, down from about six in the 1960′s. The United Nations has predicted that population growth will level out by 2050, but of course, that depends on families who don’t have more than one child per parent (or a lot of adults who choose not to have children).
We’re not worried about the following celebrities’ ability to provide for their children or raise them in an eco-friendly manner, but even if they use cloth diapers and compost their leftover baby food, three children still use more resources and produce more waste than two. What’s more, the lifestyle of any western family (famous or not) is particularly draining on the environment: The world’s wealthiest 16% uses 80% of the world’s natural resources, and the World Resources Institute estimates that every American (adult and child) is responsible for the consumption of about 25 tons of raw materials each year.
Does Brad Pitt’s contribution to sustainable building offset the carbon emissions of flying six children around the world? Do Kevin Costner’s eco-minded investments justify the resources used by his brood of seven? They’re certainly doing a lot more to help than some parents we know, but we still think the following celebs could stand to put a cap on their own contribution to population growth:
this is complete shit!
how can you say that 3 children is an environmental burden? i wonder how many children your mother had. and besides in britain and the USA the population is decreasing so these extra births are needed, and the parents own decisions. but of course i guess you have EVERY right to speak because you are so green and dont even produce carbon dioxide when you breathe right? or methane from the shit you are talking.
all these parents will raise their children to love the environment and care for it, as they do. which is better for the future.
what gives you the right to say these children are burdens and you are not?
This is the most ridiculous article I have ever read. Do something productive with your life.
The greatest threat facing the world today is human population growth. Since WWII the population has more than trebled to nearly 7 billion. This level of growth is quite clearly unsustainable. Resources and the land available are obviously finite and already huge swathes of forest and other ecosystems have been swept aside for development and agriculture. I for one do not want to live in a world devoid of wild places and the species that live there. I have travelled extensively and know from personal experience that the impact of humans has been very detrimental.
Now here’s my take on it. Human procreation should not be subsidised or supported by the state in any way. Indeed it should be taxed instead and the monies raised use to fund contraception and sterilisation. It should not be glorified in the media, in advertising, by Government or any other agency. People have kids not for society, the world, and certainly not for the kids themselves. But just to satisfy their own selfish urges in perpetuating their genes. If prospective parents genuinely want to make a difference why not adopt, or support a child in a developing country.
It is time to grasp the nettle and total re-think our views on human breeding and no longer treat it as a ‘right’, an act of lovey dovey altruism, but as a lifestyle choice, with all the financial and environmental responsibilities that entails.
Check out my Facebook group STOP MAKING BABIES for more http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=101910558810&ref=ts
The greenest thing is not too breed, so these celebs haven’t really contributed much, despite their huge wealth. The trouble is the nature of celebrity is to appeal to the masses and unfortunately it is the masses who breed.
Seriously? What a load of rubbish.
Unless you are living in the hills, completely self-sufficient, growing your own fruit & veg, killing your own animals, harvesting your own grain, etc, etc… well, I suppose then you wouldn’t have the means to write such articles.
Not EVERY child will grow up to have their own gaggle of children. And with the number of broken marriages, not every partner will biologically parent a child. For example, a man may have 2 children, divorce, then meet someone & not have more children. And other people make a conscious decision not to have children.
Three children is not excessive – especially given the number of families (worldwide) who only have one or two children – more for financial reasons than environmental, but that doesn’t change the total number.
Australians are being encouraged to have three. One for Mum, One for Dad, & One for their Country! An aging population cannot take care of itself.
Children NEED siblings. They teach a child patience, tolerance, love, understanding, forgiveness & selflessness. These are carried through life.
What a sad, selfish, lonely world it would be without brothers & sisters.
Its hard to believe we have to come to a time in our history when we are more concerned with “supposed carbon footprint” than we are with fellow human beings. What hypocritical mumbo jumbo it is suggest that a certain number of children per family can be dictated and passed off as some sort of law that is beneficial to the human race. All sounds like an excuse to create your own religion, and hold on to your own type of power to me. It is interesting the freedom that you feel in criticizing people for having families as if you are in wonder as to how somebody could want to do what human beings have done since the beginning of time. So shocking to think that people would want to do this. Life was meant to be reproduced and sustained. Its example is given in every form of life. Who in the world are we to think we are some how better by snuffing out life. It is the same kind of smug philosphy that somehow permiates the society of late with selfish ideas of our own survival, but with no thought to reach out to those who are afflicted, and help them Where in the world has love gone?
Poor Briana (the writer of this irrational article). Unless she is living on a commune to minimize waste herself with dozens of other like-minded individuals, she is the dutchess of all “eco-hypocrites.” I know for a fact that many such folks have no shame about living in a 500-900 square foot apartment all by themselves, and providing it with all the necessary amenities.
