Is being green the new black?

Ken68

There probably is a downside to it, Happy, when you start auditing the family.
That chap in It's not easy being Green, had it good, his family were with him 100%.

gromituk

pollys wrote:

My husband and 4 young children

OK, I'll ask the taboo question: why four children? People who claim to be green often seem to have a lot of children, which more than wipes out any amount of measures they could take to reduce their impact on the planet.

QueenB.

gromituk wrote:

OK, I'll ask the taboo question: why four children? People who claim to be green often seem to have a lot of children, which more than wipes out any amount of measures they could take to reduce their impact on the planet.

Explain how having a lot of children wipes out any amount of measures they take to reduce their impact on the planet


Personally i have 3 and i do not see how this has adversely affected my green journey, if anything i am bringing up 3 children in a green lifestyle which they will hopefully take elements of into their own adult lives.

For me the most important thing i can do to be green is to pass the ideas and practices on to others and the next generation not only that but they are in fact my greatest inspiration.

SaverSarah_2

QueenB. wrote:

For me the most important thing i can do to be green is to pass the ideas and practices on to others and the next generation not only that but they are in fact my greatest inspiration.

I'm with you on that Queenie.

xx

gromituk

QueenB. wrote:

Explain how having a lot of children wipes out any amount of measures they take to reduce their impact on the planet

Because your children are going to be Westernised high consumers of resources, just like you are - and I am.

Personally i have 3 and i do not see how this has adversely affected my green journey, if anything i am bringing up 3 children in a green lifestyle which they will hopefully take elements of into their own adult lives.

Indeed, you can bring them up to be green-thinking, and I'm sure you are, but can you honestly say that they will actually have a "resource-negative" affect on the planet - will their presence actually result in fewer resources being consumed than if they weren't there?

rubix_76

gromituk wrote:

can you honestly say that they will actually have a "resource-negative" affect on the planet - will their presence actually result in fewer resources being consumed than if they weren't there?

I suggest a mass suicide, like lemmings :T :T :T

Anyone know where the nearest big hill is :rotfl:

The only way to have no impact on the environmental, is for nobody to be here, animals and plants included !!!

Think of all those poor flies being eaten by the spiders, that's life I'm afraid, should we all become vegetarian, then what about all those Carotts (they were living too, food plants are "bred" for human consumtion like cattle) ....

The only way to go is to make the MINIMUM possible impact on the environment, recylce where we can, buy second hand or use freecycle to reduce lanfill, replenish trees etc etc.

Excuse my pessemism but that's my opinion ! :rolleyes:

AWAITING FLAK (wearing body amour)

Rubix

doddsy

gromituk wrote:

OK, I'll ask the taboo question: why four children? People who claim to be green often seem to have a lot of children, which more than wipes out any amount of measures they could take to reduce their impact on the planet.

Standing this argument on its head, and not wishing to offend anyone for choices they have made. I find in my circle of aquaintance that it is the couples with no or fewer children who have made that conscious decision so that they can have a MORE materialistic lifestyle. Surely if someone who is honest, caring and conscious of the impact we are having on this planet chooses to have more children (because they value family/love etc more than material goods) then both types cancel each other out.

martinpike

doddsy wrote:

Standing this argument on its head, and not wishing to offend anyone for choices they have made. I find in my circle of aquaintance that it is the couples with no or fewer children who have made that conscious decision so that they can have a MORE materialistic lifestyle. Surely if someone who is honest, caring and conscious of the impact we are having on this planet chooses to have more children (because they value family/love etc more than material goods) then both types cancel each other out.

Wise words. And I don't have any kids.

HappySad

If this is true that more children families tend to be more greener then I think it is because green usually means that you are living a lower cost lifestyle. I was doing a lot of green stuff (as I already said) because I wanted to save money. When you have 4 children I would say that it is likely that one partner is a housewife/husband and it is also likely that unless the working partner has a very well paid job then this family would be more forced to be greener and less consuming. If you have the average wage then how can you consume more when you have 4 children compared to those with no or one child.

When you have less/no children you have more time on your hands to throw you money away on more and more stuff.

gromituk

doddsy wrote:

I find in my circle of aquaintance that it is the couples with no or fewer children who have made that conscious decision so that they can have a MORE materialistic lifestyle.

So how is having children less materialistic than not having children? It's hardly as if we need to breed to keep the human race alive, is it? People have children because they want to, not because of a moral obligation to help society. And children can be just as much trophy items as flat screen TVs to some.

Surely if someone who is honest, caring and conscious of the impact we are having on this planet chooses to have more children (because they value family/love etc more than material goods) then both types cancel each other out.

How can "family" and "love" cancel out global warming?