**RANT** A friend sent me this and asked for my opinion (Hey, heres some good reasons to not have kids, you should check it out!), and I have a few things to say about it (of course I do, what is shame?). First off, I should explain that this was sent to me because I dont want to have kids. Im terrible at children (if kid-skills were on a report card Id have a D if my teacher was generous). I dont personally like the idea of being pregnant, staying home, or going to assorted parent-child activities. I have no problem with people wanting to have kids, though, and after reading this article and getting angry I want to smack the rest of my no-kids companions for stooping to ridiculous claims. Please skim through the article, this isnt a summary. 1.) Setting. The article is attempting to place the issues of an entire field of study (demography) on childbirth. The author is leaving out important factors such as differing birth rates by location. For example, Canadas fertility rate (# births/woman) was 1.61 in 2011 and has been following a similar trend, and the necessary fertility rate for population replacement with no growth is 2.1 (the 0.1 accounts for infertility). There are similar fertility rates for the current core (first-world) nations, meaning that the developed world is not replacing its population (lets leave immigration out of this for now, its a separate debate). Contrasting the above, the fertility rate of semi-peripheral and peripheral nations (second and third-world) remain significantly higher than that of the core. Women are having many more children in these areas (I believe the current highest fertility rate is in Niger, at around 7 births/woman). The article is targeted largely towards a readership in core nations, and is advocating for them to withhold reproduction for the good of humanity. Ill deal with the problem in this later. 2.) Hunger. The article points to hunger as the number one reason that we should not be striving to have children, because in doing so we are contributing to the starvation of 1 in 8 people on Earth. First, the hunger of any nation as a whole comes down not to the world population, but to the nations ranking within the world system. Core nations have high profits and control much of the world economy. Semi-peripheral nations have industry but are not powerful in the same way as the core, and peripheral nations are at the mercy of everyone, for the most part. The majority of world hunger issues are located in the periphery, and no amount of children had (or not had) in the core will change their position. Second, inequality and food insecurity (going hungry) within smaller groups within a nation is the product of structural problems within the government itself. For example, thirty percent of Canadians currently use food banks/charitable food organizations in some aspect. This is not because of a lack of food in Canada (in fact, we have an overabundance) but is because the social system is largely failing this subset of society. Overall, the world population has little to do with hunger. We have enough food to feed the world, it is simply more profitable to sell it than give it to those in need. 3.) Fresh Water. The article also points to water as a major reason to not have children. This is ridiculous for the same reasons mentioned above. The technology exists to make clean drinking water available to anyone who can afford it, and regardless of the pollution of fresh water sources or the desalinization of the oceans caused by global warming, we have the technology to keep water available (and to desalinate it). Those in the world who are unable to access fresh, clean drinking water are those who are largely located in the periphery, which is (as mentioned above) not able to compete economically and gain access to this technology without humanitarian aid. Having a child does not signal the end of water for mankind. 4.) Global Warming and Pollution. These two are the most likely to be agreed with, and I do agree to some extent. Still, not having children isnt what will save the world from these problems. Active lobbying, an informed citizenry, and a global accountability for the state of the environment will help us minimize these things. Making corporations accountable for what they put into the environment, allowing alternative, green transportation to take the place of fossil-fuel burning versions, and stopping the mass farming of livestock (among other things) will be what slows the progression of pollution-caused global warming. You can sit at home and not have kids, but that will do squat for the environment. 5.) Space. This is an irrelevant concern. There is more than enough space in the world, the problem is the way it is divided. People will live where people can live, and if that means on top of one another for forty stories, thats fine (as long as theyre happy). Yes, there is more pollution and electrical use in these areas, but changing the way that electricity is produced and making conscious, policy-driven changes to ensure minimized pollution will stop this faster than not having children. Also, urbanization has reached a point where admonishing the core populations to return to rural environments is economically suicidal. The author quotes Hardin to confirm her point, but this really has little applicability. Yes, humanity is sharing limited resources and we are in the process of drying them up. Having less children will not stop this, only active change will. Finally, I have to ask this: Can we really lobby for the kind of changes Ive mentioned if people in the educated core nations are not making future generations to continue the cause? No, we cant. I would actually plead for the opposite: If you are educated, politically-minded, and want a better future, have kids. Teach your kids well, send them to good schools, and make them understand the need for structured change in the world. Make them read, make them question, make them realize that they can change things with hard work and a clear goal. We will never solve the problems in this article if we arent providing a new generation of intellectuals, and they are our only hope. For the good of humanity, have kids. That didnt go how you expected, did it?
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 01:09:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015