But even if poor Briana were “living the message,” carbon footprint, etc, is all pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, unfounded by science or reason.
Moreover, most of the families singled out are families of 3 children or 4. These are not large families, and to suggest they are is foolish. Civilizaiton replacement level is 2.1. Hence, of every 10 families having 2 children, one must have 3 in order for society to continue. Just ask Europe.
Some of the people who read and believe this kind of idiocy need to go have a sirloin, get married, and have about 8-12 children (not in test tubes, but the natural way). And then, after they’re all grown up and contributing members of society, understanding may set in.
It is interesting that people are defending big families by saying they share the same space a small family would occupy. I must be missing something as I thought children eventually move out and start their own families. So 5 kids will need 5 houses and 5 vehicles and 5 whatevers. then if each child follows suit with 5 of their own, then we need 25 houses, 25 vehicles, 25 whatevers. I agree that over consumption is at the root of the problem, but 25 consumers still use more than 4 (if a family has 2 children and then they have 2 children- in case you didn’t follow the math.) It may not be our business how many children you have, but it is our right to voice our opinion about it. And our responsibility to share our views about our limited resources.
How is three kids too many? Maybe it’s because I’m one of five, but I fail to see how a family of one kid consumes significantly less than a family with more children. When there are more children in a family, each child learns to share and not consume too much. And these celebrities are already eco-friendly and will hopefully raise their children with that kind of mindset. In my personal experience, it’s the families with only one or two children that over-consume. Each child gets whatever they want/need and it’s brand new. They are raised with that mentality and will continue to consume when they are adults. In the area where I live, most families only have one or two children. They have a big single family home, an SUV, buy the same amount of food as my family does, etc. And when that child turns 16 and gets their license, they will also get a big SUV of their own. My family owns two working cars. One is a large van, that is still more fuel efficient than an SUV. When we drive it, every seat is filled. The other is a small sedan with good mileage that I got when I got my license. Me and my two driving sisters drive that car when we need to get from point A to point B. Every bedroom in my house is taken, and we even turned two other rooms into bedrooms so everyone can have their own room. We don’t need a bigger house than this one. Food never goes bad because we eat it all, and yet we are all perfectly healthy (not malnourished or obese). But we still hear the crap that big families are less sustainable and how we’re wasting resources. And that crap usually comes from the SUV-driving families of 1 and 2 children. I have my own apartment now at school, and I can tell you that I consume far less than the average American. It has everything to do with the fact that I don’t need as much to be happy or even content. And I owe that to the fact that I am one of five children. (I should probably also add that my family is in no way poor and my parents have the financial means to provide the necessities for each of us.)
I commend each and every one of these celebrities for having a perfectly normal amount of biological children (seriously? three and four children is not abnormally large) and wanting to raise them in an eco-friendly environment while also having the financial means to provide for their children. Believe me, it’s not the number of children that leads to overconsumption.
ha ha ha
a post full of ‘we’ and idea od ‘our’ Earth by misanthrope author!
Who are ‘we’, where is ‘our’ Earth?
it is not living, but a way of living what counts.
3 is a large family? Really? That’s a bit excessive. I mean, the population is going to grow; resources are going to be used. That’s what they’re there for. If you wanted to preserve the earth 100% then you gotta wipe us all out and NOT start over. So if these folks are using their resources WISELY then what’s the big deal? So in answer to the question posed by the ‘article’ no, I don’t think they are “eco-hypocrites.”
I can’t believe I wasted my time reading (and now responding) to this ridiculous article. And to the crazies that agree? Seriously? You don’t think an overhaul of the way we use resources is more in order than telling people they shouldn’t have and raise more children? Really? You don’t want to tell us to use bio fuel, recycle, walk or ride bikes more and drive less, grow more food at home, plant more trees, turn off the lights, conserve water, or to stop smoking? Your solution is to raise one spoiled child, rather than 3,4,5 well rounded children who are more eco friendly? “Only children” are less likely to ration, share, or consider others in their decisions, because they didn’t have to growing up, even with proper parental raising and prompting to be that way. AND typically women who choose to not have children, according to psychologists, are more selfish and less nurturing than those that do choose to have children. So, I doubt the women who have chosen to for go child bearing, are going to be teaching anyone about environmental issues or sustainability. I have a head ache from this.
what is your point? have less kids? what about the positive influence these parents have on their children? maybe the kids will also have a positive effect on the environment because of what their parents have taught them? also, where is your evidence that these families are doing more harm than good? maybe have some information to back up what your saying before you make your own judgments. what are you doing that is so great for everyone or anyone else for that matter.
