Is being green the new black?

doddsy

gromituk wrote:

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.

I didn't say that it was less materialistic but that the couples I know who have fewer or no children have made that choice so that they can be more materialistic, than say if they had lots of kids and couldn't afford the luxuries in life. Have you heard anyone say 'I have chosen to remain childless (or have one child only) because of the damage over population is doing to the planet?

Doddsy

doddsy

gromituk wrote:

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

Well it can't can it? and that again is not what I said:rolleyes: However, I am sure Pollys children are being brought to think about choices to make etc and hopefully that will mean four adults who will treat this planet with a little more respect than it has had in recent years.

Doddsy

rubix_76

gromituk wrote:

So how is having children less materialistic than not having children?

And children can be just as much trophy items as flat screen TVs to some.

'cos children don't come with polystyrene and plastic bags :rotfl: :rotfl:

but seriously, I aggree that if you are childless, you are more likely to be material and buy a new "flatscreen TV" than repair or buy second-hand or freecycle or .... whatever (use the "greener" options)

I know I did before we had our little one (and before I "found" MSE - Praise Martin ).

Rubix

gromituk

doddsy wrote:

Have you heard anyone say 'I have chosen to remain childless (or have one child only) because of the damage over population is doing to the planet?

Yes. Why haven't you, I wonder? Perhaps because anyone who said that to you might sense that they would somehow be looked down upon. The very term "childless" has negative connotations, and is why a lot of people have chosen to say "child-free" instead. There is still a lot of societal pressure to reproduce. Society has yet to catch up with the bigger picture.

gromituk

doddsy wrote:

that again is not what I said:rolleyes:

Let's put it another way then. Your opinion seems to be that it is somehow morally superior - less selfish - to have children than not to so that you can be more "materialistic". This depends on one's definition of materialistic - I'm not sure why having children is any less materialistic than buying television sets. It is another choice you make about what to do with your money (and in the case of children, a large subsidy is involved). Talking about being loving is putting the cart before the horse: if there is no child, there is no child that isn't loved.

The truly unselfish thing to do is to adopt. You then get the best of both worlds: the ability to lavish love without putting further strain on the planet's resources. There are always children needing to be adopted - these are the ones who need the love, not ones who haven't yet bene created. (Oh, and you can teach adopted children to "think green" just as successfully as you can teach your own.)

The bottom line is that no amount of consumerism can possibly result in as much damage to the planet as having your own children. When you die, at least you stop polluting (amalgam fillings notwithstanding!); but if you have had children you leave that legacy. Until we can learn to live without damaging the planet - and it seems that that is not going to happen any time soon - then this is the stark reality of having children, however unpalatable that fact may be.

I expect people will over-react to this and call me a child-hater or something. But this merely shows a lack of understanding of my arguments, or an unwillingness to accept them. I'm not telling people not to have children. The pressure from "the selfish gene" and tradition is very strong. I'm also not telling people not to buy television sets. But I find it frustrating when people who have children somehow see themselves as superior to those who don't, and won't see the blindingly obvious, that having children is not a green thing to do.

Murtle

Gromituk, on the contrary, when I first read your posts I disagreed, however having given it some thought I do agree to a point with your view. Parents with 4 children are considered greener because they can't afford that new wide screen/plasma TV. However this is likely to be because they have spent their money on clothes, food, toys, car etc for the additional children, so it's by the by what the money is spent on, it's still spent on "things". I have no children, but I don't feel the need to spend, spend, spend. No plasma TV here, in fact I doubt we'll get another one till the current one dies and can't be repaired. We aren't great clothes fanatics, less is more! However, if we had children we would HAVE to spend more, as they won't fit in mine or OH's old clothes. They will need nappies for the first part of their life, they will outgrow items faster than an adult etc. Therefore surely having children does put additional stress on a busy planet that an adult can choose not to add to.

rubix_76

Now now children, no pulling of hair

gromituk wrote:

The truly unselfish thing to do is to adopt. You then get the best of both worlds: the ability to lavish love without putting further strain on the planet's resources.

How did you work this one out ? Someone will have brought up the child, so does that make it their fault ???

Well at the moment, I am all for MONEYSAVING, but PLANETSAVING has to take second place, as DW and I have to save money more than the planet. By this I mean if the option is to "save money but not in a green way" Vs "do the same thing in a green way but it costs more", then money saving it is.

I feel that I do much more "green" things than most (judging by the amount of bin bags outside many of our neighbours houses on bin day) so I can sleep at night.

gromituk wrote:

But this merely shows a lack of understanding of my arguments, or an unwillingness to accept them.

Yes, well we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Murtle wrote:

However, if we had children we would HAVE to spend more, as they won't fit in mine or OH's old clothes.

I like that, gave me a giggle :rotfl: :T

doddsy

gromituk wrote:

Let's put it another way then. Your opinion seems to be that it is somehow morally superior - less selfish - to have children than not to so that you can be more "materialistic". .

Wow - I apologise if that is the interpretation my words have left you with. Not at all, If you want no kids, two kids or 10 kids who am I to pass opinion - whatever floats your boat! I was merely pointing out that from the couples I know personally who don't have children it is a definite lifestyle choice so that they can have more of the other stuff!


.[/QUOTE]
I expect people will over-react to this and call me a child-hater or something. But this merely shows a lack of understanding of my arguments, or an unwillingness to accept them. I'm not telling people not to have children. The pressure from "the selfish gene" and tradition is very strong. I'm also not telling people not to buy television sets. But I find it frustrating when people who have children somehow see themselves as superior to those who don't, and won't see the blindingly obvious, that having children is not a green thing to do.[/QUOTE]

I understand your argument that having children consumes earth resources, I suppose I was thinking of the difference between consumerism and materialism?

Can I ask ~ it sounds as though you don't have any children, do you really feel that 'parents' look down on you for not having children yourself? I would have thought that in this day and age when there are more and more people choosing to remain childless that the taboo wasn't there anymore. I work with several women who in their early thirties have chosen not to have any and I don't see any type of discrimination against them for it either from a professional point or from colleagues with kids. It's a shame if anyone makes you feel like that.

Doddsy

gromituk

doddsy wrote:

I was merely pointing out that from the couples I know personally who don't have children it is a definite lifestyle choice so that they can have more of the other stuff!

OK, point well taken!

Can I ask ~ it sounds as though you don't have any children, do you really feel that 'parents' look down on you for not having children yourself?

Not personally, no, but a lot of people still seem to have an idyllic view about nuclear families. And there is definitely pressure from a lot of parents who want to be grandparents.

There was a discussion about this some time ago on Woman's Hour, I think - it was very enlightening.

gromituk

rubix_76 wrote:

[on adoption being the most unselfish thing to do] How did you work this one out ? Someone will have brought up the child, so does that make it their fault ???

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm talking about children who are in care (usually very unsatisfactory) or with foster parents (better, but not necessarily satisfactory) - I don't know who you are saying I am blaming. My point is that these children are already in the world and need to be looked after, as opposed to adding your own children, and their environmental burden, to the world.

I am not talking about money saving here - I am talking about the environment. The two are often in conflict. Just because we are on MSE doesn't mean absolutely everything has to boil down to spending less money.