YES – OF COURSE the point is to have less kids – how can you have a sustainable society if even those “championing” eco-reforms are hard at work over-populating the world? Who cares if they can pay for their kids? If everyone were having 4 kids, as many around the world are, then the world population will eventually (shortly) grow too great for the environment to support (as is the current projection). My god this is basic math here.
Your attempts to win page views are getting a little desperate, eh?
This is a bunch of nonsense. Furthermore it makes environmentalists, or just people who try to be greener look like loons. 3 of the Pitt kids for instance are adopted, so they were already going to have a carbon footprint, of course it would be lower if the celebs just left them were they were to die an early death or go into subsistence farming, is that what the author is suggesting should be done?
If we learn to make do with less and find cleaner and more efficient means of production and distribution for what we produce, then even more people can have a lesser environmental footprint, the argument of the author is based on a Malthusian logical fallacy.
I’m grateful to see so many of these comments disagree with the article’s presumptions. On the average, larger families are generally much more conservative regarding resources and finances than smaller families. There is an innate sense of “other” rather than self promoted when you have to share space, time, food, possessions, and attention.
Dr. Janet E. Smith presents a number of logical, statistically-supported arguments for why a population scare is rather silly. Granted, she’s Catholic, but her arguments are sound enough that people can overlook without trouble.
Lastly, we should be learning a lesson from the Chinese government and a few of the European countries who are either now struggling with violence, male-domination, etc. or have seen their population replaced by a completely different culture due to the mindset that larger families are harmful to society and land.
I support the green movement, but every time it’s proponents try to dictate family size, I grow wary of that particular individual/group. They’re the same who insist that we must have non-abstinence reproductive education and that moralistic conservatives need to stay out of the bedroom, and yet, they’re walking right into the bedroom and justifying it for their own cause. We all need to examine our own hypocricies here and avoid bandaids rather than healing. The problems are food supply, internal societal wars, business monopolies, etc. Not big, happy families.
Bad post. This isn’t about hypocrisy at all. Taken as a whole, we in the US need to have larger, not smaller families. There is no way for us to maintain the social safety net if our population tree becomes top heavy with the elderly. We need to match our birth rates with our needs, and simple slogans like “Have small families!” are quasi-jingoistic. There is no shortage of supply of food in the US, with plenty to spare for some of the world’s impoverished. The problem is equitable distribution.
http://www.theassassinbug.com
Wow. Way to turn off readers! Who are you to judge how many people a person should have? Yes, more people in a family cause more stress on the environment. There’s more to it than that. First of all, the more children there are in a family, the lower their individual carbon footprints will be. By sharing a home, food, energy, clothes, computers, cars, and countless other things, each of those children are using less than the only child in another family. Secondly, it’s none of your business! Specifically, this article is addressing families who can pay to support their children. Families who can’t, and continue to have children on purpose, create a different scenario. This is addressing the simple ecological consequences. Here’s news: a perfect ecosystem means nothing if we can’t treat each other with simple respect, allowing each other to make decisions such as this for ourselves, reserving judgment for situations that actually need it.
I love your site, but this is kind of ridiculous. And I think you’re missing the point here.
These folks with these larger families bring something to the table that you’ve totally ignored here: they have the environment on their mind. The fact that they’re teaching their offspring the values of being eco-friendly and (for the most part) living with that in mind speaks VOLUMES. While Mark is totally right–none of us can throw the first stone, so to speak–at least these kids will hopefully grow up to be of the bus-riding, local-food-eating, composting, tree-hugging variety. I’d rather see 10 kids from someone who instills those values in their children then see a single child from someone who gives no thought to creating waste or harming the environment.
Are you trying to be offensive here, Blisstree? How many children to you suggest these celebrity eco-hypocrites kill off to appease your environonsense?
Maybe not kill them, just don’t produce them. In the case of Brad Pitt and other celebrities, the fact that they are adopting the kids is really commendable, but the point of the article is a valid one. Upsetting the carbon emissions and the strain that more individuals put on the earth will require a lot from these kids. The solution may be in teaching the kids we already have instead of having more and hope try to rise those “special ones” to be environmentally conscious.
Although I agree that kids, especially children in over consumptive western families (green or not) are ecologically damaging, I find it hilarious that anyone would be so ignorantly self-righteous to make a public spectacle of it without admitting their own heinous environmental sins. Anyone who owns a computer, drives a car, has a cell phone, lives with electricity, lives or works in a building built with modern materials, purchases anything imported, has ever traveled in an airplane, or lives a typical wasteful western life style and pretends to care about the environment is a hypocrite. Although I grow most of my own food, am remodeling an abandoned house with recycled materials, and try my hardest to consume as little as possible, I still know and admit that I am a hypocrite for hundreds of reasons. The green movement is nothing but a creative marketing ploy to ease the guilt ridden conscious of a culture devoid of real pathos.